Formula 1 Cracks down on modding community

[daan]

No on both counts, and the quote really goes to the heart of Codemaster's argument against modifications. This is settled case law in the US since 1991, and the ability to modify one's game is fair use. The whole point to this discussion is that Codemasters is indeed overzealous in protecting their revenue stream that a C&D letter was completely necessary in their view against modification sites. One paid Codemasters for the game, no one is arguing against it, but to equate mods to piracy (because of lost future sales) is just sheer lunacy.

It's not Codemasters. It is the commercial rights holder, ie Bernie.

A website called RaceDepartment—which serves as a hub for many a sim racing game—took down many pages of content containing mods for a pair of Codemasters Formula 1 games as well as Reiza Studio’s Automobilista following a cease and desist from the sport's commercial rights holder.

I didn't ignore it. I know I didn't make a post acknowledging that but I already saw it, my point was I had a problem with the way they defended their intellectual property. I already said I had no problem with them not wanting sites to use the Formula 1 Trademark, just with the fact that they've made now two sites have a mass exodus of content that isn't taking money away from them nor their Licensee.

And it's not about money.

Its about people making stuff that may not be accurate enough and may bring F1 into disrepute. If someone makes a mod containing F1 cars in R Factor, for example, and it's not very good, that will reflect badly on F1*. Said mod could also be using cars, circuits, drivers etc that they do not have a license to use.

"Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment, without creating a derivative work." - Judge Fern M. Smith:Galoob v Nintendo (1991)

I read that as you can modify a game for your own use. Making the game that you have modified available to others is an entirely different matter.

* I know F1 is not doing itself any favours in that department right now, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I read that as you can modify a game for your own use. Making the game that you have modified available to others is an entirely different matter.

Then you don't understand the nature of how a mod works. A mod is just simply code one injects into the game to improve the base game in some manner (even some game breaking bugs can be fixed with mods). No one was distributing the base game wholesale, if they did, then it is copyright infringement, and hence piracy. They were simply distributing the mod's code, which is indeed fair use.

 

[daan]

Then you don't understand the nature of how a mod works. A mod is just simply code one injects into the game to improve the base game in some manner (even some game breaking bugs can be fixed with mods). No one was distributing the base game wholesale, if they did, then it is copyright infringement, and hence piracy. They were simply distributing the mod's code, which is indeed fair use.

Yes, I know exactly what a mod is and game was the wrong word to use, but its still not relevant to what is happening here.

The bottom line is that folk are making copies of F1 cars and distributing them without permission. They don't have permission from Mercedes, RedBull, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, etc. Codemasters do.

 

[Tornado]

I would recommend that you brush up on the legal history behind the court case Nintendo v. Galoob. It was ruled in that case that modifying your legally purchased game by way of cheat codes is similar to introducing "house rules" in Monopoly.

I'm actually quite aware of the circumstances surrounding Nintendo vs. Galoob, which was a case about whether providing the end user the ability to alter existing copyrighted game code constituted creating a derivative work and thus copyright infringement. I argued extensively about that case when it came to the people insisting that the people who were hybriding cars in GT5 were breaking actual laws. That specific case certainly seems to suggest that a modder can dick around with whatever is already in the game and possibly even system to their heart's content.



What does that have to do with introducing unlicenced intellectual property into a game over the objections of the licensor? Or the licencee? Would Codemasters, the very same company who designed the Game Genie, agree that they have no right to enforce their exclusive F1 licence because of a court case about a different topic entirely?

 

[Liquid]

I can absolutely understand FOM wanting to protect their image rights, intellectual properties and so on. However, the demand for mods of previous seasons demonstrates that there is a gap in the market for more Formula One games which, if done and developed well with the 'official' seal of approval, would potentially generate even more money for the grubbers at FOM and CVC central.

Most of us here are gamers as well as motorsport fans. How often have you either desired or read wishlists/request threads for things like "Formula 1 97 but with today's graphics!", "Grand Prix 2 but on PS4" or "A BTCC supertouring game with all the seasons". These things could certainly make money if they were issued but I suppose it's whether they would be profitable enough to justify making them.

I accept that a 1991-2000 BTCC game wouldn't be a #1 best-seller. It doesn't mean that I don't want it though. So instead, people use mods to already-successful games such as rFactor and Race 07 and have their happy little world. I've even saved the .zips of all the mod stuff I have in case certain websites and content go offline in future. It seems that these pursuers of copyright infringement also don't seem to respond to criticism of the official games which leads to people looking at alternative avenues in the first place.

It just seems to me that there is a line to be drawn between getting a mod for the 2015 Formula One season, when there is an official game which already covers that, and getting a mod for, say... the 1996 or 1988 or 1993 Formula One season, of which there isn't, and never was, an official game:

"Stop using that 1993 mod!"
"What should I play instead?"
"Uh... F1 2015!"

 

[Keef]

I find it hilarious that people vehemently defend their rights on these forums, be it the right to free speech, artistic expression, bearing arms, etc., but as soon as a company exercises its right to see its intellectual property used in a way that is deems appropriate, the people scream blue murder.

Lucky @Keef isn't big on rights then eh? Considering....

What's the argument here? That somehow, after I pay money to a company in exchange for a product, that the product is somehow still theirs? **** that. That would be like me buying a book and not being allowed to take notes in it because it compromises the intellectual property rights of the creator. Here's my theory on intellectual property rights, especially with respect to digital media, which of course can be copied infinitely with no exchange of labor:

An intellectual property creator should have a right to a master copy of their idea which is documented in a physical form. But once you sell it, you no longer have rights to the products you've sold. Those belong to other people now. This is basic logic. If they produce something which is similar enough to your master copy, you could sue. But you can't deal with what they do in the privacy of their own home. Further, in the digital realm, if you choose to digitize your product and sell it then you've opened up a whole other can of worms. Modding game code is no different than taking notes in a book. Besides, it's *your* game. And sharing those mods is permissible because the mods themselves are the intellectual property of the mod creator, separate from the game. If somebody wants to download that mod and implement it into their game then it's no different than taking notes in that book. The game creator has no right to mess with any of this unless somebody is trying to commercialize a product that is reasonably indistinguishable from the game creator's master copy.

The fact that continuous updates, both of games and now of music albums (thanks Kanye) is further evidence that intellectual property rights on digital media should be strongly limited to master copies, if it can be argued they exist at all. Because what happens if the master copy changes, as is effectively happening when these updates are released? What if the update has the exact same content as what a modder created? The game Cities: Skylines has embraced the modding community and implemented features originally created by modders and hasn't made a fuss about it. Delving into digital media is like opening Pandora's box and I feel like any digital content creator had better get their master copy right the first time or accept the consequences. If they don't want to take that financial risk then they simply shouldn't digitize their stuff. I'll do it myself.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That somehow, after I pay money to a company in exchange for a product, that the product is somehow still theirs?

