Gaetano Dimita, J. Festinger, Yin Harn Lee, Michaela MacDonald, M. Mimler
Loot boxes ‒ defined loosely as virtual items purchasable with real money, which contain randomized in-game content of unknown value ‒ are a very profitable monetization mechanism in contemporary video games. The plethora of issues surrounding loot boxes inevitably leads to the question of an adequate regulatory response. Legal responses have been deployed in various jurisdictions but faced several limitations. First, the responses are very divergent. Some jurisdictions view this form of monetization through the lens of gambling laws, consumer protection laws, and often – being conscious of the additional risks which loot boxes pose to under-age players – are increasingly addressing these issues under child protection laws. Thus, the broad array of issues triggered by loot boxes allows qualifying these within various regulatory fields. The possibility to place these in different regulatory ‘boxes’ inevitably leads to inconsistent regulatory outcomes. Finally, the very fact that a consistent definition of what constitutes a loot box remains elusive exacerbates the situation as well. Furthermore, the global set up of the video game industry and the ubiquity of online gaming with users worldwide make the issues global by design. Fragmented and divergent regulatory responses to loot boxes on a country-by-country approach is suboptimal, and raise the daunting spectre of video game developers and publishers having to create parallel versions of the same video game in order to comply with the regulations in force in different jurisdictions – a prospect that seems both expensive and impractical. In these cases of regulatory deficiency, self-regulation is oftenmooted as a means for resolving the challenges presented by loot boxes. To date, however, the approach of the video game industry has been reactive rather than proactive, and a coordinated, industry-wide response has yet to emerge. The window for a self-regulatory approach is closing quickly – if it has not done so already – and divergences of position within the industry mean that it is unlikely that an industry-wide model for self-regulation will be developed within the short term. This has resulted in a regulatory vacuum, which has come to be dominated by a polemical strain of commentary that paints a complex issue in starkly black and white terms. This might explain the current state of affairs in relation to the regulation of loot boxes: a very polarized and heated debate, which often misses the crucial issues at stakes, and risks leading regulators toward unnecessary new legislation which is difficult to enforce. It is against this backdrop that we have chosen to publish an issue of the Interactive Entertainment Law Review that is devoted exclusively to the topic of loot boxes. In their provocative article ‘Getting under your skin(s): a legal-ethical exploration of Fortnite’s transformation into a content delivery platform and its manipulative potential’, Marijn Sax and Jef Ausloos examine the
战利品箱(游戏邦注:即可以用真钱购买的虚拟物品，其中包含未知价值的随机游戏内容)是当代电子游戏中一种非常有利可图的盈利机制。围绕战利品箱的过多问题不可避免地导致了适当的监管反应问题。在不同的司法管辖区采取了法律对策，但面临一些限制。首先，各方的反应大相径庭。一些司法管辖区通过赌博法、消费者保护法来看待这种盈利形式，并且经常意识到战利品箱给未成年玩家带来的额外风险，因此越来越多地根据儿童保护法来解决这些问题。因此，战利品箱所引发的一系列问题允许在不同的监管领域中限定这些问题。把这些东西放在不同的监管“盒子”里的可能性，不可避免地会导致不一致的监管结果。最后，关于战利品箱的一致定义仍然难以捉摸，这也加剧了这种情况。此外，电子游戏产业的全球布局以及网络游戏在世界各地用户的普遍存在，使得这个问题从设计上就具有全球性。各国对战利品箱的分散和不同的监管反应是不理想的，而且会让电子游戏开发商和发行商不得不为同一款电子游戏创造平行版本，以遵守不同司法管辖区的规定——这一前景既昂贵又不切实际。在这些缺乏监管的情况下，自我监管通常被认为是解决战利品箱带来的挑战的一种手段。然而，到目前为止，电子游戏行业的做法是被动的，而不是主动的，一个协调的，全行业的反应尚未出现。实行自我监管的窗口期正在迅速关闭——如果它还没有关闭的话——而行业内部的立场分歧意味着，短期内不太可能形成一个全行业的自我监管模式。这导致了监管真空，这种真空已经被一种争论性的评论所主导，这些评论用鲜明的非黑即白来描绘一个复杂的问题。