City-builder "Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic" off Steam following DMCA where fan claims ownership of game mechanics because of a guide.

[00FF00]

Summary

"Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic" is a still-in-development city builder where you, as the name hints, build your own republic and planned economy. A recent update introduced a 'realistic' mode where all resources must be either imported off-map or produced on-map, transported on-map, and on-map manpower used.

 

After an earlier update, and as a 'realistic' game-mode was being created by the devs, a fan of the game compiled a guide for a "Cosmonaut Mode" - their version of 'realistic.' The guide was popular enough to have the Devs offer to add the author into the game credits as a 'Thanks for supporting us' type of thing. However, the devs wanted to wait until the final product to add them to credits while the fan wanted to be added immediately. This disagreement resulted in the fan, who is themselves a lawyer, filing numerous DMCAs and take-down notices against the game and other fans. This resulted in numerous youtube videos taken down and the literal entire game being DMCA'd off of Steam.

 

Quotes

Quote

In a "special report for the community (opens in new tab)," developer 3Division said the fan, formerly a "respected member of our community," believes the idea for a "realistic mode (opens in new tab)" added in December 2022 was his, and is angry that he isn't credited accordingly. The studio said it would have added him to the credits, along with other contributors, after the game was complete, but before that could happen the fan began making legal threats and issuing copyright strikes on YouTube against a popular Workers and Resources influencer.

 

"As he chose to use extortion and abuse, we became angry about this, and decided to never mention the name of the challenge he allegedly 'invented' again, and ignore him," 3Division wrote.

 

An understandable reaction—but instead of blowing over, the situation got worse, and the fan now claims that he actually owns the rights to Workers and Resources' realistic mode. 

"This guy reported our website, and the website was taken down," 3Division wrote. "He also reported our video about the last content update where realistic mode was introduced, and the video was taken down." The studio said the takedowns were successful because they're handled through an automated process, and it expects to get the content returned once it's able to deal with actual people.

 

[...]

 

"He literally just created a guide with some possible way to play the game and called it Cosmonaut mode, but it is not helping the development process," 3Division wrote. "[The] one thing he was helpful in, is that the popularity of his guide showed us how much people wanted to play the game in a realistic and more challenging way."

 

My thoughts

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think I've ever seen DMCA used to take down an entire game because someone wrote a guide. I hope this doesn't establish any precedent, nor give people any ideas that "Oh hey, I wrote a guide close to what they did! I own it!" Curious if the fan/lawyer will argue it's theirs based on how other groups managed to get patents on loading screen minigames/etc.

 

This also would be an exceptional highlight as to how generally broken DMCA reporting systems are, but I also don't imagine it changing due to the sheer volume of reports already. Going to be curious to watch this play out legally with Steam being an American company, the fan/lawyer being American, and the devs being in Europe.

 

Sources

https://steamcommunity.com/games/784150/announcements/detail/3647388792201529685

https://www.pcgamer.com/indie-city-builder-removed-from-steam-after-angry-fan-claims-ownership-of-a-game-mode/

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2023/02/report-city-builder-taken-off-steam-after-fan-goes-rogue/

[Bombastinator]

So the guy who published a guide for a game wants the game taken down before it goes on the market…..  is this “guy” working for a competing game publisher who wants to destroy the company? Or just an a-hole looking to frivolous lawsuit his way to riches? It’s a GUIDE.  For that GAME. Unless it isn’t. If the guide was published long ago for something else and the game is based of it, rather than the reverse, then he’s just an author.   I’ve seen some video game companies do some really crooked things.  Most of what makes the fallout franchise good, instead of just another 25 year old piece of crap was the doing of Steve Jackson Games, who got completely monkey’s chunked so hard they won’t do video games again.   Fallout1 was basically GURPS as a video game.   Bethesda screwed that guy hard.

