Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 16 2018, @11:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-see^w-hear-what-you-[almost]-did-there dept.

Voice-acting rights halt effort to put Fallout 3 inside Fallout 4

An ambitious modding project that sought to recreate Fallout 3 inside Fallout 4 is shutting down over unforeseen legal issues surrounding the original game's voice acting.

"The Capital Wasteland: A Road To Liberty" project was a five-person effort to implement the base content of Fallout 3 as a mod for Fallout 4, complete with the latter game's graphical and engine improvements. In a message to supporters, though, project lead NafNaf_95 writes that the mod has been shut down after a conversation with Bethesda, in which it "became clear our planned approach would raise some serious red flags that we had unfortunately not foreseen."

That planned approach involved an audio extraction tool that would have taken the voice acting from legitimate Fallout 3 files and converted them to a form that could be used in a Fallout 4 mod. Bethesda and an outside lawyer advised the Capital Wasteland team that extracting this licensed content, which wasn't fully owned by Bethesda, would be legally questionable under copyright law and could make the modders legally liable for damages.

Apparently, having installed copies of the two games and running a utility is not good enough for Bethesda's lawyers.

Fallout 3 and Fallout 4.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 16 2018, @03:56PM (7 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Friday March 16 2018, @03:56PM (#653641)

    But how exactly does that matter?
    No signatories to the contract are involved, so the contract is irrelevant. My signature on a contract cannot impose any requirements on you, only your signature can do that.
    Modder F is not distributing copyrighted works, so copyright law is inapplicable directly.

    I only see three routes this could be argued, in descending order of legal validity
    - Project A might have "protected" the audio resources in a manner that allows the DMCA to be invoked
    - Modder F's software is explicitly designed to create a derivative work for people who already own the original (I don't think there's any actual law against this though - generally speaking you can do whatever you want with works you own)
    - We have the lawyers and the money, so either role over or prepare to have us destroy you with an abuse of the legal system.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 16 2018, @07:19PM (6 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday March 16 2018, @07:19PM (#653756) Journal

    Actors C, D, and E were signatories to a contract which specified how their voices could be used in what project. (Is my theory.) Modder F has no right to utilize their voices in a "new" project by trying to use the Fallout 4 engine to run Fallout 3 - and having to make modifications to do so. Actors C, D, and E might have standing that their voices are being used outside of what they were contracted to be used for.

    That's completely independent of what the EULA of the Fallout series says. Is it a "you own" or "we have licensed you to..." EULA - that Bethesda could theoretically revoke / prohibit mods if the want like EA?

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 16 2018, @07:35PM (5 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday March 16 2018, @07:35PM (#653763)

      Doesn't matter - I can sign a contract that says I get all your stuff, but I don't actually get your stuff unless you sign too.

      Meanwhile, once that recording is given to a third party, copyright is the ONLY thing that limits what they can do with it, unless they themselves already signed a contract that further limits their rights. Which I suppose might actually be possible, if there's something in the EULA specifically restricting your ability to extract the audio for personal use in other contexts. What with EULAs not yet being thrown out as unenforceable post-hoc agreements.

      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 19 2018, @12:49PM (4 children)

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday March 19 2018, @12:49PM (#654851) Journal

        No, but I can sign a contract with you that says you get my stuff for a specific purpose and use. You use it that way, then give it away. Someone else starts using it differently. I can say that you had an obligation to protect the usage of my stuff per our contract, you failed to do so. You therefore owe me. I'm the actor. You're Bethesda. It's in your interest to go after that third party pre-emptively, and hopefully via EULA's or whatever you properly entailed the usage to match your contract with me. Typically that would be a "no derivatives or modifications are permitted" clause in the software that let's you approach a modder and say, "nope, you can't use it that way and if you do we'll sue." Most software you purchase is offered under the terms of a "license to use" and not "license to own."

        I don't especially like that. But thinking that contracts and EULAs can't modify property rights is incorrect.

        --
        This sig for rent.
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 19 2018, @01:50PM (3 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Monday March 19 2018, @01:50PM (#654886)

          Like I said, IF there is something in the EULA that specifically bans audio extraction for other personal use, then yeah Bethesda would at least have a leg to stand on to go after the end-users. Even then though they could probably only go after the modders themselves for "aiding and abetting", and I don't think there's any legal basis for charging someone with aiding and abetting a contract violation.

          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 19 2018, @03:07PM (2 children)

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday March 19 2018, @03:07PM (#654937) Journal

            It wouldn't take specifically banning, "audio extraction for personal use." It would take a dirt-simple general restriction on use [termsfeed.com] clause in the EULA to say that you cannot modify their software. For dessert, look down under the "third party infringement" clause. That particular clause goes past copyright into general allegation of property rights violation.

            And putting the modders on notice that they are acting in contravention of the EULA should be enough to establish they were warned and therefore are willfully disregarding which makes a general negligence tort easier to establish - they have been made aware of their responsibilities regarding the license.

            Separately, there are cases where if you are a third party and interfere with my contractual relationships to my detriment you may be held liable for your interference. Especially tortious business interference. I don't think any of them apply here.

            --
            This sig for rent.
            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday March 20 2018, @02:36AM (1 child)

              by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday March 20 2018, @02:36AM (#655236)

              I wonder - would data be covered by restrictions that apply to "the application" - such terms certainly seem to be targeting the software, not the data assets it uses. But certainly enough ambiguity there to make for a case.

              • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday March 20 2018, @09:18PM

                by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday March 20 2018, @09:18PM (#655621) Journal

                I'm not really sure. That's where I think you do have a leg to stand on. And I really do think (as you might) that it would take a case, legislation, or best option case-law validated legislation, to settle what is actually law.

                --
                This sig for rent.