No you actually dug your own grave with your deconstruction of Carrie Fisher / Disney case.
Likeness of Carrie Fisher (personal rights) is associated with copyrighted work (Princess Leia). Similar way character Ben (is/was real life person) is associated with Uncle Ben's.
Using likeness associated with copyright doesn't allow circumventing copyright. Copying or re-creating likeness of Ben doesn't allow anyone to distribute their own goods under said copy or re-creation.
The statement(s) made by CDPR on why they asked the mod to be taken down was more of a courtesy/FYI for everyone else so folks would know why and what happened.
It was not to make sure they had everyone's permission.
They don't need it.
You are arguing semantics. If someone makes a mod for Star Wars game using princess Leia and / or using Carrie Fisher's likeness with anything, could be a comic, could be a mod, they won't get away distributing those based on a matter of likeness and copyright.No. You still haven't understood. Carrie Fisher's likeness and the copyrighted Princess Leia character are separate legal items. Princess Leia doesn't have to be depicted using Fisher's likeness, but Disney wanted permission to depict her using Fisher's likeness. But Fisher's likeness and Leia are separate legal items.
That you or someone else thinks of Fisher's likeness when they think of Princess Leia is irrelevant. The character is not the person's likeness, and the person's likeness is not copyrighted.
I never said anything about brand names LOL. I was saying products associated with likeness. I was very aware of trademarks though.Uncle Ben's is a brand. The brand itself isn't copyrighted, but can be trademarked - which is different than a copyright. The logo depicting the brand is copyrighted, but the brand-name isn't copyrighted.
How to copyright a brand name? Find out in this post!
Many clients ask "how to copyright a brand name?" You can't, and this post will set you straight and show you how to protect your brand!strebecklaw.com
"No. Copyright doesn’t protect brand names. Keep reading to find out HOW to protect your brand name.
(hint – we use trademarks!) "
You are arguing semantics. If someone makes a mod for Star Wars game using princess Leia and / or using Carrie Fisher's likeness with anything, could be a comic, could be a mod, they won't get away distributing those based on a matter of likeness and copyright.
I never said anything about brand names LOL. I was saying products associated with likeness. I was very aware of trademarks though.
You are essentially arguing that personal rights to likeness and/or copyrighted content could be somehow circumvented by copying or re-creating because it's a mod to game. But that it's a mod to game, doesn't change anything.
If a modder creates a model that looks like Keanu Reeves, that model would be their copyrighted work and not CDPR's or Keanu Reeves - but usage of his appearance wouldn't be permitted without the necessary right to use his likeness, except in Fair Use cases.
I have a difficult time understanding what you're saying here. You haven't identified who "they" is (the tool-creator / modder, or the copyright-holder for the game the tool is used to mod?). I don't know why you're talking about a granting of rights to use something... I didn't say that making something with a tool grants a person a right to use another person's likeness. I actually said the opposite:
Edit: I think you're saying that making someone's likeness in a mod with a tool they created doesn't grant them permission to actually use the likeness of the person.
But I didn't say otherwise, and that's in-fact what I first said to you. So, I don't know why you think there's an issue there.
It's all semantics in terms if case is winnable or not.No, I'm arguing legal reality. It isn't semantics that Carrie Fisher's likeness is a matter of personality rights and not copyright, whereas Princess Leia's character is a matter of copyright and not personality rights, and that Princess Leia's character doesn't necessarily include Carrie Fisher's likeness.
If Disney make a depiction of Princess Leia based on Carrie Fisher's likeness without getting permission from Fisher's estate to use her likeness, they would have no issue whatsoever relating to copyright. The only issue they would have would be due to personality rights, which is the right to use Fisher's likeness. Disney already own all copyrights associated with the Princess Leia character.
