Tracks Okayama [W.I.P] scratch made

[Mathieu Labbé]

Really sad to hear, hard to make any sense out of their decision. The judicial system can be senseless sometimes...

 

[GT VIRUS]

Unfortunately this is the life of licencing. Track licencing has value to the track owners, and game developers can pay a nice sum for the licence. By allowing a free version, they can undermine the value of the licences. And potentially allow a good copyright lawyer to make the licence worthless.

 

[Epistolarius]

This is disappointing to say the least...

Are there any details you can disclose? How were you contacted, via e-mail, letter, phone, ...? By a lawyer? Is email legally recognised in your country? What do you mean with "they don't want any money", did you try to make a licensing deal? You cite 5k Euro? What if you just call it something different and replace branding with fictional ones (and obviously use exclusively scratch made stuff)? I'm not a lawyer but I really doubt circuit owners have legal leverage on anything but their brand (which is what they license out, so it's about trademark, not copyright law I believe), especially over a non-commercial entity like a mod.

 

[Jebus]

Bummer!

Kinda see their point of complete removal even if given out for free. There's no quarantees that Mitja wouldn't take money for it later, not saying you will but they can't know that.

But it's a damn shame. Track was shaping up real nice. I hope there will be some solution at some point as Okayama is an awesome track.

 

[Epistolarius]

There have been plenty of unlicensed reproductions of tracks in games in the past. If "Sakkito" can exist in a commercially sold product so can "OKmama" (or whatever, lol) as a mod. There has to be a way. Don't let yourself pressure into something Mitja.

 

[seanlewis]

They did change Sakitto though (the hairpin).

Anyway, it's a real shame.
Your work is really appreciated, Mitja!

 

[Ryno917]

This is disappointing to say the least...

Are there any details you can disclose? How were you contacted, via e-mail, letter, phone, ...? By a lawyer? Is email legally recognised in your country? What do you mean with "they don't want any money", did you try to make a licensing deal? You cite 5k Euro? What if you just call it something different and replace branding with fictional ones (and obviously use exclusively scratch made stuff)? I'm not a lawyer but I really doubt circuit owners have legal leverage on anything but their brand (which is what they license out, so it's about trademark, not copyright law I believe), especially over a non-commercial entity like a mod.

Actually, the license holders own the circuit design itself, too. A street course can be reproduced because the design can't be owned (unless it's private roads), but a closed permanent circuit can be because it's specifically designed and built.


As mentioned, chances are the move is probably more about protecting their IP for the future than about 'pushing around the little guy,' but the end result here is the same regardless of intent. This isn't the first time it's happened, and it surely won't be the last.

 

[F_B]

That’s just one thing which won’t get into my mind: why be against the virtual recreation of their own circuit, it’s good marketing for their track (unless it is a bad recreation of course). There are too many lawyers on this planet concentrating on the wrong or unimportant things, that’s for sure.

 

[Ryno917]

That’s just one thing which won’t get into my mind: why be against the virtual recreation of their own circuit, it’s good marketing for their track (unless it is a bad recreation of course). There are too many lawyers on this planet concentrating on the wrong or unimportant things, that’s for sure.

It's about protecting your IP. If there were ever a copyright dispute, the lawyers could point to this mod and claim that they hadn't protected their IP, and therefore, can't charge for a license to use said IP.

It's the copyright holders' responsibility to protect their own IP, and the only viable way to do so is to prevent other people from using it unlawfully.

It sucks for us, but that's how it is.

 

[Mitja Bonca]

Here`s the story behind it, so you will all be familiar how it went:
From the beginning, when I started, I didn`t even think of something big like it`s now (so accurate and so much time to put into), but then I realized I can make some money out of it, if possible, right? If nothing, OK for me as well. But if some € comes, even batter (nothing greedy about, that there won`t be any mistake, and words twisted around).
So on the way I thought (didn`t know before) I need a license from the track owners (lots of the useful info came from @kunos him self, who pointed me into the right direction).
I was trying hard, really hard to get a contact from Okayama track owners, because it`s almost impossible to find (the "official" email doesn`t work, it was recognized by Gmail as not-in-use email, and few of them as well, which I got from many sources).
So, finally I got another one, which came to some person at Okayama track. Because of my bad knowledge how all this goes, I said to them what is all about (working on their virtual track of course), and that I would like to make some money, but because of that I would need the license approved from them.
I proposed percentages of the sale, and they rejected it, and said they need 600.000 Yens (cca 5000€) to pay for the license, as far as i understood, in a single amount of cash. But since I am doing all this just for fun, I refused them too (since I have never even anticipated to ear that much with the track sale - logical, right?).
I was ones more asking them, why they don`t except my offer, its simple, they get some free money, or they don`t - and I would do all the work. This is what troubles me, why on earth someone doesn`t want to accept something like this? Maybe because they know they will not earn enough, maybe because they are greedy? Even Kunos said to me, most of them never accept these terms of taking percentages, but only a single amount in advance.
I think they became very angry (at least I read that in between the lines), since they didn`t win.
And on the end I got an email, that I have no right what so ever to use Okayama track. I will quote them:

