Gaming Blog Rails Against The Man, Succumbs to Legal Threats

[nagi]

Rps is my favorite gaming site

RPS needs to spend less time whining about exclusivity and more time nurturing their own relationship with developers and publishers

I would rather have some sites that are independent from publishers.
A lot of old media magazines (Print) for example keep to embargos, meaning that they aren't allowed to talk about a game until the publisher tells them too.
All american print magazines do that for example.
And the escapist rips news and screenshots from sites all the time and give them credit like rps.
They even posted the gameinformer screenshot in this very article.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/05/tomb-raider-screenshots-hidden-in-a-cupboard/
They also linked to a bunch of sites who did the same, but are bigger so its ok.

Aftually, embargoes are also for news sites. A prime example would be Fable 3: you would not get it (a couple of weeks early) unless you signed the paper.

 

[SimuLord]

Eidos is an interesting case, since I will never again trust a positive review of one of their games, meaning that their manipulation of the gaming press through exactly these sorts of "exclusive" favors has cost them sales (since I am very obviously not the only one who remembers the Jeff Gerstmann fiasco.)

Of course, this whole industry lives on that sort of bullshit and payola, which is one of the many reasons gaming isn't taken seriously as a medium (not to sound like the Extra Credits guys---come to think of it, that would make a fine EC episode, no?)

 

[matrix3509]

Too bad Game Informer is to games what toilet paper is to my ass.

 

[vxicepickxv]

You really should have hotlinked that image from game informer. That would have been about the most amusing thing you could have done with the image.

Of course, I didn't see credit to game informer with that image either, so watch out there.

 

[GiantRedButton]

Rps is my favorite gaming site

RPS needs to spend less time whining about exclusivity and more time nurturing their own relationship with developers and publishers

I would rather have some sites that are independent from publishers.
A lot of old media magazines (Print) for example keep to embargos, meaning that they aren't allowed to talk about a game until the publisher tells them too.
All american print magazines do that for example.
And the escapist rips news and screenshots from sites all the time and give them credit like rps.
They even posted the gameinformer screenshot in this very article.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/05/tomb-raider-screenshots-hidden-in-a-cupboard/
They also linked to a bunch of sites who did the same, but are bigger so its ok.

Aftually, embargoes are also for news sites. A prime example would be Fable 3: you would not get it (a couple of weeks early) unless you signed the paper.

Thanks for the info. Makes it even worse.
What helped in Europe was that no one kept to the embargoes and with no one doing it, Publishers still sent the magazines early copies since they wanted the coverage. And there was no magazine that would allow them to dictate the information flow.
The same thing might happen in the usa, if the games journalists start acting like journalists and less like advertisment agencies.
Not everyone minds it as much as i do, but i still think it goes against journalistic integrity, kinda like if the time magazine would ask Bp what information they are allowed to publish about the oilspill. Just well alot less important

 

[bokkiedog]

Greg Tito: "stealing someone's copyrighted material is not only illegal but also a huge professional discourtesy"

a) Using the word "stealing" is a pathetic bit of propagandist nonsense which is a large part of the problem. Copyright law has nothing to do with commonlaw theft - it is to do with a temporary licence to a particular cultural monopoly. The terms of that licence are subtle and varied, such that trying to pretend it's like a piece of property (it isn't) just confuses the issue (intentionally). There's a reason why the propagandists like to use the misleading term "Intellectual Property".

b) John committed no act of discourtesy. He had small excerpts from images to illustrate his piece, which linked via proper and fulsome attribution back to the source. For this, he received a ridiculous legal threat. I note that YOU, unlike John, have "stolen" an image for your piece which you have not attributed or linked back to the source, so that makes you much less courteous and much more of a "thief" (to use your terminology).

The reason why that idiot threatened RPS was that they didn't like the tone of the article, and thought this a useful way to bully/censor them. What a wonderfully fraternal way for journalists to act!