No, the argument is that you can't put somebody else's intellectual property into a product simply because you own the product.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

From what, a harmless group of die hard fans who in no way make ANY financial gain from something as simple as making a replica of a team car? I sure seem to notice no one else appears as aggressive to do such a thing over someone making their cars.

Other than Porsche with their cup cars and other race cars.

No, the argument is that you can't put somebody else's intellectual property into a product simply because you own the product.

It's apparent from his post he's well aware of that. And many times FOM goes far and beyond to omit these mods, especially when made in a general sense that they don't even claim to be what they're supposedly modded as. I recall some time ago the FOM went after a group that modded an RB7 supposedly, but to people just want to race F1 cars they'd see it as a generic template cause it had nothing claiming to be what the FOM saw it as.

If you're a nerd like me who loves to spend hours looking over F1 cars and can tell one from another based on body work, then yeah, I could see where the FOM is coming from. But most people aren't me so when you think about that aspect it seems hard to understand why they go to such mesures.

Even when you take the point from what Daan just used on putting the sport in disrepute, it's hard to do that when the mod isn't even claiming to be the item in question. If I call my mod generic f1 car 2016 and it just so happens to take queues from a W07, but isn't one, then how can the FOM actually claim intellectual property on inspiration taken from the current crop of cars. Rather it's as RACECAR put it, fair use and so long labeled shouldn't be attacked, if someone could give a reasonable legal basis on this, I'd love to know cause this has been a long time issue I've had with the FOM just sweeping through like no other.

 

[LeMansAid]

What's the argument here? That somehow, after I pay money to a company in exchange for a product, that the product is somehow still theirs? **** that.

Depends what you mean when you say "product". Buy a blank cd, you've bought one product. Buy an album on cd, you've bought two products. You own the physical property outright, but the intellectual property is exclusively tethered to the physical - beyond that amalgam, you own nothing of the intellectual.

Generally we buy stipulated access to intellectual property, not any of the intellectual property itself.

I made it clear in this post:

I think you're rather confused. That's just you explaining why you've got your knickers in a knot, and not at all addressing whether or not are talking about what F1's enforceable rights should be.

 

[RACECAR]

I think you're rather confused. That's just you explaining why you've got your knickers in a knot, and not at all addressing whether or not are talking about what F1's enforceable rights should be.

How am I confused? I basically said right there I have a problem with the way FOM is policing its intellectual property, specifically how aggressively they are going after these sites hosting mods. How can I make that anymore clearer?

 

[LeMansAid]

How am I confused? I basically said right there I have a problem with the way FOM is policing its intellectual property, specifically how aggressively they are going after these sites hosting mods. How can I make that anymore clearer?

What you want, and what rights they should have are completely different avenues of discussion. I'm asking which avenue you are on.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What you want, and what rights they should have are completely different avenues of discussion. I'm asking which avenue you are on.

He never said what he wanted though. It was pretty clear to me that what he's saying is FOM like anyone else have a right to fight people when they feel their intellectual property has been used and done so in a damaging way without consent. What he doesn't agree with that others don't do, is basically the trampling of fair use under the guise of intellectual property infringement against groups that only know of themselves.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I recall some time ago the FOM went after a group that modded an RB7 supposedly, but to people just want to race F1 cars they'd see it as a generic template cause it had nothing claiming to be what the FOM saw it as.

My knowledge of the finer points of copyright law might not be comprehensive, but to my mind, this is a distinction without a difference. If it looks like a Formula One car, handles like a Formula One car, and for all intents and purposes is a Formula One car, then it is a Formula One car. It's clearly intended to be a Formula One car, and calling it something else isn't enough to circumvent copyright law.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

My knowledge of the finer points of copyright law might not be comprehensive, but to my mind, this is a distinction without a difference. If it looks like a Formula One car, handles like a Formula One car, and for all intents and purposes is a Formula One car, then it is a Formula One car. It's clearly intended to be a Formula One car, and calling it something else isn't enough to circumvent copyright law.

Then any open wheel car with a front and rear wing should fall under this. People making renders like that of "future of F1" should then be put to task cause those cars look too F1-ish. Right?

That's not how it works because that's too vague and sweeping, anything with the right coding could me made to "handle" like an F1 car. I mean games have been doing this for some time, hell the game this site got famous for being a haven of has done it since GT3

 

[Sanji Himura]

My knowledge of the finer points of copyright law might not be comprehensive, but to my mind, this is a distinction without a difference. If it looks like a Formula One car, handles like a Formula One car, and for all intents and purposes is a Formula One car, then it is a Formula One car. It's clearly intended to be a Formula One car, and calling it something else isn't enough to circumvent copyright law.

By that definition, all current Indy cars violate copyright law, right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

By that definition, all current Indy cars violate copyright law, right?

No. That's because, by definition, they don't look like F1 cars and are clearly not intended to be an F1 car. If you mean does one Indy car infringe the copyright of the identical car next to it then the answer is still no.

 

[Tornado]

By that definition, all current Indy cars violate copyright law, right?

You going to answer how Galoob vs Nintendo is related to this case or just pretend you never brought it up?

Then any open wheel car with a front and rear wing should fall under this.

No, because that's not what he said. You brought up an example of a mod being modeled after a specific F1 car but presented as a generic F1 style car with most people who used it not understanding the distinction. That's not "any open wheel car with a front and rear wing". That's not even the Formula GT route of a wholly fictional car obviously tied to a specific year in F1 history but only taking cues from real cars of the time.

That's an actual F1 car being recreated but called something else, so even if the typical downloader wouldn't know that it was a specific F1 car FOM would still have cause to have it removed because whether or not the people downloading it know what it is is irrelevant.

That's not how it works because that's too vague and sweeping, anything with the right coding could me made to "handle" like an F1 car.

No, that isn't how it works. But that also isn't what he said. You can't copyright how a car handles. You can copyright a design of a car and have that design recreated without consent, as was the case of the specific example you brought up that he was talking about. Let's talk about GT3: Why were most of the F1 cars removed from that game before it made it to Europe? They apparently even had to alter the two they left in, in addition to removing the names that obviously tied them to the real life counterpart. PD called them something else, so they should have been in the clear, following the logic so far.

I mean games have been doing this for some time, hell the game this site got famous for being a haven of has done it since GT3

That would be the end user altering existing game code to produce different results than originally intended, like the above case Sanji insisted was relevant to this. That is fair use (or is at least understood to be) for the game's included copyright material regardless of what the EULA says in the manual. No one in this thread has suggested that you aren't allowed to screw around with your game after you purchased it, nor are the FOM targeting people's ability to do so, so why it keeps coming up is somewhat of a mystery. I suppose if we were talking about modding a game to recreate copyrighted material without using any external stuff that could be something that pulls it out of fair use if a licence holder wanted to pursue the matter, but that's not what is happening here so it's not really relevant for the discussion.

