A statement made by CDPR regarding Keanu Reeves mod is concerning

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
What lie? As I've told you multiple times I didn't once bring-up EULAs in my discussion with you.
Nobody here but perhaps you is discussing with particular someone, frankly, I don't believe that anyone could be that uniformed how forums work, to believe you. Regardless topic is about case. Besides, you brought EULA up multiple times, I also called you out for it way before, EULA can't grant or take away rights not covered by EULA. You pretend that I haven't made that claim before.

You based your argument on limits of EULA in court of law, which could hold some water, but in case of rights here, there are no such rights in question as CDPR doesn't own, but has licensed Silverhand (copyrighted) and personal rights of Keanu Reeves. They have claim to these rights in extent of their agreement with rights holders and can react if third party violates their rights.
 
Nobody here but perhaps you is discussing with particular someone, frankly, I don't believe that anyone could be that uniformed how forums work, to believe you. Regardless topic is about case. Besides, you brought EULA up multiple times, I also called you out for it way before, EULA can't grant or take away rights not covered by EULA. You pretend that I haven't made that claim before.

You based your argument on limits of EULA in court of law, which could hold some water, but in case of rights here, there are no such rights in question as CDPR doesn't own, but has licensed Silverhand (copyrighted) and personal rights of Keanu Reeves. They have claim to these rights in extent of their agreement with rights holders and can react if third party violates their rights.

Hardly any of that post is decipherable. And I will call-out your lie once again by repeating that I never once brought-up EULAs in my discussion with you.

What I mentioned elsewhere in this thread concerning EULAs is of no relevance to my discussion with you. There's nothing for you to call-out about that any more than you can call-out the sky for being blue. Did the sky claim to be something else? No. Did I claim I didn't talk about EULAs in this thread? Of course not.

You keep trying to re-frame what you've said to try to work your way out of a hole. You repeatedly claimed I kept bringing-up EULAs in my discussion with you, which, of course, was a lie of yours. And now that that lie has repeatedly failed, you're just nonsensically saying that I've brought-up EULAs multiple times in the thread. No kidding. That has nothing to do with my discussion with you, in which I never once brought-up EULAs.

EULA can't grant or take away rights not covered by EULA. You pretend that I haven't made that claim before

I haven't pretended anything about what you've said. I've only pointed-out what you have in-fact said and done. What "EULA can't grant or take away rights not covered by EULA" is supposed to mean, I don't even know. How would an EULA do anything apart from mentioning it within the EULA itself? An EULA is specifically the EULA, and isn't text outside of the EULA. But an EULA is not a legal contract and so an EULA doesn't do anything that isn't already done elsewhere, such as by copyright law.

Maybe you meant that an EULA can't grant or take-away rights not covered by copyright or other actual laws.

You based your argument on limits of EULA in court of law, which could hold some water, but in case of rights here, there are no such rights in question as CDPR doesn't own, but has licensed Silverhand (copyrighted) and personal rights of Keanu Reeves. They have claim to these rights in extent of their agreement with rights holders and can react if third party violates their rights.

At least you're finally acknowledging the difference between copyrights and personality rights - which is a positive improvement. But what's your point? CDPR having a right to use the likeness of Keanu Reeves in CP 2077 doesn't mean they have an exclusive right, and it doesn't make them the owner of Keanu Reeves' appearance.

And, as I've mentioned now many times, CDPR's statement about the removal of the mod didn't base their position on protecting their licenses, but on a rule from their modding document.
 
A random and brazen comment, considering that, in this thread, most of the inaccurate information has come from yourself (and Myajha). If you aren't someone capable to receive the information provided and make practical sense of it, then I don't know why you've spent so much time posting inaccurate and unhelpful information.

A public forum of CDPR's is the proper channel to broadcast an issue with a statement and action of CDPR's to the public. You just need to regulate your own engagement in topics that you don't know enough about to contribute to.
It has happened that persons in certain positions has been withdrawn their license to practice, after giving advice to ignore proper channels.

Statement won't change legal position of modding content, who you are trying to serve here?

At least you're finally acknowledging the difference between copyrights and personality rights - which is a positive improvement. But what's your point? CDPR having a right to use the likeness of Keanu Reeves in CP 2077 doesn't mean they have an exclusive right, and it doesn't make them the owner of Keanu Reeves' appearance.

