CD Projekt Red ask Nexus Mods to remove Keanu Reeves sex mod - but issue a misleading statement as to why

[Delicieuxz]

Mod-hosting site Nexus Mods was hosting a fan-made mod which replaced textures on a model the player can have sex with in the game, so that it appears as though the player is having sex with Keanu Reeves. In reaction to the mod, CDPR asked Nexus Mods to remove the mod, and they also issued the following statement about it to PC Gamer:

 

Quote

Our most important rule regarding user-generated content, game mods in particular, is that it can’t be harmful towards others. In the case of model swaps, especially those that involve explicit situations, it can be perceived as such by the people who lent us their appearance for the purpose of creating characters in Cyberpunk 2077.

 

I don't have an opinion of the mod or an interest in it. But what a CDPR representative said here can be misleading and sounds like CDPR either mischaracterized why the mod was removed, or otherwise were overstepping their authority.

 

Keanu Reeves could go after a mod using his likeness without permission if he wanted. But that's not CDPR's call unless Reeves has solicited them to act on his behalf in this matter. And a violation of what are called "Personality Rights" is a separate matter than a CDPR rule on mods, and is one which doesn't come down to whether people are allowed by CDPR to mod their game in a certain way.

 

People are always entitled to mod their own software per their sole discretion - excluding ToS violations for online services and copyright violations.

 

 

Nexus Mods could also remove the mod from their website for the sake of avoiding any issues stemming from a usage of Reeves' likeness without his permission, or just to make CDPR happy. But they are under no legal obligation to remove a mod just because CDPR or another publisher or developer disapproves of that mod in particular or the idea of people modding their games in general.

 

 

The only situation in which a company like CDPR has the right to impose a rule against modded content is when it comes to people's activities while playing on that company's own servers. That's because a company can set the terms for people to follow while using their servers, but a company cannot set the terms for what people choose to do with their own property in their own space, such as when running a game offline.

 

When a person violates a company's terms of a service, the company is only able to take action regarding their own property - which is their server and not the specific instance of the game that the person modded and used on their server. So, the person using modded content on a server that doesn't allow it could be banned from the server, but they couldn't have their game taken away from them - even though in certain cases the game itself might be useless without access to the online server.

 

And if a publisher bans a person from using their online servers because that person used prohibited content while playing on their servers, the violation wouldn't have been modding the game, but would have been using the online servers owned by the publisher while running content that isn't allowed on those servers.

 

A company can't tell the person what they may do with that person's own game elsewhere, and person is legally entitled to modify their own property in any way they see fit (which doesn't entitle a person to be able to use 3rd-party servers while doing so).

 

 

Ultimately, CDPR can't have a rule regarding what mods people may make and use with CP 2077 played offline because a publisher has no legal authority or jurisdiction concerning such matters. A person is free to modify their owned property, including their games.

 

Someone playing an online game using mods against a publisher's wishes isn't a case of a modding violation, but is a case of violating the terms of using an online service owned by a 3rd party. Using the likeness of a person without permission isn't a case of a modding violation, but is a case of violating a person's Right of Publicity / Personality Rights.

 

 

The PC Gamer article also says:

 

"CDPR will understandably not want to harm its relationship with Reeves, as his character could return in DLC or other forms."

 

But that's neither here nor there to the matter of whether CDPR has any authority in this matter. CDPR doesn't magically gain a legal power they never possessed just because they don't want to harm their relationship with Reeves.

 

 

So, there are grounds to remove a mod featuring a person's likeness without their permission. But the legitimate grounds are not related to a CDPR rule about modding. And unless Keanu Reeves is soliciting CDPR to act as his agent in the matter of protecting usage of his likeness, CDPR are probably overstepping their authority in claiming to disallow a mod featuring his likeness.

 

 

 

An overview of the issue I see with CDPR's statement and the danger of CDPR's stated reasoning for removing the mod, which wasn't done on on the grounds of copyright or personality rights, is here:

On 1/29/2021 at 8:57 AM, Delicieuxz said:

CDPR's claim of why they sought the removal of the mod is misleading because it implies that CDPR possess a legal power and right that they don't.

 

Removing the mod on copyright grounds would be just fine (though, Fair Use should apply). Removing the mod on grounds of using Reeves' likeness without his permission would be just fine. Removing the mod because CDPR claim they have personal rules about what kind of mods people can make and use is not fine - CDPR have no say in how people choose to modify their personal property. Copyright law has a say, personality rights have a say, but CDPR doesn't have an arbitrary say outside of what the laws say.