"It is not allowed to provide 3D graphic of Okayama International Circuit to anyone in any form(simulator, game, photo, drawing, models and so on).
It is not allowed to provide and publish it even if it is free or not.
For the exception, you may only enjoy by yourself exclusively.
You are not allowed to do business using 3D graphic without having license from Okayama International Circuit.
I want you to understand that if you publish it or provide it to anyone without having permission,
it would be illegal either in Japan or abroad."

And thats is it! Quite serious stuff they are playing, to me not understandable. But I think they have all the rights to say that, even they hurt me and them selves as well. If I will be asked something like this (if vice versa), I would say, Go ahead, do what ever you want, but if you will be making money from it, just give me 10% of your sale - and thats it!
I hope it`s clear now what was all about. It came all from nothing, to some major issue. Maybe it was my fault too, to contacting them in the 1st place - who knows. But it`s a good life experience if nothing else.

PS: I forgot to mention an important bit before. They do NOT give license to individuals, but only to companies (like Assetto Corsa). They stated that clearly. But they didn`t say anything why is that so.

 

[A3DR]

Ok so it's simple then, you wanted to make money with the track, pay the license. It costs 5000€, period.

Now that we got the full story, it's completely understandable why the owner decided to do that. Don't take this as an offense, but it was your bad move, so it's you, not them to blame.

 

[Mitja Bonca]

Ok so it's simple then, you wanted to make money with the track, pay the license. It costs 5000€, period.

Now that we got the full story, it's completely understandable why the owner decided to do that. Don't take this as an offense, but it was your bad move, so it's you, not them to blame.

Oh I forgot to say, sorry. They do NOT give license to individuals, but only to companies (like Assetto Corsa). They stated that clearly. But they didn`t say anything why is that so.

 

[garyjpaterson]

Terrible shame, but I can understand both points of view - its their property, its up to them to decide whether or not you can publish under their name. And I would have imagined it to be much more than 5000€ tbh.

But I'm not sure what the rules are regarding the name change that many suggest. How can they police it? Where is the line drawn between a passing resemblance and a too similar of a likeness?

In my mind its sort of like banning someone from making a clay model and posting photos of it online etc, just because it looks like their track/car/whatever. Is a 3D model any different? If you don't refer to the name or anything like that, is there really anything they can do?

I'm sure I've seen games in the past which feature 'chinese copies' of cars/tracks, different names but obvious what they are imitating.

Anyway, net time you'll know that if you want to get in contact and strike a deal, do so before spending all that time an energy on it. If they don't like, its not such a big deal.
Otherwise not making any contact may have been the better option.

 

[BenCollins]

They do not want their brand associated with an inferior* product. Coca cola are not going to let you use their name for your homemade cola either.

The minute any money changes hands for a product, a contract is invoked. If it is given free, no contract and you not making money off their brand.

I am surprised it was only EUR5,000 too. I imagine Kunos pay a lot more than that. It might be worth your while working with Kunos to pass over your model so that all is not lost.

*I am not saying your product is inferior, but when a studio such as Kunos release it, there is a certain quality assumed.

 

[Joseph Maxx]

I believe even a name change is not enough, it is the likeness that matters. Many people seem to think that making a mod free exempts them from copyright or IP litigation but that is not true, if you don't have permission then they have every right to go after you. In fact, making it available for free undermines the commercial value of their IP so they may even defend it with more vigour. There is no grey area here, its very black and white and anyone who has ever received a cease and desist order will tell you so.

I know this is disappointing, but I think you did the right thing @Mitija. Even if you had not contacted them and released it for free they could still come after you, better to find out now then spend the next 6 months working on a track that you have to withdraw from circulation because of legal action.