I think you owe John a massive apology.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I was going to post in order to defend RPS and Walker, given that my interpretation of the original article was one of no wrong-doing whatsoever: as stated, the images were cropped down to make them more teaser-like (as opposed to trying to obscure their source, which is pointless, since they are exclusives), and multiple links and other directional-arrows were given pointing users to go to Game Informer, at which point they could benefit from the eyeballs. But, alas, Mr. Walker beat me here, and defended himself admirably.

So, I'm left with this: this article is the worst possible sort of "Fair and Balanced" presentation of two sides of an argument, attempting neutrality by giving equal weights to opposing sides, regardless of the merits of either argument. You might make the argument that RPS could've gone further out of their way to disfigure the images in question, or that there was no need to use clipped versions of the images to get across their point (as evidenced by the still perfectly functioning article sans Lara plus WikiCommons). To make it worthwhile though, you're also going to need to convincingly argue that the actions on RPS' part resulted in some harm to Game Informer (maybe... the snippets of image were so disappointing, that people didn't bother going to GI's site? Or... Walker's argument against the nature of the exclusive images results in some small segment choosing to boycott the images from their brains?) The much stronger argument is that Game Informer and their representative are acting the fool, by sending a cease&desist to a friendly that offered professional courtesy, and making no apparent overtures against the variety of sites blatantly "stealing" their material, with no reference to Game Informer at all. There may be two sides to this, but it is dishonest to present them as equivalent in the name of "neutrality" or some bizarre notion of what "journalism" is.

 

[JDKJ]

He didn't exactly rip them off. You said yourself that he gave ample credit for who owned them and where they came from. He didn't try to claim they were his.

He did rip them off. And, to add insult to the injury, he removed the owner's watermark. Just because he didn't expressly claim the images were his doesn't make it any less a rip-off.

 

[JDKJ]

Greg Tito: "stealing someone's copyrighted material is not only illegal but also a huge professional discourtesy"

a) Using the word "stealing" is a pathetic bit of propagandist nonsense which is a large part of the problem. Copyright law has nothing to do with commonlaw theft - it is to do with a temporary licence to a particular cultural monopoly. The terms of that licence are subtle and varied, such that trying to pretend it's like a piece of property (it isn't) just confuses the issue (intentionally). There's a reason why the propagandists like to use the misleading term "Intellectual Property".

b) John committed no act of discourtesy. He had small excerpts from images to illustrate his piece, which linked via proper and fulsome attribution back to the source. For this, he received a ridiculous legal threat. I note that YOU, unlike John, have "stolen" an image for your piece which you have not attributed or linked back to the source, so that makes you much less courteous and much more of a "thief" (to use your terminology).

The reason why that idiot threatened RPS was that they didn't like the tone of the article, and thought this a useful way to bully/censor them. What a wonderfully fraternal way for journalists to act!

I think you owe John a massive apology.

Why isn't intellectual property just as much property in the same sense as real property is also property? Doesn't intellectual property share all the hallmarks of real property (e.g., ownership, exclusiveness, transferability, etc.)? Why is it "misleading" to use the term "intellectual property?" Isn't that exactly what it is? The fruits of intellectual efforts, owned by he or she who exerted or financed the effort? And I guess if you want to be precise, the more accurate word is "infringement" and not "stealing." But, if you ask me, that's splitting a rather fine hair. A rose by any other name still smells the same.

And a copyright isn't as much akin to a license as it is to a title. It does create rights of ownership -- albeit only for a certain period of time. Those rights much more resemble the rights of a property owner than they do the rights of a licensee.

 

[bokkiedog]

LDKJ:

Legally: look up fair use / fair dealing. He used illustrated excerpts and linked directly to the source. A more orthodox example of fair use / fair dealing I find it difficult to imagine. No court would have even entertained the case.

Morally: copyright was intended to promote cultural fecundity, not to eviscerate it. (Well, actually, it wasn't - it was intended as an effective way of mafia-run State censorship, but that's another essay entirely).

 

[bokkiedog]

LDKJ: Why isn't intellectual property just as much property in the same sense as real property is also property? Doesn't intellectual property share all the hallmarks of real property (e.g., ownership, exclusiveness, transferability, etc.)?

