A fan-project aiming to enhance the original Red Dead Redemption's visuals via emulation has been cancelled, after a lawsuit was filed by the copyright holders. Initially announced in August of this year, a video was posted to YouTube showing footage of Red Dead Redemption running on PC through Xbox 360 emulator Xenia, boasting improvements such as better textures, shaders, weather effects, and other graphical tweaks. Development on the project, which was titled "Red Dead Redemption: Damned Enhancement" lasted until September, where progress was halted, until resuming again sometime in November. On December 26th, Take-Two, who originally published and owned the IP rights to Red Dead Redemption, filed a legal complaint, intending to cancel the enhancement project.

Take-Two brings this action to maintain control over its world-famous video games in the face of Wyckoff’s publicly stated intent to distribute unauthorized software files that would dramatically change the content of Take-Two’s video games. Those unauthorized changes include but are not limited to importing the entire game map of 2010’s Red Dead Redemption into the 2018 game Red Dead Redemption II, enhancing graphics and visuals in Take-Two’s Red Dead Redemption game, and allowing players to play an enhanced version of the game on personal computer (“PCs”), a platform for which Take-Two itself has not yet released the Read Dead Redemption game.

The publisher claimed that this fan-project would interfere with a possible market for an official PC port of Red Dead Redemption 1 in the future, even though the company does not have any current intention to release such. They also claim that his modding infringes upon Take-Two's rights, stating that Wyckoff, the developer, was contacted numerous times by their legal team, and never responded to takedown requests, leading to the company taking legal recourse. Besides Wyckoff, ten other defendants were also involved in the lawsuit, though they remain unnamed as "John Doe(s)".

Wyckoff has knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringed Take-Two’s rights and will continue to do so upon the release of the Infringing Programs unless enjoined and, upon information and belief, Wyckoff already has profited by violating Take-Two’s rights and User Agreement. As a result, Take-Two has been left with no choice but to file this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and damages that it will suffer as a result of Wyckoff’s direct and contributory copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., as well as for his breach of Take-Two’s User Agreement and his tortious interference with Take-Two’s contracts with other Take-Two game players using his modifications.

Currently, Wyckoff has cancelled the enhancement pack, and his other RDR mod, "RDRII Project", saying that he is in talks with Take-Two to settle the legal matter.

Source: Legal Document filed in the State of New York (via TorrentFreak)

Tags: [GAME=/game/red-dead-redemption.434]Red Dead Redemption[/GAME]

 

[Dinomite]

Wow you're such an idiot. How about you actually learn to read before thinking your opinion is fact. Do Take Two have issues with mods? No, they do not, and that's a known fact.

They do have an issue with mods, clearly. Its the whole point of the lawsuit/article. How about YOU learn to read before you call others an idiot?

 

[Lodad]

Most of you are missing the point. It's all fine and dandy to release mods and tools, what it's not fine to do is distribute game files that do not belong to you. Take Two have no issues with mods, they have an issue with someone violating copyright laws.

Don't they go after people who mod single-player GTA 5?

I agree with you though. If he released a step-by-step guide along with his own files that showed you how to rip the files from a physical copy of RDR1 that you own in order to compile the mod yourself, I'm sure there would be less issue.

 

[Abstract3000]

Clearly the developers have had their heads up their asses for the last decade, or simply millennial's that feed off self validating "Likes" because it has become extremely apparent with "Nintendo" and "Square-Enix" particularly, that if you are going to "Improve", "Emulate", "Translate" etc. one of their big titles, you will be hearing from their legal team. That is why you make the improvements, then release upon completion, and once leaked there is nothing that can be done.

 

[coffinbirth]

Clearly the developers have had their heads up their asses for the last decade, or simply millennial's that feed off self validating "Likes" because it has become extremely apparent with "Nintendo" and "Square-Enix" particularly, that if you are going to "Improve", "Emulate", "Translate" etc. one of their big titles, you will be hearing from their legal team. That is why you make the improvements, then release upon completion, and once leaked there is nothing that can be done.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
I've been saying this for years, but clearly some people doing these sorts of projects also seemingly seek notoriety over the project itself.
Develop and FINISH project.
Anonymously release into the wild.
THEN tell everyone.
Win the internet.