这或许可以解释当前与战利品箱监管相关的事态:一场非常两极化和激烈的辩论，往往忽略了关键问题，并有可能导致监管机构制定不必要的新立法，而这些立法很难执行。正是在这种背景下，我们选择发行一期《Interactive Entertainment Law Review》，专门讨论战利品盒的话题。Marijn Sax和Jef Ausloos在他们颇具争议的文章《Getting under your skin(s):对《堡垒之夜》转变为内容传递平台及其操纵潜力的法律伦理探索》中，以《堡垒之夜》(世界上最受欢迎和最赚钱的电子游戏之一)为例，通过操纵伦理理论的视角审视了免费增值商业模式。在此过程中，他们还考虑了欧洲数据保护法和消费者保护法可能如何作为监管工具。肖里昂的《把战利品箱当成赌博?》“迈向法律和自我监管的消费者保护方法相结合”提供了对现有监管方法的批评，特别是那些植根于赌博法的方法，并提出了一个共同监管的模型。在“战利品箱应该被视为赌博还是自我监管和企业社会责任可以解决战利品箱问题?”Daniel James Harvey回顾了当前的英国法律和国际立法，强调了根据英国法律将战利品箱归类为一种赌博形式的困难，并最终拒绝将自我监管和企业社会责任作为可能的监管方法，而是关注儿童保护法的潜力，以减轻战利品箱的风险和类似的盈利机制给未成年玩家。最后，Peter Honer的文章《限制战利品箱:欧盟共同应对的概述和困难》概述了欧盟共同方法在监管战利品箱方面的困难，并提出采用赌博法、自我监管法和消费者法的混合监管方法可能是未来的发展方向。最后说一句:作为第一本涵盖互动娱乐法的学术期刊，IELR一直致力于提供一个严谨的学术辩论和思想交流的平台。自2018年成立以来，它已发展成为发展这一不断发展的法律领域的重要和领先的声音和渠道。作为编辑，我们知道这期特刊涉及到一个非常有争议的话题。这期的文章都经过了严格的编辑和额外的双盲(甚至三盲)同行评审过程。 我们看到这些1
{"title":"‘“The ultimate unboxing”: in search of the right questions to ask about loot boxes’","authors":"Gaetano Dimita, J. Festinger, Yin Harn Lee, Michaela MacDonald, M. Mimler","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2021.01.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2021.01.00","url":null,"abstract":"Loot boxes ‒ defined loosely as virtual items purchasable with real money, which contain randomized in-game content of unknown value ‒ are a very profitable monetization mechanism in contemporary video games. The plethora of issues surrounding loot boxes inevitably leads to the question of an adequate regulatory response. Legal responses have been deployed in various jurisdictions but faced several limitations. First, the responses are very divergent. Some jurisdictions view this form of monetization through the lens of gambling laws, consumer protection laws, and often – being conscious of the additional risks which loot boxes pose to under-age players – are increasingly addressing these issues under child protection laws. Thus, the broad array of issues triggered by loot boxes allows qualifying these within various regulatory fields. The possibility to place these in different regulatory ‘boxes’ inevitably leads to inconsistent regulatory outcomes. Finally, the very fact that a consistent definition of what constitutes a loot box remains elusive exacerbates the situation as well. Furthermore, the global set up of the video game industry and the ubiquity of online gaming with users worldwide make the issues global by design. Fragmented and divergent regulatory responses to loot boxes on a country-by-country approach is suboptimal, and raise the daunting spectre of video game developers and publishers having to create parallel versions of the same video game in order to comply with the regulations in force in different jurisdictions – a prospect that seems both expensive and impractical. In these cases of regulatory deficiency, self-regulation is oftenmooted as a means for resolving the challenges presented by loot boxes. To date, however, the approach of the video game industry has been reactive rather than proactive, and a coordinated, industry-wide response has yet to emerge. The window for a self-regulatory approach is closing quickly – if it has not done so already – and divergences of position within the industry mean that it is unlikely that an industry-wide model for self-regulation will be developed within the short term. This has resulted in a regulatory vacuum, which has come to be dominated by a polemical strain of commentary that paints a complex issue in starkly black and white terms. This might explain the current state of affairs in relation to the regulation of loot boxes: a very polarized and heated debate, which often misses the crucial issues at stakes, and risks leading regulators toward unnecessary