Gridiron Champions (IMV Gaming college football Kickstarter)

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by itsmb8

If everyone who wants a college football game back pitched in $10, theyd have started production by now..

How much have they budgeted for the lawsuits that will follow if they ever get it launched? They will be sued for facilitating, and promoting from what I can see, copyright infringement by someone and it will be costly. If multiple schools, players, teams, etc get on board they will be sunk before they ever get going. Even if they think they have a legal leg to stand on they will have to prove it in court against very highly paid lawyers.

I'd love to see an investment prospectus from them to see if they call this out as a potential threat to the business, and if they have in fact planned for it.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by T4VERTS

How much have they budgeted for the lawsuits that will follow if they ever get it launched? They will be sued for facilitating, and promoting from what I can see, copyright infringement by someone and it will be costly. If multiple schools, players, teams, etc get on board they will be sunk before they ever get going. Even if they think they have a legal leg to stand on they will have to prove it in court against very highly paid lawyers. I'd love to see an investment prospectus from them to see if they call this out as a potential threat to the business, and if they have in fact planned for it.

This even applies if they use a community download. The NCAA can and in this case most likely will send IMV multiple cease and desist orders if they (NCAA) find out that their logos, slogans, etc. are being used with express written consent from the NCAA.

And before anyone brings up 2K this is an issue for them as well, the NCAA, Big Baller Brand, Jay-Z, fill in brand/person here have the right to take action against 2K for the illegal use of their trademarks. But they don’t think it’s worth all the legal hassle.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

This even applies if they use a community download. The NCAA can and in this case most likely will send IMV multiple cease and desist orders if they (NCAA) find out that their logos, slogans, etc. are being used with express written consent from the NCAA. And before anyone brings up 2K this is an issue for them as well, the NCAA, Big Baller Brand, Jay-Z, fill in brand/person here have the right to take action against 2K for the illegal use of their trademarks. But they don’t think it’s worth all the legal hassle. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

There is a gray area. One, the NCAA only owns the "NCAA" mark. They dont own any of the school, conference or Bowl marks so they wont be the ones sending cease and desist letters. Each conference would have to.

Two, simply having a feature in your game that can be used for copyright infringement doesnt make the developer liable for CI (Sony v. Universal Studios). Same applies for Trademark Infringement. So having a teambuilder or logo sharing function doesnt mean the developer of this game would be liable for any claims related to logos or slogans.

Now, the developer would be obligated to immediately pull down any infringing item once they were notified by the owner of said copyright or trademark and they will need to hire a staff to make sure they can respond to the C&Ds in a reasonable amount of time.

The reason why companies dont go after 2k or others is because its fruitless. If the owner of Impact Wrestling sent 2k a cease and desist because you can find Impact logos on WWE2k's downloads section, 2k would just remove them. The next day, those same people can reupload those items. 2k isnt obligated to police their site to make sure those items never are uploaded again.

Now that doesnt mean a conference wont threaten to file suit but it wont result in any damages unless 2k chose to ignore the takedown notice.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

There is a gray area. One, the NCAA only owns the "NCAA" mark. They dont own any of the school, conference or Bowl marks so they wont be the ones sending cease and desist letters. Each conference would have to. Two, simply having a feature in your game that can be used for copyright infringement doesnt make the developer liable for CI (Sony v. Universal Studios). Same applies for Trademark Infringement. So having a teambuilder or logo sharing function doesnt mean the developer of this game would be liable for any claims related to logos or slogans. Now, the developer would be obligated to immediately pull down any infringing item once they were notified by the owner of said copyright or trademark and they will need to hire a staff to make sure they can respond to the C&Ds in a reasonable amount of time. The reason why companies dont go after 2k or others is because its fruitless. If the owner of Impact Wrestling sent 2k a cease and desist because you can find Impact logos on WWE2k's downloads section, 2k would just remove them. The next day, those same people can reupload those items. 2k isnt obligated to police their site to make sure those items never are uploaded again. Now that doesnt mean a conference wont threaten to file suit but it wont result in any damages unless 2k chose to ignore the takedown notice.

I work in this area for a living (Copyrights and brand management, not law specifically) so I'll explain why your use of Sony v Universal is wrong along with some more information. Sony v Universal was a very specific, and special, exception to the rules. What it allowed for is a technology exception that basically says "just because new technology can be used to infringe on copyrights doesn't make them liable as that was not the intent or the proposed primary use of the technology".

Where IMV and similar games falter is what is called contributory infringement. What this means is that you knowingly assisted, contributed, or promoted the infringement of copyrights. The issue is in the very way the game has positioned themselves and marketed it. They have publicly stated on numerous occasions they will support community members who build mods for rosters, teams, stadiums, etc. They will then willingly host and facilitate the distribution of these infringements to other customers.

If you go and look at what happened with Napster, this is what got them in trouble. Napster tried the Sony v Universal defense, but it failed. The issue was it was so apparent based on the data flowing through their servers what their technology was being used for they should have proactively stopped it from happening. Other similar services have dodged the contributory infringement liability because they didn't or shouldn't have reasonably know their services were being used in this way. IMV will be able to make no such claim as, again they have very publicly stated what their intentions are.