In that order.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

This is... interesting. There's a couple of possible layers here that make this interesting to unpack.

A lot on whether this case has merits or not depends on how the project would work when distributed. That said, we can infer a couple of things here.

• Does this project count as a derivative work or not. This... really depends on how you read it. To some extent, you could say yes, because it uses the elements of the original to create a new experience. If this is the case, it's open and shut. The copyright holder holds full control over the original work and has the right to make any derivative work. I know Take Two isn't... exactly well liked, but it's important to keep in mind that they do have that right. You can however argue that it's not a derivative work, since it's just a flat out port of the original map, which leads into my next read.
• The question on whether or not this is legal also completely depends on how the project would be distributed. If it were possible to just download the project, install it and also need a copy of RDR to get the assets that are needed (which can be patched with the modifications) then you could argue it's legal.

That said, there's one thing that just shuts the case and which is probably why Take Two went after them to begin with: When they got confronted with a C&D, their response was to threaten Take Two that if they would sue or impede the development of the project that they would release all files they had been working on as well as claiming that some Rockstar developers (remember, Take Two is the publisher, not the developer) had A-OKayed the project, which they didn't. That is simply not acceptable under any reading of the law (because such a file release can be reasonably assumed to not have any patchers or anything) and the latter is straight up lying which is what provoked the lawsuit.

 

[LightBeam]

Some people still think that Take Two doesn't have a problem with mods? First GTA 5 then this and there are still people who doubt it?
Don't come and hide behind ship terms like "sharing copyrighted content", it's EVIDENT that for them, offering to download modified files to install them on your own installation is a violation, even if you don't offer to download the whole game, even if you specify that it's illegal to download backups of the game that don't belong to you.
They're just bitches. It's Take Two, they're not the least of them.

Plus they say it could interfere with a PC game release? Fuck them a little, 2 was released without 1 and we already know that the source code of 1 is so messed up that they'll never touch it again and release it on PC, so fuck them a bit putting in danger people who are more passionate than they are about their own games.

 

[ChaosEternal]

Normally I understand this sort of thing, but this one is a real head-scratcher. It sounds like it was just a graphical improvement mod. What's there to object about?

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Normally I understand this sort of thing, but this one is a real head-scratcher. It sounds like it was just a graphical improvement mod. What's there to object about?

RDR1 does not have a PC release. The purported goals of this project was to essentially provide a PC release of RDR1 through the release of two different mods, the first of whom would be a simple import of RDR1s map into RDR2 and the second would port over RDR1s mechanics and story into RDR2.

 

[ChaosEternal]

RDR1 does not have a PC release. The purported goals of this project was to essentially provide a PC release of RDR1 through the release of two different mods, the first of whom would be a simple import of RDR1s map into RDR2 and the second would port over RDR1s mechanics and story into RDR2.

Oh, clearly I didn't read the original post very well. That makes a lot more sense!

 

[Deleted User]

Wow...
Now imagine Nintendo filling lawsuit against everyone that is making enhancement packs for Dolphin.

 

[chrisrlink]

and this is why Bethesda is not on my shitlist T2 is and they prove it over and over also on my Shit list is nintendo and Square more to be added

 

[Kubas_inko]

If he were to release just the tools that do it (you know, give them the iso file and RDR2 folder and just wait) I think they wouldn't mind at all. But if he was going to share copyrighted material then bye bye project.

 

[the_randomizer]

Oh man, think of all the money that Take Two didn't lose from all those people running the game on emulators. The figures are staggering! Pantywaist asshole devs.

 

[Silent_Gunner]

This is bad news. Companies now targeting fan projects. Can't see whats wrong with improving a game through emulation. Don't most PC games have mods which improve gameplay.