[Holmes108]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

So the guy who published a guide for a game wants the game taken down before it goes on the market…..  is this “guy” working for a competing game publisher who wants to destroy the company? Or just an a-hole looking to frivolous lawsuit his way to riches? It’s a GUIDE.  For that GAME. Unless it isn’t. If the guide was published long ago for something else and the game is based of it, rather than the reverse, then he’s just an author.   I’ve seen some video game companies do some really crooked things.  Most of what makes the fallout franchise good, instead of just another 25 year old piece of crap was the doing of Steve Jackson Games, who got completely monkey’s chunked so hard they won’t do video games again.   Fallout1 was basically GURPS as a video game.   Bethesda screwed that guy hard.

 

I'm at work and haven't had time to read the actual story, but from what I gather, part of the guide was I guess maybe a different way to play. Like a NEW mode. Then the game officially adopts it, was gonna credit him, but they couldn't come to an agreement. 

 

So it's possible the case isn't as crazy as it seems, depending on exactly how different this mode was. But still... it seems like a stretch to me. But to be fair, I'm often one who leans towards a very lax view on copyright/trademark type stuff (as in, I don't like laws being too strict about that stuff). Of course, protections have their place.

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

 

I'm at work and haven't had time to read the actual story, but from what I gather, part of the guide was I guess maybe a different way to play. Like a NEW mode. Then the game officially adopts it, was gonna credit him, but they couldn't come to an agreement. 

 

So it's possible the case isn't as crazy as it seems, depending on exactly how different this mode was. But still... it seems like a stretch to me. But to be fair, I'm often one who leans towards a very lax view on copyright/trademark type stuff (as in, I don't like laws being too strict about that stuff). Of course, protections have their place.

The devil is always in the details if it isn’t also other places.  This being simply a continuation of an ongoing dispute makes more sense though.  The guy doesn’t want the game to not be made and all the devs have to do is remove their adoption of it.  Which they may do if it’s more profitable that way.  Sounds like just a tactic.   This kind of thing happens.  Bernouli of netnouli boxes invented this great new spin on floppy disks that increased their capacity massively.  He wanted too much for it though so no one bought it so he made the bernouli box which was slow and really expensive and based on 5.25” drives.  Never became popular. Bernouli is why next didn’t exist.  Jobs was counting on the tech being there for his machine but it wasn’t.  So he went back to apple.  The second bernouli died the Zip disk came out.  That thing could have existed 5 or 10 years earlier and basically owned the market.  This dude is basing his price on “what could it be worth to them” and the other side is doing the exact same thing.  A lot of inventions die that way.  There was a dude who invented e-cigarettes in the 1930’s (sort of).  He did the same thing though, and the world was worse for it.   He’s trying to get paid for the risk being taken by others.  He needs to couch his request on an expanding scale.  Not much now, not much if it succeeds, but a much larger not much.  People who should be working together are fighting.  Hopefully they get a good judge who gets them to do it.  That’s really his job after all.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Bombastinator

[00FF00]

30 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

 

part of the guide was I guess maybe a different way to play. Like a NEW mode. Then the game officially adopts it, was gonna credit him, but they couldn't come to an agreement.

Dev's initial response linked above breaks it down decently well. Tl;dr was in development before guy posted his guide, guide only used existing systems/mechanics, didn't implement any new systems, etc.

Dev:

Quote

As you can see there is nothing in his work in terms of game design that would relate directly to game’s code, and he does not offer any technical solutions for the development team to use. He literally just created a guide with some possible way to play the game and called it Cosmonaut mode, but it is not helping the development process. Only one thing he was helpful in, is that the popularity of his guide showed us how much people wanted to play the game in a realistic and more challenging way.

 

[Holmes108]

3 minutes ago, 00FF00 said:

Dev's initial response linked above breaks it down decently well. Tl;dr was in development before guy posted his guide, guide only used existing systems/mechanics, didn't implement any new systems, etc.

