Automobilista Subject to Copyright Claim

[Paul Jeffrey]

Reiza Studios' newest title Automobilista has been temporary removed from the Steam digital distribution platform due to a copyright infringement claim. The title was removed from the Steam storefront Tuesday night.

Reiza Studios made the following statement to their fans and customers today:

"The Steam store page for Automobilista has been taken down due to a copyright infringement claim which had been submitted to Valve.

As is known, Automobilista packages a variety of officially licensed cars & brands alongside fictionalized, originally created content. The claim in question does not make any specific reference to content present in Automobilista supposedly in infringement of the party´s copyright - until it does, our belief is that it has no merit.

We have already taken the appropriate measures to resolve the issue ASAP, but in accordance to Valve´s policy, the process may take a few days to be completed.

In the meantime time we will continue to progress with the development of Automobilista, and intend to release another Early Access update shortly. The game is available for purchase as part of our Membership packages from our forum store.

Please understand that until the matter is fully resolved, we may not be able to discuss it."​

If you previously purchased and installed Automobilista through Steam, you will still be able to play the current Early Access build 0.8.7r both off- and online.

Dont forget to check out the RaceDepartment Automobilista forum for discussion and news on the Reiza title. Why not have a go in one of our daily Club Races run across a number of tracks and cars with large grids and close racing.

Update April 5th: Renato Simioni made a statement that can be seen here

 

[Paulo Gomes]

I have a little question, what the hell does FOM have to do with the model of the cars?
For sure iracing only have a license form mclaren and FOM cant do nothing about it, how can they apply the "copyrights infringement" in this case ?

 

[Matt Orr]

I see this as a serious issue, but I also don't think it's serious in the sense that AMS is actually in danger. This whole thing reminds me of youtube false copyright BS - shoot first, ask later, in other words - the maF1a is here. Especially with SCE still being a thing - it makes no sense that the FV10 would be the one that trips the trigger all of a sudden when the same thing has already been around. So either SCE is next, or they are just rampaging because that is what they do.

And I'd highly doubt Codemasters is involved, they'd have no reason to unless they decided to shred the goodwill they earned with DiRT Rally with this sub-community.

I have a little question, what that heel does FOM have to do with the model of the cars?
For sure iracing only have a license form mclaren and FOM cant do nothing about it, how can they apply the "copyrights infringement" this case ?

You answered your own question, the manufacturer (McLaren or Williams in iRacing's two cases) licensed the car. FOM however probably has a limited control over the licensing of the teams and the ability to protect what infringes on the series itself.

Worth noting, originally you were "never intended" to be able to paint iRacing's FW31. That car was only custom skinnable because the template just so happened to be leaked somehow... Also worth noting is both the MP4/30 and FW31 there feature the full real world livery, sponsors and all, available in the paint booth for everyone to select, which I believe is unique to both cars. (there might be one other car, but it's really rare)

We've seen licensing discussed a time or two through the years, sometimes the manufacturers have full control over their car's usage, sometimes it's the series that have full control. IIRC this was part of the way Simbin was able to land Porsche and Ferrari for the GT Legends and GTR series and part of why neither showed up in the later Steam release - the license for the series included the license to the cars within the series.

I guess you'd say it's kind of like how Pro Evolution Soccer has some licensed teams or players when it largely is otherwise "Automobilista" compared to the FIFA series "F1 201X".

 

[Aidan Keranen]

Now just because it's been taken down on Steam currently, does that mean that we can or can't use the Steam version at the moment?

 

[Tony]

@Aidan Keranen

If you previously purchased and installed Automobilista through Steam, you will still be able to play the current Early Access build 0.8.7r both off- and online.

 

[Paulo Gomes]

Exacly Matt, it was a bit of a rhetorical question, if Mclaren and Williams can license their cars, that means that FOM don't have control over the cars(models) in the F1 series, and as the reiza formulas are fictional single seaters, there are not infringing any copyrights at least from F1 brand.

 

[InsaneOzzie]

It's a shame that a small talented Developer like Reiza is having to deal with a copyright infringement accusation, from what seems to be a corporate monster, that for all intent and purpose is acting like a spoilt child, that actually has plenty for itself, but still wants what the other kids have, because they are having more fun.

