Fallout Fan Takes On Bethesda's Lawyers
- Thread starter WMDogma
- Start date
LOL. This is the funniest comment I've read all day.Stealthfighterx said:
Yep, that's absolutely how C&D orders are sent out - via spambot. Absolutely no consultation with the legal council in case they're sending it to the wrong people (The Police wrote a song called Fall Out decades ago... will Sting be receiving these robotic C&D orders?).
And let me guess... this amazing piece of scanning software compares every image on every site and it can judge if an image is almost like a Fallout image....? Wow, that's pretty clever stuff! They should hire the guy that wrote the AI for their magical site scanner and put him to work on their in-game AI! ;-)
That's the issue with US copyright law you must defend your copyright against any possible infringment the moment you don't your copyright is void, so all of these ridiculous lawsuits take place because no business in it's right mind is just going to let it's copyright become void wether or not the company really want's to pursue legal action they essentially have to if they want to remain in business.
The problem with Bethesda taking over the license for fallout has been made abundantly clear once again here. They are just as bunch of money grubbers like EA, Capcom, Ubisoft and any other big corporation headed for a fall in the near future. The good news: Wasteland 2 is on the way and Blackisle is thinking of reforming so before long we will probably get some of the good old Fallout sweetness packaged into something else. As far as I'm concerned the IP should have stayed with the people who created it.
Bethesda needs to fire it's legal department. They're seriously pissing off the wrong people. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, and the paying fans are the ones feeding Bethesda it's goddamn money.
On the bright side (for them) the legal department attempting to justify it's job is also helping the PR department justify theirs. lol
On the bright side (for them) the legal department attempting to justify it's job is also helping the PR department justify theirs. lol
This is not entirely true. If they don't sue the fan site for posting wallpapers then they can't wait 5 years and then start doing it, it does not mean that they would loose the copyright on Fallout, if it did then the copyright would have been void before they even bought it. This is also why this argument does not holdup in the Mojang Scrolls case they might have lost the right to sue companies that are making unrelated games using the word 'Scrolls' in the name but they would not have lost the Elder Scrolls copyright. They would only loose the copyright if they let people do things like publish a game called 'Elder Scrolls 69' or 'Fallout: My Back Yard'.scar_47 said:
At this point Bethesda has spent the last few years proving that they put way to much money into their sue happy legal team and in a few years they will probably be indistinguishable from EA and the big French companies.
Guess we'll have to start sueing DeviantART for hosting thousands of Fan-Based Artwork incl' posters for sale.
Remember that Bethesda probably makes fallout posters themselves somewhere. When there's a free alternative online some of the people who would have bought Bethesda's posters would be going to this, hence they're losing a potential source of income. If the work is very much close to that of official Fallout material I see no problem in Bethesda requesting the site get taken down.Braedan said:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/BrandProtect-Automates-Brand-Cease-and-Desist-Enforcement-and-Workflow-1305737.htmDiamanteGeeza said:
Also google scans the internet for similar pictures when you reverse image search, I don't see why their program couldn't.
I think they would list the sites that aren't infringing on an exception list, and since this site is most likely fairly new it got snatched up.
TheDrunkNinja said:
Incorrect (unless you live in Germany, and maybe not even there now)
The Berne Convention makes that whole 'you didn't go after them, why go after me?' argument moot. Creators can choose to either enforce their right or not, at their discretion on a case-by-case basis. Further, some rights to a work can never be ceded away from the creator.
The problem here is that Bethesda's works in question are highly derivative themselves, and this means that they *might* not have any grounds to sue at all, depending on how strictly the judge chooses to interpret the term 'original artist'.
Do you honestly understand how copyright works?Sandytimeman said:
If you dont threaten to sue someone who uses your IP or name you lose your IP and or name.
No more no less.
If you would lose your house if you let a charity use it to store stuff would you still do it?