Not as common as it used to be. Even if there is, to apply said mods requires mod managers, and it's not as drag and drop as it used to be with stuff like UT. Even better is when said mod managers install said mods by putting everything in the same folder as the .exe and other important files to a game installation.

This takedown is indication that, at this point, everything that's done as a part of a fan project online must be kept under wraps. If this, AM2R, Pokemon Uranium, and GTA5's current state on Steam in relation to mods now are anything to go off of, you can't trust companies to not get triggered over people doing things with the products THAT THEY PAID THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY FOR TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

Shit like this is why companies are hoping projects like XCloud and Stadia take off. Given the industry's attitudes towards paying customers these days, I say they don't deserve our sympathy.

-snip-

 

[pustal]

I've previously thought that Rockstar could launch a DLC from RDR2 with the story of RDR, most of the map is already there and they can re-use models from the first one to complement it. Maybe Rockstar isn't done with RDR1.

 

[ibroxgaz]

Not as common as it used to be. Even if there is, to apply said mods requires mod managers, and it's not as drag and drop as it used to be with stuff like UT. Even better is when said mod managers install said mods by putting everything in the same folder as the .exe and other important files to a game installation.

This takedown is indication that, at this point, everything that's done as a part of a fan project online must be kept under wraps. If this, AM2R, Pokemon Uranium, and GTA5's current state on Steam in relation to mods now are anything to go off of, you can't trust companies to not get triggered over people doing things with the products THAT THEY PAID THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY FOR TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

Shit like this is why companies are hoping projects like XCloud and Stadia take off. Given the industry's attitudes towards paying customers these days, I say they don't deserve our sympathy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Are you shoving the stick where your asshole is?

What so a company is not allowed to protect it’s ip

 

[Silent_Gunner]

What so a company is not allowed to protect it’s ip

They can if they want to draw people's ire. This hasn't exactly made yours truly to want to purchase anymore Take Two products or anything of the like, that's for sure.

 

[Hells Malice]

ITT a bunch of kids not understanding very simple laws and regulations.

It's their property to do with as they wish. Dude was given apparently many chances to comply with a takedown, he ignored it. You don't get much more retarded than that. You can stomp your feet and cry all you want but in the end it's their property. You can't paint someone's house just because they don't live in it and have no plans of painting it themselves.

It's too bad but that's life. This project seems to broadly escape the box of a "simple mod" some seem to claim it is. It's not surprising it got hit.

 

[SS4]

Well, they don't want random ppl showing the world that they can improve on their multi millions dollars game alone at home during their free time on a single PC

 

[Itsuki235]

Does this project count as a derivative work or not.

It depends on the country and the specifics of the case, but hopefully I can clarify this somewhat.

In the United States, cheat codes, save data, translations etc do not count as "derivative works" unless the "derivative" constitutes a "work".

In the case of save data and cheats, they have no value or use apart from when used with the original work. Since their value cannot be realized without distribution of the original work, and the the original work is not distributed along with save data/cheats, they cannot be considered a "work" and hence the copyright of the original does not extend to them.

Translations are a bit more complicated because they can be used independently of the original work, but that actually depends on the format. Translations can be distributed in binary format the same way as savedata/cheats such that they hold no value when used apart from the original work. In this case, it would not constitute a derivative work for the same reason, however courts seem to or likely will side with copyright holders on any translation related issue. I am not well versed on the case law because this is a very obscure case (translations distributed as binaries). Websites that distribute translations of games in a binary format may be perfectly legal but actually using them may not be.

Note that the EU/Japan differ from the US on this. In Japan, the original game author owns your save data and has an exclusive right to create/disallow cheats. I am not sure about Canada.

In the US, it is probably legal to create and distribute binary mods for games provided that such modifications do not depend upon any copyrighted content of the original. However, that is actually a lot of work, so almost all mods use templates from the original, and then distribute that, which is not legal due to redistribution limitations.