The big issue here from my point of view is, when the truth finally comes out, and it will, someone will cop the blunt end of the pineapple, and I doubt it will be Reiza.
As a few appropriate alterations to some skins, or alike, will probably be all it will take to resolve this from Reiza's point of view. If it's as simple as that obviously.

To stir the hornets nest usually results with being stung yourself. The fallout of this towards the complainant (if it's who we all think it is) from the sim community, could be very costly once the truth is out there.

Cheers

 

[Matt Orr]

Exacly Matt, it was a bit of a rhetorical question, if Mclaren and Williams can license their cars, that means that FOM don't have control over the cars(models) in the F1 series, and as the reiza formulas are fictional single seaters, there are not infringing any copyrights at least from F1 brand.

Except as earlier discussed, if the cars are too similar and the liveries are too similar then they may at least think they have a case. I'm not sure a car that is 95% a Williams FW24 is "fictional".

It could be argued - and they would from their side - that it devalues their property. In order to get the most for their money when the contract for the series licensing comes up, it's in their best interest if they have an absolute monopoly / full control over it.

You are approaching this with the wrong view given your comment about free publicity. They don't care, and it's not in their best interest. The few thousand of us does not compare to the hundreds of millions. They do NOT need "free publicity".

 

[Will Mazeo]

Well you can just argue every F1 car in the grid looks 95% like each other because rules thus having a car "inspired" by these rules would give a similar result And you could even argue these rules are made up by yourself for your own game.
Hard to argue on the skins tho, they'd have to find cases from real life.

 

[P*Funk]

You are approaching this with the wrong view given your comment about free publicity. They don't care, and it's not in their best interest. The few thousand of us does not compare to the hundreds of millions. They do NOT need "free publicity".

This is absolutely correct. People are missing the philosophical concepts being touted when they talk about IP and copyright. Its not about whether the infringement has any arguable material benefit to the holder its that the holder's rights to control their work were allegedly transgressed.

To these guys its a property and the short term gains from letting a few nobodies popularize it within a small community means nothing if they argue it devalues their rights over it as a whole. In theory its supposed to be that letting a few do it means that anyone can do it and so that means that its value is lessened.

Its a bitch and there's plenty of room for people to argue the philosophy of it. Often people reference fair use in other unrelated cases and in terms of the youtube issues we see these days its obvious that fair use is definitely violated by the shotgun effect of generic takedown claims. In this case its not so similar and we also need to remember that even if ideas like fair use are appealing they're often not present in every jurisdiction. In many respects the United States often has some of the best freedom of speech protections but it also has some of the strongest pro-corporate legislations so its not easy to just generally reference a vague principle and expect it to make sense. Also since this is a European license you're not likely to know much of anything about how it works if you're thinking of American laws and case law.

This is the way the world works. You wanna say its BS and it sucks, fine. Its however unfortunately the law of the land. The limits of it however are also free for debate but people should stop thinking that this is only about publicity. Its about ownership and at the end of the day all businesses covet monopolies, right or wrong. That's what this is about - control.

 

[Slalom823]

This is unfortunate and I really hope it doesn't have a serious effect on Reiza. I am assuming and hoping it will be a small setback if any, and I really hope it wasn't because anyone from the sim community reached out to whoever is making the claim. I wouldn't think it would be any sim racer, but I suppose it isn't impossible. AMS is pretty niche and on the smaller side, so if it happens to be a large organization it does seem a little surprising that they would go after AMS. However that would be preferable in my eyes over a sim racer reaching out with the intention of causing issues.

 

[Alessandro Di Domenicantonio]

Hey FOM, look! A single seater formula car!

Go claim a copyright infringement on japanese superformula!

 

[Paulo Gomes]

The few thousand of us does not compare to the hundreds of millions. They do NOT need "free publicity".

Its about ownership and at the end of the day all businesses covet monopolies, right or wrong. That's what this is about - control.

You guys have a good point, but let me say this again, if Mclaren can licence their F1 car that means that FOM doesn´t ownership nothing from them, so a fictional model inspired by a Mclaren f1 has nothing to do with F1 brand, but of course is not that simple, but is my opinion.

And they do not need "free publicity", but since is a addition and not a subtraction, I think the sponsors don't rejected, this regarding the skins removed from RD.
Really hope it will be just a small setback as Slamom said, because since I started playing with the "Reiza formulas" only made me give more attention and support F1 races

 

[DewCrew88]

Hey FOM, look! A single seater formula car!

