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

[Neftex]

1) youre only linking EU.

31 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

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

2) the above isnt a ruling... its a part of a question that the court considered during the ruling. i can quote you a different one (both are useless on their own) "The copy thus downloaded may not, however, be used by the customers unless they have concluded a user licence agreement with Oracle. Such a licence gives Oracle’s customers a non-exclusive and non-transferable user right for an unlimited period for that program." (again its just part of a question that the court considered, not ruling, basically means nothing just like yours)

[Delicieuxz]

12 minutes ago, Neftex said:

1) youre only linking EU.

I can link to others. But they're also in the link I gave you: Understanding software licenses and EULAs: You own the software that you purchase

 

If you're interested in this topic, then I do recommend that you read that post.

 

 

Here's Australia's highest court smacking down Valve's claim that people don't own the software they purchase on Steam:

 

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2016/2016fca0196#_Ref445465996

Quote

" 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). "

 

 

Quote

2) the above isnt a ruling... its a part of a question that the court considered during the ruling. i can quote you a different one (both are useless on their own) "The copy thus downloaded may not, however, be used by the customers unless they have concluded a user licence agreement with Oracle. Such a licence gives Oracle’s customers a non-exclusive and non-transferable user right for an unlimited period for that program." (again its just part of a question that the court considered, not ruling, basically means nothing just like yours)

No, that's actually the final decision of the European Court of Justice, which is the highest court in Europe and the decisions of which apply to all of the EU which contains over half-a-billion people.

 

As the top of the document says, "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)".

 

And it says this:

 

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

 

1.      Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.

 

2.      Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.

 

 

You can read articles about the decision: EU Top Court: When You Buy Software You Own It

[Neftex]

22 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, that's actually the final decision of the European Court of Justice, which is the highest court in Europe and the decisions of which apply to all of the EU which contains over half-a-billion people.

no <removed by staff>, this is the actual ruling:

Quote

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

1.      Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.

2.      Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.

note this "right to use", "distribution right", "right of reproduction".

Edited January 30, 2021 by SansVarnic
Removed content.

[Delicieuxz]

21 hours ago, Neftex said:

no  <removed by staff>, this is the actual ruling:

note this "right to use", "distribution right", "right of reproduction".

You might want to check my post again, rather than just repeat it, " <removed by staff>". What I said is the court's decision. And it is repeated in its ruling.

 

And you misrepresented the part of the judgment which I gave you previously. No wonder you don't understand the topic at all when you can't engage with it or people honestly and lack proper researching skills. But way to confirm that what I said is correct.

 

Here's the proper context for what I previous gave you:

 

Secondly, the argument put forward by Oracle and the European Commission that the making available of a copy of a computer program on the copyright holder’s website constitutes a ‘making available to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, which, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, cannot give rise to exhaustion of the right of distribution of the copy, cannot be accepted.

 

51      It is apparent from Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 that the directive ‘leaves intact and … in no way affect existing … provisions [of European Union law] relating to … the legal protection of computer programs’ conferred by Directive 91/250, which was subsequently codified by Directive 2009/24. The provisions of Directive 2009/24, in particular Article 4(2), thus constitute a lex specialis in relation to the provisions of Directive 2001/29, so that even if the contractual relationship at issue in the main proceedings or an aspect of it might also be covered by the concept of ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the latter directive, the ‘first sale … of a copy of a program’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 would still give rise, in accordance with that provision, to exhaustion of the right of distribution of that copy.

 

52      Moreover, as stated in paragraph 46 above, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer. As the Advocate General observes in point 73 of his Opinion, it follows from Article 6(1) of the Copyright Treaty, in the light of which Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29 must, so far as possible, be interpreted (see, to that effect, Case C‑456/06 Peek & Cloppenburg [2008] ECR I‑2731, paragraph 30), that the existence of a transfer of ownership changes an ‘act of communication to the public’ provided for in Article 3 of that directive into an act of distribution referred to in Article 4 of the directive which, if the conditions in Article 4(2) of the directive are satisfied, can, like a ‘first sale … of a copy of a program’ referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, give rise to exhaustion of the distribution right.