And, as I've mentioned now many times, CDPR's statement about the removal of the mod didn't base their position on protecting their licenses, but on a rule from their modding document.
Nope, we actually got there couple of pages back but somehow you missed it among many other things, I'm sure totally accidentally.

Anyway, it doesn't matter for modder what document was used. If CDPR was chosen to use other approach, they could have done that.

All that is achieved here that is pedestal for you, about case you don't have.
 
In this case CDPR is right, but I want to remind CDPR that you should use this attitude of defending yourself and the rights of the actors also on consumers who support you, those ps4/xbox consumers who have been cheated by your hype, instead of using the excuse that pc version is good, that excuse is really lame.
 
It has happened that persons in certain positions has been withdrawn their license to practice, after giving advice to ignore proper channels.

Statement won't change legal position of modding content, who you are trying to serve here?

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. But nothing I've said is about changing what the legal fact is concerning mods. It's clear that you haven't followed the discussion at all.

Nope, we actually got there couple of pages back but somehow you missed it among many other things, I'm sure totally accidentally.

No. A couple of pages back, and also on the immediately-previous page you were still making false arguments trying to conflate copyright with personality rights.

Anyway, it doesn't matter for modder what document was used. If CDPR was chosen to use other approach, they could have done that.

All that is achieved here that is pedestal for you, about case you don't have.

You're still not making any sense. It doesn't matter for modders what document CDPR claim to base a decision on - because CDPR can't tell people how they may or may-not mod their games.

"If CDPR chose another approach they could have done that"... ? Um, and whatever unknown other approach they might have chosen could be equally invalid as the one they did choose.

What I've said throughout this thread is true and proven true. You being in denial about it after having everything you'd argued be disproved until you finally started trying to say the same thing I'd been saying all along isn't a sign of me not having a case - it's actually the opposite and proof that you never had a case.
Post automatically merged:

In this case CDPR is right, but I want to remind CDPR that you should use this attitude of defending yourself and the rights of the actors also on consumers who support you, those ps4/xbox consumers who have been cheated by your hype, instead of using the excuse that pc version is good, that excuse is really lame.

In what sense do you figure? Because CDPR aren't right in a sense that they actually had any right to decide which mods people may or may not make or use. In CDPR's statement explaining why they sought the mod's removal, appealing to a purported personal rule of their regarding user-generated content, CDPR were definitely wrong.
 
Don't be fucking weirdos and try to misappropriate a real person who participates in something like video games. CDPR did the right thing, they didn't force anyone and simply asked nexus to remove the mod. I don't give a fuck about your fetishes and needs to fuck a star, when they lend their likeness for a video game they have a right alongside with the company they are working with to control HOW that likeness is used. Full Stop.
 
No. A couple of pages back, and also on the immediately-previous page you were still making false arguments trying to conflate copyright with personality rights.
Nope. I claimed that both can be applied, Silverhand as Talsorian games copyrighted material and Keanu Reeves based on personality rights.

You're still not making any sense. It doesn't matter for modders what document CDPR claim to base a decision on - because CDPR can't tell people how they may or may-not mod their games.

"If CDPR chose another approach they could have done that"... ? Um, and whatever unknown other approach they might have chosen could be equally invalid as the one they did choose.
DMCA

What I've said throughout this thread is true and proven true. You being in denial about it after having everything you'd argued be disproved until you finally started trying to say the same thing I'd been saying all along isn't a sign of me not having a case - it's actually the opposite and proof that you never had a case.
[/QUOTE]

It's not proven and it won't be because nobody isn't going to court with this, to lose miserably.

Earlier I wrote about how people should go through proper channels, with actual power to find out about their rights and ability to proceed, if there's a case.

And here's what you replied.

A public forum of CDPR's is the proper channel to broadcast an issue with a statement and action of CDPR's to the public. You just need to regulate your own engagement in topics that you don't know enough about to contribute to.
Last thing you want is, that someone goes to ask around from authorities that would be actually able to help them. Wouldn't make your "proven and true" look very good.

And people can mod their game in privacy if they want to. I can draw moustaches on any copyrighted character and not get in trouble, as long I don't start distributing that stuff. I can also do the same for celebrity poster and there's no problem unless I start to distribute that stuff.

