Utter b0ll0x

sceptre

Maximilian wrote:

That's like saying that making a minuture paper mache cock, attaching it to Barbies "front bottom" and displaying it for the world to see is copyright infirngement etc.

Well obviously not as it's parody (the "Hooker Barbie" case came before the 9th Circuit in 1998 IIRC). Obviously different if you put Hooker Barbie in a Barbie box and sell it as a Barbie.

KdjaCL

ambro25 wrote:

However, Tecmo own the copyright in the game which uses the nakie skins (e.g. the instructions which process the skins to map those on 3D model and render same out to video) and therefore -presumably- the portion of NH code in the patch lifted from the original Tecmo IP to make the xbox use their skins.

This is done via 3d modelling program 3ds, Maya Milkshape etc: , you either create a plugin which exports into the games file format (clever people do this) or the game makers release the plugin themselves, Tecmo obviously didnt release it so if its a user made plugin most usually are then again once the mod is 100% user created tecmo can do nowt.

If the plugin is tecmos and was "acquired" somehow NH are ****ed.

kdjac

Maximilian

sceptre wrote:

Well obviously not as it's parody (the "Hooker Barbie" case came before the 9th Circuit in 1998 IIRC). Obviously different if you put Hooker Barbie in a Barbie box and sell it as a Barbie.

Obviously Actually, you hit on a good point there. Parody is a clear example of fair use and a transformative use (allowed use of copyright material). I think you could easily argue the nude skins is parody -
the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule.


Ambro - US & our copyright law is fundementally the same. As are our defamation laws for that matter. One thing I'd add though - Tecmo are Japanese I think and Copyright Law is far more strict over there. I think A Japanese Court once ruled that developers own the copyright to screenshots, which I think is a bit mad.

I think they'll find things a litttle different in the US. In the US, the position is largely governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This doesn't stop people from hacking software they legally own, it stops people from distributing tools for hacking the software itself (in order to safeguard the fair use of software). In other words, you have to be a Hacker to benefit from it. In my opinion, Tecmo's case would likely fail in a US Court if its grounded on this issue alone. They'd win in a Japanese one though.

My insults weren't peurile - I thought they were quite inventive

Until that Court judgement then

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

Ambro - US & our copyright law is fundementally the same.

True (to an extent), but not so of the interpretation.

And particularly "not-quite-so-true" since the DMCA (would have agreed to sameness witout any reserve before) and the continuing efforts by copyrights-holders to 'stretch' and 'road-test' this new piece of legislation.

Bearing in mind the established case law on the back of the Amstrad case in UK (and Europe generally) vs. the initially-successful but weakening attempts at fair use defense in high-profile P2P US cases, I'd say Tecmo are no different, in terms of the scope of this action, from the MPAA suing the a** off eDonkey or the like - their advice was possibly to have go, to see if the interpretation of the new DMCA may 'overturn' established fair-use case law.

Looking fwd to the decision all the same, have a piece of bona fide work that'll need some serious update irrespective of the outcome.

'Til that decision indeed, Maximilian