Dev:

 

 

Right. Like if I write a guide called "Call of Duty Warzone: Pistols only mode" (where I suggest choosing to only use pistols). Not exactly groundbreaking, and I wouldn't expect to be able to sue games with "pistols only". An oversimplified example of course, but what I suspected.

[00FF00]

Oh, absolutely. I'm putting $20 down that this is entirely an issue of ego - Guy wanted to be credited here and now for an idea that he thought was his and only his, and that's what caused the issue. But the use of a DMCA based on the concept of 'I own this because I wrote a guide' is the novel part here. Pretty sure steam community ToS even say 'Anything posted here in guides isn't owned by you.'

[dilpickle]

5 minutes ago, 00FF00 said:

 But the use of a DCMA based on the concept of 'I own this because I wrote a guide' is the novel part here.

Yeah I guess this might be the first time the DMCA has been used in this very specific circumstance, but it has been used in all kinds of frivolous ways since it started so this is nothing new.

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, 00FF00 said:

Oh, absolutely. I'm putting $20 down that this is entirely an issue of ego - Guy wanted to be credited here and now for an idea that he thought was his and only his, and that's what caused the issue. But the use of a DCMA based on the concept of 'I own this because I wrote a guide' is the novel part here. Pretty sure steam community ToS even say 'Anything posted here in guides isn't owned by you.'

It would have to be a paper guide, and it would have to be published, not merely written as a post. 

[00FF00]

Anyone know of any sort of ownership/copyright case law that's based on something like this, perchance? Definitely gotta be some actual IP lawyers in here.

[dilpickle]

12 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It would have to be a paper guide, and it would have to be published, not merely written as a post. 

That's not true. The law in the US simply requires a "tangible form of expression" which can include a blog, a forum post, an email, or something written on the back of a napkin. Anything you write in any medium (like this very post I'm writing right now) is automatically copyrighted. You actually have to go out of your way and specifically state if you DON'T want your works to be copyrighted.

 

It used to be the exact opposite but the law flipped in the 70s. You might have heard that Night of the Living Dead is public domain because they forgot to put a copyright notice in the credits. Well that was before the law changed. Now you don't even need a copyright notice but everyone still uses one just to be sure.

 

The question in this case is whether the game mode originated with the user or with the developer. Without knowing any details I'm going to assume the user is just being a dick and is abusing the DMCA takedown powers like so many others.

[ToboRobot]

haha Tankies

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

That's not true. The law in the US simply requires a "tangible form of expression" which can include a blog, a forum post, an email, or something written on the back of a napkin. Anything you write in any medium (like this very post I'm writing right now) is automatically copyrighted. You actually have to go out of your way and specifically state if you DON'T want your works to be copyrighted.

 

It used to be the exact opposite but the law flipped in the 70s. You might have heard that Night of the Living Dead is public domain because they forgot to put a copyright notice in the credits. Well that was before the law changed. Now you don't even need a copyright notice but everyone still uses one just to be sure.

 

The question in this case is whether the game mode originated with the user or with the developer. Without knowing any details I'm going to assume the user is just being a dick and is abusing the DMCA takedown powers like so many others.

This gets into the music and film aspects of this issue.  It doesn’t act the same way for every business segment.   You can copywrite music by sending a letter to yourself and not opening it, but you can’t do that with everything.  Putting it into the literary realm gives him access to precedent.  To think of it in music parlance he wrote a hook, but he has not proved that the hook in question caused the popularity of the song as the song hasn’t even been released yet.  If the trial goes down this road I predict someone reading aloud some particularly grotesque slashfic as rebuttal.  This thing may not be out of the realm of WTF yet.

To make it worse someone is going to have to read a bunch of slashfic to be able to pick the worst one.  I so do not want to be that person.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Bombastinator

[Brooksie359]

17 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

That's not true. The law in the US simply requires a "tangible form of expression" which can include a blog, a forum post, an email, or something written on the back of a napkin. Anything you write in any medium (like this very post I'm writing right now) is automatically copyrighted. You actually have to go out of your way and specifically state if you DON'T want your works to be copyrighted.