Distributing is what get people in trouble, no matter what you say.
 
Nope. I claimed that both can be applied, Silverhand as Talsorian games copyrighted material and Keanu Reeves based on personality rights.

No. You are now distinguishing between copyright and personality right after arguing, incorrect, for pages that a person's likeness can be copyrighted. A person's likeness cannot be copyrighted because copyright regulates creative works, and a person's likeness isn't a creative work. Right of Publicity regulates the usage of a person's likeness.


You again are showing that you don't understand the topic. DMCA doesn't apply to the situation of a modder making a mod using another person's likeness because DMCA applies to copyrighted content, and a person's likeness isn't a case of copyrighted content but is a matter of personality rights.

What I've said throughout this thread is true and proven true. You being in denial about it after having everything you'd argued be disproved until you finally started trying to say the same thing I'd been saying all along isn't a sign of me not having a case - it's actually the opposite and proof that you never had a case.

It's not proven and it won't be because nobody isn't going to court with this, to lose miserably.

Literally, what I've said has gone to court and won, and so is proven true. I don't know how you missed that, since it's been shown to you and others repeatedly. You just don't want to have to admit it.

Earlier I wrote about how people should go through proper channels, with actual power to find out about their rights and ability to proceed, if there's a case.

And here's what you replied.


Last thing you want is, that someone goes to ask around from authorities that would be actually able to help them. Wouldn't make your "proven and true" look very good.

No, you're simply engaging in fantasy. I want people to research the laws and the court rulings to build for themselves an understanding of what the facts are. They will find that they are as I've said - just as you've had no choice but to concede that what I told you from the start is true - which is why you're now trying to convince me that you believed it was true long back (which is you lying again).

And people can mod their game in privacy if they want to. I can draw moustaches on any copyrighted character and not get in trouble, as long I don't start distributing that stuff. I can also do the same for celebrity poster and there's no problem unless I start to distribute that stuff.

Distributing is what get people in trouble, no matter what you say.

You aren't following the discussion, or you're deliberately pretending to not. As has been pointed-out many times already, in the OP of this thread, it's said that there are grounds to remove the mod based on it using the likeness of Reeves - but that it isn't necessarily CDPR's call to seek its removal on those grounds. And I've pointed-out many times already that CDPR didn't seek its removal on those grounds, but on the grounds of a user-content rule they claim to have in place, which isn't an actual rule because it doesn't legally apply to anything.
 
You again don't understand the topic. DMCA doesn't apply to the situation of a modder making a mod using another person's likeness. DMCA applies to copyrighted content, and a person's likeness isn't a case of copyrighted content.
DMCA applies to Silverhand that happens to look very much like Keanu Reeves. That isn't to say using Keanu Reeves likeness isn't also an issue.
Literally, what I've said has gone to court and won, and so is proven true. I don't know how you missed that.
Ruling or didn't happen, and don't bring anything regarding EULA's.

No, you're simply engaging in fantasy. I want people to research the laws and the court rulings to build for themselves an understanding of what the facts are. They will find that they are as I've said - just as you've had no choice but to concede that what I told you from the start is true - which is why you're now trying to convince me that you believed it was true long back (which is you lying again).
Best way to perform such research and understanding is to go through proper channels.

OP of this thread, it's said that there are grounds to remove the mod based on it using the likeness of Reeves - but that it isn't necessarily CDPR's call to seek its removal on those grounds. And I've pointed-out many times already that CDPR didn't seek its removal on those grounds, but on the grounds of a user-content rule they claim to have in place, which isn't an actual rule because it doesn't legally apply to anything.
Yeah, pretty much kid gloves here, instead of dropping DMCA based on Silverhand or having Reeve's legal team to serve them.
 
DMCA applies to Silverhand that happens to look very much like Keanu Reeves. That isn't to say using Keanu Reeves likeness isn't also an issue.

The mod in question didn't use anything distinctly identifiable as Silverhand. It used Reeves' likeness. And CDPR's statement didn't make a claim of protecting Silverhand copyright, but specifically of restricting Reeves' likeness. As always, you have no argument.

Ruling or didn't happen, and don't bring anything regarding EULA's.

