This is what Tony Hawk's Underground looks like in 2023.1:11 Importing the Map4:13 Remastering the Map7:00 Characters10:38 Will It Skate?11:48 Adding A Goal1...
How difficult is it to call it something like Toby Bird’s Overground? Feels particularly silly on somewhere like Youtube, where if the video blows up it’s likely any future hopes for your project will too (and this could happen at any arbitrary point in the future, though probably with a change of staff or just before a new competing title is about to be released).
That and I feel that at least a little plausible deniability (while matching the feel) would add to the “Hey, has anyone ever told you that you look like Tony Hawk?” joke.
(see also the video PSA: A Message to Unofficial Fan Game Creators)
I’m not even talking about monetization, just that they’re making and announcing something that is obviously DMCA-bait. Even the video could be taken down without consequence (even if it didn’t have monetization enabled, also the corp could force enable and get the money). This is a common thing that happens and it seems completely pointless and easy to avoid (again, even just plausible deniability/under-the-radar level).
If somebody was going to make a video cooking something “just for fun”/learning, I’d also say they should still try to be mindful of food safety rather than saying “if I get food poisoning, I can deal with that. Don’t do-as-I-do”.
I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see anything here that violates fair use. I see:
short clips from the game - they are a very small portion of the video, so it’s fair use
deobfuscation of game files - this has been decided in the courts as fair use; the law draws the line at breaking encryption
modification of copyrighted files - the law has consistently defended modification for personal use and draws the line at redistribution
no redistribution
The channel has 80 subs and two videos, so I’m guessing the creator doesn’t even have access to monetization, so there’s no financial concern here. So I see absolutely no cause for concern in this video. If they were using decrypted files, then I could see an issue with the DMCA encryption provisions.
That’s why I said without consequence. By that I specifically meant that a takedown could be used no matter the context. Non-infringing videos are often taken down and often people don’t even fight it because doing so can result in strikes.
Most people probably aren’t going to fight anything in court let alone compete with an expensive team of lawyers, so they aren’t ever going to get even the slightest pushback if they overstep things. That’s why I say it’s better to distance yourself from trademarks as much as possible.
Sure, but this would have to get popular enough that the devs care enough to issue a strike. I highly doubt Activision/Microsoft is going to bother, and if they did, I don’t think the name of the video is going to matter much, if it gets popular enough, they’ll hear about it either way.
I mean often times they just have a script that looks for the trademarked terms (or in some cases, visual matches, or music for video), so it does matter using such things. At least when something it released, if it’s largely original work using trademarked names/logos is an easy way to shoot yourself in the foot (and can result in very early detection).
I also doubt takedowns are usually a higher-up hearing about said projects and “ordering the strike” (probably just that it popped up on an automated/intern-ran script), that’s why I think even the easiest changes would be good to do. Because they probably aren’t ever going to see Jimmy Eagle even if it were uploaded and popular.
The video part isn’t really important to my point, just the general idea that involving trademarked stuff is basically a multiplier for risk. Some simple changes and fans will still see what it is and like it, scripts won’t. And people fail to see this too often, so I don’t think people should encourage it because “it’s probably fine”.
YOU FOOL!
How difficult is it to call it something like Toby Bird’s Overground? Feels particularly silly on somewhere like Youtube, where if the video blows up it’s likely any future hopes for your project will too (and this could happen at any arbitrary point in the future, though probably with a change of staff or just before a new competing title is about to be released).
That and I feel that at least a little plausible deniability (while matching the feel) would add to the “Hey, has anyone ever told you that you look like Tony Hawk?” joke.
(see also the video
PSA: A Message to Unofficial Fan Game Creators)Eh, it’s a POC, I highly doubt they’ll finish it and try to monetize it. They just want to show what’s possible with a small amount of work.
I’m not even talking about monetization, just that they’re making and announcing something that is obviously DMCA-bait. Even the video could be taken down without consequence (even if it didn’t have monetization enabled, also the corp could force enable and get the money). This is a common thing that happens and it seems completely pointless and easy to avoid (again, even just plausible deniability/under-the-radar level).
If somebody was going to make a video cooking something “just for fun”/learning, I’d also say they should still try to be mindful of food safety rather than saying “if I get food poisoning, I can deal with that. Don’t do-as-I-do”.
Or in other words, just have some discretion.
Shhhh, go lay down and have a rest.
I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see anything here that violates fair use. I see:
The channel has 80 subs and two videos, so I’m guessing the creator doesn’t even have access to monetization, so there’s no financial concern here. So I see absolutely no cause for concern in this video. If they were using decrypted files, then I could see an issue with the DMCA encryption provisions.
That’s why I said without consequence. By that I specifically meant that a takedown could be used no matter the context. Non-infringing videos are often taken down and often people don’t even fight it because doing so can result in strikes.
Most people probably aren’t going to fight anything in court let alone compete with an expensive team of lawyers, so they aren’t ever going to get even the slightest pushback if they overstep things. That’s why I say it’s better to distance yourself from trademarks as much as possible.
Sure, but this would have to get popular enough that the devs care enough to issue a strike. I highly doubt Activision/Microsoft is going to bother, and if they did, I don’t think the name of the video is going to matter much, if it gets popular enough, they’ll hear about it either way.
I mean often times they just have a script that looks for the trademarked terms (or in some cases, visual matches, or music for video), so it does matter using such things. At least when something it released, if it’s largely original work using trademarked names/logos is an easy way to shoot yourself in the foot (and can result in very early detection).
I also doubt takedowns are usually a higher-up hearing about said projects and “ordering the strike” (probably just that it popped up on an automated/intern-ran script), that’s why I think even the easiest changes would be good to do. Because they probably aren’t ever going to see Jimmy Eagle even if it were uploaded and popular.
The video part isn’t really important to my point, just the general idea that involving trademarked stuff is basically a multiplier for risk. Some simple changes and fans will still see what it is and like it, scripts won’t. And people fail to see this too often, so I don’t think people should encourage it because “it’s probably fine”.
I’m reading “Person of Color” from POC and I’m fairly sure that’s not what you mean.
Proof Of Concept.
Basically, it’s not intended to ever be distributed to anyone else, it just shows what’s possible.