new legislation which is difficult to enforce. It is against this backdrop that we have chosen to publish an issue of the Interactive Entertainment Law Review that is devoted exclusively to the topic of loot boxes. In their provocative article ‘Getting under your skin(s): a legal-ethical exploration of Fortnite’s transformation into a content delivery platform and its manipulative potential’, Marijn Sax and Jef Ausloos examine the","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48978107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Loot boxes are an important form of monetization in the Video Game Industry (VGI). Loot boxes became controversial since the release of Star Wars Battlefront II in 2017 causing many jurisdictions to investigate loot boxes as a form of gambling. This article will highlight how loot boxes might be classified as a form of gambling in the UK under the Gambling Act 2005 but will examine alternate jurisdictions for guidance on the stipulation of ‘money's worth’ in section 6(5)(a) of the Gambling Act 2005 and whether money's worth has to be a quantitative amount or a more intrinsic value. This article will also examine soft law approaches in managing the loot box issue such as Self-Regulation and Corporate Social Responsibility. However, from this article one can see that the loot box issue is far from being solved and the larger issue of predatory monetization arises. This indicates even if the loot box issue is solved, users might still be harmed by the VGI using other monetization methods which are predatory and addictive.
{"title":"Should loot boxes be considered gambling or can Self-Regulation and Corporate Social Responsibility solve the loot box issue? A review of current UK law and international legislation","authors":"Daniel James Harvey","doi":"10.4337/ielr.2021.01.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2021.01.03","url":null,"abstract":"Loot boxes are an important form of monetization in the Video Game Industry (VGI). Loot boxes became controversial since the release of Star Wars Battlefront II in 2017 causing many jurisdictions to investigate loot boxes as a form of gambling. This article will highlight how loot boxes might be classified as a form of gambling in the UK under the Gambling Act 2005 but will examine alternate jurisdictions for guidance on the stipulation of ‘money's worth’ in section 6(5)(a) of the Gambling Act 2005 and whether money's worth has to be a quantitative amount or a more intrinsic value. This article will also examine soft law approaches in managing the loot box issue such as Self-Regulation and Corporate Social Responsibility. However, from this article one can see that the loot box issue is far from being solved and the larger issue of predatory monetization arises. This indicates even if the loot box issue is solved, users might still be harmed by the VGI using other monetization methods which are predatory and addictive.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43513122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gaetano Dimita, J. Festinger, Yin Harn Lee, Michaela MacDonald, M. Mimler
• Rampant misogyny through in-game stereotyping of virtual women and often open discrimination of actual women in the industry. • Toxic environments (in game and outside on Twitch and YouTube) where harassment and cyberbullying often targeting women and minorities are widespread. • Aggressive monetisation techniques and targeted addiction as content, especially on mobile devices. It is no surprise that the video game equivalent of closely gated Skinner Boxes can make money through mass victimization. At a certain speed, the hamster wheel inevitably falls off its moorings.
