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

 

[Shape]

If you think that lines such as "what was meant to serve as a joke" are neutral then you should get your eyes checked

That statement is quite neutral. The statements that follow were also neutral. These statements are all statements of fact, not opinion. Statements regarding other's (proven) opinions are not statements of bias, they are still reporting. In the future, please refrain from trolling in this fashion. It is unpleasant for everyone involved, including you.

In case you are concerned about my own biases here, my statements are certainly neutral statements of fact. The level of pleasantness derived from your posting can be gauged by other users' reactions to you and your words, as well as the simple fact that you quickly resorted to name-calling within 5 posts following your post (and actually it was in your next immediate post in this topic.).

On the topic of goat sim 3, however, this is not genius marketing. It's somewhat disrespectful to the actual devs writing code and making assets, the leaked footage was never supposed to see the light of day. I can understand why Rockstar DMCA'd it.

 

[Veho]

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.

Factors used to determine "fair use" are defined in the Copyright law of the United States, so I said "law covering fair use". But okay then.
I wouldn't call the use in this case "blatantly fair" but since the Goat Simulator devs won't take the issue to court, I guess we'll never know.

 

[Shape]

Factors used to determine "fair use" are defined in the Copyright law of the United States, so I said "law covering fair use". But okay then.
I wouldn't call the use in this case "blatantly fair" but since the Goat Simulator devs won't take the issue to court, I guess we'll never know.

But we DO know. The Goat Simulator devs were using IP footage someone else owned to sell their game and directly associated a portion of their game with a work that was not their own. Even when used as parody in their marketing, which it was, this does not fit the legal requirements for something to be considered a work of parody or satire. The devs literally used the footage to associate their game with someone else's which, even when done in the manner of spoof media, is a huge legal no-no. Other devs parody other work in their marketing all the time but the main difference is that they do not directly associate their own work with the parodied content.

 

[Marc_LFD]

I had forgotten these "sim" games were still a thing. Are there that many people who buy it? I guess so.

 

[ZeroFX]

lmao, based, rockstar sucks.

 

[Lazyt]

Free advertisment

 

[samcambolt270]

The Goat Simulator devs were using IP footage someone else owned to sell their game and directly associated a portion of their game with a work that was not their own. Even when used as parody in their marketing, which it was, this does not fit the legal requirements for something to be considered a work of parody or satire.

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.

 

[reddragon105]

I'm sure she's grateful that a white knight such as yourself has come to shield the staff from any constructive criticism. Unfortunately this is a forum and I'm allowed to write anything I want under the forum rules. I would not have said anything if I didn't consider this submission subpar compared to everything else Chary writes. If you think that lines such as "what was meant to serve as a joke" are neutral then you should get your eyes checked and maybe don't resort to petty rethorics because someone dared to criticize your queen.

"what was meant to serve as a joke" is referring to the fact that the Goat Sim devs obviously meant it as a joke, given the humourous tone of the trailer.
I don't see how that is opinionated on the part of the author in any way - it's simply reporting what happened. Coffee Stain meant it as a joke, Rockstar are taking it seriously.
For it to be opinionated, Chary would have to give a personal opinion on the matter, but I don't see one in there - just the two sides of the story.

 

[samcambolt270]

Factors used to determine "fair use" are defined in the Copyright law of the United States, so I said "law covering fair use". But okay then.

To be needlessly pedantic "The copyright law" is also not a law, it's an act. Laws are based on legislation brought about *regarding* acts. This is completely pointless as it doesn't actually change anything but I felt like saying lol

 

[City]

"what was meant to serve as a joke" is referring to the fact that the Goat Sim devs obviously meant it as a joke, given the humourous tone of the trailer.
I don't see how that is opinionated on the part of the author in any way - it's simply reporting what happened. Coffee Stain meant it as a joke, Rockstar are taking it seriously.
For it to be opinionated, Chary would have to give a personal opinion on the matter, but I don't see one in there - just the two sides of the story.

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

 

[Ryab]

Didn't they say that the leak of gta vi was fake?
Because if it really was, then...

No it was real.

 

[SG854]

Rockstar creating the Streisand Effect

 

[DoctorBagPhD]

I'm sure she's grateful that a white knight such as yourself has come to shield the staff from any constructive criticism. Unfortunately this is a forum and I'm allowed to write anything I want under the forum rules. I would not have said anything if I didn't consider this submission subpar compared to everything else Chary writes. If you think that lines such as "what was meant to serve as a joke" are neutral then you should get your eyes checked and maybe don't resort to petty rethorics because someone dared to criticize your queen.


EDIT: we got simps and a pedophile in full damage control. I’m sure Chary approves. Lesson learned though: never offer any constructive criticism in here

Bet on your deathbed you'll be way glad you were this invested in wasting time arguing online lmao

 

[KingVamp]

At this point, I want laws directly protecting talking about leaks, as long as it isn't private information. The abuse of the system of protecting their IPs are getting ridiculous.

 

[samcambolt270]

At this point, I want laws directly protecting talking about leaks, as long as it isn't private information. The abuse of the system of protecting their IPs are getting ridiculous.

Discussing leaks is already directly protected under free speech. You can freely talk about it and write about it all you want. Alot of companies still don't get that, hence the whole lego luigi debacle with people getting dmcad for simply theorizing that a lego luigi could even be a thing, but its still technically protected. As for showing footage of leaks, it's also protected, but in a slightly more roundabout way. The issue is that companies don't give a shit. Even the existing blatant protections don't stop them because they just do it anyway and no one is rich enough to actually take them to court over it.
(btw, I wasn't kidding about the lego luigi thing. There were dmcas and literally c&d's sent to people for merely talking about the fact that the lego mario toy said luigi sometimes and maybe that means a lego luigi was on the way)

 

[Marc_LFD]

EDIT: we got simps and a pedophile in full damage control. I’m sure Chary approves. Lesson learned though: never offer any constructive criticism in here

Calling people pedophiles is a very serious accusation if he or she isn't. That's not to be used lightly.

Post automatically merged: Dec 22, 2022

At this point, I want laws directly protecting talking about leaks, as long as it isn't private information. The abuse of the system of protecting their IPs are getting ridiculous.

You're talking about censoring people even if they just talk about a subject. That's a dangerous path to go down.

 

[BLsquared]

I don't even know anymore. *Sigh*

 

[samcambolt270]

You're talking about censoring people even if they just talk about a subject. That's a dangerous path to go down.

You got it flipped. They aren't saying you *shouldn't* be allowed to talk about leaks, but that you *should* be allowed as long as it isn't somones private information. They said protecting *talking* about leaks, not protecting leaks.

 

[KingVamp]

Discussing leaks is already directly protected under free speech. You can freely talk about it and write about it all you want. Alot of companies still don't get that, hence the whole lego luigi debacle with people getting dmcad for simply theorizing that a lego luigi could even be a thing, but its still technically protected. As for showing footage of leaks, it's also protected, but in a slightly more roundabout way. The issue is that companies don't give a shit. Even the existing blatant protections don't stop them because they just do it anyway and no one is rich enough to actually take them to court over it.
(btw, I wasn't kidding about the lego luigi thing. There were dmcas and literally c&d's sent to people for merely talking about the fact that the lego mario toy said luigi sometimes and maybe that means a lego luigi was on the way)

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.

 

[linuxares]

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