 

It used to be the exact opposite but the law flipped in the 70s. You might have heard that Night of the Living Dead is public domain because they forgot to put a copyright notice in the credits. Well that was before the law changed. Now you don't even need a copyright notice but everyone still uses one just to be sure.

 

The question in this case is whether the game mode originated with the user or with the developer. Without knowing any details I'm going to assume the user is just being a dick and is abusing the DMCA takedown powers like so many others.

You can't DCMA someone for use of an idea that is in a copyrighted work. Copyrighted means the work in question is copyrighted and if they used text from the piece it would he infringement but not all the ideas contained within the piece of work are copyrighted. This shouldn't fall under DCMA in the first place tbh. I mean plenty of books and stories have used ideas from previous works but didn't fall under copyright infringement because again copyright doesn't copyright the ideas in a piece of work but the piece of work itself. Granted there are a few exceptions like I couldn't use a character from a piece of work as that would fall under copyright but that is different than an idea. I mean take for example all of the anime stories about people dying and being reborn into another world. This idea had to come from one piece of work and others used the same idea but this wouldn't be copyright infringement because again you can't copyright the idea like that. 

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You can't DCMA someone for use of an idea that is in a copyrighted work. Copyrighted means the work in question is copyrighted and if they used text from the piece it would he infringement but not all the ideas contained within the piece of work are copyrighted. This shouldn't fall under DCMA in the first place tbh. I mean plenty of books and stories have used ideas from previous works but didn't fall under copyright infringement because again copyright doesn't copyright the ideas in a piece of work but the piece of work itself. 

Which is where this gets vague and people start quoting conflicting precedent.  To pick an already legislated issue there is already a body of precedent involving song hooks.  And literature for that matter.

Treaty law, for example, is famous for being an expansive shitfest where conflicting treaties are invoked.  This is why lawyers get the big bucks.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Bombastinator

[Brooksie359]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Which is where this gets vague and people start quoting conflicting precedent.  To pick an already legislated issue there is already a body of precedent involving song hooks.  And literature for that matter.

I mean if you look at copyright.gov they state word for word "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected.""

This clearly falls under ideas and therefore does not fall under copyright no matter how much this guy wants it to. 

[dilpickle]

10 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You can't DCMA someone for use of an idea that is in a copyrighted work. Copyrighted means the work in question is copyrighted and if they used text from the piece it would he infringement but not all the ideas contained within the piece of work are copyrighted. This shouldn't fall under DCMA in the first place tbh. I mean plenty of books and stories have used ideas from previous works but didn't fall under copyright infringement because again copyright doesn't copyright the ideas in a piece of work but the piece of work itself. Granted there are a few exceptions like I couldn't use a character from a piece of work as that would fall under copyright but that is different than an idea. I mean take for example all of the anime stories about people dying and being reborn into another world. This idea had to come from one piece of work and others used the same idea but this wouldn't be copyright infringement because again you can't copyright the idea like that. 

True that's why I said the DMCA takedown is frivolous. But he is claiming partial authorship of the game and that is something he can argue in court (and lose).

 

This is just one of millions of examples of how the DMCA is abused.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean if you look at copyright.gov they state word for word "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected.""

This clearly falls under ideas and therefore does not fall under copyright no matter how much this guy wants it to. 

“May” being operative here.  It’s all wonderfully snarly.  

[00FF00]

Curious if it would even be possible to quantify the financial damages sustained from this DMCA-scapade. From what's written:

• Numerous youtube videos taken down, including videos from non-Devs who played the game.
• Dev's actual website taken down briefly.
• Steam store taken down. That was their only way of game distribution.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, 00FF00 said:

 

 

My thoughts

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think I've ever seen DMCA used to take down an entire game because someone wrote a guide. I hope this doesn't establish any precedent, nor give people any ideas that "Oh hey, I wrote a guide close to what they did! I own it!" Curious if the fan/lawyer will argue it's theirs based on how other groups managed to get patents on loading screen minigames/etc.