 

 

21 hours ago, Neftex said:

note this "right to use", "distribution right", "right of reproduction".

? Um... yeah. In other words, the purchaser owns the software.

 

 

If you're actually interested in doing more than just making stuff up to try to defend a position that is, honestly, not true, then I strongly recommend reading this post rather than asking for the information that is contained in it piecemeal:  Understanding software licenses and EULAs: You own the software that you purchase

Edited January 30, 2021 by SansVarnic
Removed content.

[Neftex]

22 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

You might want to check my post again, rather than just repeat it "dumbass".

maybe dont edit your post 10 times before you get a reply.

 

22 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

And you misrepresented the part of the judgment which I gave you previously.

i didnt misrepresent anything, the quote you provided for your argument isnt the ruling. ruling is at the end of the page as i posted and as you inserted later. i even pointed out that you can find and pick arguments for either side from the considered questions, what matters is the end...

22 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I strongly recommend reading this post

why the fk would i waste time with your wall of text post when you quoted consideration of questions as a ruling to support your argument. at this point nothing you write can be taken at face value

[Delicieuxz]

21 hours ago, Neftex said:

maybe dont edit your post 10 times before you get a reply.

What you criticized was edited-in within minutes of making the post, which was a good 10+ minutes before you replied to it.

 

Quote

i didnt misrepresent anything, the quote you provided for your argument isnt the ruling. ruling is at the end of the page as i posted and as you inserted later. i even pointed out that you can find and pick arguments for either side from the considered questions, what matters is the end...

You definitely misrepresented what I said, the court's decision, and you're still doing it.

 

Here's what I said:

22 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, that's actually the final decision of the European Court of Justice

 

Here's what you claimed:

21 hours ago, Neftex said:

no  <removed by staff>, this is the actual ruling:

The entire document is commonly referred to as the court's judgment. You can read-up on that, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law)

 

But the specific part I initially quoted to you: "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer"

 

The fuller context for which is this: "in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer"

 

Is the court's decision, which is carried-over to and restated in the final ruling:

 

2.      Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.

 

 

It seems to me like you just don't handle being corrected very well, or being given the information you requested.

 

21 hours ago, Neftex said:

why the fk would i waste time with your wall of text post when you quoted consideration of questions as a ruling to support your argument. at this point nothing you write can be taken at face value

You mean the decision that featured as the court's final ruling?

 

I read that as you simply wanting to avoid having your conceptions challenged and corrected. At least now you know people own their software.

[Neftex]

1 hour ago, Neftex said:

sure point me to the court ruling about modifying software with license prohibiting it.

this is what i asked

 

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

The court rulings show that people own their software.

...

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

this is what you replied? idk man

[Delicieuxz]

12 minutes ago, Neftex said:

this is what i asked

 

this is what you replied? idk man

There's no point in this. You're still misrepresenting things - which tells me you're more interesting in trying naysay the information I've presented you than the facts of the topic.

 

This is actually what you were given as a response to your question:

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

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.

 

 

Then you claimed this:

1 hour ago, Neftex said:

1) youre only linking EU.

2) the above isnt a ruling... its a part of a question that the court considered during the ruling. i can quote you a different one (both are useless on their own) "The copy thus downloaded may not, however, be used by the customers unless they have concluded a user licence agreement with Oracle. Such a licence gives Oracle’s customers a non-exclusive and non-transferable user right for an unlimited period for that program." (again its just part of a question that the court considered, not ruling, basically means nothing just like yours)

 

Which I responded to here, stating that the quote I presented you with was the court's final decision:

 

To which you heatedly claimed it wasn't the court's "ruling" (not the word I used), while quoting the final ruling which says the same thing as what I initially quoted to you (because the ruling is a carry-over from that decision) when I said that it's the court's final decision: That people own the software they purchase.

 

 

"in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer"

 

Vs

 

"the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program"

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

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.

