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

 

[N00ByBo0]

This is such a brilliant marketing move. Now everyone will talk about Goat sim which I didn't even know was getting another game. They knew this would happen.

 

[Foxi4]

Weirdly opinionated submission from @Chary, I'm surprised.

This wasn't a random meme from someone on the internet, it was a company using someone else's intellectual property to advertise their own. Doesn't matter if it was "just a joke". Companies have been crucified for much less when they were suspected to having ripped off a "commoner".

Parody is a protected category exempt from most copyright claims. Goat Sim 3 is a parody of open world games like GTA. Would you say that the footage is used in a transformative manner? It sure comes across like it is to me.

 

[City]

Imagine whining about being allowed to have an opinion because someone shared their opinion. I love when the mentally unfit think free speech is "I can say words without consequence but YOU can't do the same!"



Imagine thinking people can't agree with a woman without being a simp
Big incel vibes. But shit man if this is how you deal with your crippling depression from being terminally alone, more power to ya.

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

Parody is a protected category exempt from most copyright claims. Goat Sim 3 is a parody of open world games like GTA. Would you say that the footage is used in a transformative manner? It sure comes across like it is to me.

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

 

[Veho]

Publicity stunt is right, Goat Simulator devs knew it would be removed, they knew there would be a stink that will bring way more exposure to the game than if it the ad was just left there to peter out and get replaced with some other meme.

Parody is a protected category exempt from most copyright claims. Goat Sim 3 is a parody of open world games like GTA. Would you say that the footage is used in a transformative manner? It sure comes across like it is to me.

Using content for parody is exempt only when the content used is part of a published, publicly available work, not stolen/leaked content.

Still, the footage is out there, it will be referenced and talked about, there's no stopping that. Rockstar could have handled that better.

 

[samcambolt270]

Ah yes, the classic "big companies don't give a shit about fair use" problem. The advert is the definition of fair use. Using a small amount of copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism is textbook fair use. They used a tiny amount of footage for the purpose of criticizing it (effectively saying that it was lazily done with crappy cookie cutter npcs). It would one hundred percent be thrown out day one if a suit was filed, but instead they lean on the lenient dmca because they know damn well it's fair use and a suit won't fly, but companies that wanna maintain their safe harbor provisions will take it down anyway.

 

[ZeroT21]

Poor ragdoll, is this what we get if we leave the game settings on low(trash) ?

 

[Foxi4]

Using content for parody is exempt only when the content used is part of a published, publicly available work, not stolen/leaked content.


Still, the footage is out there, it will be referenced and talked about, there's no stopping that. Rockstar could have handled that better.

That’s a fair assessment. You can’t exactly “remove” something from the Internet - the genie is kind of out of the bottle at this point. It’s a pre-existing controversy that’s been highly publicised, I don’t think there’s anyone in the sphere that hasn’t seen the content. Rockstar is famously litigious, so I do wonder if it’s bots being trigger happy or “content cops” adhering to their instructions a little too strictly. In the end, this works out in Goat Sim’s favour regardless of what Rockstar does.

 

[samcambolt270]

Using content for parody is exempt only when the content used is part of a published, publicly available work, not stolen/leaked content.

"source: trust me bro"
That's literally not a thing. If you're thinking of laws against "sharing or leaking private content," you're thinking of revenge porn, not some archived video game footage.

 

[City]

That’s a fair assessment. You can’t exactly “remove” something from the Internet - the genie is kind of out of the bottle at this point. It’s a pre-existing controversy that’s been highly publicised, I don’t think there’s anyone in the sphere that hasn’t seen the content. Rockstar is famously litigious, so I do wonder if it’s bots being trigger happy or “content cops” adhering to their instructions a little too strictly. In the end, this works out in Goat Sim’s favour regardless of what Rockstar does.

Do you know any other game whose trailer has another game’s footage taken without permission?

 

[Foxi4]

Do you know any other game whose trailer has another game’s footage taken without permission?