It's altogether a different thing from introducing additional copyrighted work into a game without a licence to do so, which no one has explained why that is fair use of the external material which should be pretty important because FOM is targeting the use of the external material.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No, because that's not what he said. You brought up an example of a mod being modeled after a specific F1 car but presented as a generic F1 style car with most people who used it not understanding the distinction. That's not "any open wheel car with a front and rear wing". That's not even the Formula GT route of a wholly fictional car obviously tied to a specific year in F1 history but only taking cues from real cars of the time.

That's an actual F1 car being recreated but called something else, so even if the typical downloader wouldn't know that it was a specific F1 car FOM would still have cause to have it removed because whether or not the people downloading it know what it is is irrelevant.

Yeah it is, my example I brought up was showing that an unmarked open wheel race car shouldn't be easily decided that it is F1 based. It could easily fall under A1GP, GP2, or Super Formula in inspiration and thus by his own ideal it should still be misconstrued as a F1 car. How would the FOM or FIA know?

Now, perhaps he didn't mean that but being vague doesn't help his argument.

Also further more on the part of the car, who is to say it is an RB5/RB6, R30, F10 or MP4-25? I highly doubt you and many of those who look at base mods without a livery or any indicating factors other than body work would know the difference. Thus IP at that point shouldn't be up for debate, this time around it seems to be up for debate because these groups used liveries and such of current cars on current chassis thus making it obvious. In the past this wasn't exactly the case as they also went after groups with generic cars.

No, that isn't how it works. But that also isn't what he said. You can't copyright how a car handles. You can copyright a design of a car and have that design recreated without consent, as was the case of the specific example you brought up that he was talking about. Let's talk about GT3: Why were most of the F1 cars removed from that game before it made it to Europe? They apparently even had to alter the two they left in, in addition to removing the names that obviously tied them to the real life counterpart. PD called them something else, so they should have been in the clear, following the logic so far.

How exactly do you copyright that? Race cars aren't very specific to who built or runs them when they're not plastered with identifiable marks. Thus if done in a game, like PD and SMS and AC and so on...

Also they were clear because if not, those cars wouldn't have been in game anywhere in the world. Also I recall six F1 cars, unless you're saying that the Euro version only got 2 out of those different six, which even if that's the case still doesn't change the fact that a generic template of these cars would probably change the issue being had.

That would be the end user altering existing game code to produce different results than originally intended, like the above case Sanji insisted was relevant to this. That is fair use (or is at least understood to be) for the game's included copyright material regardless of what the EULA says in the manual. No one in this thread has suggested that you aren't allowed to screw around with your game after you purchased it, nor are the FOM targeting people's ability to do so, so why it keeps coming up is somewhat of a mystery. I suppose if we were talking about modding a game to recreate copyrighted material without using any external stuff that could be something that pulls it out of fair use if a licence holder wanted to pursue the matter, but that's not what is happening here so it's not really relevant for the discussion.

It's altogether a different thing from introducing additional copyrighted work into a game without a licence to do so, which no one has explained why that is fair use of the external material which should be pretty important because FOM is targeting the use of the external material.

Sure it's been suggested, I just quoted a guy your defending about saying that if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it must be a duck. So if a generic open wheel formula esque car in no identifiable team colors or livery is put out on open mod user, from his wording it's fair play for IPI.

Also plenty have explained it as to why they see it as fair use, but it's hard to know exactly what we're debating for sure when all that's left is dust on the pages that once housed them. They could have been plain template car and were named against copy writes. An F1 series could have been run without the FOM or FIA consent. Which many wondered if was in fact the case the first time this was big news in the community, which coincidentally fell in line with FIA and PD shaking hands and people speculating that perhaps all these mods are being deleted at request because of that.

 

[Tornado]

Yeah it is, my example I brought up was showing that an unmarked open wheel race car shouldn't be easily decided that it is F1 based. It could easily fall under A1GP, GP2, or Super Formula in inspiration and thus by his own ideal it should still be misconstrued as a F1 car. How would the FOM or FIA know?

They would know because they were the licence holder if the Red Bull RB7 from your example was a Red Bull RB7.

Also further more on the part of the car, who is to say it is an RB5/RB6, R30, F10 or MP4-25?

The copyright holder of the designs of those cars. If it went to court, they would then have to demonstrate how they knew.

I highly doubt you and many of those who look at base mods without a livery or any indicating factors other than body work would know the difference.

That's irrelevant, and contradictory to what you said when you brought the example up in the first place:

If you're a nerd like me who loves to spend hours looking over F1 cars and can tell one from another based on body work, then yeah, I could see where the FOM is coming from.

If the copyright holder recognizes the car as being a design they have control over, they are within their right to enforce the copyright.

How exactly do you copyright that?

Seriously? The same way you copyright any other car design.

Race cars aren't very specific to who built or runs them when they're not plastered with identifiable marks.

What the hell are you talking about? Unless the car is part of a spec series, they have identifiable marks regardless of what color they are painted or if they have a livery. This is again completely contrary to what you said earlier.

Also they were clear because if not, those cars wouldn't have been in game anywhere in the world.

This was the same game that had a Lamborghini Diablo in the original release that they were first forced to dummy out and then went so far as to completely delete in the third regional release; but never had to change in the subsequent printings of the Japanese versions. It seems safe to say that the copyright enforcement wasn't universal across regions for that game even ignoring the F1 cars, and that's borne out by how whenever you find one of those obscure racing games from 15+ years ago that went so far as to name their unlicenced cars by their real life chassis codes, they were always games by Japanese developers/publishers.

Also I recall six F1 cars, unless you're saying that the Euro version only got 2 out of those different six, which even if that's the case still doesn't change the fact that a generic template of these cars would probably change the issue being had.

Yeah, because a generic template (like the Formula GT in GT4) wouldn't have obviously been the cars in question like the F1 cars in GT3 were originally. That's the entire point. All of the F1 cars in GT3 before the European release were not only clearly just unliveried versions of real cars, but were also named in a way that it was easy to figure out what specific real life car they were. Both of the two in the European release had an edited model from the original versions (F688/S -> Polyphony002, F094/S -> Polyphony001), and both of them had different, completely generic names than the other regions of GT3.

Sure it's been suggested, I just quoted a guy your defending about saying that if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it must be a duck. So if a generic open wheel formula esque car in no identifiable team colors or livery is put out on open mod user, from his wording it's fair play for IPI.