{"title":"Video games: flagships of digital colonialism or solitary beacons of creative freedom and diversity?","authors":"Gaetano Dimita, J. Festinger, Yin Harn Lee, Michaela MacDonald, M. Mimler","doi":"10.4337/IELR.2020.02.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/IELR.2020.02.00","url":null,"abstract":"• Rampant misogyny through in-game stereotyping of virtual women and often open discrimination of actual women in the industry. • Toxic environments (in game and outside on Twitch and YouTube) where harassment and cyberbullying often targeting women and minorities are widespread. • Aggressive monetisation techniques and targeted addiction as content, especially on mobile devices. It is no surprise that the video game equivalent of closely gated Skinner Boxes can make money through mass victimization. At a certain speed, the hamster wheel inevitably falls off its moorings.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44251985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the issue of copyright exhaustion for digitally distributed video games in the EU. In light of the case law of the CJEU and national courts, it applies to video games two relevant dichotomies – sale/licence and goods/services. Diving into the modern Games-as-a-Service (GaaS) trend, it argues that treating all transactions as sales and all games as goods poorly reflects the complexity of today's video game industry. The many uncertainties of the current legal framework and the impractical consequences of digital exhaustion could force the industry to change its distribution models in ways not necessarily beneficial to consumers. Thus, the applicability of exhaustion to digitally distributed games should be ruled out once and for all. Nonetheless, where copyright is unable to offer satisfactory solutions, consumer law may protect players vis-à-vis digital distribution platforms, while at the same time providing legal certainty to the industry.
{"title":"Aren't we all exhausted already? EU copyright exhaustion and video game resales in the Games-as-a-Service era","authors":"Alina Trapova, Emanuele Fava","doi":"10.4337/IELR.2020.02.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/IELR.2020.02.01","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the issue of copyright exhaustion for digitally distributed video games in the EU. In light of the case law of the CJEU and national courts, it applies to video games two relevant dichotomies – sale/licence and goods/services. Diving into the modern Games-as-a-Service (GaaS) trend, it argues that treating all transactions as sales and all games as goods poorly reflects the complexity of today's video game industry. The many uncertainties of the current legal framework and the impractical consequences of digital exhaustion could force the industry to change its distribution models in ways not necessarily beneficial to consumers. Thus, the applicability of exhaustion to digitally distributed games should be ruled out once and for all. Nonetheless, where copyright is unable to offer satisfactory solutions, consumer law may protect players vis-à-vis digital distribution platforms, while at the same time providing legal certainty to the industry.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41558213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
People's right to know, to hold opinions, right to access, to seek and receive information, as well as to disseminate and impart ideas, despite frontiers, are protected under all democratic nations' constitutional right of freedom of expression. This duty to inform and disseminate news is undoubtedly the responsibility vested with media as the fourth estate and as a watchdog thereby enabling it to exert due checks and monitors on the working of the nation. By this, it mandates a strong, independent and adequately resourced media to operate in order to serve the general public interest and to place and keep up high standards of journalism. With the changing notions of media and with the prevalence of social media and interactive entertainment platforms, where users write the content, edit the same and disseminate it to the public, the question arises if social media does indeed actually function as ‘media’ as envisioned by our constitutional drafters. Disseminating information accurately to the public is a sacrosanct duty and if such a duty gets affected, the edifice of democracy is devastated. From the traditional media having reliance on what had been circulated, it moved to a system where the ordinary citizen has the capability to manage media technologies and notify own stories creating trends more for a business purpose. This change as named as media-morphosis has also crushed the right to be informed accurately. Against this backdrop, this article addresses the rising frequency of disinformation ‒ occasionally indicated as ‘misinformation’ or ‘fake news’ in social media, inflamed by both states and non-state stakeholders, plus the diverse issues to which they perhaps are a causative part or key source. It also critically evaluates the obligation states have to enable a conducive environment for freedom of expression that comprise encouraging and defending diverse media however, simultaneously, to curtail any sort of misinformation being disseminated to its people. As is evident from the title of this article, the jurisprudential aspects of freedom of information vis-a-vis the freedom to disseminate are examined where the primary examination focus is on – if media that is used to keep a watchful eye on the dealings of government and act as a champion of the public's right to know, has departed from this constitutional duty with the emergence of social media. Moreover, the nexus between ‘contours of expression to disseminate the information’ and ‘extent of limitations as to such information dissemination’ will be analysed. To illustrate, Indian legal framework is used and applied. In its conclusion the author endeavours to question the unwarranted benefit social media enjoys as ‘intermediary’ and as ‘media’ thereby ponders if the current Indian legal framework is adequate to deal with the ramifications.
