Actually, on second thought, it doesn’t just seem wrong.

The youtube game version uses characters, imagery, dialogue, and plot right from the movies with only minor tweaks. Good tweaks, but not enough for you to know it isn’t repackaged content from the original creators. Summit was almost forced to take action to avoid losing certain rights.

On the other hand, Summit is stupid if they don’t turn around and offer permission to put it back up again. They could bring it under the tent of authorized works. Then it’s transformed from infringing works to guerrilla advertising.

The real question is not whether or not it infringed but what motivated Summit to make such a move. But again, this just demonstrates that copyright can be used for GOOD, or it can be used for EVIL.

You be the judge of how Summit used it here.

#TwilightGATE

“Thanks to everyone for the support! Again, the game is back. Thanks to Summit for working with us to bring 8-Bit Twilight back!”

What “right,” pray tell, were they at risk of losing? In what measurable way could they possible be harmed in any way from this?

I say, upload it to all the other video hosting services, then upload a video to youtube which is just stills of URLs pointing to the video on other hosting services. No way they can takedown-notice that youtube vid, and the time it would take them to send takedown requests to all the other video hosting sites would cost them $$$.

Also, you should pay homage to something awesome next time, not this terrible mindless junk love story that has taken the world by storm.

Twilight: A waste of trees, celuloid & bandwidth.

Love the Youtube game. It truly is -superior- to the movie experience!

I despise Twilight, but I am now, from this one fact, quite a fan of Summit.

also, i thought youtube implemented a ‘nah-uh’ clause for these takedowns? the copyright owner can issue a takedown which youtube must honor but then the “infringer” can counter the claim and youtube then re-enables the content forcing the copyright owner to prove that infringement has indeed taken place. this makes sense to me because then all the power does not totally lie in the few deep-pocketed, fan-hatin’ corps that dominate content creation.

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals

looks like BigContent has never sued a youtuber. I say counter their takedown and watch the rats run to look up the definition of the word ‘parody’.

work. buy. consume. die.

‘create.’ is not on the list.

They ought to be. There’s no excuse to be forcing other people to lose profits based on what is, in essence, a false claim of ownership.

I have ran across many things people have made things for rather it was videos, games, fan fiction that I did not know what it was and went back to find it so that I did. This did in many cases cause me to spend money.

So it is very sad that they would close down something like this. VERY sad.

The real question is not whether or not it infringed but what motivated Summit to make such a move. But again, this just demonstrates that copyright can be used for GOOD, or it can be used for EVIL.

You be the judge of how Summit used it here.

#TwilightGATE

Off the top of my head, I can think of two kinds of rights: ownership and contractual. Ownership rights would include trademarks and copyrights. If you don’t defend the exclusive use of your trademark, you can lose it. I don’t think you can lose your copyright entirely, but you could dilute your rights to damages in other instances if it can be shown you aren’t consistent in defending your copyright ownership.

The other set of rights include the complex contractual rights surrounding a movie. It’s almost certain the contract licensing the book grants limited copyrights for derivative works, so long as a long list of requirements are met. That would probably include protecting the licensed material from unauthorized duplication.

Then there would be contracts concerning rights to likenesses, distribution rights, derivative works, and so on. With actors, writers, author, studio, etc, etc. A big crazy web. Non-performance could mean loss of rights granted in the contracts (even dumb stuff like the right to send an actor to Jay Leno for PR stint).

So it’s a 1000 times easier to Summit to send a DCMA notice than to have a slew of lawyers figure out each and every way they may lose rights and balance that against the plus of some free advertising.

But … make a stink then grant permission clears 99.9% of that up.

http://www.eclipsemovie.ru/