Automobilista Subject to Copyright Claim

[Paul Jeffrey]

Reiza Studios' newest title Automobilista has been temporary removed from the Steam digital distribution platform due to a copyright infringement claim. The title was removed from the Steam storefront Tuesday night.

Reiza Studios made the following statement to their fans and customers today:

"The Steam store page for Automobilista has been taken down due to a copyright infringement claim which had been submitted to Valve.

As is known, Automobilista packages a variety of officially licensed cars & brands alongside fictionalized, originally created content. The claim in question does not make any specific reference to content present in Automobilista supposedly in infringement of the party´s copyright - until it does, our belief is that it has no merit.

We have already taken the appropriate measures to resolve the issue ASAP, but in accordance to Valve´s policy, the process may take a few days to be completed.

In the meantime time we will continue to progress with the development of Automobilista, and intend to release another Early Access update shortly. The game is available for purchase as part of our Membership packages from our forum store.

Please understand that until the matter is fully resolved, we may not be able to discuss it."​

If you previously purchased and installed Automobilista through Steam, you will still be able to play the current Early Access build 0.8.7r both off- and online.

Dont forget to check out the RaceDepartment Automobilista forum for discussion and news on the Reiza title. Why not have a go in one of our daily Club Races run across a number of tracks and cars with large grids and close racing.

Update April 5th: Renato Simioni made a statement that can be seen here

 

[Hsmmer]

I understand the law but I never understood what possible harm it can do.

5 developers all make a F1 sim same cars.
Make it whatever series you like but all 5 sims have identical cars and tracks

okay.....

You buy the one you like because of the developers engine or physics or modelling or game play, etc. , etc.

Cars or tracks would be nothing more then " same content "

 

[Gringo]

You cannot say "Formula 1 is terrible".

You just did... now your in trouble. And I guess I am too.

Stupid situation we are in here.

 

[Gringo]

what possible harm it can do.

There is no real harm being done.

The law leaves room for fair use, but that won't stop out of touch, IP "ambulance chasing" lawyers, from routinely filing false claims.

Until we know more detail this is all speculation anyhow.

 

[xnorb]

I just wonder if we will ever be informed what actually really happened @Renato Simioni ?

Can't imagine Reiza has any interest in having a bunch of keyboard warriors starting a campaign in their name against a rights holder of any of the content they vaguely represent in their sim, so keeping the origin of the copyright claim under cover may be the best way to deal with it?

 

[Martin Larsen]

I just wonder on one thing, so not blaming Reiza Studios just wondering since we all know what **** FOM is... But pCars decided to make Formula A not to much like F1, like not proper race rules like not proper DRS rules, no mandatory pit rule and not option and prime tires etc. Because off licensing problems, and they did not want to get in problem with licensing. But AMS have pretty close to real F1 rules, F1 cars and liveries looks similair. So I guess that might be the reason why FOM is after AMS and not games like pCars?

And again, not saying it to complain and blame Reiza I just wonder and think FOM is...well... Bernie, that is the biggest offence I can think off...

 

[Philipp Koch]

hmmpf i dont understand why Reiza should done this infrigment.... o.O little bit weird seems that someone don't like the company or the content the company done......( its damn good content)

 

[Rob]

Copyright law is a bit like divorce law here in the U.S. Not really based on any concrete "thing" but just a bunch of court cases (common law) that diverge and conflict mostly. It's more art than science, but can be used to shut smaller players out. It's also akin to personal injury in that damages are A BILLION DOLLARS!!! because you used my toy car look-alike. Patent infringements are a different story.

My guess is this is mostly corporate lawyer stuff not legal related, unless there was in injunction. But then you would probably know about it. If a company continues to use the alleged copyrighted material after a claim is made, and then loses, it can result in more damages. So, maybe an injunction attached to the "claim" and that may need deciding first, since corporate policy (as usual) is very conservative.

From a public perception standpoint, WTF is F1 thinking?!?! Way to alienate your strongest fans. Sheesh. Well, at least those of us who paid our hard earned money for a live F1 event recently can rest well knowing we are paying the salary of lawyers, not drivers.

Note: If you think FOM is bad, try NASCAR on for size. They can't make a decent game either.

 

[MrCrowley]

FOM should be renamed back to FOCA.
As in Bernie is a real FOCA.

Seems more appropriate.
F1 as we know it, is dead.

 

[Andy_J]

I just wonder if we will ever be informed what actually really happened @Renato Simioni ?