I've never brought you anything regarding EULAs. Why don't you re-read the many posts and pages in which court rulings, codified law, legal definitions were cited, disproving your claims and claims made by other people? Why do you keep going in circles with ignorant and wilfully-dishonest claims and arguments when the information confirming everything I've said has already and long-since been made fully available?




You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

Best way to perform such research and understanding is to go through proper channels.

Which I have long-since done, leading me to understanding the topics and consequently making this thread; And which you have never done, leading to you not having an understanding the topics and making nonsensical and fallacious comments.

Yeah, pretty much kid gloves here, instead of dropping DMCA based on Silverhand or having Reeve's legal team to serve them.

No. Stop making things up and relying on fantasy and imagination to try to form an argument.

What kind of a claim would it be for CDPR to say that a modder used a fictional CP 2077 character in place of a fictional CP 2077 character within CP 2077? If CDPR were against players having game-sex with a CP 2077 character, then CDPR wouldn't have programmed the player having game-sex with a CP 2077 character in CP 2077. It was specifically the usage of Reeves' likeness, not a fictional CP 2077 character, that CDPR objected to.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't seem to be CDPR's stated reasoning behind their move to have the mod featuring Keanu removed, though. In their statement, CDPR instead appeal to this document as the basis for seeking the mod's removal: https://cdprojektred.com/en/fan-content

From the document itself (emphasis mine):

Also, please don’t infringe the rights of other people (e.g. creators of other games, movies, books, TV shows etc.). This is also relevant for any real-life brands and people included in our games – you’re only allowed to use those brands or images of those people if they allow you to do so and provided you don’t harm them in any way!

However, CDPR have no jurisdiction or legal say in what mods a person creates for a game they made and sold. So, that document doesn't amount to a legal document and is very naive - innocently so, but naive all the same.

A modder can create Keanu's likeness on their own without taking it from a CDPR asset and place it into a CP 2077 mod.

Sure they do. You can do whatever you want with your own game, but when you share a mod with other people you are redistributing content derived from CDPR's intellectual property.

And no, that document you linked isn't a legal document. It's a layman's terms interpretation of the actual legal document, which CDPR explicitly states (emphasis mine):

Follow the legal rules. These guidelines are our informal guidance to you, but the full legal rules are our CD PROJEKT RED User Agreement and End User License Agreements (EULAs) for each game (e.g. The Witcher, GWENT and Cyberpunk 2077). If there’s any conflict between these guidelines and those documents, then those documents win.
 
From the document itself:

Also, please don’t infringe the rights of other people (e.g. creators of other games, movies, books, TV shows etc.). This is also relevant for any real-life brands and people included in our games – you’re only allowed to use those brands or images of those people if they allow you to do so and provided you don’t harm them in any way!

I'm already aware of what CDPR's fan-content guideline and CP 2077 EULA say. But the point is that neither have authority over whether or how people mod their games.

Sure they do. You can do whatever you want with your own game, but when you share a mod with other people you are redistributing content derived from CDPR's intellectual property.

And no, that document you linked isn't a legal document. It's a layman's terms interpretation of the actual legal document, which CDPR explicitly states:

Follow the legal rules. These guidelines are our informal guidance to you, but the full legal rules are our CD PROJEKT RED User Agreement and End User License Agreements (EULAs) for each game (e.g. The Witcher, GWENT and Cyberpunk 2077). If there’s any conflict between these guidelines and those documents, then those documents win.

I don't know how this mod in particular works, but it isn't necessarily distributing any content, since the Reeves model is already in the game. It might just change something so the game accesses it in a different place.

That said, CDPR's CP 2077 EULA isn't a legal document, either. CDPR's CP 2077 EULA also doesn't contain the rule CDPR appealed to as their basis for seeking the mod's removal - the fan-content guideline document does. The CP 2077 EULA only says this:

1.3 Other Documents. Please make sure you also read our: (a) Fan Content Guidelines [https://cdprojektred.com/fan-content] - which explain what you can and cannot do with content derived from or based on Cyberpunk 2077;

And that link is to the fan-content guideline document which you have acknowledged isn't a legal document.

As I've said, outside of copyright or similar violations, a person is free to modify their property however they see fit. If a person isn't lawfully permitted to modify their game in a particular way, it isn't because CDPR said something in a claimed agreement, but is because copyright or other law prohibits a particular usage of property.