 

 

*puts on "not a lawyer hat"*

 

Anyone who didn't see this coming, didn't learn from the past.

 

This is why you DO NOT, as the developer, owner, or publisher of an IP, read fan feedback/email/comments/guides/etc without that information passing through a "anything submitted to us is our property, and will not be returned" agreement. 

 

It sounds scummy, but THIS is why. 

 

Case in point look up the Star Trek Tardigrade thing.

https://www.dailystartreknews.com/read/dismissal-of-tardigrades-copyright-lawsuit-against-cbs-and-star-trek-discovery-has-been-upheld-in-appeal

 

Quote

 

The appeal filed by game developer Anas Abdin in a copyright infringement lawsuit against CBS has been dismissed by a judge in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, upholding an earlier decision to dismiss the case. Abdin sued both CBS and Netflix in 2018, alleging that the use of the space-faring tardigrade on the first season of Star Trek: Discovery violated copyright law by taking concepts from a game Abdin had been designing since 2014. Tardigrades, or “water bears”, are microscopic creatures capable of surviving in nearly any environment imaginable, including space, and are the focal point of Abdin’s game.

 

Sure, the focus on Tardigrades was a thing several years ago, so the possibility of coming up with similar concepts was inevitable. That said, as soon as you acknowledge where you sourced that from, the lawsuit territory really begins. Anne Rice and Terry Pratchet have directly opposed takes when it comes to derivative works. It's your work, you get to say who makes derivative works.

 

So when you have a derivative work based on a derivative work of YOUR product? Well, you as the user of the software likely agreed not to sue the developer/publisher and not to make derivative products without permission.

 

So what do I really think? Honestly this is the risk of early-access. One of the reasons for Early Access is to get player feedback and change things due to that feedback. I would believe that as far as someone writing a guide having rights, they have zero and can only defensibly ask for fair use. 

 

So the best scenario is the person who wrote this guide basically gets ripped to shreds for this, all the damage undone, and most likely banned from ever publishing anything in regard to the game ever again, and any other early access game by steam (it would not surprise me if they lose their steam access.)

 

The worst scenario is that youtube and steam don't give a care, and the developer has to actually sue the person who wrote the guide.

 

 

 

 

 

[dilpickle]

18 minutes ago, 00FF00 said:

Curious if it would even be possible to quantify the financial damages sustained from this DCMA-scapade. From what's written:

• Numerous youtube videos taken down, including videos from non-Devs who played the game.
• Dev's actual website taken down briefly.
• Steam store taken down. That was their only way of game distribution.

Oh yeah its definitely quantifiable. That's exactly what lawyers do. And the DMCA specifically states that damages can be awarded for claims made in bad faith. But it all depends on how much legal fees these developers can afford. Its certainly a big mess for them which is exactly what the guy wanted.

 

And just once again shows how shitty the DMCA law is.

[00FF00]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

This is why you DO NOT, as the developer, owner, or publisher of an IP, read fan feedback/email/comments/guides/etc without that information passing through a "anything submitted to us is our property, and will not be returned" agreement.

Is that even possible for a guide posted on the steam community page? Or would that be in the actual game's ToS?

[Kisai]

33 minutes ago, 00FF00 said:

Is that even possible for a guide posted on the steam community page? Or would that be in the actual game's ToS?

I haven't read steam's ToS in a while, but I'm pretty sure there's language in there that either Valve has the right to publish anything submitted, and the right to remove anything tagged for the game at the publisher's request.

 

But the the thing is, when you send stuff to like readers digest, newspaper opinion pages, or america's funniest home videos, back before internet was a thing, you you always told straight up that anything submitted becomes property of the publisher and will not be returned.

