3 ms·

Not a copyright lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt: One of the core limitations on copyright is the idea-expression divide. Copyright does not--cannot--

Not a copyright lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt: One of the core limitations on copyright is the idea-expression divide. Copyright does not--cannot--protect an idea, only the expression of the idea. (There are other limitations on what expressions themselves can be protected, but if it's not even an expression, you're hosed). Of course, this itself isn't a clear-cut and easy divide, and is endless wishy-washy. So what allegedly copyrighted material has been lifted here? Well... as you dig into it, it's really a stretch. The argument is that PUBG copyrighted using a military-style helmet in a shooter game. No, seriously, ¶57 is arguing that using a particular "Russian special forces or 'spetsnaz'-style helmet" is a copyrighted element. ¶59 ups the insanity by arguing that using clothing is copyrighted. Not specific kinds of clothing, just regular streetware in general. Again and again, most of their claims on the aesthetic being copyrighted boil down, essentially, to "we copyrighted using military-style equipment, casual streetware, and a vaguely war-torn, somewhat austere Eastern European-ish environment as the setting for a shooter game." Which is not copyrightable for the even more basic fact that this predates PUBG by a long-shot. The two strongest copyright claims to me are a) the use of the frying pan and b) "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner". The first claim itself is pretty weak, but it's one of the strongest by simple virtue of its actual rarity in games, so PUBG may have a viable claim to have actually originated it. And the second claim is weak because I'm not sure it's actually infringed--the claimed infringement (¶101) is that the win screen has a cooked chicken on it, not the actual phrase. So the basic summary I have is that, while Free Fire is definitely a rip-off of PUBG, PUBG's aesthetic itself is so generic that it's not really copyright infringement.

p1necone 5y ago
The Winner Winner Chicken Dinner thing wasn't even invented by PUBG, that's been a common phrase (how common depends on the country) since before /video games/ existed, let alone PUBG specifically.
Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
I am also not an american copyright lawyer, is that "dissecting the details, ignoring the grand scale" how american IP laws for video games work? Concerning #57 and #59 the chapter is about what PUBG is, not about what is copied or copyrighted. You are wrong when you say they claim "using clothing is copyrighted" they do not make that claim at all. That chapter in the document describes in detail the artistic choices Krafton made in their expression of a battle royal last man standing free for all deathmatch arena ego shooter that is PUBG. In the next chapter (#78+) they argue that Garena is copying the overall look, feel, and audiovisual style, gameplay, maps, and many detailed design choices. They don't even pick up on that specific detail of clothing again. While i completely agree with you that they did not in fact come up with the artistic choice of clothing in mixed civilian and military gear, they directly lifted it from DayZ, which took it from the generic post-apocalyptic setting, the point of these details is to show that Garena is infringing by creating an almost identical expression of the idea, instead of creating a distinct expression of their own. It seems to me that the whole thing is not about sueing them over details like the level3 helmet looking almost identical to the one from the PUBG box art and marketing material. Yes Krafton claims the rendering of that helmet is a copyrightable piece of visual art in #57, but they do not claim that this piece of art was copied in #94, they claim that Garena used the same three types of helmets (motorad, military, spetsnaz) as their level 1,2,3 gear as part of their overall attempt to copy the whole game down to the details. The document seems less like a list of small infringements and more like list of examples of one big infringement. The core claim is that Garena is intentionally making an identical game. (again, not a lawyer)

p1necone 5y ago

The Winner Winner Chicken Dinner thing wasn't even invented by PUBG, that's been a common phrase (how common depends on the country) since before /video games/ existed, let alone PUBG specifically.

Jon_Lowtek 5y ago

I am also not an american copyright lawyer, is that "dissecting the details, ignoring the grand scale" how american IP laws for video games work? Concerning #57 and #59 the chapter is about what PUBG is, not about what is copied or copyrighted. You are wrong when you say they claim "using clothing is copyrighted" they do not make that claim at all. That chapter in the document describes in detail the artistic choices Krafton made in their expression of a battle royal last man standing free for all deathmatch arena ego shooter that is PUBG. In the next chapter (#78+) they argue that Garena is copying the overall look, feel, and audiovisual style, gameplay, maps, and many detailed design choices. They don't even pick up on that specific detail of clothing again. While i completely agree with you that they did not in fact come up with the artistic choice of clothing in mixed civilian and military gear, they directly lifted it from DayZ, which took it from the generic post-apocalyptic setting, the point of these details is to show that Garena is infringing by creating an almost identical expression of the idea, instead of creating a distinct expression of their own. It seems to me that the whole thing is not about sueing them over details like the level3 helmet looking almost identical to the one from the PUBG box art and marketing material. Yes Krafton claims the rendering of that helmet is a copyrightable piece of visual art in #57, but they do not claim that this piece of art was copied in #94, they claim that Garena used the same three types of helmets (motorad, military, spetsnaz) as their level 1,2,3 gear as part of their overall attempt to copy the whole game down to the details. The document seems less like a list of small infringements and more like list of examples of one big infringement. The core claim is that Garena is intentionally making an identical game. (again, not a lawyer)