No. You've fallen victim to a classic bait-and-switch propaganda campaign: as Lord Camden, in the 17th century, feared you would when the Stationer's Guild tried their specious nonsense out.

I wrote a paper on this a few years ago. It's long, but goes into some detail about exactly why and how you're incorrect. Enjoy!

http://ip.cream.org/

 

[JDKJ]

That he

LDKJ:

Legally: look up fair use / fair dealing. He used illustrated excerpts and linked directly to the source. A more orthodox example of fair use / fair dealing I find it difficult to imagine. No court would have even entertained the case.

Morally: copyright was intended to promote cultural fecundity, not to eviscerate it. (Well, actually, it wasn't - it was intended as an effective way of mafia-run State censorship, but that's another essay entirely).

LDKJ:

Legally: look up fair use / fair dealing. He used illustrated excerpts and linked directly to the source. A more orthodox example of fair use / fair dealing I find it difficult to imagine. No court would have even entertained the case.

Morally: copyright was intended to promote cultural fecundity, not to eviscerate it. (Well, actually, it wasn't - it was intended as an effective way of mafia-run State censorship, but that's another essay entirely).

There's no need for me to look up fair use. I remember the elements thereof well enough from the last time I read the relevant sections of the Copyright Act. And "use[ing] illustrated excerpts and link[ing] directly to the source" aren't among the therein stated elements required by an analysis under the fair use doctrine. I fear that you are grossly oversimplifying that particular analysis.

 

[bokkiedog]

LDKJ: which Copyright Act is that? And in which country?

 

[bokkiedog]

The threat came from the United States. There, fair use encompasses:

?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author?s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

If you cannot see the use of well-attributed illustrative clips within reportage as fair use, then your imagination is more fruitful than mine.

 

[JDKJ]

LDKJ: which Copyright Act is that? And in which country?

The facts of the instant case don't implicate any other country than the United States of America, do they? Why would I be citing to the copyright statutes of some other county? They'd be wholly irrelevant, wouldn't they? And, best that I know, there's only one Copyright Act in the U.S. I can cite to it by USC title and section rather than popular name, if that'll ease your confusion.

 

[JDKJ]

The threat came from the United States. There, fair use encompasses:

?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author?s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

If you cannot see the use of well-attributed illustrative clips within reportage as fair use, then your imagination is more fruitful than mine.

Again, I fear that you are grossly oversimplifying the required analysis. As stated by the U.S. Copyright Office:

"One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of ?fair use.? The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 [of the Copyright Act] contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

You may want to go back and rub facts against law one more time. And a bit more thoughtfully this time.

 

[numbersix1979]

I think I could understand if it was something incredibly valuable to the plot of the game, something that would spoil it if it were revealed in flawed fashion before launch day, or some other information that was intrinsically linked to the projected performance of the finished product. But these are screen shots, and unless they were created purely for marketing purposes and don't actually correlate to realistic gameplay (such as we have become accustomed to lately, see the Call of Duty 2 TV advert fiasco), then it seems both morally questionable and strategically undesirable from a marketing perspective to eek them out to one publication that not everyone in the gaming world partakes in, then threaten legal action on something as transparent as Twitter. However, since Game Informer seems to consist on great big full-page screenshots of upcoming games rather than actual journalism these days, perhaps this tactic is one of self-preservation. On the other hand, the legal ground on which Game Informer and the publishers of the screenshots is pretty much impeccable, and waving around the fact that you lifted information from another publication and credited them improperly is something that, if we can all think back to 12th grade, constitutes plagiarism, bad journalism and douchebaggery in the first degree. Bad decisions all around, let us move on.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

The facts of the instant case don't implicate any other country than the United States of America, do they?

they do indeed, as RPS and Mr. Walker are both based out of England.

 

[JDKJ]

The facts of the instant case don't implicate any other country than the United States of America, do they?

they do indeed, as RPS and Mr. Walker are both based out of England.

So, too, is Edios. But that doesn't matter. The entity claiming a possible infringement of their copyrights is GameInformer and they're based wholly within the United States. The copyright laws of the UK or the EU aren't at issue here.