“The internet has radically transformed the possibilities of creation, reproduction, and distribution. Individual users naturally want to harness the enormous capabilities of the Internet to access, use, and disseminate information and content. The demand is huge and ever increasing. Technology has responded to this huge pull by providing the powerful technological means to meet users expectations. Copyright was not initially designed for routine individual use, evidenced by the fact that exceptions and limitations in the Copyright Act were written with the professional user in mind.”- (1)
One of the perks of The Sims is the huge amount of user-generated content (UGC), and the freedom Maxis gives their users, allowing them to create whatever they want. From clothes, hair, furniture and architectural elements to giving the Sims their own genitals, even showing them aroused. There is no limit to what is created. These are available to download from The Sims 2 and 3 website, and numerous fan-created sites, either designed for users to upload their content or specifically for one user to showcase their own. The most popular websites are ModTheSims, All About Style and Peggy Zone.
Users create replicas of celebrities (above: Megan Fox and Mouse M.D), characters from films and tv shows without breaking any rules. This kind of content is accepted and, as of yet, no one has been sued for uploading it. However, Little Big Planet‘s Media Molecule has seen it’s fair share of copyright problems. Users that have created Super Mario Bros themed levels, Batman, and Metal Gear Solid (and many more) have been taken down. So what are the differences between creating an Avatar’s Na’vi for the Sims and making a Super Mario Bros themed level? They are both available to use online and both use copyrighted content, they both also aren’t exact copies.
However not all companies are against users creating content that represents their own work. Alex Evans of Media Molecule explains:
“…the other point is the number of IP owners who came up to us and said please whitelist us – we’ll never ever ask you to pull infringing stuff. I can’t say who that is, but those two things really shocked me, I think it shocked [the IP holders], who were like, hang on, my IP’s being represented and it’s being represented really well. The IP holders have to have last say over the representation of their brand, and that’s fair enough, so we’ve always got to have a method for people misusing a brand, but what’s been really lovely is how well represented so many brands are.” (source)
And they have a good point, surely if the content was well made and enjoyable it’s actually promoting the game. The players aren’t making any money from it and so it doesn’t have an effect on the revenue, like Peer-2-Peer sharing of music or film would. Guitar Hero World Tour game across similar problems. Players could create their own custom tracks that can be submitted online and downloaded by other users, again they make no money from it. However, songs were being taken down because they were created to sound like existing tracks. Again Nintendo demanded Super Mario Bros be taken off, and Legend of Zelda was also removed. Yet some tracks stay put, so there is clear inconsistency with the rules. This could be down to companies, like mentioned before, wanting the songs to stay because they promote their material. It could also be because they merely don’t know it exists or they just don’t care.
Daniel Gervais talks about two types of use, public and private:
“The social norms at play do not seem to reflect the traditional distinction between private (i.e. tolerated) and public (i.e. unauthorized) use. These norms have existed for decades and are reflected in the traditional vies expressed by large rights holders. or example, the Recording Industry Association of America condones limited copying for private use, but does not approve of making copyrighted content available online.”(1)
The cases I mentioned above do fall into the public use, where content is uploaded to the internet and shared with others. So why doesn’t The Sims get in trouble for their content? Maybe because it’s so different from the game, for example, the Super Mario Bros level created on Little Big Planet is a platform level with similar game play and rules. In both games the character side scrolls across the level collecting said points (bubbles or coins) and has to avoid obstacles. In The Sims, the Na’vi character will walk around the Sims house doing whatever the player tells it to, within the constrictions of the game. This would include tasks such as getting a job, cooking, cleaning, painting, having children etc. It has no similarities to the film aside from the character. The problem could be that players who enjoy the Little Big Planet level might not play Super Mario Bros because they prefer the other, meaning possible revenue loss for Nintendo.
“The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature of is for nonprofit educational purposes. The central purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether and to what extent the new works is ‘transformative’. A work is ‘transformative’ when the new work does not ‘merely supersede the objects of the original creation’ but rather ‘adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” – Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
This argument could be used towards keeping the levels on Little Big Planet, it is indeed adding new elements that the physics of the game alone provides. The 3D side scroller, moving and breaking parts of the environment, swinging and blowing things up. These are all elements of the level that Super Mario Bros lacks. It is certainly an issue that Media Molecule need to face and bring a fair policy or consistent rule so that players don’t just come home one day to find hours of work gone forever, not even available for their own private use.
(1) The Tangled Web of UGC: Making Copyright Sense of User-Generated Content by Daniel Gervais