{"title":"Freedom of information, right to express and social media in India","authors":"Meera Mathew","doi":"10.4337/IELR.2020.02.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/IELR.2020.02.02","url":null,"abstract":"People's right to know, to hold opinions, right to access, to seek and receive information, as well as to disseminate and impart ideas, despite frontiers, are protected under all democratic nations' constitutional right of freedom of expression. This duty to inform and disseminate news is undoubtedly the responsibility vested with media as the fourth estate and as a watchdog thereby enabling it to exert due checks and monitors on the working of the nation. By this, it mandates a strong, independent and adequately resourced media to operate in order to serve the general public interest and to place and keep up high standards of journalism. With the changing notions of media and with the prevalence of social media and interactive entertainment platforms, where users write the content, edit the same and disseminate it to the public, the question arises if social media does indeed actually function as ‘media’ as envisioned by our constitutional drafters. Disseminating information accurately to the public is a sacrosanct duty and if such a duty gets affected, the edifice of democracy is devastated. From the traditional media having reliance on what had been circulated, it moved to a system where the ordinary citizen has the capability to manage media technologies and notify own stories creating trends more for a business purpose. This change as named as media-morphosis has also crushed the right to be informed accurately. Against this backdrop, this article addresses the rising frequency of disinformation ‒ occasionally indicated as ‘misinformation’ or ‘fake news’ in social media, inflamed by both states and non-state stakeholders, plus the diverse issues to which they perhaps are a causative part or key source. It also critically evaluates the obligation states have to enable a conducive environment for freedom of expression that comprise encouraging and defending diverse media however, simultaneously, to curtail any sort of misinformation being disseminated to its people. As is evident from the title of this article, the jurisprudential aspects of freedom of information vis-a-vis the freedom to disseminate are examined where the primary examination focus is on – if media that is used to keep a watchful eye on the dealings of government and act as a champion of the public's right to know, has departed from this constitutional duty with the emergence of social media. Moreover, the nexus between ‘contours of expression to disseminate the information’ and ‘extent of limitations as to such information dissemination’ will be analysed. To illustrate, Indian legal framework is used and applied. In its conclusion the author endeavours to question the unwarranted benefit social media enjoys as ‘intermediary’ and as ‘media’ thereby ponders if the current Indian legal framework is adequate to deal with the ramifications.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41940795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The UK's approach to copyright and its adoption of a closed list of categories of work has led to unforeseeable gaps in protection in video games and fails to recognize the intellectual creativity that has gone into various elements of a video game, such as in-game animation. However, the CJEU's decision in Cofemel (C-683/17) has sought to harmonize copyright in the EU and provides two simplified requirements for subsistence of copyright allowing for expansive protection and open ended categories of work. This decision broadens out copyright in a way which may fill in some of the gaps of protection for video games but at what cost? This article explores how Cofemel might impact the video games industry in practice, as well as the ways in which the UK courts might address Cofemel in light of its direct conflict with UK legislation at a critical political time where the UK is about to depart from the EU.