Can't imagine Reiza has any interest in having a bunch of keyboard warriors starting a campaign in their name against a rights holder of any of the content they vaguely represent in their sim, so keeping the origin of the copyright claim under cover may be the best way to deal with it?

Well maybe they should inform us of all the facts. After all, we are the paying customer in all this. Just my opinion.

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

Well maybe they should inform us of all the facts. After all, we are the paying customer in all this. Just my opinion.

You don't spill legal details whilst it's an ongoing case.

 

[Gringo]

Is this not a good example of how the protection of intellectual property has gone to far, and is beyond common sense.

Some games have F1 license and support to build the game to exact details.

That should not mean that others are not allowed to replicate something that looks similar.

The extreme would be that F1 claims all models that have four open wheels on slick tires are protected and may not be used.

 

[Arne Dopudja]

Well maybe they should inform us of all the facts. After all, we are the paying customer in all this. Just my opinion.

What Myrvold said, and in addition to that, even if the content is removed/altered, it's probably in the EULA that content might change/be removed at developers discretion.

So any info on the matter is for us, customers, completely irrelevant and can only do harm to Reiza if anything.

 

[Andy_J]

You don't spill legal details whilst it's an ongoing case.

No I guess not. But one could argue that telling the world who has started legal action against you is hardly a "game" changer. Letting people just assume things might just make the situation worse. Just my take on it.

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

No I guess not. But one could argue that telling the world who has started legal action against you is hardly a "game" changer. Letting people just assume things might just make the situation worse. Just my take on it.

I guess their tactic is something they feel is the best for them. It's that simple.

 

[Dan Costa]

FOM should be renamed back to FOCA.
As in Bernie is a real FOCA.

Seems more appropriate.
F1 as we know it, is dead.

That mother FOCA

 

[Damage Inc]

My sympathies to Reiza for having to deal with all this. I havn't checked, but can I still access the game and the cars in question offline? I'm hearing that offline it all works.

Also....huge hypocrisy regarding PRC, when it was slagging of pCARS many here were loving it and agreeing....now PRC is upsetting Reiza they're bad now?

 

[Renato Simioni]

I just wonder if we will ever be informed what actually really happened @Renato Simioni ?

Can't imagine Reiza has any interest in having a bunch of keyboard warriors starting a campaign in their name against a rights holder of any of the content they vaguely represent in their sim, so keeping the origin of the copyright claim under cover may be the best way to deal with it?

This is not a matter that has value being discussed in detail publicly I´m afraid.

I will say this though - the anger here is indeed misplaced. Companies can claim rights when they perceive there to be an infringement of their IP- this does not necessarily mean there will be a legal dispute. Usually just adjusting to address what has been objected to can and often suffices. We might do just that if the complaint is further specified - at this stage it hasn´t been, which is why for now we believe it lacks merit.

The real troublesome issue here is why we have been targetted to begin with - generally speaking, we are too small to get in the radar of any major company, and despite some pseudo-legal argumentation going on in this thread, legally there is nothing fundamentally wrong or even different to what is done in other, substantially bigger games (not just in racing).

What has become strikingly evident is that there are some disgruntled individuals in our tiny community doing the scrutinity work & delivering it for these companies - just because these people seem to think that´s where the fun in simracing is now. With DCMA rules being what they are, if companies or their monitoring agencies are delivered with an argument on a platter, irrespective of its merits, it´s not difficult to use and even abuse that to claim infringement.

If this trend continues (and by now it would be sensible to take that for granted if we want to stay in business), the immediate and long-term effects might well be a further departure from any fictionalized content that may become subject to such complaints in favour of officially licensed content. This will drive costs up, possibly affect our ability to deliver interesting driving experiences, and potentially offset the balance of the product to such an extent that we are forced to redesign it and the business model around it. This is unlikely to affect AMS much, but it will certainly impact our next product where the stakes are already higher.

I´ll be completely frank and state that depending on how things develop from here, this may change how we approach the business altogether. There just isn´t enough money in the type of products we´ve been making to be worth this kind of hassle.

 

[P*Funk]

Well since there are people literally sharing FOM emails and encouraging someone to file complaints with them in the PRC comment section I don't think Renato is exaggerating.

There are some petty people out there. Goddamned arsonists.

 

[xnorb]

Makes me sad reading Renato's comment on this topic.

This DCMA insanity we're witnessing the past 2 years really needs to be stopped.

 

[Gabriel Good]

I thought IP law is not enforced in Brazil.