What you refuse to see is, that I'm arguing the same thing. You kept bringing EULA in this discussion, though EULA isn't relevant but only to extent to inform about rights, what they include and what not.If a modder creates a model that looks like Keanu Reeves, that model would be their copyrighted work and not CDPR's or Keanu Reeves - but usage of his appearance wouldn't be permitted without the necessary right to use his likeness, except in Fair Use cases.
It's all semantics in terms if case is winnable or not.
What you refuse to see is, that I'm arguing the same thing. You kept bringing EULA in this discussion, though EULA isn't relevant but only to extent to inform about rights, what they include and what not.
LOL! They used Johnny as the male JoyToy.
Oh my God that's hilarious.
LOL!
No, I haven't failed to see that what you've presented as an argument against me is actually what I first told you. I have pointed-out multiple times that what you're arguing against isn't something I've said, and that what you're presenting as an argument is what I first told you. And I haven't once brought-up EULAs into the topic which you keep commenting regarding. Not even a single time.
ven as far as EULAs go, which is a low bar to begin with, CDPR's EULA doesn't attempt to present itself as something legally enforceable. Even if ignoring for a moment that an EULA isn't a legal contract, CDPR's EULA doesn't seem to have one foot in legal reality - which is ultimately OK, I guess, given that EULAs aren't legal contracts even if they try to be.
But here are some interesting points about CDPR's EULA:
- it claims CDPR can revoke a game license, which would instantly mean the EULA is non-binding because it depends upon what's called an Illusory Promise.
- it claims CDPR have some say over how people modify their game, which they simply don't because when something is sold to someone, the decision-making authority over that thing departs from the seller and transfers to the purchaser.
- it claims that people don't have a right to resell their software:
"This licence is for your personal use only (so you cannot give, ‘sell’, lend, gift, assign, sub-license or otherwise transfer it to someone else) and does not give you any ownership rights in Cyberpunk 2077."
Although I'm not a supporter of people being able to resell digital games without some system in place that ensures publishers get a solid cut, that claim is simply not true.
Here's what the law says: EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't
BTW, have you seen the hundreds of used copies of CP2077 on eBay? Not to mention the used copies of every other game with an EULA that claims people can't resell it also available on eBay and elsewhere.
Your post below mentions EULA 8 times.
This is sad, very sad.
I haven't once brought-up EULAs into the topic which you keep commenting regarding. Not even a single time.
Yeah, who doesn't have the hots for SasquatchWho needs a romance with Johnny Reeves?
The players want romance with Fingers, Wilson, Wakako, Sasquatch ...
It's not a double standard, it's a straightforward legal issue. CDPR had to license Keanu Reeves' likeness, so they can't allow modders to redistribute it in mods because the license doesn't allow CDPR to distribute it to third parties other than as part of the game. Characters CDPR created, like Jackie, Dex, Panam, Judy, etc, have no such restrictions.[...]
Don't have to deal with it. I have the right to point out the double standards. Don't use Celebs in your games than.
I have no any reason to escape from anything.That comment of mine isn't a response to you and it isn't discussing the topic which I've discussed with you. You aren't quoted or mentioned a single time in that post. Nor is the topic I've discussed with you raised in that post.
As I told you:
So, repeatedly attempting to bring-up EULAs as some sort of a deflection tactic or straw-man argument suggests that you're just looking for a way to escape.
It's not a double standard. CDPR had to license Keanu Reeves' likeness, so they can't allow modders to redistribute it in mods because the license doesn't allow CDPR to distribute it to third parties other than as part of the game.
I have no any reason to escape from anything.
You keep going on circles, you try to cover up your lie like it's not relevant, even I have called your take on EULA dishonest multiple times. It really start to look like intentional.
You never had a case here, regardless of EULA.
People who are concerned about their rights as customer should always use proper channels. Public customer protection services are first step to get real information.
There are other ways, but then it's your money, your time and your face. Message boards unfortunately can contain lot of text, information but that information may not always be accurate or translate to knowledge with practical utility.
Use proper channels.