CDPR don't have a say in whether or how people mod their games, including whether they use Reeves' likeness in a mod - though, as I've said countless times including in the OP, Reeves or an agent acting on his behalf could oppose the unauthorized usage of his likeness.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you re-read the many posts and pages in which court rulings, codified law, legal definitions were cited, disproving your claims and claims made by other people?
Bit of a problem here, as there as no such rulings cited.

The mod in question didn't use anything distinctly identifiable as Silverhand. It used Reeves' likeness. And CDPR's statement didn't make a claim of protecting Silverhand copyright, but specifically of restricting Reeves' likeness. As always, you have no argument.

That would be up to judge to decide, but I pity the fool who would be stupid enough to try to pull something like this. Would be very expensive lesson that one.

Without rulings you said you have, then didn't deliver, you got nothing.
 
Lets clear something up here shall we?

Stop trying to "soap box" for those of us who can and do make content in the form of mods. I for one do not need your "efforts".

If that comment is directed at me, I have no idea in what way you think I'm soap-boxing for modders. Maybe you can clear-what you mean.
Post automatically merged:

Bit of a problem here, as there as no such rulings cited.

Since the only rulings I have cited did in-fact happen, and I cited them because they existed to be cited, there are indeed such rulings as the rulings I cited.

Without rulings you said you have, then didn't deliver, you got nothing.

The only rulings I said there have been, I gave links to. Obviously, you didn't read the resources you were provided - which isn't surprising given how you've reacted to having your arguments disproved so far.
 
Since the only rulings I have cited did in-fact happen, and I cited them because they existed to be cited, there are indeed such rulings as the rulings I cited.

The only rulings I said there have been, I gave links to. Obviously, you didn't read the resources you were provided - which isn't surprising given how you've reacted to having your arguments disproved so far.
This looks like you don't know what a ruling is.
 
It is very cute that you think you own your digital games.

I'm glad you find it cute. What's less cute, however, is ignorance of the fact that people own their digital games.


"the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer".

EU Top Court: When You Buy Software You Own It
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored
EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't
European Court confirms the right to resell used software licences
Top EU court upholds right to resell downloaded software


" 126 The second issue is whether there was a “supply of goods” by Valve. Valve accepted that if “goods” were provided by it to consumers then the goods had been “supplied” (ts 218). "

" 128 The definition of “goods” is inclusive. ... The legal meaning of “goods” can be analogised to the strict definition of “property” which is “a description of a legal relationship with a thing”: Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53; (1999) 201 CLR 351, 365-366 [17] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby, and Hayne JJ describing the word “property”). "

" 137 Valve supplied consumers with a good. "

" 145 I reject Valve’s submission that goods supplied by licence are not a “supply of goods” "

" 340 ... "Each of Valve’s challenges to the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law fails." ... "Valve supplied goods (which are defined as including computer software). "




"You buy it, you own it" - GoG / CD Projekt


Post automatically merged:

This looks like you don't know what a ruling is.

Obviously, you either don't know what a ruling is or are in denial of what a ruling is.

The links I have provided to highest-court rulings are as much rulings as any ruling by any court has ever been a ruling.
 
I'm glad you find it cute. What's less cute, however, is ignorance of the fact that people own their digital games.
EU Top Court: When You Buy Software You Own It
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored
EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't
European Court confirms the right to resell used software licences
Top EU court upholds right to resell downloaded software


" 126 The second issue is whether there was a “supply of goods” by Valve. Valve accepted that if “goods” were provided by it to consumers then the goods had been “supplied” (ts 218). "

" 128 The definition of “goods” is inclusive. ... The legal meaning of “goods” can be analogised to the strict definition of “property” which is “a description of a legal relationship with a thing”: Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53; (1999) 201 CLR 351, 365-366 [17] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby, and Hayne JJ describing the word “property”). "

" 137 Valve supplied consumers with a good. "

" 145 I reject Valve’s submission that goods supplied by licence are not a “supply of goods” "

" 340 ... "Each of Valve’s challenges to the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law fails." ... "Valve supplied goods (which are defined as including computer software). "
None of these are related to use of likeness as in personal rights or distributing mods that can violate personal rights or copyrighted material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom