European Rights Reform and its Effect on Project Plans

[BreakerZero]

Obviously politics is beyond the norm around here, however this is a special case because of the effects that it may have in the future. What happened is that the controversial portions of the European Rights Reform have been passed without the slightest modification (in case you didn't yet hear about it) so I figured it would be worth asking if anyone here would be affected by the changes in relation to what can reasonably be done in terms of unreleased content. In my case I am probably going to have to redo an entire dungeon just to make sure that I don't go too far with things (right now it consists of a Zelda tribute on the outside by fault of name, however I am unfortunately planning to rewrite both the initial scenario and the dungeon within that becomes available later on as a result of this). I may also be changing item names and structure flow as well (some of which is also inspired by Zelda) so I may now be set excruciatingly backward compared to what I otherwise would have anticipated.

 

[MushroomCake28]

Although politics is not allowed here, I made a thread on that subject and we concluded that political reforms that directly affect us as game makers are allowed to be discussed.

I didn't follow much the European Rights Reform and I suspect many other people here haven't. May you provide a link of the major changes? Or at least summarize it here a bit for us? If it's about the intellectual property and new liability laws (article 13 I think), than I've heard about it, but not much more.

 

[Henryetha]

I think it is mainly about bigger platforms (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, ...) having to make sure, users won't upload copyrighted content.

Being careful with copyright material anyway, I am not too worried tbh.

Also I think, it's rather possible, certain platforms could hinder you from uploading / publishing your contents than single persons to be sued for making references. And if our material gets blocked by facebook & Co - unjustified - we'd need to try to directly contact them (which I guess will be possible, tho through FB the progress going to be miserable probably). Anyway, this is something, we might just have to wait and see how those platforms will take necessary steps into action.

Also I don't think simple references can be sued (Copies, however, yes. But not only since today).
Same goes for satire and databases such as Wikipedia etc.

This is according to what I've been reading today in the morning - but I'm no lawyer.
So just take it as my personal point of view.

 

[BreakerZero]

That's what I'd be hoping for. However, I have delayed my project to account for an unplanned content and structure review to ensure that both quality and content are updated, verified and acceptable in a way that minimizes any potential conflicts. Not necessarily as a requirement per se, but more as a precaution in case this goes nuclear on us. And that means several metric tons of unexpected rewrites are coming due.

 

[MushroomCake28]

Actually I'm a law student so I'll try to summarize the controversy.

In the case where we publish content on Facebook, Youtube, etc., there are 2 parties: the content creator and the publisher or platform (there's a huge legal difference between publisher who are responsible for the content they publish, and platforms who aren't responsible directly for the content on their platform). Right now, when you publish a video on youtube, you (the content creator) are liable for everything you put on that platform. The platform is only liable for the framework they put in place for content creators, not the content they publish. What the legislation proposes is that Youtube, Facebook, and other big platforms, are treated like publishers, meaning that they would be liable for copyright infringements instead of the content creator, which is a very dangerous step since the reason that publishers are liable for the content is because they usually double check everything before publishing anything (example: big journals, editors, etc.). Obviously, Youtube can't check everything before allowing a video to go online. You see the problem here?

 

[Lornsteyn]

Im still not sure if their silly plan really works.
Most of them seem to be complete fools, if you look at some of their statements about internet.
Also I doubt the last word is spoken in that matter, future will tell.

 

[gstv87]

right now it consists of a Zelda tribute

Zelda is a Japanese product, so you might be clear.
then again, I'm not European, nor do I really care about copyright anyways,... since, with the right claim, you can counter-claim that anything copied something predating it.

the whole copyright drama is nothing but a cash grab by holders of those copyrights to squeeze even more money out of the system.
I can already see the whole thing collapsing under it's own weight. Look at it from whatever angle, it makes no sense.

 

[MushroomCake28]

@gstv87 Even if we aren't European, it will affect us greatly. For example, if you publish a game or a video on youtube, it might get blocked in Europe, which constitutes a huge market loss.

 

[Henryetha]

To stay clear - copyright itself is important.
EU laws useless or not - respecting copyright is respecting other people's work.

 

[MushroomCake28]

The problem isn't the copyright itself, it's shifting the liability from the content creator to the platform. Put yourself in Youtube's place: since they are liable for all content and can't possibly verify all content, they have 2 choices:
1) Close their services in EU.
2) Only allow big companies that own the rights to everything in their video to publish in the EU server.

That's the problem: the POTENTIAL of copyright infringement, not the copyright infringement.

EDIT: I realize their might be another solution. Youtube could force content creators to link their bank account or put some down payment as an insurance if Youtube gets sued for because of their content. They could do like insurance companies, meaning calculate the risk and the cost of lawsuits per year, and make the content creators pay premiums to negate the cost of those risks.

 

[Lornsteyn]

Dont worry, we find your projects xD.
There is an gema blocker, ad blocker, there will probably a artikel13 blocker.^^
I hope it will not come to this complication, if they lose money they overthink this maybe.

To stay clear - copyright itself is important.
EU laws useless or not - respecting copyright is respecting other people's work.

The current copyright law are outdated and need a rework.
And gstv87 is right, they dont do this for artists, its all about money and other political reason.

 

[Mrs_Allykat]

Unfortunately, I believe this was coming for some time. And, it truly will create issues for us, as indie developers, as artists, as content creators. The best example of the path we're going down, and it is a dark path, is Lunar Silver Star Story.

During the 90's, when we got the first western release, Working Designs made the decision to not only translate, but to localize the jokes. When an in-game joke referenced Japanese pop-culture, they opted to replace the joke with a western pop-culture joke of the same kind. They did this for quality, and for a broader appeal. The game was, regardless of the purists, better for it. In this case, I'm specifically referring to "a hive of scum and villainy," line used during the first part of the game(though it's not alone). In the early 2000's things had changed enough so that the remakes couldn't use that line, due to possible lawsuits. With the passage of this EU bill, it would be ILLEGAL.

I fear we are already getting into the territory of having 'fair use' under attack, and we might all should be wary of what we reference.

 

[Kupotepo]

@BreakerZero, Is that true European Union create a regulation of liability of copyright? How many countries in Europe the law enacted? I believed dozen of countries are not part of EU; therefore, unaffected by the regulation.
https://www.alistdaily.com/lifestyle/social-media-news-032519/

The details: Here are some notable parts of Article 13:

• Internet platforms are liable for content that users upload
• Some uploaded material, such as memes or GIFs, now specifically excluded from directive
• Hyperlinks to news articles, accompanied by “individual words or very short extracts”, can be shared freely
• Journalists must get a share of any copyright-related revenue obtained by their news publisher
• Start-up platforms subject to lighter obligations

I think this EU mandate is for the financial gain of EU lawmakers and regulated radicalize videos which is hard for social media to do without the help of the government body.

 

[MushroomCake28]

@Kupotepo Only the countries who are in the European Union will be directly affected. And yes there are liability for copyright infringement, like any other developed countries. The problem is on who the liability falls (the platform or the creator).

 

[Animebryan]

This is why copyright has gotten completely out of hand. Copyright's only true purpose should be to protect against & punish Plagiarism. But taking copyrighted material & making a fan project out of it should be protected under Fair Use (with a few exceptions). I fear that copyright will only continue to get worse until fair use becomes nothing more than a myth/memory and IPs & their copyrights are handled with tyranny & dictatorship.

 

[BreakerZero]

Which is why I posted about this in the first place @Animebryan . There really are a million plus ways to **** this up so unlike other political situations that don't warrant the discussion here (because reasons and such) I figured this would raise a ton of concerns so I had to mention this as a possible concern.

In my case the problems I have are as follows:

1. One of my dungeons has puzzle elements inspired by Zelda, as is the outside of said dungeon.
   • In fact, I literally programmed it as a tit-for-tat homage to the very first Zelda game (and even wrote it into the plot!)
2. Progression also takes heavy influence from Zelda.
   • This also includes the blockade key/boss key model of story progression during certain mission sequences.
3. I still lack an alternative to "Phoenix Down" in terms of translating my knockout assist consumable.
   • Thankfully the revival skills that come later on are a far easier deal to localize.
4. And I'm probably gonna rethink one of my field spawns.
   • This is more of a tip in the direction of Dragon Quest in that it's an enemy that plays bluff and is hard to knock out...
   • ...but which provides a decent XP and supply bonus if you can pull it off.

 

[VisitorsFromDreams]

Which is why I posted about this in the first place @Animebryan . There really are a million plus ways to **** this up so unlike other political situations that don't warrant the discussion here (because reasons and such) I figured this would raise a ton of concerns so I had to mention this as a possible concern.

In my case the problems I have are as follows:

1. One of my dungeons has puzzle elements inspired by Zelda, as is the outside of said dungeon.
   • In fact, I literally programmed it as a tit-for-tat homage to the very first Zelda game (and even wrote it into the plot!)
2. Progression also takes heavy influence from Zelda.
   • This also includes the blockade key/boss key model of story progression during certain mission sequences.
3. I still lack an alternative to "Phoenix Down" in terms of translating my knockout assist consumable.
   • Thankfully the revival skills that come later on are a far easier deal to localize.
4. And I'm probably gonna rethink one of my field spawns.
   • This is more of a tip in the direction of Dragon Quest in that it's an enemy that plays bluff and is hard to knock out...
   • ...but which provides a decent XP and supply bonus if you can pull it off.

Something that is worth noting in terms of gaming and copyright is that while you can copyright characters, names and other elements of an IP you CANT copyright the mechanics used in a game. The creators of PubG tried to sue everyone who used the battle royal format and the courts were basically like you cant copyright that idea, especially while everyone is putting there own spin on it.

 

[gstv87]

if you publish a game or a video on youtube, it might get blocked in Europe, which constitutes a huge market loss.

but according to youtube policy, youtube itself doesn't police (?) any copyright checks, they just enforce copyright claims by alleged holders of those rights.
as the law is (and as youtube policy is) anyone can claim whatever content, and youtube is forced to take it down because that dispute exists.
only when that dispute is settled, does youtube release the blockage.... but that dispute is only cleared when the claimant releases their claim, WHICH, only happens when the alleged violator can prove the claim false.
....you'd see how that's basically "guilty until proven innocent", which is nonsense.

 

[MushroomCake28]

@gstv87 Yes you are describing the behavior of a PLATFORM, exactly what youtube is. The new legislation wants to consider it like a PUBLISHER instead of a platform. The legal difference, like I said, is that a publisher is liable for its content, unlike a platform. Meaning if there was a lawsuit and the judge condemns the defendant to pay x$ of money, youtube would be liable here instead of the content creator, or both in solidarity (this is how it works for publishers). Think of journals or editors: you can sue the journal or the editor for anything the writer publishes. That's why youtube must remain a platform legally (practically it is a platform, far from being a publisher). I'm sure Youtube has a team of exceptional lawyers that make something work with the EU though.

 

[gstv87]

The new legislation wants to consider it like a PUBLISHER instead of a platform

precisely why it's backwards!

yes, youtube is dabbling in producing and publishing now, but there is still a lot of content NOT produced by youtube *published* on youtube, which shouldn't be included in the same scope.
until that part of the ruling is not clarified, the whole ruling should be either put on hold, or rejected.
one can argue they're pushing that consideration and taking those measures to cover the odd case where some party could sue youtube for copyright violations under the scope of youtube being considered as a publisher, which youtube shouldn't be, and where the consideration and scenario shouldn't be put up for consideration.
they want to prevent people suing them when they go into full publisher mode, and they won't consider an alternative of simply *not* going into publisher mode, because, >publishing is where the money's at<

I'm a programmer. I know how to spot logical contradictions!

I'm sure Youtube has a team of exceptional lawyers

....nnnnngh.... well....