Not entirely true in this case. Modify a game because you own a copy is generally fine. Distribution of mods that use assets that are under copyright is not. It's not as simple as modify your game when you start to mass distribute it as copyright laws are fairly stringent. 

[Kisai]

15 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

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.

 

It's like the DMCA fiasco with it's release. The rights were not cleared for this use, thus they are required to remove such mods from user-generated-content sites as a copyright infringement.

 

With that said, this is a complex arm-twist for copyright, as the character Keanu plays, nor Keanu himself have been copied. Rather a character that the assets already exist for is swapped with the one you can have some personal fun with. This is something that people tend to do with games, regardless of any blessing by the developer, privately because they see fun in it.

 

So on one point, it's within CDPR or Keanu's lawyers to pull it down, but for all practical reasons it's just like incorperating copyrighted music. There are certain terms CDPR and Keanu agreed to, and if CDPR oversteps it, that might be harmful for the game, and if fans overstep it, that might be harmful for the game.

[Master Disaster]

15 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

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:

 

 

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.

 

"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.

Quote

You argee not to..

 

Use your User Content with any software programs other than the full commercial versions of the Game

;●Post, transmit, promote, distribute or facilitate distribution of User Content that is or may be considered racist, harassing, xenophobic, sexist, discriminatory, abusive, defamatory or otherwise offensive or illegal;

●Post, transmit, promote, distribute or facilitate distribution of User Content that infringes any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, privacy, publicity, or other rights;

●indicate falsely that you are our employee or our representative, or attempt to mislead users by indicating that you represent us or any of our partners or affiliates;

●Promote or encourage any illegal activity including hacking, cracking or distribution of counterfeit software;

●Procure, share or upload (in particular through the use of the Software) any files that contain any malicious code, including viruses, spyware, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, intentionally corrupted data, any other files that contain malicious code or that may in any way damage or interfere with the operation of the Game;

●Modify any part of the Software that we do not specifically authorize you to modify or that we specifically forbid you from modifying, such as, but not limited to, executable files within the Game or Software;

●Use your User Content in any way that may be considered to breach the provisions of Fan Content Guidelines;

●Unless expressly permitted, reverse engineer, derive source code from, modify, decompile, or disassemble the Software, in whole or in part;

●Remove, disable or circumvent any proprietary notices or labels contained on or within the Software;

●Export or re-export the Software or any copy or adaptation thereof in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.

 

(b)General Permission: subject to the terms herein, you are permitted to use, analyse, modify, combine with other software, as well as create derivative works from the parts of the Software that we released in a source code form and are expressly listed as permitted for such use on the website available at: https://www.cyberpunk.net/modding-support.

 

(c)Protection Of Intellectual Property:We respect the intellectual property rights of others. You must have the legal right to share User Content. You may not share any User Content that is protected by copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights unless (i) you are the owner of all of those rights or (ii) you have the prior written consent of the owner(s) of those rights to make such use of that User Content. We may, without prior notice to you and in our sole judgment, remove or seek removal of User Content that may infringe the intellectual property rights of a third party.

 

(d)Contributing User Content; Licence Grant To CDPR: When you create, contribute and share User Content to the Game, Section 4 of the Fan Content Guidelines will apply. In particular, you retain the right to your original User Content, however you expressly grant to us a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free licence to use, modify, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, exploit, transmit, perform and communicate your fan content in connection with our games.

https://cdn-l-cyberpunk.cdprojektred.com/cp77-modtools-eula.pdf

 

Also see - https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

 

Essentially by creating a mod out of CDPRs existing work (in other words the modder used CDPRs models to replace existing models in CDPRs game) the modder has no rights to any of the mods, they effectively slide right into the same category as all the original work in the game.

 

TL:DR - CDPR have the rights to pull any mod down they don't like for any (or no) reason, they don't have to give anyone an explanation. They own the copyright & trademark of Cyberpunk 2077,

[Video Beagle]

It's all moot...the mod maker pulled the version of the mod that let's you Keanuize stuff and replaced it with one that doesn't.