{"title":"Interaction of EU and UK copyright in a post-Brexit world: will video games get more protection than they bargain for?","authors":"Nick Kempton","doi":"10.4337/IELR.2020.02.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/IELR.2020.02.05","url":null,"abstract":"The UK's approach to copyright and its adoption of a closed list of categories of work has led to unforeseeable gaps in protection in video games and fails to recognize the intellectual creativity that has gone into various elements of a video game, such as in-game animation. However, the CJEU's decision in Cofemel (C-683/17) has sought to harmonize copyright in the EU and provides two simplified requirements for subsistence of copyright allowing for expansive protection and open ended categories of work. This decision broadens out copyright in a way which may fill in some of the gaps of protection for video games but at what cost? This article explores how Cofemel might impact the video games industry in practice, as well as the ways in which the UK courts might address Cofemel in light of its direct conflict with UK legislation at a critical political time where the UK is about to depart from the EU.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45477982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The popular NBA 2K series include a facial recognition software that scans the user's face to generate a lookalike avatar. However, end user licence agreements provide for all intellectual property rights, including copyright, to be licensed or assigned to game publishers or developers. Consequently, the user may have no say whether an avatar with their facial features may be used, for instance in advertising for the game. In addition, the facial features stored in the game may be biometric data, and thus subject to strict data protection rules. This paper will analyse whether the avatar generated using a face scan is a copyrightable work of authorship. The analysis questions whether the face scan fits into different categories of works; photography, film and databases, including the sui generis photography and database rights. It concludes that copyright fails to protect the individual's facial features. Even so, the ownership clause in licence agreements on the one hand and the facial features as biometric data on the other further complicate the question of what the individual can assert as his own.
{"title":"My face is yours: facial recognition software and copyright ownership","authors":"Danae Balcells Moline","doi":"10.4337/IELR.2020.02.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/IELR.2020.02.06","url":null,"abstract":"The popular NBA 2K series include a facial recognition software that scans the user's face to generate a lookalike avatar. However, end user licence agreements provide for all intellectual property rights, including copyright, to be licensed or assigned to game publishers or developers. Consequently, the user may have no say whether an avatar with their facial features may be used, for instance in advertising for the game. In addition, the facial features stored in the game may be biometric data, and thus subject to strict data protection rules. This paper will analyse whether the avatar generated using a face scan is a copyrightable work of authorship. The analysis questions whether the face scan fits into different categories of works; photography, film and databases, including the sui generis photography and database rights. It concludes that copyright fails to protect the individual's facial features. Even so, the ownership clause in licence agreements on the one hand and the facial features as biometric data on the other further complicate the question of what the individual can assert as his own.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46539436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the last decade, significant review and change have been done regarding the taxation of profits from multinational companies. The OECD BEPS Action 1 is focused on granting additional taxing rights to jurisdictions where the customers of the service are located. This is because consumers add to the value creation process (prosumers), together with the company itself. Many enterprises do not have a physical presence at market jurisdictions because of the worldwide digitalization of the business process. With distant sales, they avoid sufficient taxation at the source countries. Multiple jurisdictions, businesses, and individuals provided various taxing rights allocation proposals. OECD considered some of them as possible ways to address the issue of under-taxation at market jurisdiction. This article evaluates the applicability of the OECD analysis of the value creation to the video games industry under the angle of differences and similarities between single-player and multi-player video games with social networks. This work is focused on the differences related to user participation and network effects for the value creation process. It explores the importance of the user participation and network effects for the value creation process of single-player and multi-player video games, to find if that respective taxing rights allocation should be different for these types of video game. It also analyses main proposals on taxing rights allocation, their applicability to the industry, and if these proposals acknowledge the differences in value creation based on the network effects of the video game. It was found that the existing proposals are not always consistent with the preparatory work on value creation analysis performed by the OECD and do not consider the named differences. The results of this work support the position that the proposals, including the most recent one, meet the existing urge for the taxing rights reallocation, but are mainly politically-driven and not always in line with the existing principles of international tax law.