No you didn't. You quoted a guy who was responding to an example you brought up. And your example wasn't a generic open wheel formula esque car:

I recall some time ago the FOM went after a group that modded an RB7 supposedly

Was it an RB7 or not? If it was an RB7 and being presented as a generic Formula 1 style vehicle, FOM was in the right for taking it down because it was still an RB7 even if it was presented as a generic car and Interludes' point was perfectly valid. Because regardless of whether the car is called an RB7, and regardless of whether most of the people who downloaded it understood that it was actually an RB7, if it is modeled to replicate an RB7 it is still an RB7.

Also plenty have explained it as to why they see it as fair use

Most people I've found on the internet who use the term don't actually know what it means. Sanji Himura has spent most of this thread arguing it was fair use because of a court case that has nothing to do with what FOM have done. RACECAR was arguing that because it doesn't cost anything to download it can't hurt the value of the intellectual property, even though those are two completely separate determining factors for whether something is fair use. Furinkazen was arguing that it only hurts the value of the F1 licence if a game is actually made, even though the FOM aren't the ones making the games in the first place. Your argument seems to be that if the rights holder is the only one that can tell that something is copyrighted material, they shouldn't be able to enforce it because the people who are accessing it don't know the difference. Keef was so far the only one making a real argument for what constitutes fair use, but much like Sanji's court case one that has nothing to do with what the FOM did according to the news link this thread was bumped to talk about, which was specifically:

RaceDepartment was hosting mods for F1 2013, F1 2014, and Automobilista that let players update their games so that the cars look like this year's machines (rather than several years out of date).

The FOM has no right to prevent you from modding your game, not the least of which because they didn't even make the damn thing in the first place. What they have every right to do, and which no one has actually attempted to argue against beyond waving the term "fair use" around, is have a site distributing mods that allow a game to try and simulate the current Formula 1 season (the rights of which are the FOM's and the FOM's alone to allow or disallow a game to simulate) take said mods down.

They could have been plain template car and were named against copy writes.

Even in that best case scenario, the FOM would still have been within their right to have them removed.

 

[Furinkazen]

If the copyright holder recognizes the car as being a design they have control over, they are within their right to enforce the copyright.

Design is actually technically team-wise. Otherwise you are saying copyright-holder aka FOM has rights to the design of a Simtek from 1994, which is ludicrous when the team isn't around anymore.

Most people I've found on the internet who use the term don't actually know what it means. Sanji Himura has spent most of this thread arguing it was fair use because of a court case that has nothing to do with what FOM have done. RACECAR was arguing that because it doesn't cost anything to download it can't hurt the value of the intellectual property, even though those are two completely separate determining factors for whether something is fair use. Furinkazen was arguing that it only hurts the value of the F1 licence if a game is actually made, even though the FOM aren't the ones making the games in the first place. Your argument seems to be that if the rights holder is the only one that can tell that something is copyrighted material, they shouldn't be able to enforce it because the people who are accessing it don't know the difference. Keef was so far the only one making a real argument for what constitutes fair use, but much like Sanji's court case one that has nothing to do with what the FOM did according to the news link this thread was bumped to talk about, which was specifically:

Alright, if you're going to act like a complete know it all, at least tag people otherwise your attempt to get on your high horse backfires spectacularly. @Sanji Himura @RACECAR @Keef

Anyway.... you took mine pretty badly out of context, as I was not arguing the F1 license at all, but responding to a post claiming it would have a negative effect on the studio.

The FOM has no right to prevent you from modding your game, not the least of which because they didn't even make the damn thing in the first place. What they have every right to do, and which no one has actually attempted to argue against beyond waving the term "fair use" around, is have a site distributing mods that allow a game to try and simulate the current Formula 1 season (the rights of which are the FOM's and the FOM's alone to allow or disallow a game to simulate) take said mods down.

You said it. And by this statement and your logic there should be no issue with mods of a previous season, thus bringing me back to my point above about copyright holders and car models.

In that case why would only recent F1 mods be affected? If it was anything F1 related then why haven't 1960's F1 mods been taken down?

 

[Tornado]

Design is actually technically team-wise. Otherwise you are saying copyright-holder aka FOM has rights to the design of a Simtek from 1994, which is ludicrous when the team isn't around anymore.

That's strange. I have so little recollection of saying anything about a 1994 F1 car from Simtek that I literally have no idea what Simtek even is. Perhaps you could meet me halfway and try explaining what the words you're trying to put in my mouth have to do with what I've said?

Alright, if you're going to act like a complete know it all, at least tag people otherwise your attempt to get on your high horse backfires spectacularly. @Sanji Himura @RACECAR @Keef

I don't use and never have used that forum feature. I personally have it turned off because I already get enough notifications as it is. If they are interested in continuing the debate, they will post.

Regardless, I know for a fact Sanji Himura has seen when I originally said his point was meaningless to this thread, and he hasn't tried to defend it since. There's little point in RACECAR defending what he said, because his justification for why it was fair use (and I'm already assuming he's applying US fair use doctrine as if it applies internationally, because many countries don't even have fair use as that same concept, but I've been ignoring that so far anyway and will continue to do so) literally does not make sense, because he was talking about two completely different things and acting as if they were the same. It's not really an arguable point. Keef said something that I had already agreed with, but don't think he even said it in response to this specific thread anyway so much as because LeMansAid called him out in general.

Anyway.... you took mine pretty badly out of context, as I was not arguing the F1 license at all, but responding to a post claiming it would have a negative effect on the studio.

And whether it effects the studio or not isn't directly relevant to FOM making copyright takedowns because the studio isn't the licensor who has to worry about the market value of the copyrighted material.

Regardless, the argument that something hurts the market value of intellectual property doesn't have to be proven financially.

You said it. And by this statement and your logic there should be no issue with mods of a previous season, thus bringing me back to my point above about copyright holders and car models.

In that case why would only recent F1 mods be affected? If it was anything F1 related then why haven't 1960's F1 mods been taken down?

I don't see anything in the news post this thread was bumped to talk about saying anything about anything but mods related to the 2016 F1 season, so no, not by "my logic".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They would know because they were the licence holder if the Red Bull RB7 from your example was a Red Bull RB7.

Once again template car, that from what I recall reading was supposedly a RB7, who made the claim I dont recall cause I can't find a more than three year old article. But that's beside the point how exactly does being a rights holder make them enough of an expert to see a open wheel race car in any generic single tone paint color and say with certainty that it is their IP? That's what I'm asking nothing more or less.

The copyright holder of the designs of those cars. If it went to court, they would then have to demonstrate how they knew.

So in other words you don't have a clue how'd they would come to the conclusion to the point they could outright call for a cease and desist.

