The latest Goat Simulator 3 trailer has taken a funny jab at Grand Theft Auto, but in the process has drawn the ire of Rockstar, who is now on a mission to scrub the video from the internet. In it, the Goat Sim devs spotlight one of the NPCs from their game. After a few minutes of gameplay footage from Goat Simulator 3, which showcases ragdoll effects, t-posing, and other amusing AI behavior that you'll be able to interact with as a goat, it cuts to the NPC making a tongue-in-cheek reference to GTA VI--specifically, the leaked footage from earlier this year. This NPC claims he has experience with wacky open-world physics, because he's a character from the early development GTA VI build, using the actual footage in the trailer.

Video: pic.twitter.com/l4HpD3kioR

— FriendlyAaron (@FriendlyAaron1) December 21, 2022

​

What was meant to serve as a joke was apparently not funny at all to Rockstar and Take-Two, because not long after the trailer was uploaded, it was taken down, "in response to a report by the copyright owner". Reuploads of the trailer began to crop up, only to be copyright-claimed moments after. The Goat Simulator Twitter account replied to the video being removed with the Simpsons "I'm in danger" meme, but it's uncertain as to whether or not anything will come of the stunt.

Source

 

[samcambolt270]

DMCA is what I was thinking about, when I said protection. I don't think it should be just taken out, but there has to be away to make it less abusable.

the abusability of dmca isn't from dmca itself. It's from safe harbor provisions. In order to keep it, when someone sends a dmca, you effectively have to take it down or you can lose safe harbor, and if a company like youtube loses it they'll end up liable for every single copyright violation a user ends up doing.

 

[Ryab]

This is very funny I do have to admit. But, Take Two very much has the right to do this. I wouldnt even consider trying to use leaked game footage in a trailer. Kinda just asking for trouble lol.

 

[AngryCinnabon]

Get bent Take Two and Rockstar.

 

[codezer0]

Rockstar has become the same type of company the radio ads in GTA 3 openly mocked. Yet with even more STDs and abusive working conditions than even that.

 

[SG854]

We don't have Fair Use in Sweden. So sadly Rockstar and Take-Two can take them down fairly easy.

Sweden isn't the paradise we that it was

 

[linuxares]

Sweden isn't the paradise we that it was

No? Just check up the The Pirate Bay raid.

 

[SylverReZ]

No? Just check up the The Pirate Bay raid.

Here's a good video on them:

 

[SG854]

How tonedeaf do you have to be to not see “what was meant to serve as a joke” as opinionated? Holy fuck you’re all pathetic as fuck. All I did was giving constructive criticism and I was personally attacked for it even by a MAP whom wants to bring the age of consent down to 12. I’m sorry @Chary this post was the greatest piece of journalism ever written and it’s not opinionated at all despite you admitting to it in the first page. Everyone happy now? Good

People should stop riding Chary's goat sack

 

[Noctosphere]

No it was real.

that's not what i meant...

Like all video game companies that get a part of their game leaked, they said "It's fake, we didn't make this. this isn't our product, etc etc"
What I say is, if it really was fake, like they said, then why asking youtube to take it down?

 

[raxadian]

but it's uncertain as to whether or not anything will come of the stunt

Publicity for the game, I wasn't even aware there ever was a Goat Simulator 2.

 

[linuxares]

Publicity for the game, I wasn't even aware there ever was a Goat Simulator 2.

There never will be a Goat Simulator 2.
Coffee Stains promised their would NEVER be a Goat Simulator 2.

https://gamerant.com/goat-simulator-3-sequel-joke-title-explained-coffee-stain-history/

 

[eduall]

this is for real??????????

 

[Noctosphere]

There never will be a Goat Simulator 2.
Coffee Stains promised their would NEVER be a Goat Simulator 2.

https://gamerant.com/goat-simulator-3-sequel-joke-title-explained-coffee-stain-history/

I loled hard when I read this
You said "Coffee Stains promised there would never be a GS2"
In my overwhelming imagination, I had this scenario in mind :

So, after Goat Simulator, they worked hard on Goat Simulator 2
They made design, prototypes, started coding, and suddenly, a coffee cup spilled all over the only computer containing the only source of what they have worked on so far for GS2
It was lost... forever...
So the company said "Fuck that, no Goat Simulator 2, we worked hard for nothing, let's start over and call it Goat Simulator 3"

As I said, overwhelming imagination

 

[nWo]

They should have take it with humor and not with that silly response.

Now, Goat Sim 3 is only for Series S and X, that really is the big dilemma.