But in the case of Mojang he wasn't using the title "The Eldar Scrolls" he simply called his game "Scrolls" thats one word out of 3. What does anyone even shorten the name too when refering to a "The Elder Scrolls" game? Usually Morrowind, Oblivion, or Skyrim.rolfwesselius said:
He used one word. It wasn't even the same type of game...not even in the ball park. It was a pointless lawsuit imo.
I tend to agree with the guy running the site, this is almost as bad as Viacom going after all the Trek fan sites once upon a time. That said, what he's doing should be perfectly defensible, I'm only disappointed that he took down the artwork.
I'll also say that understanding the reason why a company might do something, doesn't mean you agree with it. Sort of like when Bethesda went after Notch. The reasons were not nessicarly unjustifiable, but it was stupid in the context of what was going on.
For a game like "Fallout" which relies heavily on it's fans, you'd expect Bethesda to actually encourage sites like the one the guy was running.
As far as the bit about them offering him swag, he does have a legitimate point there. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar so to speak. Approaching him privatly, explaining the problem, and then offering compensation is a perfectly valid technique. What's more I'd imagine in many cases it's actually cheaper than employing a bunch of lawyers.
If I had a fan site like this up, I'll admit if approached the right way, I could be bought. After all I can't really claim to be a "fan" so to speak if the people I'm a fan of don't like what I'm doing.
Compensation comes in because your dealing with people who put in a lot of time and effort.
When it comes to an art site, Bethesda say offering $500 under the table per image, and buying the rights probably would have been cheaper than sending the lawyers, and similar to buying the works of an amateur artist at a gallery. They do it with the agreement they won't produce any more stuff in a similar vein, and everyone leaves happy. The guy running the site doesn't just wind up being kicked to the curb, and the company probably saves money and gets what it wants.
I'll also say that understanding the reason why a company might do something, doesn't mean you agree with it. Sort of like when Bethesda went after Notch. The reasons were not nessicarly unjustifiable, but it was stupid in the context of what was going on.
For a game like "Fallout" which relies heavily on it's fans, you'd expect Bethesda to actually encourage sites like the one the guy was running.
As far as the bit about them offering him swag, he does have a legitimate point there. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar so to speak. Approaching him privatly, explaining the problem, and then offering compensation is a perfectly valid technique. What's more I'd imagine in many cases it's actually cheaper than employing a bunch of lawyers.
If I had a fan site like this up, I'll admit if approached the right way, I could be bought. After all I can't really claim to be a "fan" so to speak if the people I'm a fan of don't like what I'm doing.
Compensation comes in because your dealing with people who put in a lot of time and effort.
When it comes to an art site, Bethesda say offering $500 under the table per image, and buying the rights probably would have been cheaper than sending the lawyers, and similar to buying the works of an amateur artist at a gallery. They do it with the agreement they won't produce any more stuff in a similar vein, and everyone leaves happy. The guy running the site doesn't just wind up being kicked to the curb, and the company probably saves money and gets what it wants.
ITS NOT THE SAME FUCKING NAMErolfwesselius said:
One is called "scrolls" the other is called "the elder scrolls"
that is like saying that Star Wars should have sued Star Trek, or Star Chaser, or any title that shared one word with it.
I love how companies self destruct with things like this, not realizing that the posters carry the possibility of creating buzz for their IP. Someone is promoting their Game world and putting new artwork into the public consciousness, advertising their work and they don't even have to pay for it.
"I'd like it if our product were popular."
"Let's remove all traces of our product from the internet which we can't control while regulating our advertising to expensive Viral and televised campaigns hosted on websites and tv spots which we have to pay the upkeep on."
"Someone give that man an arbitrary raise."
"I'd like it if our product were popular."
"Let's remove all traces of our product from the internet which we can't control while regulating our advertising to expensive Viral and televised campaigns hosted on websites and tv spots which we have to pay the upkeep on."
"Someone give that man an arbitrary raise."