That's irrelevant, and contradictory to what you said when you brought the example up in the first place:

If that was all I said, and didn't express a reciprocal to it, then sure, but that's not the case.

If the copyright holder recognizes the car as being a design they have control over, they are within their right to enforce the copyright.

Still haven't said how, I'm interested to find out.

Seriously? The same way you copyright any other car design.

If that were the case then why aren't F1 cars and design ideas actually patented? It's not the same as a road car, never has been, why aren't other teams claiming IP infringement against one another between races?

What the hell are you talking about? Unless the car is part of a spec series, they have identifiable marks regardless of what color they are painted or if they have a livery. This is again completely contrary to what you said earlier.[/quote[

No it's not, Indy is a spec series and there are two different aero kits for the same chassis by the manufactures. F1 is a formulaic or prototype series and even so, without any interaction each season most of the teams look exactly alike, only difference most times is what isn't seen. Why is this? Because of strict regulations and templates that make it to where there is only so much you can do to your car exterior wise.

This was the same game that had a Lamborghini Diablo in the original release that they were first forced to dummy out and then went so far as to completely delete in the third regional release; but never had to change in the subsequent printings of the Japanese versions. It seems safe to say that the copyright enforcement wasn't universal across regions for that game even ignoring the F1 cars, and that's borne out by how whenever you find one of those obscure racing games from 15+ years ago that went so far as to name their unlicenced cars by their real life chassis codes, they were always games by Japanese developers/publishers.

This is irrelevant. A Lamborghini Diablo is obvious, as obvious as the 911 GT3 they put in the game.

Yeah, because a generic template (like the Formula GT in GT4) wouldn't have obviously been the cars in question like the F1 cars in GT3 were originally. That's the entire point. All of the F1 cars in GT3 before the European release were not only clearly just unliveried versions of real cars, but were also named in a way that it was easy to figure out what specific real life car they were. Both of the two in the European release had an edited model from the original versions (F688/S -> Polyphony002, F094/S -> Polyphony001), and both of them had different, completely generic names than the other regions of GT3.

Do you have anything showing why this is or are you just assuming on this as much as I am? Because if so really nothing else to be said. If the FOM or FIA saw threat of this they'd have made PD do this across the board not just the European market.

No you didn't. You quoted a guy who was responding to an example you brought up. And your example wasn't a generic open wheel formula esque car:

Well considering he brought up the looks like duck, quacks like a duck analogy. I made comment to that appropriately, not sure what parallels you're trying to make. I never claimed my example was a generic F1 car if it was in fact an RB7, I claimed that if they took inspiration from it, then there is no wrong. And as the thread shows this has been my train of thought since the start.

Was it an RB7 or not? If it was an RB7 and being presented as a generic Formula 1 style vehicle, FOM was in the right for taking it down because it was still an RB7 even if it was presented as a generic car and Interludes' point was perfectly valid. Because regardless of whether the car is called an RB7, and regardless of whether most of the people who downloaded it understood that it was actually an RB7, if it is modeled to replicate an RB7 it is still an RB7.

Not it doesn't because yet again you've failed to see why that is governed. The car could be mixture of cars from that season. It was claimed by the article I recall as being an RB7, without insight from the group who made it as to what it is it could have been an RB7 nose, F10 front wing, FW32 endplates, MP4-25 engine cover and R30 rear wing. You know why one could say that? Because contrary to your limited belief on these cars they are tightly regulated by the FIA and teams. They may not be spec but most of what makes these cars Formulaic in nature is what is not at all seen. Engine arrangement, suspension design, under body aero, a mod isn't going to be modding this. Thus all the stuff prior on "well the FOM guys will know it's there car cause what else would it be?"

Most people I've found on the internet who use the term don't actually know what it means. Sanji Himura has spent most of this thread arguing it was fair use because of a court case that has nothing to do with what FOM have done. RACECAR was arguing that because it doesn't cost anything to download it can't hurt the value of the intellectual property, even though those are two completely separate determining factors for whether something is fair use. Furinkazen was arguing that it only hurts the value of the F1 licence if a game is actually made, even though the FOM aren't the ones making the games in the first place. Your argument seems to be that if the rights holder is the only one that can tell that something is copyrighted material, they shouldn't be able to enforce it because the people who are accessing it don't know the difference. Keef was so far the only one making a real argument for what constitutes fair use, but much like Sanji's court case one that has nothing to do with what the FOM did according to the news link this thread was bumped to talk about, which was specifically:

The FOM has no right to prevent you from modding your game, not the least of which because they didn't even make the damn thing in the first place. What they have every right to do, and which no one has actually attempted to argue against beyond waving the term "fair use" around, is have a site distributing mods that allow a game to try and simulate the current Formula 1 season (the rights of which are the FOM's and the FOM's alone to allow or disallow a game to simulate) take said mods down.

You said no one has yet, I claimed they have which you actually agree with. The problem is you don't like WHY or WHAT they say in their argument.

 

[RACECAR]

Regardless, I know for a fact Sanji Himura has seen when I originally said his point was meaningless to this thread, and he hasn't tried to defend it since. There's little point in RACECAR defending what he said, because his justification for why it was fair use (and I'm already assuming he's applying US fair use doctrine as if it applies internationally, because many countries don't even have fair use as that same concept, but I've been ignoring that so far anyway and will continue to do so) literally does not make sense, because he was talking about two completely different things and acting as if they were the same. It's not really an arguable point.

I bought up fair use not as a application across the board, but as a way to convey that people aren't profiting off these mods like how people on youtube are not making money off videos when they use a song or movie footage (Which admittedly in hindsight might not be the best example considering one platform operates only in the US). My main problem with this from the beginning is the aggressive matter this intellectual property is being defended. It hasn't been about what I want as one person said or anything else, I just have a problem with the method the FOM is using as if its actually some sort of rampant piracy when to a degree, it could be considered fanmade material (especially the skins).I can't grasp its how the hosting of these free mods "Hurting" or "Damaging" F1 when they are done by the very fans that love it? I don't see how these mods are Misrepresenting F1 when these fans are sharing only with other fans and not to people that don't watch it. This all comes off as some old man who seemingly seems so hell bent on controlling the image so badly, he's going after what has to be the most harmless group there is. Its seems almost paranoid the way its going about. While I know Porsche has tried to defend its intellectual property a few times before (Last I checked, they weren't keen on "Porsche GT3" being used by enduracers) it wasn't nearly to the degree that FOM seems to be. Are they gonna go after trading paints next for people making and uploading 2016 liveries on the McLaren MP4-30 on iRacing?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm just giving @Tornado enough rope to hang himself in this argument.

Here is why the court case matters, distribution. I'll admit that the facts of the case are completely irrelevant to this topic, but let's face it, without a infrastructure to distribute codes (especially with the case being decided during the advent of the internet), the modding and game hacking community is dead.