 

[chrisrlink]

it's sad when a car jacking/crime sim is worse then a deranged goat sim it's worse when the company of the said crime sim tries to nuke that memory out of existance despite probaby going to release a cyberpunk level dumpster fire in a few years (hopefully never if it's that bad)

 

[Shape]

Completely and totally incorrect. That's not how anything in fair use works. First, nothing about about fair use is precluded by that usage being commercial. Commercialization does not suddenly make something not fair use. Feel free to scroll up in this very thread to see instances of big triple A devs using footage of a competitors game in their own advertizing, without even using parody or satire at all. All it needs to be is criticism, not satire/parody. Parody and satire are protected, but whether or not you, a layman, consider something satirical is irrelevant. Many many things have previously been declared fair use with far less criticism than this advertisement.

Actually, the main distinction here is that their NPC specifically said they were from GTA. That is attempting to profit from direct brand association which, without brand consent, is quite illegal under U.S. copyright law. That is not fair use and is legally distinct from the examples given earlier in the thread, as the issue causing DMCA takedowns is most likely not the footage, but the NPC's statement. I am also not levying criticism on the ad, I personally find it pretty funny.

I am pointing out that the goat sim devs almost certainly made choices in this marketing material specifically so that their ad seemed like but was not fair use. They were probably uncertain whether Rockstar would actually do it, but Rockstar DMCA takedowns would be good marketing for their game and, lo-and-behold, this thread has already hit 4 pages long.

Also, for the record, no-one here is arguing that anyone was harmed enough to warrant paying damages. This whole thing is simply a very well executed joke for marketing purposes.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Guys it's just a funny goat game chill out lol

 

[Hells Malice]

Man I must have hurt your feelings pretty hurt if you feel the need to project your insecurities on a stranger online. I’m married, unlike a piece of shit like you.

EDIT: nevermind, just did some digging around and I don’t even want to argue with someone whom believes that age of consent should be 12.

Post automatically merged: Dec 22, 2022

Had they recreated the footage, it would have been fine.

I love when people make wild claims and conveniently forget to quote what they found. Man if only forums and computers had a way of transcribing text found...

I'm curious mate what did this evil Hells Malice guy say. He sounds terrible!
He definitely wasn't merely stating age of consent in Japan is 12, like a decade ago probably.
Really you know better cuz I could never be fucked to go so far back to find a quote but given you didn't POST the quote I assume it's because you had to do next level extrapolation.

I feel so sorry for people like you lol. Just little balls of anger and insecurity. I can't even comprehend digging through a literal decade of someone's posts to try and find ANYTHING to use as a weapon. I must've really hurt your feelings with my post for you to spend hours pouring over my posts, rage building as you angrily skim every post i've ever made.
This is the funniest thing i've ever read.

 

[Ryab]

that's not what i meant...

Like all video game companies that get a part of their game leaked, they said "It's fake, we didn't make this. this isn't our product, etc etc"
What I say is, if it really was fake, like they said, then why asking youtube to take it down?

But they literally did say it was real.

 

[samcambolt270]

Actually, the main distinction here is that their NPC specifically said they were from GTA. That is attempting to profit from direct brand association which, without brand consent, is quite illegal under U.S. copyright law.

Wrong, they are criticizing the game and its npcs by showing them as being nonsensical, lazy ragdolls. That IS criticism. Your entire argument is on the basis of your failure to understand what the actual criticism is and thinking that simply name dropping a brand is inherently attempting to profit off of that brand.

Actually, the main distinction here is that their NPC specifically said they were from GTA.

Npcs aren't real and are not actors. The npc is not from gta and its statement of being from gta is, quite clearly, criticising gta npcs as being lazy. No human being on this planet actually thinks that npcs are actors that go from game to game getting "gigs" working as background extras. No one is going to see an ad personifying an npc as an actor and that "npc" saying "i was in a gta leak that one time" and convince them to buy the game so they can profit from that recognition. The mention of the npc being "from" gta leak is not a distinction from criticism. That is the criticism. You clearly do not understand how any of this works and are spouting your opinion.

That is not fair use and is legally distinct from the examples given earlier in the thread, as the issue causing DMCA takedowns is most likely not the footage, but the NPC's statement.

That is not correct at all, as the statement was not "hey guys remember gta, we have those guys in our game you should buy it!" It was literally "this fake actor which literally does not exist is stupid and lazy and haha lol it's like that character in a gta leak which also has shitty lazy npcs." Your assumption that is inherently not fair use thanks to it being "brand appropriation" is simply not how anything works.