 

Quote

As you probably know by now - the previous version of this mod was removed (not by CDPR nor Nexus Mods, but by me - so do not blame either of them for the removal of the entire mod) after CDPR approached me and nicely asked to remove only a part of the original mod. The reason was that there was one questionable part of it which included models that resemble real life people (specifically, the model of Johnny Silverhand), which should have been avoided in the first place - and my mistake was listening to the requests and including some model swaps that were not supposed to be in the mod originally. And I hereby also apologize (specifically to mr. Keanu Reeves) for not thinking this through at that time - but instead doing what the community asked for. The intentions of the mod have never been to do any harm to anybody - in any possible way, nor to disrespect anybody.

I decided to take down the older version of the mod as a whole in order to prevent possible further misuse, especially as I had a full written out guide on how to swap out any of the two in-game characters, and I had no real way of preventing people from swapping out characters that are not meant to be swapped out. So at the time, it seemed as a best idea to remove it as a whole until I get more details from the CDPR - when the media started blowing up with articles while not having a lot of info on what was going on, nor what the mod has been to begin with.

Either way, as everything has been talked out since, and I have been green-lit to re-upload the rest of my mod. I am re-uploading my mod which includes fully swapping out Panam and Judy, random swaps between Fingers, Dex, Sasquatch, Smasher, T-bug, 8ug8ear, Delamain, basilisk, and more to come.

https://www.nexusmods.com/cyberpunk2077/mods/1316

[Master Disaster]

18 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

It's all moot...the mod maker pulled the version of the mod that let's you Keanuize stuff and replaced it with one that doesn't.

 

https://www.nexusmods.com/cyberpunk2077/mods/1316

I love how its become normal to be offended on behalf of other people. We're seeing more and more of it, when BLM happened we had white actors apologising for taking on Black roles while the black actors we're all laughing and shrugging, the same thing happened with males doing female roles and again, nobody seemed to care.

 

The amazing thing about performing arts is that it breaks down boundaries, even in Shakespearian times woman would often take on male lead roles, here in the UK we have a weird Christmas thing called Pantomime where men dress up as woman and make a fool out of themselves on stage.

 

The person who gets a job should be the person who is best suited for it, not the person society dictates should have gotten it.

 

IMO its more offensive that we assume someone will be offended than it is to just be honest and ask the question.

 

/Sorry, rant over/

[Video Beagle]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

I love how its become normal to be offended on behalf of other people......

...uhm, I wasn't offended...I just went looking for the mod and saw the comment by the dude and quoted it.

 

Or, I guess, you were intending to quote the quote, so it just looks like you were quoting me....

 

I'm not sure how that led to a rant about men playing women and white people playing black people, but sure.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Video Beagle said:

...uhm, I wasn't offended...I just went looking for the mod and saw the comment by the dude and quoted it.

 

Or, I guess, you were intending to quote the quote, so it just looks like you were quoting me....

 

I'm not sure how that led to a rant about men playing women and white people playing black people, but sure.

Yeah, I was referring to the quote, not your post.

 

Simple, instead of CDPR reaching out to Keanu and saying "hey, some modders did a model swap and now people are having sex with Johnny Siverhand, do you care?" they just automatically assumed that he would care.

 

Offended by proxy.

 

Its not really a dig at CDPR, they're acting to protect their IP and a third party but over the past few years offended by proxy has become a huge problem and IMO it needs to stop.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

TL:DR

This is what a lot of people don't understand, because most devs let it slide or even endorse modding... but per law you do not have any right to distribute game assets where you do not have the copyright of - so 99% of mods out there I'd wager - what you do in your own game is of no one's business - but that stops with distribution, especially for monetary gains, which a lot of modder do, including nexus... 

 

41 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Its not really a dig at CDPR, they're acting to protect their IP and a third party but over the past few years offended by proxy has become a huge problem and IMO it needs to stop

Thats true... but ultimately we don't know? maybe it's in the contracts, maybe it's in reeves decided interest, or maybe not or maybe he would even be okay with this kind of thing.. 