 

[Tornado]

Once again template car, that from what I recall reading was supposedly a RB7, who made the claim I dont recall cause I can't find a more than three year old article.

Not it doesn't because yet again you've failed to see why that is governed.

It would have helped greatly if you posted the damn article instead of just repeatedly saying "RB7" when you don't actually seem to mean "RB7". I've been arguing on the assumption that the car in question was just an RB7 presented as a generic F1 car (and have even been asking to make sure), not the least which because that is what you said originally, but now I'm not even sure what the hell mousetrap you're trying to construct with that argument.

If that were the case then why aren't F1 cars and design ideas actually patented?

I'm sure some of the best engineers in the world would love it if they could just reverse engineer innovations from others best engineers in the world to try and understand how they worked.

But that's beside the point how exactly does being a rights holder make them enough of an expert to see a open wheel race car in any generic single tone paint color and say with certainty that it is their IP? That's what I'm asking nothing more or less.

So in other words you don't have a clue how'd they would come to the conclusion to the point they could outright call for a cease and desist.

Still haven't said how, I'm interested to find out.

F1 is a formulaic or prototype series and even so, without any interaction each season most of the teams look exactly alike, only difference most times is what isn't seen. Why is this?

You know why one could say that?

I'm assuming one could say that because a self professed "nerd [] who loves to spend hours looking over F1 cars and can tell one from another based on body work" couldn't possible be arguing a point as amazingly stupid as this "you can't really tell F1 cars apart from their body work without liveries nowadays" line appears to be. This forum, every year, has threads about every single new car launch to compare the differences and design (both beauty and performance) to every other car of both that season and the previous one. There are undoubtedly people on this forum who could identify unliveried F1 cars simply by their bodywork.

For that matter:

Those are last season F1 cars, from the same race even, that obviously have notable differences in their visible design. I personally wouldn't know which ones were which if the livery was removed, but it wouldn't be very hard for me to use, I dunno, the Internet to look them up. And, then again, I don't pay attention to F1 to quite the same level as... er... the commercial sanctioning body for Formula 1.





I did like the "Because contrary to your limited belief on these cars" bit though. That just makes the thirty seconds it took in Google make you look petty in addition to foolish.

This is irrelevant. A Lamborghini Diablo is obvious, as obvious as the 911 GT3 they put in the game.

A "fictional" car named F688/S that is shaped identically to a Formula 1 car from the turbo V6 years (specifically one that absolutely dominated the 1988 season) that was driven to the championship by Ayrton Senna (incidentally making it one of the more famous F1 cars in history) isn't the most difficult logical train to follow, I would think; even if it isn't as obvious as a Lamborghini Diablo race car with the word "Diablo" in the name being a Lamborghini Diablo.

Do you have anything showing why this is or are you just assuming on this as much as I am? Because if so really nothing else to be said. If the FOM or FIA saw threat of this they'd have made PD do this across the board not just the European market.

I actually am making an assumption that they were forced to change the cars when they marketed the game to the region where the sport is the most popular and all of the teams in question were based. It seems a fair enough assumption to make, because why the hell else would you take the risks involved with deleting data from a finished game before releasing it in another region.

And since we're on the subject, you'll surely have no trouble quoting where I said the FIA and/or FOM were the ones that forced that change.

You said no one has yet, I claimed they have which you actually agree with. The problem is you don't like WHY or WHAT they say in their argument.

It's irrelevant whether I like how they structured their arguments or not. The problem is that they aren't making a fair use argument just because they used the words "fair use" somewhere in their posts. Keef was, and Sanji was by association, but neither of them were arguing fair use as it applies to this topic right here. Nor, again, do I think Keef was actually replying to this topic so much as he was responding to LeMansAid. Fair use is a specific thing, with four specific criteria that all need to be met before a work meets it. To assume that it automatically applies because mods don't cost anything or people don't know it's copyrighted material to begin with is the same traincrash of logic that leads people to think that just saying the words "parody" in an argument means that YouTube has no right to take videos down.




And, as a friendly bit of advice, actually look up "fair use" before you bother responding. It's as easy to do as typing "Ferrari F15" and "Red Bull 2015" was for me.

I bought up fair use not as a application across the board, but as a way to convey that people aren't profiting off these mods like how people on youtube are not making money off videos when they use a song or movie footage (Which admittedly in hindsight might not be the best example considering one platform operates only in the US).

The commercial nature (or lack thereof) does not by itself dictate whether something is fair use. It's actually usually not even that much of a factor.

My main problem with this from the beginning is the aggressive matter this intellectual property is being defended.

I'm not saying the FIA/FOM aren't being dicks about it. They are, but that is there right to do.

I can't grasp its how the hosting of these free mods "Hurting" or "Damaging" F1 when they are done by the very fans that love it?

They don't have to be hurting or damaging the sport. Just the potential to damage the value of the licence. The problem is that by being unsanctioned FOM can't control the content and make sure it is to their standards whatever the may be.

By itself this hurts the value of the licence, since they grant it on the premise that the company they sell it to is the exclusive holder of it period; but you cannot simply assume that it doesn't also hurt the value of the licence for the person they sold it to when you can (roughly) replicate playing the newest game in a series by downloading a mod for an older one. In court you wouldn't have to claim any specific financial harm, because "these people are putting the new cars in the old game instead of buying the new game" could be enough.

Are they gonna go after trading paints next for people making and uploading 2016 liveries on the McLaren MP4-30 on iRacing?

They certainly could, which is a caveat that applies to stuff like Forza liveries as well. I doubt they would bother to go that far, but it's possible.

I'm just giving @Tornado enough rope to hang himself in this argument.

Here is why the court case matters, distribution. I'll admit that the facts of the case are completely irrelevant to this topic, but let's face it, without a infrastructure to distribute codes

I'm gonna stop you right there. "Codes" alter programming. You can distribute the ability to alter programming through any medium. I could write codes down and give them to someone. I can tell someone codes over the phone. I could read them and remember them for later (like I still do for some of Sonic 3's codes). This is particularly notable because Game Genie codes originally came through big booklets that got sent through the mail every month (of which I've got a couple of dozen for my Genny one in my closet) or over the phone if you called the help line. If I was playing Wolfenstein 3D in 1993, I could substantially alter the game just by using the included mod tools from the retail version of the game. The only distribution system in that case is driving my ass to... I dunno, Sears and buying it.
This is true for any game that uses open configuration files in its structure. My PC copies of GTA San Andreas, GTA IV and GTA V are hugely modified from their original states; and GTA IV in particular doesn't even feel like the same game (and I in fact got back into PC gaming a few years ago specifically so I could do that with that game). And yet I haven't "added" anything to them, and everything I did with them could be replicated by hand in notepad if I was so inclined. The only reason GTA V is different in that respect from any other PC port of the 3D GTA games is because all of its files need to be decrypted first to access them, but otherwise it works the same. As well as things like hybriding cars in Gran Turismo games. That's the sort of thing that Galoob vs Nintendo was talking about, and you can freely distribute sort of thing with the caveat that the original unaltered copyrighted files are a no-no.




