359
Valve issues DMCA takedown for "Team Fortress: Source 2"
(files.catbox.moe)
Link: https://nitter.net/TeamFortressS2/status/1745157814295617767
Valve is generally supportive of mods (hell, a Portal 2 mod was just released a few days ago) but it seems like recreating Team Fortress 2 was pushing it... Really sad, honestly. I really hope Valve would just strike a deal with these devs and make it official rather than throw away the insane amount of effort they put into re-building TF2.
Valve are well within their rights here. This isn't new content or transformative. It's literally trying to remake the same game using the same engine. These devs knew they were playing with fire. Never come between GabeN and his hats.
My thinking is that it was hot garbage that was trying to milk the TF2 name to grow their own fanbase. And valve didn't want to be associated with that.
My guess is that Black Mesa looks great, had passionate people who were really communicating and engaging with Valve/community, didn't infringe on the Half-Life trademark and it felt like a step forward, which is why it was allowed to continue AND even be brought to market.
They got a taste of their own medicine. They should have gotten rid of those low effort, asset swop games on the store then.
Makes me wonder where their line is between this and Black Mesa, though.
Black Mesa is a remake of a single player game that Valve wasn't planning on remaking any time soon, more profitable to make it official and take a cut
TF2 actively still makes them sht tons of money, no profit in splitting the fan base
https://www.eurogamer.net/valve-gives-black-mesa-permission-to-be-a-commercial-product
Imo, Trademark. Black Mesa is a concept from Half-Life, but "Black Mesa" to the best of my knowledge wasn't a registered trademark. "Team Fortress/Team Fortress 2" are registered trademarks however, and that significantly changes the value and functionality of the specific terms.
That would only allow them the name, not the content. They always had to get Valve's permission.
Yes, but it's easier to give permission to use concepts that don't infringe on trademark than it is to give permission on something that could be argued in court as muddying a trademark.
I know they require permission either way, but what permission they're actually asking for changes based on what terminology they use
Well my point is that since the content is directly related, it actually doesn't matter what they called it. It would've been exactly the same amount of infringement if they called it, "happy fun times at the science lab".
The only differnce is it would've been less obvious to identify.
I get your point, my point is the infringement would be less egregious without trademark and thus easier for Valve to turn a blind eye to, or even potentially officially endorse via some potential deal à la Black Mesa.
But hey, I am fully willing to concede that I am just a layman with enormous distance from this topic and no specific expertise or insider knowledge, so the possibility of me being wrong is high
But we just got Portal Revolution some days ago, on steam.
I'd guess the fine line is "Valve intend to earn money from something official in the future"
We need to change IP and copyright law to add a "use it or lose it" clause for games that have been left to languish for eternity.
just result in companies releasing even shittier games just to protect their IPs.
Not eternity 95 years.
Unfortunately it's not just well within their rights, it's their legal obligation. The stupid situation that is America means that for them to be able to maintain their claim of ownership on the IP trademark, they have to both actively use the trademark and actively police unauthorized use of the trademark by others. If they don't, they risk losing the right to claim the trademark, which wouldn't just mean independents running servers for the game, but also would mean unscrupulous entities could produce and sell merchandise featuring the trademark en masse without having to seek permission from or pay any commissions to Valve.
It's shitty, but it's more shitty because of the stupid system we've built than because of any intentional malevolence on Valve's part, imo.
Important caveat: I am not a legal professional and it is entirely possible my understanding of trademark law is flawed, but this is my earnest understanding of the situation.
DMCA has nothing to do with trademarks
Well then I got nothin' 🤷♂️
No, it isn't.
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
It being within their rights doesnt make it less shitty. Fuck IP