 

 

I know for fact certain actors are okay with this kind of thing and *endorse* it too... (and others simply don't care) 

[Video Beagle]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Its not really a dig at CDPR, they're acting to protect their IP and a third party

Given reeves is one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, I'd be willing to bet his lawyers and managers had it spelled out pretty exactly what could and could not be done with his image. Even if he'd be personaly ok with it, I can easily imagine something like this being seen as violating the contract, and without at least a token effort to deal with it would leave PCDR open to lawsuits, or at least more bad press they can ill afford.

 

(You're not wrong on the 3rd party offended stuff, I just suspect it's less morals and more money in this case)

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

you are permitted to use, analyse, modify, combine with other software, as well as create derivative works from the parts of the Software that we released in a source code form and are expressly listed as permitted for such use on the website available at: https://www.cyberpunk.net/modding-support.

 

 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

22 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

Given reeves is one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, I'd be willing to bet his lawyers and managers had it spelled out pretty exactly what could and could not be done with his image. Even if he'd be personaly ok with it, I can easily imagine something like this being seen as violating the contract, and without at least a token effort to deal with it would leave PCDR open to lawsuits, or at least more bad press they can ill afford.

 

(You're not wrong on the 3rd party offended stuff, I just suspect it's less morals and more money in this case)

Oh 100%, CDPR did the right thing in this instance but there have seen similar cases recently where things have been taken way out of proportion.

 

Fun fact: minority groups have a sense of humour too, they understand context too.

 

I just think that its more offensive of us (as the dominant race) to assume minorities will automatically be offended by some of the things we do than some of things we do.

 

Anyway this is way off topic. Just a personal bug bear of mine.

[Space5000]

Apologize if my message here is off-topic, but it seems really hypocritical for a company that claims to be about ownership would not only have a restricting EULA threatening to take the license away depending on how the EULA is handled after "purchase" (I even maybe remember asking the legal team if it would be illegal after license is gone, and they answered that it was if I'm remembered correctly.), but it's one of those EULAs that say "revocable" for license, and that they say they can change the terms for a very broad and likely subjective reason ("if we think it is necessary"). Hopefully there is court evidence ruling that such two things in the EULA cannot be enforceable, but either way it's really odd that a company that is part of Good Old Games would have this...

[Dr_Whom]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

 

 

 

The forum broke the link. You have to make sure to add the -support part

 

[Delicieuxz]

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Not entirely true in this case. Modify a game because you own a copy is generally fine. Distribution of mods that use assets that are under copyright is not. It's not as simple as modify your game when you start to mass distribute it as copyright laws are fairly stringent. 

 

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

It's like the DMCA fiasco with it's release. The rights were not cleared for this use, thus they are required to remove such mods from user-generated-content sites as a copyright infringement.

 

With that said, this is a complex arm-twist for copyright, as the character Keanu plays, nor Keanu himself have been copied. Rather a character that the assets already exist for is swapped with the one you can have some personal fun with. This is something that people tend to do with games, regardless of any blessing by the developer, privately because they see fun in it.

Like I said in the OP, there could be grounds to go after the mod over. But CDPR's statement chose to make it about a rule they claimed to have about what kind of mods people can make for the game. And that rule simply doesn't have a legal basis. So, claiming the takedown is concerning that rule implies an over-reach and can set a bad precedent.

 

If people accept that this mod is taken down because CDPR simply decided it goes against an arbitrary rule they post on their website, they'll think that decision-making capability is something publishers actually possess over games which they've sold. And it isn't. But if people think it is, and publishers start to feel like it is (obviously, some already think so), then if a Rockstar, EA, Bethesda, ActiVision, Microsoft, etc remove somebody's game from their account because they didn't adhere to some personal rule, people will just stand-by and think it was within their rights.

 

And if that thinking becomes normalized, there will be a tremendous downgrade in expectation of consumer rights, and gamers will be on edge trying to conform to publisher dictates over how they can and can't use the games they've bought.