I know games that have other games’ assets in them lifted wholesale, son - I’m an old far who’s seen it all.

 

[samcambolt270]

Do you know any other game whose trailer has another game’s footage taken without permission?

The "blast processing ads" from the 90s used mario footage to compare against sonic, criticizing mario for being slow.
EDIT: Here's the one. Not a blast processing ad like I remembered but effectively the same thing.

 

[Foxi4]

The "blast processing ads" from the 90s used mario footage to compare against sonic, criticizing mario for being slow.
EDIT: Here's the one. Not a blast processing ad like I remembered but effectively the same thing. ()

Those were great.

 

[City]

The "blast processing ads" from the 90s used mario footage to compare against sonic, criticizing mario for being slow.
EDIT: Here's the one. Not a blast processing ad like I remembered but effectively the same thing.

You’re thinking about this one

Fair enough that these ads used to exist on TV, but at least it’s not really leaked footage? Also I honestly can’t recall any other ad like this so something must have happened to discourage companies recreating them

 

[samcambolt270]

You’re thinking about this one

Fair enough that these ads used to exist on TV, but at least it’s not really leaked footage? Also I honestly can’t recall any other ad like this so something must have happened to discourage companies recreating them

Yeah, I had already edited into my post lol. You might not have refreshed yet. Regardless, no, nothing happened to discourage anyone from doing it. There are literally laws in place specifically protecting those that do. It's called "referential mention" (paired with a pinch of fair use for the video portion thanks to criticism) Go to any cheap supermarket or pharmacy and read the ripoff cereals or medicines. They always say something along the lines of "compare to X namebrand" and it isn't even a loophole. There are laws specifically written allowing it directly. Video games don't do it much anymore, but its not because they can't or have been discouraged from doing so, it's more than likely because such direct rivalry as "sega does what ninten'don't" just aren't a thing anymore.
EDIT: Oh, thats not the same video, thats the blast processing one I was remembering

 

[Veho]

"source: trust me bro"
That's literally not a thing. If you're thinking of laws against "sharing or leaking private content," you're thinking of revenge porn, not some archived video game footage.

Was the footage obtained legally?

 

[samcambolt270]

Was the footage obtained legally?

If the footage is readily available online than it was obtained legally and is perfectly valid for commentary and criticism. There are laws against stealing footage and posting it yourself, not commenting on, sharing, discussing, and yes, using (in a way adhering to fair use) footage stolen by someone unrelated to you.

 

[Veho]

If the footage is readily available online, yes, it was obtained legally and is perfectly valid for commentary and criticism. There are laws against stealing footage and posting it yourself, not commenting on, sharing, discussing, and yes, using (in a way adhering to fair use) footage stolen by someone unrelated to you.

I have my doubts.

 

[samcambolt270]

I have my doubts.

You can doubt all you want. The law however, disagrees with your doubts and is very clearly written.

 

[Veho]

You can doubt all you want. The law however, disagrees with your doubts and is very clearly written.

The law covering fair use is anything but clear, it lists vaguely defined factors that have to be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if fair use applies. And historically, criteria for unpublished (stolen) work have been way, way stricter than for published work - it's not an automatic disqualification but it's damn close.
Claiming "fair use" doesn't make it so.

 

[samcambolt270]

The law covering fair use is anything but clear, it lists vaguely defined factors that have to be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if fair use applies. And historically, criteria for unpublished (stolen) work have been way, way stricter than for published work - it's not an automatic disqualification but it's damn close.
Claiming "fair use" doesn't make it so.

First, fair use is not a law, it's a "right". The fact that that you're even calling it a "law" shows how little you actually know about it. The *right* of fair use is very clear. Case law and precedent have made it very easy to understand when something as blatantly fair use as a split second of footage that is being directly and blatantly criticized is in question. Second, there is in fact no law prohibiting the reporting on nor fair usage of unpublished works when said work is publicly available. It is not only not an automatic disqualification, it also not "damn close."