- Status
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.
What I explained to you about the difference between Carrie Fisher's likeness and the Princess Leia character in this post is correct information. But it seems you haven't understood it.
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
"Can you copyright a brand name?
No. Copyright doesn’t protect brand names. Keep reading to find out HOW to protect your brand name.
(hint – we use trademarks!) "
The logo for Uncle Ben's isn't copyrighted because it contains the likeness of Ben, but because its overall recognizable composition is a created work.
A statement isn't a request, and nobody said otherwise. However, the statement CDPR made is based in the false premise that they have authority to decide how people mod their purchased games. They don't. They can have their own rules for how people use a modding toolkit they provide separately from the game and for free, though.
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.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!
"No. Copyright doesn’t protect brand names. Keep reading to find out HOW to protect your brand name.
(hint – we use trademarks!) "
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.
LOL! They used Johnny as the male JoyToy.
Oh my God that's hilarious.
LOL!
Oh my God that's hilarious.
LOL!
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.
I did not ever say that copyright or personality rights can be circumvented by recreating either a copyrighted work or a person's likeness in a mod.
I said the opposite:
I also already previously pointed-out that your impression that I said otherwise isn't correct:
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.
Of course anyone can draw moustaches on any character they like in comics, problems come with distribution. Some content can get away under fair rights, but with this, I don't see it.
There's really no semantics about it. Copyright is Copyright, and Right of Publicity is Right of Publicity. They aren't interchangeable and they don't occupy the same legal space. There is no greyness to the definitions of each.
Princess Leia is a fictional character that isn't dependent upon Carrie Fisher's likeness. Princess Leia can be depicted with or without Fisher's likeness. Only Copyright applies to Princess Leia as a character.
Carrie Fisher is / was a human and copyright didn't apply to her whether she was in or outside of the role of Princess Leia. Instead, Right of Publicity applied when Fisher's likeness was wanted to be used for the depiction of Princess Leia.
Disney can depict Princess Leia without having any permission from Fisher's estate, so long as they don't use Fisher's likeness in the depiction of Leia. Adding Fisher's likeness to a depiction of Leia adds a necessary Right of Publicity component to that particular depiction of Leia - and that Right of Publicity component doesn't relate to anything about the character Princess Leia, but to the likeness of Fisher. But Fisher's likeness isn't required to depict Leia.
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.
haha ya lol.
and now they getting scared that ze hollywood and netflix contacts getting angry.
And that's another good reason to build in code, that prevents modding at all.
Jesus ... guys have ideas ... and other guys speak for this.
Unbelievable.
Regards
Jesus ... guys have ideas ... and other guys speak for this.
Unbelievable.
Regards
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.
Yeah, who doesn't have the hots for SasquatchWho needs a romance with Johnny Reeves?
The players want romance with Fingers, Wilson, Wakako, Sasquatch ...
Personally, the only thing I see is CDPR putting out fires before they ignite.
Even if it's a mod, any asshole wanting to get easy visits could sell it as the real thing and use it as an excuse to throw more shit at CDPR.
An idea, true or false, is like a virus spreads through people's minds faster than we can expect and by the time you realize the damage done, it is too late.
Misinformation, sensationalism, and greed never are a good mix.
Even if it's a mod, any asshole wanting to get easy visits could sell it as the real thing and use it as an excuse to throw more shit at CDPR.
An idea, true or false, is like a virus spreads through people's minds faster than we can expect and by the time you realize the damage done, it is too late.
Misinformation, sensationalism, and greed never are a good mix.
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.
Note that traditionally CDPR has been very modder-friendly. All of the assets in The Witcher 2 and 3 were allowed to be used in mods for other games, not just mods for the Witcher games. But when a developer uses licensed third-party assets, whether it is a celebrity likeness or something else, they have to enforce the copyright on those or risk being found in violation of the license.
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.
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
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.
Post automatically merged:
What lie? As I've told you multiple times I didn't once bring-up EULAs in my discussion with you. But what I've said about EULAs is completely correct and you haven't challenged any of what I've said about EULAs. Obviously, you're making things up because you're trying to find a way out of the hole you've dug yourself into.
And your previous claim was that you're arguing the same thing I first told you - in which case, the only way I wouldn't have a case is if you didn't have a case. But I did and do have a case, a proven one, while pretty much everything you claimed has been proved as false. And that's why you're resorting to making things up.
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.
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.
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.
- Status