Blizzard now claims full copyright for player-made "custom game" mods:
As influential as Warcraft III was in the real-time strategy genre, the game's most enduring legacy might be as the basis for genre-defining, fan-made custom game spin-offs like Defense of the Ancients (aka Dota) and Auto Chess in its wake. Now, Blizzard is taking steps to ensure it retains complete ownership of any such custom games that originate from its titles in the future, including those that come out of Warcraft III's recently released Reforged update.
As noted by PC Gamer, a recent update to Blizzard's Acceptable Use Policy expands the legal rights that custom-game makers automatically assign to Blizzard (new language highlighted in bold; old language available on The Internet Archive).
Custom Games are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Blizzard. Without limiting the foregoing, you hereby assign to Blizzard all of your rights, title, and interest in and to all Custom Games, including but not limited to any copyrights in the content of any Custom Games.
Blizzard's claim on custom-game copyrights is important because while it's hard to effectively copyright the basic concept of a game, you can copyright the original characters, art, and writing associated with the game itself. Blizzard learned this the hard way a decade ago, when Valve bought the Dota copyright from some of the modders who created it.
After Valve's rights were confirmed in a 2012 out-of-court settlement, Valve was able to turn around and create Dota 2. Blizzard, meanwhile, had to settle for creating the Dota-style Heroes of the Storm with its own characters.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cheshire on Monday February 03 2020, @02:26PM (8 children)
I can see an argument for the license change for custom games only as it extends to assets directly owned by Activision Blizzard. I don't believe it is reasonable for them to demand via EULA ownership of everything else, and such a thing should not be legal in my opinion. I would describe it as like selling a tool and then demanding ownership of everything you make with that tool. If someone sells you a word processor or paint program, it isn't reasonable for them to demand ownership of everything you make with it. The same thing should apply to other creative tools and perhaps should even apply to things like unique save game files, if it represents a unique creation you should be able to consider it yours and not something you created for a company that you paid money for the privilege to create it for.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday February 03 2020, @03:30PM (3 children)
Or in the physical world, it would be the equivalent to putting into your general business terms that you get assigned the copyright of any painting painted using the brushes you sell.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @03:55PM (2 children)
Reminds me of some poxy free cloudy web based 'art' software that was doing the rounds a while back (can't remember exactly when, but in the range 10-17 years ago..), the twonks behind it 'asserted' copyright and ownership of all works created using their software, ISTR this lead to a certain amount of artistic trolling...I do so hope that they were happy with their 'ownership' of all those badly drawn penes...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Monday February 03 2020, @10:26PM (1 child)
That's an interesting point. If someone creates something that is somehow illegal or offensive content, wouldn't that content (and so any legal or social penalties) belong to Blizzard?
My guess is that Blizzard would disavow ownership of a simulation of Trump buggering a kindergarten classroom so fast it would open a hole in time itself, but according to the EULA, it would be theirs.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @12:50AM
Your mission, sjames, should you choose to accept it...
... in the event of your capture, SN will of course, disavow all knowledge of your team.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @03:40PM (2 children)
They want to treat modders as employees with regard to copyright, while receiving money from THEM instead of paying?
Next we'll see an EULA for Windows claiming copyright on all user's files, and EULAs for tractors' firmware claiming ownership of harvest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:40AM (1 child)
I was talking to a mall shop owner who said something similar about his store. The shopping centre administration reserves the right, enforced by contract, to see the books for the store so they can charge the store a percentage of their income and enforce whatever terms they want. There are few limits.
For some places it can get to "you make it, we own it, you do as we say or leave".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:05AM
This is why the best accountants keep two sets of books. One for the store, and one for the mall, in this case.
The very best accountants keep three sets of books. One for the store, one for the mall, one for themselves. Some of them end up with concrete overshoes, though.
(Score: 4, Informative) by loonycyborg on Monday February 03 2020, @05:07PM
An EULA is an example of contract of adhesion. There are legal limits on what exact effects terms in such contracts are allowed to have. So it's possible to argue that transfer of copyright solely based on this EULA is unenforceable.