What you can not do through any medium or form of distribution, and this is the important part because it is why the Galoob vs. Nintendo case does not apply and has been specifically established as not applying in later case law, is distribute "new" copyrighted and/or derivative material against the wishes of the copyright holder for inclusion in a game. That is to say, you can, but Micro Star vs FormGen established the precedent for if the publisher wants to come down on you over it as it pertains to video games.

 

[Com Fox]

stupid

"Because contrary to your limited belief on these cars" bit though. That just makes the thirty seconds it took in Google make you look petty in addition to foolish.

And, as a friendly bit of advice, actually look up "fair use" before you bother responding. It's as easy to do as typing "Ferrari F15" and "Red Bull 2015" was for me.
..

Oh, the edge.

I'm a bit stuck on this debate. I can totally understand why F1 are doing this but at the same time, it does feel a little unnecessary especially when some of the modders don't even get profit from it.

 

[LeMansAid]

Oh, the edge.

I'm a bit stuck on this debate. I can totally understand why F1 are doing this but at the same time, it does feel a little unnecessary especially when some of the modders don't even get profit from it.

Reduction in value of a franchise via others infringing copyright and supplying something they don't own free of charge. Not for profit doesn't mean there's no victim.

It also doesn't mean that that's what is taking place here (reduction in value), but the owner still has the right to react or overreact as they see fit.

 

[Furinkazen]

That's strange. I have so little recollection of saying anything about a 1994 F1 car from Simtek that I literally have no idea what Simtek even is. Perhaps you could meet me halfway and try explaining what the words you're trying to put in my mouth have to do with what I've said?

Sure:

If the copyright holder recognizes the car as being a design they have control over, they are within their right to enforce the copyright.

Cars are designed by teams and designers. Whilst the "Formula One" brand may be FOM property, the design of an F1 car is that of the respective team. This is a reason why the original cease and desist to stop hosting mods made no sense especially in case of mods of older seasons where the teams do no exist anymore, therefore there is nobody to actually claim copyright at all.

And because you don't appear to even know what I am on about (which makes defending a subject very tricky - here is a Simtek. A car infamous in F1. Driver Roland Ratzenberger. Don't think I need to say any more.

I don't use and never have used that forum feature. I personally have it turned off because I already get enough notifications as it is.

Ok Mr Popular!

If they are interested in continuing the debate, they will post.

Considering how defensive you get, I get the distinct impression it is because you don't want people responding.

Regardless, I know for a fact Sanji Himura has seen when I originally said his point was meaningless to this thread, and he hasn't tried to defend it since.

It isn't a competition in one-upping the other member. Oh and "fact", well, not seen any conclusive proof. Just opinions.

There's little point in RACECAR defending what he said,

Opinion not fact. Like me telling you no point in posting, and i'm sure you wouldn't like that...

because his justification for why it was fair use (and I'm already assuming he's applying US fair use doctrine as if it applies internationally, because many countries don't even have fair use as that same concept, but I've been ignoring that so far anyway and will continue to do so) literally does not make sense, because he was talking about two completely different things and acting as if they were the same. It's not really an arguable point.

Opinion again!

Keef said something that I had already agreed with, but don't think he even said it in response to this specific thread anyway so much as because LeMansAid called him out in general.

It isn't a competition in one-upping the other member. Didn't I say this before... yes I did...

And whether it effects the studio or not isn't directly relevant to FOM making copyright takedowns because the studio isn't the licensor who has to worry about the market value of the copyrighted material.

What's the market value? Material is being made for free and not sold, thus having zero commercial and financial impact on FOM. Now if it was mods being made and sold however, that would be entirely different...

Regardless, the argument that something hurts the market value of intellectual property doesn't have to be proven financially.

How can you prove value is not being affected without finances?

I'm assuming one could say that because a self professed "nerd [] who loves to spend hours looking over F1 cars and can tell one from another based on body work" couldn't possible be arguing a point as amazingly stupid as this "you can't really tell F1 cars apart from their body work without liveries nowadays" line appears to be.

Good one, i'll get back to this...

This forum, every year, has threads about every single new car launch to compare the differences and design (both beauty and performance) to every other car of both that season and the previous one.

Pointless threads in my eyes and a few others, but end of day zero relevance to subject at hand.

There are undoubtedly people on this forum who could identify unliveried F1 cars simply by their bodywork.

Yes but then you post as an example...

For that matter:

Two liveried cars

Those are last season F1 cars, from the same race even, that obviously have notable differences in their visible design.

Only obvious to dedicated F1 fans. I can show some of my friends F1 cars and they will ask what is the difference.

I personally wouldn't know which ones were which if the livery was removed, but it wouldn't be very hard for me to use, I dunno, the Internet to look them up. And, then again, I don't pay attention to F1 to quite the same level as... er... the commercial sanctioning body for Formula 1.

So you just called yourself stupid?

a point as amazingly stupid as this "you can't really tell F1 cars apart from their body work without liveries nowadays"

^^^

I did like the "Because contrary to your limited belief on these cars" bit though. That just makes the thirty seconds it took in Google make you look petty in addition to foolish.

Yet you couldn't even back up your own argument about unliveried cars

And, as a friendly bit of advice, actually look up "fair use" before you bother responding. It's as easy to do as typing "Ferrari F15" and "Red Bull 2015" was for me.

It's actually a Red Bull RB11.

They don't have to be hurting or damaging the sport. Just the potential to damage the value of the licence. The problem is that by being unsanctioned FOM can't control the content and make sure it is to their standards whatever the may be.

By itself this hurts the value of the licence, since they grant it on the premise that the company they sell it to is the exclusive holder of it period; but you cannot simply assume that it doesn't also hurt the value of the licence for the person they sold it to when you can (roughly) replicate playing the newest game in a series by downloading a mod for an older one. In court you wouldn't have to claim any specific financial harm, because "these people are putting the new cars in the old game instead of buying the new game" could be enough.

If it's a rough replication it isn't the full thing.

They certainly could, which is a caveat that applies to stuff like Forza liveries as well. I doubt they would bother to go that far, but it's possible.

They would probably be exempt, as to back up my point earlier - the cars are officially licensed from the constructor not FOM. So there isn't any infringement there.

 

[Tornado]

Considering how defensive you get, I get the distinct impression it is because you don't want people responding.

