Please reconsider how to handle the JaWoodle thing.

[Dead Smarty]

Post in thread 'Please reconsider how to handle the JaWoodle thing.'

Today at 9:22 AM

Is this realy AI? It seems so smart and correct. Scary...

100% ai,

Is this realy AI? It seems so smart and correct. Scary...

100% Ai, i gave it a basic question nothing more and it researched the situation came back with what it told me, nothing more.

• Grandpa Minion

• 

Should I be honoured you took my sarcasm serious?
Sometimes I start to think Sheldon was based on certain gamers...

Sarcasm aside, thank you for just responding in a decent way. i'll try to do the same.
(Disclaimer: No promise)

 

[seven]

Well, that's an interesting question. Their IP is the software. Is gameplay their IP? Legally, and I'm guessing for the sake of steel-manning TFP's side, they could claim they have copyright over the unreleased artistic assets. It sounds like TFP have a few problems to solve:

You don't need to guess. TFP doesn't need to "claim they have copyright" over the art, they do. Images, art, etc. are also IP and covered by copyright laws. Using that IP without proper authorization is copyright infringement. So, the only question is, was there any authorization for anyone outside of TFP/BI to use it.

 

[Kalen]

So, the only question is, was there any authorization for anyone outside of TFP/BI to use it.

Not the only question.... another question would be could jawoodle's use of that content be considered fair use? The fact that he spoke with a lawyer and continues to fight this, tells me that they, at least, believe there is enough doubt to warrant the fight.

 

[theFlu]

Using that IP without proper authorization is copyright infringement. So, the only question is, was there any authorization for anyone outside of TFP/BI to use it.

This is simplified to the point of wrong. Yes TFP owns the C on the assets, displaying them on video with commentary/review is already a different product.

 

[wyr3d]

I posted a comment on Jawoodle's YouTube video regarding this matter, and figure I should reiterate it here:

To be honest, sounds like they both ■■■■ed up. From what I understand of this situation:

The Fun Pimps sent Jawoodle the wrong build. That was their mistake and that's on them. Jawoodle published videos about the build they received. They were unaware that they received the wrong build, so no intended harm on Jawoodle's part, so that's on The Fun Pimps too. When they found out, they asked Jawoodle to take those videos down, stating Jawoodle had accidentally received the wrong build, and those videos unveiled information that was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.

In the letter Jawoodle showed on YouTube, The Fun Pimps acknowledged it was their mistake, and asked Jawoodle to edit out the material in question from the longer video, and remove shorts that focus on the offending material. The Fun Pimp's representative comes off as reasonable, and compromising. The claim that Jawoodle should have recognized that the material was not intended to be shown is a stretch - this statement assumes they had the same understanding of the build that the developers have, which is simply not the case.

But, Jawoodle was made aware of the error, and had they complied, it probably would have ended there without further issue. This is where Jawoodle has a problem, because they refused to do so. So that's on them. Jawoodle made that choice, and now things have escalated. Not gonna lie, I think Jawoodle is boned, and here's why:

- 7 Days to Die is The Fun Pimp's intellectual property. They have exclusive legal rights to it, and that dictates what content creators can do with their footage. Jawoodle should have pulled the videos.

- Digital copyright law dictates that a creator has no legal right to host copyrighted material without the owner's permission. When they asked Jawoodle to take down and edit those videos, The Fun Pimps were denying them permission to publish that material.

- Fun fact: all streams, videos, shorts and the like of game content is technically copyright infringement. Developers allow people to make videos because it's free marketing, gets the word out about their stuff. But they still retain the legal right to revoke that permission at any time, for any video - regardless of the content.