 

 

What CDPR have done sets a terrible precedent if it's not acknowledged that, based on their self-stated reason for seeking the mod's removal, they over-stepped their authority.

[Delicieuxz]

On 1/28/2021 at 11:57 PM, Master Disaster said:

https://cdn-l-cyberpunk.cdprojektred.com/cp77-modtools-eula.pdf

 

Also see - https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

 

Essentially by creating a mod out of CDPRs existing work (in other words the modder used CDPRs models to replace existing models in CDPRs game) the modder has no rights to any of the mods, they effectively slide right into the same category as all the original work in the game.

Yes, CDPR could have gone after the mod on those grounds, and it would have been fine (edit: though, Fair Use would apply). Copyright could be a valid reason. So would using Reeves' likeness without his permission. CDPR could also have gone after the mod for violating the EULA for their free mod-tools SDK (the only time an EULA actually matters is when the user hasn't purchased the software but it using it via a free license) - if they could prove the mod was created using the SDK.

 

However, none of those are the grounds on which CDPR went after the mod. As is explained in the OP, they went after it based on a claimed rule for user-generated content:

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.

 

That isn't a valid reason and that's the problem and what's dangerous. CDPR simply claimed they can control people's games and how they're used after people have purchased them. But CDPR have no such legal power.

 

Quote

TL:DR - CDPR have the rights to pull any mod down they don't like for any (or no) reason, they don't have to give anyone an explanation. They own the copyright & trademark of Cyberpunk 2077,

CDPR don't have that right, though.

 

Owning the copyright and trademark of an IP doesn't give the owner of those things any ability to control the copies of the IP which they've elected to sell. Their control over a copy expires once they sell the copy to someone else as that copy is then no-longer the copyright holder's but is the purchaser's, with the copyright-holder no-longer having any say in how the sold copy may be used, because it's no longer their property but is the property of the purchaser. A transfer of ownership of the copy from the seller to the buyer occurs upon the point of sale.

 

If you buy a new car from a Toyota dealership, Toyota still own the copyright and trademark for their brand and the IPs your car is based on. But that doesn't mean they can take your car back from you or set any terms over how you use it, or choose how you're allowed to mod it - it's 100% your car, not theirs, and you have full property rights over your car.

 

The people who've purchased copies of CP 2077 own those copies of the game and, as people are allowed to do with their personal property, may modify them per their sole discretion. Actual laws, like copyright and personality rights still apply, but CDPR didn't choose to act on those grounds but outside of them, and that's what's concerning.

 

 

The CDPR fan-content guidelines isn't a legal document and it has no actual relevance to what people may or may-not do with their games. As I said in the OP, the Reeves mod could have been removed on legitimate grounds. But instead of doing that, CDPR claimed a power they don't actually possess as their justification for removing the mod.

 

People should be aware that publishers don't possess that power so that the idea that people have to use their software in ways a publisher wants them to doesn't become normalized.

[Master Disaster]

34 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

CDPR don't have that right, though.

 

Owning the copyright and trademark of an IP doesn't give the owner of those things any ability to control the copies of the IP which they've elected to sell. Their control over a copy expires once they sell the copy to someone else as that copy is then no-longer the copyright holder's but is the purchaser's, with the copyright-holder no-longer having any say in how the sold copy may be used, because it's no longer their property but is the property of the purchaser. A transfer of ownership of the copy from the seller to the buyer occurs upon the point of sale.

Unless the purchaser is making illegal copies of said product or is, in any way, profiting from the work done by CDPR.

 

Ownership =/= Copyright.

 

They're not telling anyone they cannot install mods, their not even saying people cannot install this mod. They're asking the mod developer (nicely) to not enable & distribute a method to use their work in a way which they don't want it to be used.

34 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

If you buy a new car from a Toyota dealership, Toyota still own the copyright and trademark for their brand and the IPs your car is based on. But that doesn't mean they can take your car back from you or set any terms over how you use it, or choose how you're allowed to mod it - it's 100% your car, not theirs, and you have full property rights over your car.