 

 

You know that meme, 'This is why we can't have nice things'? The reason we can't have nice things is because people don't understand what a situation means and what their positions and actions enable and justify.

 

If CDPR were justified in their reasoning for why they sought the removal of this mod, then it means that a publisher continues to possess decision-making authority over the software you've purchased, and so the publisher holds ownership rights over that software instance and you don't. It means that a publisher can revoke your games from your accounts anytime they wish for any reason they like or for no reason at all.

 

So, say if Valve create Steamyacht in ten years and, like their other Steam-X experiments, it's a bust and it causes the company to go bankrupt, the difference between CDPR being justified in their reasoning here and CDPR not being justified in their reasoning here will decide whether you get to keep your games when Steam shuts-down.

 

If CDPR are justified in their reasoning, then it means that publishers retain control over copies of games they've elected to sell, and can just cancel all game licenses associated with Steam and not be liable to any of the people who purchased those games. That will be that, you didn't own your games and so you aren't owed or entitled to anything, and now you'll never get to play hundreds of titles you owned ever again, won't get to revisit them in 30 years for nostalgia and memories, won't get to show them to your kids, grandkids, etc.

 

But if CDPR aren't justified in their reasoning, because they don't have control over copies of games they've sold, then simply shutting-down Steam with no backup-plan would incur severe loss to the people who owned games through the Steam platform and would unjustly rob people who own those games of access to and use of their properties. So, it would be justified to create a system in-which people would continue to be able to access and use their purchased-and-owned games, such as a universal ownership ledger like as the one proposed by Tim Sweeney and, ironically, GoG, which would enable people to download their owned games (and other digital goods) from a variety of places that aren't dependent upon one service.

 

 

Why people advocate against their interests and for their own failure and loss, and for that of overall society, I don't know. How you get to gaming dystopia is by justifying wrongful actions when they occur because you favour who's committing them or agree with the immediate outcome. Because if a certain improper action or claim of a right is justified now, then the same action or claim of a right will be established as justified when someone you don't like uses the same power to do something you don't agree with.

 

[emosun]

Is this newsworthy 

[Letgomyleghoe]

4 minutes ago, emosun said:

Is this newsworthy 

everything is on ltt forums. 

[Trevorq243]

Quick disclaimer: I haven't played through much of the story. Just did the mission "Down on the Street", so that's where I'm at. If I made an incorrect assumption about content below, that's why.

There exists a contract between Reeves and CDPR. I don't know the details, I don't work there, but Reeves didn't just walk in and say, "Hey, put me in your game I'll do whatever you say." In that contract, which, if CDPR has half a legal brain, there are many rules and stipulations about what can and cannot happen with Reeves' likeness. I'm willing to bet, since as far as I know, there isn't much Silverhand nudity (yet, could be wrong there) that contract includes not having Reeve's digital dong waving around, much less depicting intercourse with anyone. 

If that's true, then there's a good chance that CDPR could technically face trouble for breaching that contract if they don't stop the mod. It depends on the legalese of the contract but think of it this way; if a person puts their likeness and identity into a game on the condition that their character will never, ever, under any circumstances, juggle while riding a unicycle, the person will not be happy to see that anyone has modified the game to have them juggling on a unicycle. The person has little to no technical knowledge, all they see is that CDPR isn't holding up their end of the bargain since people are making them do the specific thing they were told would not happen.

In other words, if CDPR agreed that there'd be no Silverhand sexuality in their game, it wouldn't matter much that it was a mod or not, it's still happening. CDPR is most likely just trying to cover their assets here, because if there's nastiness for a breach of contract, CDPR can say "We tried our best to stop it but it simply isn't in our control" and hope that the courts agree. That will all come down to legal precedent, and I'm no lawyer, so... yeah.

All of that to say, does CDPR have the right to take down the mod? No idea. Could they get in trouble because of the mod? Absolutely, and they're probably just trying to avoid that.

[Vishera]

Hold on a second,I will find it in 5 minutes in some Russian website.

[RejZoR]

Well, it was just a matter of time. For the sex mod that is lol. Every game gets one. I just wasn't expecting it featuring Keanu. It's usually for games like Tomb Raider...

[Vishera]

52 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Well, it was just a matter of time. For the sex mod that is lol. Every game gets one. I just wasn't expecting it featuring Keanu. It's usually for games like Tomb Raider...

I found the mod,it's not a sex mod,but rather a character swap mode.

People swapped the model of Keanu with NPCs you can have sex with.

