Stadiums
-
I agree. Would especially love to see the Cleveland one. I do remember The Vet, Tiger, & The Astrodome being in the Triple Play series. I don't know how it could be a rights issue, when most or all you mentioned have been torn down many years ago.
As a Met fan, I don't need old Florida or Atlanta, tbh. -
I think the SDS bean counters have decided it’s both not worth the cost for the rights and not worth the time developers would take to make the ballparks when they could be making deGrom as a shortstop cards. We all thought the ballpark creator was the trade off, because there are a lot of talented ballpark creators out there. But again, they completely abandoned improving that over the last 3 years other than adding dinosaurs and UFOs.
-
Here we go again. Folks! There are no copyrights for virtual reproductions of actual buildings and structures. It's the same legal protection given to photographs and works of art. If the details of the structure is publicly accessible, then it is fair game.
Your second point though is full on target. Stadium Creator was intended to be that source but SDS deliberately blew it. Not because of any concerns over copyright violations, but because they didn't want what they considered competition.
There were hundreds of veteran stadium designers in the community who were at the ready to use SC to create virtual stadiums, but SDS stymied us.
-
I suspect it wouldn't be that expensive, but it also wouldn't earn them any money. I'd love to see way more historical content in the game - stadiums, historical rosters, etc. It's super sad that we can't have a game that has a lot of historical content in it - accurate representations of baseball teams and locations.
But, that's never gonna earn them any money, so doesn't seem possible.
-
Let’s be honest I love this idea but as sad as it is people would still use coors. I hate coors at this point.
-
Here we go again. Folks! There are no copyrights for virtual reproductions of actual buildings and structures. It's the same legal protection given to photographs and works of art.
Here we go again. This is false. NIL isn’t just for people.
-
We talk about legends all the time that we want to get in the game. Missing legends like Cobb, Bonds, and DiMaggio usually come down to money. BUT why are we missing classic stadiums like Tiger, Three Rivers, Ebbets Field, the Astrodome, Cleveland Municipal Stadium, and Olympic Stadium? Are the rights that expensive? Just seems dumb to be doing these Alan Trammel moments in Comerica Park. There aren’t that many stadiums missing.
Ebbets and Tiger Stadium are the only true missing stadiums. Everything else you mentioned is a cookie cutter that Shea mimics.
-
Here we go again. Folks! There are no copyrights for virtual reproductions of actual buildings and structures. It's the same legal protection given to photographs and works of art.
Here we go again. This is false. NIL isn’t just for people.
I've already provided the case law and actual statutes. You are the one peddling falsehoods.
-
Also impossible to get them for the most
Part as well -
Here we go again. Folks! There are no copyrights for virtual reproductions of actual buildings and structures. It's the same legal protection given to photographs and works of art.
Here we go again. This is false. NIL isn’t just for people.
I've already provided the case law and actual statutes. You are the one peddling falsehoods.
You provided no such thing (at least that I could find.) But that still doesn't get around the Berne Convention, the AWCPA of 1990, 17 USC 102, and O'Bannon v NCAA.
There's a reason GTA V has the Vinewood Sign, the Galileo Observatory, and the Maze Bank Tower.
-
The cases you cited had nothing at all to do with buildings. O'Bannon's lawsuit was against the NCAA to force the NCAA to pay him for the use of his name and facial likeness on UCLA merchandise. Cleary, you either failed to actually read the case, or thought that flashing a bunch of names around would blindly make your point. All it did was get your account blocked by me since it's clear you don't want to have meaningful discussions.
Here is the actual case law, and yes, this has absolutely been posted here by me in the past:
"17 US Code 102 -- Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
Section (b) is the critical part. It means that if someone takes a photo, or creates a painting or illustration of an architectural work, the copyright does not extend to that creation, provided that the creation was made from publicly accessible points of view. Meaning, I can stand or sit in any stadium, take a photo, or make a drawing of it, and neither the photo nor drawing is protected by any architectural copyrights that may apply to the stadium.
Courts have treated video game representations the same as photos or illustrations, since that's exactly what they are, digital illustrations stitched together with vector analysis routines to mimic 3D movement.
If people wish to argue with my interpretation of the law, then reference this:
"17 US Code 120 -- Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
(a) Pictoral Representations Permitted. --
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the rights to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.(b) Alterations To And Destruction of Buildings. --
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(2), the owners of a building embodying an architectural work may, without the consent of the author or copyright owner of the architectural work, make or authorize the making of alterations to such building, and destroy or authorize the destruction of such building."Now, let's look at how these laws have worked in courts of law.
Courts have established that even enforcement of trademarks within a building or structure would have to adhere to all four of these conditions:
- The building would need to have an identifiable, distinctive appearance.
- The building would have to be publicly associated with certain goods or services.
- Your use would have to be commercial (not editorial); and
- Your use would have to be linked to an offer or endorsement of similar goods or services.
For the purposes of a video game making virtual digital representations of a building, courts have ruled that item four as a restriction applies, since the video game does not in any way provide an offer or endorsement of a similar good or service. Meaning, a video game in the context of an MLB licensed software product, is not an actual physical stadium and therefore does not directly compete against the stadium from which the video digital representation was created from.
Now, here is where copyright violation MAY be present.
If the stadium includes advertisements using trademark protected references, such as a Coca Cola sign, then precise replication of that trademark in the video game may be a copyright violation. However, all such liability is removed if the ad is replaced using a non-trademarked presentation. That said, many courts have ruled that photos or illustrations of structures that included representations of the ads were also NOT violations of trademarks since they did not directly compete against the products carrying the trademarks.
This means that the reason for architectural copyright is NOT to prevent digital representations, but instead to prevent someone constructing an actual rival architectural structure that replicates those copyright protected design elements. The entire purpose of patents, copyrights, and trademarks is to prevent entities from stealing the protected work and using that to directly compete with the original work.
MLB The Show is not competition in any form against Yankee Stadium, MLB, nor any MLB or MiLB team. SDS's license is paid to use the trademarks of the team logos, uniforms, and player likenesses.
Again, this is multiple times I have written all this, and when the same person rehashes old arguments long ago disproven, there is no logical reaction except to regard the person as trolling and therefore block his account.
-
The issue isn't creating a photo-realistic re-creation of the stadium in question. The issue is SDS wishing to sell a video game with those re-creations in it.
You missed the part in part (a) that mandates the view of the building must be accessible from a public place. Stadiums are private property and the only way to view the interior of the stadiums can only be done via non-public places.
SDS could show stadium exteriors (post 1990), but that doesn't do much good for gameplay.