Right but if you decided to take one of the copyrighted components from a Toyota, modify to fit a ford and then try to sell it on the internet you bet your ass Toyota would have the lawyers on leash in the blink of an eye.

34 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

The people who've purchased copies of CP 2077 own those copies of the game and, as people are allowed to do with their personal property, may modify them per their sole discretion. Actual laws, like copyright and personality rights still apply, but CDPR didn't choose to act on those grounds but outside of them, and that's what's concerning.

No, CDPR created the character "Johnny Siverhand", they drew the art for him and they made the game he is used in. CDPR is acting, perfectly legally, under existing copyright statutes.

34 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The CDPR fan-content guidelines isn't a legal document and it has no actual relevance to what people may or may-not do with their games. As I said in the OP, the Reeves mod could have been removed on legitimate grounds. But instead of doing that, CDPR claimed a power they don't actually possess as their justification for removing the mod.

Except that they do have that power. Johnny Silverhand is their copyrighted character, if they don't want him involved in sex scenes then the law is very much on their side.

34 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

People should be aware that publishers don't possess that power so that the idea that people have to use their software in ways a publisher wants them to doesn't become normalized.

Again, a copyright holder has the power to allow or restrict the use of their work however they choose to. Can they stop you from doing what you want to your own game? Almost certainly not, even if that were covered by law its almost impossible to enforce. Can they stop you from distributing a mod that contains their copyright content? Absofuckinglutely yes they can.

[Brooksie359]

54 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Yes, CDPR could have gone after the mod on those grounds, and it would have been fine. Copyright could be a valid reason. So would using Reeves' likeness without his permission. CDPR could also have gone after the mod for violating the EULA for their free mod-tools SDK (the only time an EULA actually matters is when the user hasn't purchased the software but it using it via a free license) - if they could prove the mod was created using the SDK.

 

However, none of those are the grounds on which CDPR went after the mod. As is explained in the OP, they went after it based on a claimed rule for user-generated content:

 

That isn't a valid reason and that's the problem what's dangerous. CDPR simply claimed they can control people's games and how they're used after people have purchased them. But CDPR have no such legal power.

 

CDPR don't have that right, though.

 

Owning the copyright and trademark of an IP doesn't give the owner of those things any ability to control the copies of the IP which they've elected to sell. Their control over a copy expires once they sell the copy to someone else as that copy is then no-longer the copyright holder's but is the purchaser's, with the copyright-holder no-longer having any say in how the sold copy may be used, because it's no longer their property but is the property of the purchaser. A transfer of ownership of the copy from the seller to the buyer occurs upon the point of sale.

 

If you buy a new car from a Toyota dealership, Toyota still own the copyright and trademark for their brand and the IPs your car is based on. But that doesn't mean they can take your car back from you or set any terms over how you use it, or choose how you're allowed to mod it - it's 100% your car, not theirs, and you have full property rights over your car.

 

The people who've purchased copies of CP 2077 own those copies of the game and, as people are allowed to do with their personal property, may modify them per their sole discretion. Actual laws, like copyright and personality rights still apply, but CDPR didn't choose to act on those grounds but outside of them, and that's what's concerning.

 

 

The CDPR fan-content guidelines isn't a legal document and it has no actual relevance to what people may or may-not do with their games. As I said in the OP, the Reeves mod could have been removed on legitimate grounds. But instead of doing that, CDPR claimed a power they don't actually possess as their justification for removing the mod.

 

People should be aware that publishers don't possess that power so that the idea that people have to use their software in ways a publisher wants them to doesn't become normalized.

I think you are making a big mistake when assuming that the reasoning between why they can take a mod down and why they take it down has to be the same. The fact that they are fine with mods for the most part and won't use copyright to take them down is already fairly known. They are saying that this mod for pretty obvious reasons will not be given the same treatment that other mods will. Its like someone being on your property. You can say that they are welcome as long as they follow a set of rules that may not be actual laws but once they break those rules you can use the law that allows you to kick them off your property to do so.