As to whether or not anyone would ever come after them, I think it is risky because of the media that will surround the return of college video games. The issue will be that many of the schools are still leery of the fallout from the last time through with the players. If they don't act in the best interests of their players and school, it can be conceived as approval of the behavior through inaction and opens them up to continued legal issues with players. I think some schools will proactively file suit in an attempt to distance themselves from the game while others won't care. As I stated before though, with limited funding it'll take very few legal encounters to end them.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by T4VERTS

I work in this area for a living (Copyrights and brand management, not law specifically) so I'll explain why your use of Sony v Universal is wrong along with some more information. Sony v Universal was a very specific, and special, exception to the rules. What it allowed for is a technology exception that basically says "just because new technology can be used to infringe on copyrights doesn't make them liable as that was not the intent or the proposed primary use of the technology". Where IMV and similar games falter is what is called contributory infringement. What this means is that you knowingly assisted, contributed, or promoted the infringement of copyrights. The issue is in the very way the game has positioned themselves and marketed it. They have publicly stated on numerous occasions they will support community members who build mods for rosters, teams, stadiums, etc. They will then willingly host and facilitate the distribution of these infringements to other customers. If you go and look at what happened with Napster, this is what got them in trouble. Napster tried the Sony v Universal defense, but it failed. The issue was it was so apparent based on the data flowing through their servers what their technology was being used for they should have proactively stopped it from happening. Other similar services have dodged the contributory infringement liability because they didn't or shouldn't have reasonably know their services were being used in this way. IMV will be able to make no such claim as, again they have very publicly stated what their intentions are. As to whether or not anyone would ever come after them, I think it is risky because of the media that will surround the return of college video games. The issue will be that many of the schools are still leery of the fallout from the last time through with the players. If they don't act in the best interests of their players and school, it can be conceived as approval of the behavior through inaction and opens them up to continued legal issues with players. I think some schools will proactively file suit in an attempt to distance themselves from the game while others won't care. As I stated before though, with limited funding it'll take very few legal encounters to end them.

Thanks for this.

I'm aware of contributory infringement. I just dont think that IMV's game would automatically reach that threshold.

[o]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. The entity must have(1) knowledge of the infringing activity; and (2) material contribution to the activity.

I need to see their statements but saying "we will support community members who build mods for rosters, teams, stadiums, etc." doesnt mean that they are infringing they are inducing or materially contributing to the conduct of another.

For example, if there are files titled "Real NCAA", you can make that argument because simply by reading the title of a file on their server, they should be reasonably aware that its an NCAA file. Just like Napster could be made aware that most if not all of the files transferred through its service were infringing simply from the title.

Now if I name the a NCAA roster file, "Aaron's file" and upload it, an argument could be made that IMV is not obligated to look at the files content and ensure that there isnt infringing content within the file.

As long as IMV actively takes down any file that they are either notified infringes or they should be reasonably aware its infringing, it could avoid liability.

Also, there is this:

We do plan to pursue licensing in future editions of Gridiron Champions! We have spoken with the Collegiate Licensing Company and Learfield Licensing Company who serve as agents for the licenses to over 600 Universities. They have both approved our generic roster plans.

If this is true and by "approve roster plans" that includes the customization of the roster", I think it decreases that likelihood many schools will attempt to pursue a copyright infringement action against IMV.

[goillini03]

Hoping for the best with this. Madden has officially ended my run of new football game purchases.

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Thanks for this. I'm aware of contributory infringement. I just dont think that IMV's game would automatically reach that threshold. [o]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. The entity must have(1) knowledge of the infringing activity; and (2) material contribution to the activity. I need to see their statements but saying "we will support community members who build mods for rosters, teams, stadiums, etc." doesnt mean that they are infringing they are inducing or materially contributing to the conduct of another. For example, if there are files titled "Real NCAA", you can make that argument because simply by reading the title of a file on their server, they should be reasonably aware that its an NCAA file. Just like Napster could be made aware that most if not all of the files transferred through its service were infringing simply from the title. Now if I name the a NCAA roster file, "Aaron's file" and upload it, an argument could be made that IMV is not obligated to look at the files content and ensure that there isnt infringing content within the file. As long as IMV actively takes down any file that they are either notified infringes or they should be reasonably aware its infringing, it could avoid liability. Also, there is this: We do plan to pursue licensing in future editions of Gridiron Champions! We have spoken with the Collegiate Licensing Company and Learfield Licensing Company who serve as agents for the licenses to over 600 Universities. They have both approved our generic roster plans. If this is true and by "approve roster plans" that includes the customization of the roster", I think it decreases that likelihood many schools will attempt to pursue a copyright infringement action against IMV.

The "materially contributes" line really is the crux of the issue. When you build a feature with the intent to support infringement you have basically forfeited the right to ignorance. They have replied to tweets of people asking about real rosters telling them they will support those who create real rosters for others to download. At this point they will never be able to separate themselves from those statements meaning that their roster tech is there to in fact facilitate that infringement.

This to me, more than anything, highlights the inexperience of the guys trying to run this. Someone with a real business sense would have better worded these reply's to not forfeit their legal defense in the future. They should know that this is a threat looming over the horizon and they should have had the forethought to know how to insulate themselves.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by T4VERTS

The "materially contributes" line really is the crux of the issue. When you build a feature with the intent to support infringement you have basically forfeited the right to ignorance. They have replied to tweets of people asking about real rosters telling them they will support those who create real rosters for others to download. At this point they will never be able to separate themselves from those statements meaning that their roster tech is there to in fact facilitate that infringement. This to me, more than anything, highlights the inexperience of the guys trying to run this. Someone with a real business sense would have better worded these reply's to not forfeit their legal defense in the future. They should know that this is a threat looming over the horizon and they should have had the forethought to know how to insulate themselves.

I did not know about those tweets and if thats the case, those guys are morons. They had a built in argument.

Its simply this "Our stadium, logo, uniform and roster creation features were made so that people could use this to create their own teams. We have never encouraged people to infringe anyone's mark or copyright and we actively remove files that clearly infringe someone's intellectual property".

Anyway, best of luck to them. They will need it.