Go claim a copyright infringement on japanese superformula!

Real talk- That looks infinitely better than the current DW12 configuration and a bulk of the current f1 grid.

 

[Matt Orr]

It may look better than the DW12 and it's bits and the F1 cars, but it's still a fugly weirdo with pieces that don't match in my eyes. We need to go back to the 90s when almost all the top level open wheelers looked badass.

You guys have a good point, but let me say this again, if Mclaren can licence their F1 car that means that FOM doesn´t ownership nothing from them, so a fictional model inspired by a Mclaren f1 has nothing to do with F1 brand, and of course is not that simple, but is my opinion.

One car is not a series. McLaren isn't a series, FOM (essentially) is. McLaren may be able to license their car, but that doesn't mean we know iRacing 100% could go and add a Ferrari into the same series.

The fact one of the reasons interpreted for the lack of a official template for the iRacing FW31 there was the fact skins are a HUGE grey area anyways.... I do think there is a very, very good reason why that car in particular has never officially (still yet today!) had a paint template when EVERY other car does. Either Williams knew something iRacing didn't and stopped them, or iRacing pursued a non-typical agreement for their own protection.

Consider that the F2002 mod for AC is still available on RD here.... It may not just be a car issue but the strong resemblance of the car plus all the included skins creating a "virtual series" (which would be relevant to FOM), rather than a virtual representation of an individual car (which would be relevant to the manufacturer).

The skinning issue (the F1 201X files removed and the AMS skins removed from this site) itself would just be guilt by association at that point in their eyes. Hell, the F1 201X stuff could be them just "trimming the lawn" and doing upkeep while AMS could be a totally separate issue.

Either way, something is going on.

 

[Stereo]

I think some people are jumping to conclusions out of some desire for 'first!' status. Well, when I say some people I mean Austin.

My best guess is, someone misunderstood a 3rd party mod as being part of AMS (whether skin or car) & went ahead with the copyright claim and the only reason they're off Steam is because that's just how the legal system works. And yeah it's incredibly shitty to have such a 'guilty until proved innocent' system, not only does it give a lot of power to a few copyright trolls, but it lets things like this, which should be easily resolved behind closed doors (after all, Reiza's not using the 'Formula 1' trademarks or pretending to be a licensed F1 game, and it's probably not that big a deal to delete a couple skins if it comes to that) ends up a public spectacle.

 

[P*Funk]

The reason the system on almost every major website and media outlet on the internet is heavily biased in favour of the claimant is because they already have such power. The system is set up to provide the claimants what they want without having to put in jeopardy the middle man. Its not a particularly fair thing but since almost all of that has to do with the fear of ending up in litigation it just returns us to the simple fact known to everyone that justice in the civil court system is not justice at all because its so heavily dependent on money. Even if you win in a civil case you ultimately lose because of the cost.

This is about money and money makes things not about fairness but about profit and every adjunct component of that pursuit. Beyond this point I dangerously tread into a realm of political discourse and social mores that is both off topic and needlessly controversial, so I steer us back from this brink I've brought us to (cheeky twit that I am).

 

[thatmotorfreak]

Hopefully this should be sorted out, FOM or not.

 

[Arne Dopudja]

Time to start watching DTM on weekends.

DTM? Why that when this weekend we get WTCC, ETCC, BTCC, TCR and V8SC.

 

[Gringo]

crowdfunding refunds work

Comon there will be no refunds... worst case the content with issue will be changed.

if F1 finds out

They know, everyone "knows" it is public knowledge... ffs.

they took other peoples money

Backers "contributed" to the campaign, no money was "taken"... ffs

build a car that violated copyright laws?

100 bucks says that the complaint is without merit.

 

[BoogerMac]

Every single one of you that said "Formula 1" in your posts is going to get a cease-and-desists letter. According to FOM's guidelines, you cannot use "Formula 1" as a regular noun or to modify another noun. You cannot say "Formula 1 is terrible". You must say "The Formula 1 is terrible". You cannot say "Formula 1 drivers". You must say "Drivers of Formula 1".

Don't believe me, go this the link below and scroll to the bottom section, Grammar rules: https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/toolbar/guidelines.html. Check it out, this really exists!