 

[Ryno917]

Terrible shame, but I can understand both points of view - its their property, its up to them to decide whether or not you can publish under their name. And I would have imagined it to be much more than 5000€ tbh.

But I'm not sure what the rules are regarding the name change that many suggest. How can they police it? Where is the line drawn between a passing resemblance and a too similar of a likeness?

In my mind its sort of like banning someone from making a clay model and posting photos of it online etc, just because it looks like their track/car/whatever. Is a 3D model any different? If you don't refer to the name or anything like that, is there really anything they can do?

I'm sure I've seen games in the past which feature 'chinese copies' of cars/tracks, different names but obvious what they are imitating.

Anyway, net time you'll know that if you want to get in contact and strike a deal, do so before spending all that time an energy on it. If they don't like, its not such a big deal.
Otherwise not making any contact may have been the better option.

Creating a clay sculpture is more of a grey area, since it's a personal artistic interpretation of the IP. Depending on what it is, that is often legal. If it's a direct 1:1 copy of something, it's still illegal, but if you put your spin on it (like the beautiful sdufor sculptures) it's generally legal since it falls under creative license. Recreating a track as close as possible is a recreation of specific IP, so it would still be illegal regardless of the name you put on it.

There's people who have said you need to make X number of changes to something before it becomes legal, and that's utter nonsense. It's all a grey area, and it comes down to how fervent the copyright holder is and how good their legal team is. There is absolutely no fine line.

Any game that has a real circuit in it and simply calls it something else has broken the law, simple as that. Whether or not they suffer repercussions from that action is down to the copyright holder - as I said, it's their responsibility to protect their own IP. Some will, some won't. The case of Sakitto in pCARS - the circuit is actually substantially different than Suzuka, it's not simply a rebranding.

Also, as a side note: They've sold a license to iRacing for their circuit. Allowing someone else to use the circuit for free undermines the deal they made with iRacing, and they may have a contractual obligation to prevent that.

 

[Joseph Maxx]

They do not want their brand associated with an inferior* product. Coca cola are not going to let you use their name for your homemade cola either.

The minute any money changes hands for a product, a contract is invoked. If it is given free, no contract and you not making money off their brand.

*I am not saying your product is inferior, but when a studio such as Kunos release it, there is a certain quality assumed.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE MAKING MONEY TO BE VIOLATING THEIR IP RIGHTS. Just because you don't charge for it does not mean they can't come after you because they most certainly can, It all comes down to licensing. If you want to pay for a license and make it available for free that's entirely up to you (provided the licensing terms allow it) but their primary concern would be to defend the commercial value of their IP. They are a for profit commercial venture and they will take what ever action is necessary to protect the value of their property.

 

[schnipp]

Just have a look at Sakito on PCars.
In the WMD-phase of the game it was the Suzuka track layout, but apparently SMS couldn't make a deal with Suzuka license holders.

In the released version of PCars Sakito is significantly different to Suzuka.

So I guess an identical layout even with fictional name and no real sponsor textures wouldn't be allowed.

 

[BenCollins]

YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE MAKING MONEY TO BE VIOLATING THEIR IP RIGHTS.

Yes but if you are making money, they will be much more interested. Mitja offering them a cut of his profits for selling *their* track was not a smart move.

It comes down to money, as always. Low-key tracks would be far less concerned and may see it as some free publicity. For example LFS allows their Blackwood track to be copied for other sims. NJMP probably using their sim version for publicity too. NJMP may not have been too pleased if they were offered a cut of download profits!

Okayama International Circuit is owned by a multinational corporation and will not like amateur versions of their circuit appearing on popular sims potentially damaging the reputation of the circuit and therefore potential ticket sales, etc.

 

[BenCollins]

Just have a look at Sakito on PCars.
In the WMD-phase of the game it was the Suzuka track layout, but apparently SMS couldn't make a deal with Suzuka license holders.

In the released version of PCars Sakito is significantly different to Suzuka.

So I guess an identical layout even with fictional name and no real sponsor textures wouldn't be allowed.

Yes, it is probably changed just enough to avoid the legal stuff, more to do with Codemaster exclusive rights rather than cost of license itself.

I believe it's similar with the Cote D'Azur circuit in Gran Turismo. With Gran Turismo's money, I suspect they could easily afford the cost, but exclusivity was already agreed elsewhere.