 

https://www.readersdigest.ca/terms/

Quote

User Submissions

By voluntarily submitting information, communications, or content (including photos, videos, personal stories, anecdotes and jokes) (each, a “Submitted Item”) to this Site and/or Communities (as defined below), you agree that such submissions are non-confidential for all purposes and you grant The Reader’s Digest Association, The Reader’s Digest Magazines Canada Limited and its affiliates (“Reader’s Digest”) an irrevocable, nonexclusive, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, fully sublicensable, right and license to use, display, publicly perform, modify, reproduce, publish, distribute, modify, adapt, make derivative works of, sublicense and otherwise commercially and non-commercially exploit your Submitted Items and all copyright, trade secret, trademark or other intellectual property rights therein, in any manner or medium now existing or hereafter developed (including but not limited to print, film or electronic storage devices), without compensation of any kind to you or any third party, subject to such other terms and conditions as Reader’s Digest may specify for particular submissions. The submission of any Submitted Item in no way creates any obligation or duty on the part of Reader’s Digest to post or use such Submitted Item or, if we do so, to give you credit. Medical information that you submit in the process of registering with this Site will be kept confidential.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

Quote

When you upload your content to Steam to make it available to other users and/or to Valve, you grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, for the purpose of the operation, distribution, incorporation as part of and promotion of the Steam service, Steam games or other Steam offerings, including Subscriptions. This license is granted to Valve as the content is uploaded on Steam for the entire duration of the intellectual property rights. It may be terminated if Valve is in breach of the license and has not cured such breach within fourteen (14) days from receiving notice from you sent to the attention of the Valve Legal Department at the applicable Valve address noted on this Privacy Policy page. The termination of said license does not affect the rights of any sub-licensees pursuant to any sub-license granted by Valve prior to termination of the license. Valve is the sole owner of the derivative works created by Valve from your User Generated Content, and is therefore entitled to grant licenses on these derivative works. If you use Valve cloud storage, you grant us a license to store your information as part of that service. Valve may place limits on the amount of storage you may use.

 

Just sayin' , it's entirely likely that the person who wrote the guide does not have the right to send the DMCA's, from both the angle that they wrote a derivative work for an existing thing, and a DMCA'ing the original work with the claim that a it infringes on an derivative work based on the itself, is just nonsense.

 

Like from a legal point of view, the derivative work author doesn't own, and has never had the right to make the derivative work in the first place, and if this is the hill they want to die on, that's going to set a horrible precedent.

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I haven't read steam's ToS in a while, but I'm pretty sure there's language in there that either Valve has the right to publish anything submitted, and the right to remove anything tagged for the game at the publisher's request.

 

But the the thing is, when you send stuff to like readers digest, newspaper opinion pages, or america's funniest home videos, back before internet was a thing, you you always told straight up that anything submitted becomes property of the publisher and will not be returned.

 

https://www.readersdigest.ca/terms/

 

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

 

Just sayin' , it's entirely likely that the person who wrote the guide does not have the right to send the DMCA's, from both the angle that they wrote a derivative work for an existing thing, and a DMCA'ing the original work with the claim that a it infringes on an derivative work based on the itself, is just nonsense.

 

Like from a legal point of view, the derivative work author doesn't own, and has never had the right to make the derivative work in the first place, and if this is the hill they want to die on, that's going to set a horrible precedent.

Also this isn't even a copyright thing in the first place. Unless the guy created a character and story of some sort that was used in the game you can't really claim that the game is a derivative of the guide as ideas don't fall under copyright. Again it would be like if someone tried to copyright a story that contained a time travel machine and then tried to DMCA all works that had time machines in them. That isn't something that would fall under copyright. Same goes for something like this as its an idea that was "copied" not the guide itself. 

[00FF00]

That awkward moment when I mistakenly abbreviated it as 'DCMA.' Whoops.

 

I wonder if the guy may argue 'direct attribution' since they threw their literal name all over everything. Doubt that'll work, but there aren't many straws to grasp at here.