Since many of the things I'm arguing against are so blatant that even just reading Section 107 of the US Copyright Law would tell you as much, I don't understand why you would get that impression. Also, you've been here for six years and forty thousand posts. Was it particularly difficult to have debates on this forum before the current notification system was implemented with GTP12?

Cars are designed by teams and designers. Whilst the "Formula One" brand may be FOM property, the design of an F1 car is that of the respective team. This is a reason why the original cease and desist to stop hosting mods made no sense especially in case of mods of older seasons where the teams do no exist anymore, therefore there is nobody to actually claim copyright at all.

And because you don't appear to even know what I am on about (which makes defending a subject very tricky - here is a Simtek. A car infamous in F1. Driver Roland Ratzenberger. Don't think I need to say any more.

That's nice to know. I'm sure you'll eventually get around to talking about why I should care when it comes to this discussion about mods being removed for the 2016 season as per the reasoning this topic was raised back to the top of the forum, because mods that give you 2016 cars racing in something attempting to replicate the 2016 racing season (that the original news post was suggesting were what was removed) seems well within FOM's purview.

If they had such 1994 mods removed from places, then no, that isn't their right unless they were acting on behalf of any of the teams or something to that effect; but I've never been talking about FOM having mods about the 1994 season removed.

It isn't a competition in one-upping the other member. Oh and "fact", well, not seen any conclusive proof. Just opinions.

What are you even arguing about here? That I said I know Sanji Himura had seen my post in this thread? Why do I have to "tag" a member who had posted in this thread after I responded to him in the first place?

It isn't a competition in one-upping the other member. Didn't I say this before... yes I did...

Again, what are you even trying to argue here? You claimed I should have tagged Keef if I was responding to his comments. I stated that I not only agree with his comments (mostly, at least), but that I don't think he was actually debating this specific situation anyway and was only talking about fair use at all because someone called him to this thread to talk about it. What else do you want, exactly?

Opinion again!

No, it's not. Effect of market value of copyrighted works because of claimed infringing material and whether the claimed infringing material is commercial are two separate things. It's written right into Section 107.

What's the market value? Material is being made for free and not sold, thus having zero commercial and financial impact on FOM. Now if it was mods being made and sold however, that would be entirely different....

No it wouldn't. Effect of market value of copyrighted works because of claimed infringing material and whether the claimed infringing material is commercial are two separate things. It's written right into Section 107.
In fact, whether claimed infringing material is commercial isn't always even a big factor in tried cases.

How can you prove value is not being affected without finances?

I already explained how they could. LeMansAid has already explained how they could. Interludes has already explained how they could. Daan has already explained how they could. There doesn't need to be any hard numbers to support the value being diminished in court. You can get by with as little as successfully arguing the diminished market value in a potential market; which is, again, written right into Section 107.

Pointless threads in my eyes and a few others, but end of day zero relevance to subject at hand.

Not really, no. He's making the claim that the commercial licence distributor for the sport wouldn't be able to tell apart the cars in the sport unless they were easily color coded. Every year people on this forum manage to do exactly that every time a new car is announced. This isn't top secret material. There are pictures of these cars all over the place that you can compare to each other and can compare to potentially infringing designs.

Two liveried cars

And? Two liveried cars photographed at roughly the same angle have differences in design and bodywork that can be seen in spite of their liveries, which was the point.

Only obvious to dedicated F1 fans. I can show some of my friends F1 cars and they will ask what is the difference.

Doesn't require extensive following of the sport to play a rousing game of "spot the differences between these two objects". They put those in activity books for eight year olds.

So you just called yourself stupid?

This is the kind of thing that makes me think you're just throwing words together to see what might stick. It doesn't matter if I couldn't tell which cars were which if they were unliveried, because there are reference points that the cars don't share that would allow me to research which one is which. If those cars were replicated in a game and I wasn't sure which was which because they were similarly unliveried, I could do the same thing. And it is ludicrous to assume that there aren't people who can tell which cars were which purely on bodywork (again, LMSCorvette already claimed to be such a person), or that the commercial rights holder for the sport was incapable of investigating whether an unliveried race car was the same shape as a real life one with a livery.

Yet you couldn't even back up your own argument about unliveried cars

I'm not really sure why you felt the need to hammer on this four times as if it was some trump card. My argument was against the notion that modern F1 cars were so extremely similar from the outside that they cannot be told apart except by their paint jobs (the specific words even going so far at one point to being "without any interaction each season most of the teams look exactly alike"), even by the group who manages the commercial rights to modern F1 cars.
Those two cars from the same point in the season, chosen simply because they were the first two teams that came to mind to the extent that I didn't even know the Red Bull car's name off the top of my head, have several notable differences in bodywork; a couple of which are fairly obvious at that. That does allow me (not at all a dedicated F1 fan) to tell them apart. I'm able to see that in those two pictures, and would be able to see that in those two pictures regardless of what color the cars are painted or whether they were pictures of the real car or screenshots from a game that featured them, and regardless of whether I immediately knew one was the Red Bull and one was the Ferrari. If I was given a several pictures of those cars in black and told "find out what cars these are", I would be completely lost, but I would still be able to eventually work out which ones they were by looking them up.

It's actually a Red Bull RB11.

Thank you.

If it's a rough replication it isn't the full thing.

It doesn't have to be the full thing. As said it is hard to tell exactly how far the replication went, but it sounded decently extensive as stated in the original news post:

RaceDepartment was hosting mods for F1 2013, F1 2014, and Automobilista that let players update their games so that the cars look like this year's machines (rather than several years out of date).

They would probably be exempt, as to back up my point earlier - the cars are officially licensed from the constructor not FOM. So there isn't any infringement there.

Liveries that make the Formula cars in the game resemble the grid in the 2016 Formula 1 season would fall under the purview of FOM. That isn't to say that such a claim would stand in court, or that the livery makers would have to acquiesce, but the FOM has enough legal standing to make the claim.

 

[Stiggy]

Looking through the list of deleted mods for Automobilista shows more than just 2016 skins being taken down - the first page of the Deleted Mods thread is mostly liveries based on the 2001/2002 season for the fictional Formula V10. I doubt the availability of these skins for a generic car in a relatively obscure title known only by a small group of sim-racers will impact Codemasters' profits in anyway - nor would it have any impact on the developers/publishers who made F1 games of those seasons as Microprose (Grand Prix 4), Melbourne House (Grand Prix Challenge) and Studio Liverpool (Formula 1 2001/2002) are all now defunct.

Interesting to note that there were a number of F1 based mods that were not deleted, all of which did not include explicit references to F1 in the title of the mod thread and description - which could very likely mean that the copyright claims on these mods were done through an automated system.