 

[TetraSky]

Yeah... Wouldn't surprise me if this was due to their contract with him. As in "no nudity/sexualization whatsoever that goes outside what was agreed upon" or something like that (haven't played the game, no clue if there is any sex scene with Keanu in it)

[Vishera]

Just now, TetraSky said:

haven't played the game, no clue if there is any sex scene with Keanu in it

As matter of fact there is one,but Keanu is fully clothed there.

[CTR640]

Lmfao what the fuck?! Does keanu Reeve mod has moddable dicks or NPC's gangbanged him all at once? Or the mod has cyborg dick? Maybe the real Keanu Reeves asked for it to be removed lol

[Doobeedoo]

Ah of course one of the first wave of mods is some BS yeah. Come on.

[Vishera]

11 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

Lmfao what the fuck?! Does keanu Reeve mod has moddable dicks or NPC's gangbanged him all at once? Or the mod has cyborg dick? Maybe the real Keanu Reeves asked for it to be removed lol

None of those,just a shirtless Keanu banging you:

[Syfes]

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.

 

I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

[CTR640]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

None of those,just a shirtless Keanu banging you:

Hilarious! Now females and gays can enjoy being banged by him lmfao

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

So, there are grounds to remove a mod featuring a person's likeness without their permission. But the legitimate grounds are not related to a CDPR rule about modding. And unless Keanu Reeves is soliciting CDPR to act as his agent in the matter of protecting usage of his likeness, CDPR are probably overstepping their authority in claiming to disallow a mod featuring his likeness.

Contracts play a role; and likely had stipulations on what they could and couldn't do with his likeness...so yea, it -might- affect CDPR depending on the wording.  It's not like they were making any legal demand either, they were just asking kindly.  As a note as well, it's not like the mod inserts it into the game, from what I understand it's still using the assets from ingame (as Keanu Reeves is in the video game)

[JZStudios]

49 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Yeah... Wouldn't surprise me if this was due to their contract with him. As in "no nudity/sexualization whatsoever that goes outside what was agreed upon" or something like that (haven't played the game, no clue if there is any sex scene with Keanu in it)

Remember when David Cage put Ellen Paiges face on a different nude model for a shower scene she didn't want?

[Delicieuxz]

52 minutes ago, Syfes said:

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.

 

I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

The explanation is a major part of the news item. So, yes, it is necessary.

 

And to claim there isn't smoke is silly because CDPR's own statement as to why they requested the removal of the mod says "Our most important rule regarding user-generated content", which means 1) they think the get to make rules about mods, and 2) their action was premised in the idea that they get to make and enforce rules about mods.

 

Whether CDPR's message to Nexus Mods was aggressive or not (the message hasn't been shared, AFAIK, so it's impossible to judge) is irrelevant. But it's confirmed that CDPR made a demand because CDPR stated for themselves that the basis for the removal was a rule they claim to have about mods.

 

I don't really know what your comment was made for because it seems to be disregarding of everything about the situation - including the basic facts that are obvious such as CDPR's own statement. It looks to me that you were the one looking for fire where there wasn't even smoke.

 

 

3 hours ago, emosun said:

Is this newsworthy 

Is a major publisher and developer over-reaching and potentially infringing on game-owners' rights worthy tech-news and also potentially setting of a dangerous precedent in your sight? It is in mine.

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

But that's not CDPR's call unless Reeves has solicited them to act on his behalf in this matter.

I... don't see why he wouldn't tbh. I can totally see this as part of a contract -  everything related to Reeves and the game would be regulated by the developer... why would Reeves want to deal with such things... 

 

idk for sure obviously, but I don't think this is too outlandish to think.

 

Also they didn't pull a Nintendo here apparently, they simply "asked" and of course nexus would comply they know this could end up costing them a lot *if* Reeves would get involved... 

[Neftex]

10 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

People are always entitled to mod their own software per their sole discretion

1) this is factually wrong in many cases, read about software licensing.

2) youre making mountain out of molehill, cdpr simply asked for removal and nexus complied. the reason was understable and nexus was reasonable.

3) they all know the mod will remain available somewhere, they just both understand removing the mod was ethically good choice

[Delicieuxz]

49 minutes ago, Neftex said:

1) this is factually wrong in many cases, read about software licensing.

2) youre making mountain out of molehill, cdpr simply asked for removal and nexus complied. the reason was understable and nexus was reasonable.

3) they all know the mod will remain available somewhere, they just both understand removing the mod was ethically good choice

1) Per property rights, no, it isn't factually wrong. A person is entitled by law to modify their property - which includes their purchased software such as CP 2077.

2) I'm making an over-stepping of authority and dangerous precedent out of an over-stepping of authority and dangerous precedent.

