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...
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”.
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”.