3) That the mod will remain available somewhere doesn't negate the danger of the precedent and the misinformation that CDPR's action and statement of the basis for it can lead to.

 

 

I've done a lot of reading of software licensing. I recommend this thread for a good overview of the topic:  Understanding software licenses and EULAs: You own the software that you purchase

 

CDPR have no authority to tell people whether they may mod a game they've purchased from CDPR, full stop. EULAs are, in general, baseless and ingoreable and aren't legal contracts. But CDPR's CP 2077 EULA in particular fails basic requirements for any legal contract, as it contains what's called an Illusory Promise, which is CDPR's claim that the agreement and software can be unilaterally revoked by CDPR. An illusory promise nullifies the validity and legality of an otherwise would-be contract.

 

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Illusory+Promise

 

Illusory Promise

A statement that appears to assure a performance and form a contract but, when scrutinized, leaves to the speaker the choice of performance or non-performance, which means that the speaker does not legally bind himself or herself to act.

 

When the provisions of the purported promise render the performance of the person who makes the promise optional or completely within his or her discretion, pleasure, and control, nothing absolute is promised; and the promise is said to be illusory. For example, a court decided that a promise contained in an agreement between a railroad and an iron producer whereby the railroad promised to purchase as much iron as its board of directors might order was illusory and did not form a contract.

[Neftex]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Per property rights, no, it isn't factually wrong. A person is entitled by law to modify their property - which includes their purchased software such as CP 2077.

you living under a rock? most commercial software nowadays isnt sold as property, its licensed for use... (i think i heard about cdpr and their gog actually selling the copies instead of licenses, not sure though. even then if you bought the game on steam then its licensed and not your property)

[Delicieuxz]

2 minutes ago, Neftex said:

you living under a rock? most commercial software nowadays isnt sold as property, its licensed for use... (i think i heard about cdpr and their gog actually selling the copies instead of licenses, not sure though. even then if you bought the game on steam then its licensed and not your property)

What you're saying is a common myth and misunderstanding. Again, I recommend that you read this thread for an overview of the topic of software ownership and licensing:

 

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

 

I can refer you to a variety of court rulings on the matter, if you like. Though, they're already presented within that topic I've just given you a link to.

[Neftex]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

What you're saying is a common myth and misunderstanding. Again, I recommend that you read this thread for an overview of the topic of software ownership and licensing:

 

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

 

I can refer you to a variety of court rulings on the matter, if you like.

sure point me to the court ruling about modifying software with license prohibiting it. you "own the game license" and you can resell it etc. you cant modify the software freely

[Delicieuxz]

17 minutes ago, Neftex said:

sure point me to the court ruling about modifying software with license prohibiting it. you "own the game license" and you can resell it etc. you cant modify the software freely

The court rulings show that people own their software.

 

Ownership is the possession of decision-making authority over that which is owned. People are entitled to modify their property and a license agreement can't overrule that right. A company loses its decision-making authority over an item they decide to sell and can no-longer set any conditions upon the usage of that item. As a result, EULA's are not legal documents and they never have been. Publishers wish they would be, but they aren't.

 

EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20191204034350/http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5213884

 

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

 

A license agreement only applies to a property that belongs to someone other than yourself. It doesn't apply to your own property - and your purchased software is your own property. The only licensing involved in purchasing an item of software is the license to use the software IP for the purpose of enacting your ownership entitlements over you instance of the software. That is the same licensing at play when you buy a pair of shoes to which you don't own the IP for, but you do exclusively own your pair of shoes.

 

The software IP is licensed, but the non-reproduceable software instance which you purchase is owned by you and a 3rd-party cannot tell you how to use it.

 

 

In this article, the author who is a ToS lawyer says that sometimes an EULA can be enforceable but other times it can't be:

 

Are End User License Agreements Enforceable?

 

However, one of the only two examples they were able to provide of an EULA being enforceable isn't actually an example of an EULA, but a ToS, which is different than an EULA: A Terms of Service applies to somebody-else's property which you engage with but don't own - and the owner of the service is entitled to set the terms for usage of their service; an EULA purports to apply to a software good that you've purchased and therefore own. It is not lawful for a 3rd-party to dictate terms for how you may use your own property.

 

And their other example of an EULA being enforceable is a case from 1996, long before a modest comprehension of what software represents was established.

[WereCatf]

18 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The court rulings show that people own their software

We have had several court-cases on this in the past and the judgment was always exactly this. A software-producer still owns the copyrights to the software and, if the software uses the producer's services, the producer can use a TOS to restrict your access to those services. There is no law that gives them the right to dictate terms on how you use the stuff on your own devices.