{"title":"Common features of video games and social networks: importance for international taxation","authors":"A. Vvedenskaya","doi":"10.4337/IELR.2020.02.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/IELR.2020.02.03","url":null,"abstract":"In the last decade, significant review and change have been done regarding the taxation of profits from multinational companies. The OECD BEPS Action 1 is focused on granting additional taxing rights to jurisdictions where the customers of the service are located. This is because consumers add to the value creation process (prosumers), together with the company itself.\u0000\u0000Many enterprises do not have a physical presence at market jurisdictions because of the worldwide digitalization of the business process. With distant sales, they avoid sufficient taxation at the source countries.\u0000\u0000Multiple jurisdictions, businesses, and individuals provided various taxing rights allocation proposals. OECD considered some of them as possible ways to address the issue of under-taxation at market jurisdiction.\u0000\u0000This article evaluates the applicability of the OECD analysis of the value creation to the video games industry under the angle of differences and similarities between single-player and multi-player video games with social networks. This work is focused on the differences related to user participation and network effects for the value creation process. It explores the importance of the user participation and network effects for the value creation process of single-player and multi-player video games, to find if that respective taxing rights allocation should be different for these types of video game. It also analyses main proposals on taxing rights allocation, their applicability to the industry, and if these proposals acknowledge the differences in value creation based on the network effects of the video game.\u0000\u0000It was found that the existing proposals are not always consistent with the preparatory work on value creation analysis performed by the OECD and do not consider the named differences. The results of this work support the position that the proposals, including the most recent one, meet the existing urge for the taxing rights reallocation, but are mainly politically-driven and not always in line with the existing principles of international tax law.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47570767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Video game content has grown increasingly popular on internet service providers such as YouTube and Twitch. This genre of uploaded material includes the gameplay of internet users, in the form of pre-recorded ‘Let's Play’ videos, as well as livestreamed playthroughs. However, the application of current copyright law principles to these kinds of content is still a grey area. This legal uncertainty can be attributed to the absence of binding judicial precedent on whether video game Let's Plays and livestreams constitute copyright infringement or fair use. More recent legislative provisions intended to update copyright law for current digital technology provide little assistance, as their implementation by internet platforms has perpetuated a practice of favouring the interests of game developers over users who produce Let's Plays and livestreams. This article discusses the problems of applying existing copyright law to video game playthroughs uploaded online, as well as the drawbacks of the automated tools YouTube and Twitch have developed to manage these types of content in their systems. In order to address these issues, suggestions for copyright law reform will be explored. However, in the absence of imminent legislative amendments, I conclude that compulsory licensing arrangements, and making modifications to YouTube's and Twitch's content scanning tools are the most viable means of achieving a better balance between the interests of game developers, the internet platforms, and Let's Play creators and game streamers.
{"title":"Copyright law issues in the context of video game Let's Plays and livestreams","authors":"Anna-Lisa Tie","doi":"10.4337/IELR.2020.02.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/IELR.2020.02.04","url":null,"abstract":"Video game content has grown increasingly popular on internet service providers such as YouTube and Twitch. This genre of uploaded material includes the gameplay of internet users, in the form of pre-recorded ‘Let's Play’ videos, as well as livestreamed playthroughs. However, the application of current copyright law principles to these kinds of content is still a grey area. This legal uncertainty can be attributed to the absence of binding judicial precedent on whether video game Let's Plays and livestreams constitute copyright infringement or fair use. More recent legislative provisions intended to update copyright law for current digital technology provide little assistance, as their implementation by internet platforms has perpetuated a practice of favouring the interests of game developers over users who produce Let's Plays and livestreams. This article discusses the problems of applying existing copyright law to video game playthroughs uploaded online, as well as the drawbacks of the automated tools YouTube and Twitch have developed to manage these types of content in their systems. In order to address these issues, suggestions for copyright law reform will be explored. However, in the absence of imminent legislative amendments, I conclude that compulsory licensing arrangements, and making modifications to YouTube's and Twitch's content scanning tools are the most viable means of achieving a better balance between the interests of game developers, the internet platforms, and Let's Play creators and game streamers.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44801631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.4337//ielr.2020.01.07
Ksenia Danshina
The Russian video game market is one of the world's biggest markets with a total revenue of USD 2 billion in 2019, making it potentially attractive for investors to explore. Although launching a product for the Russian market may require a lot of attention to regulatory details, on many issues the Russian legal environment seems to be favourable to game companies. This is an analysis of a number of typical issues that a game company may face in the Russian market. In particular, the following issues will be considered: the likelihood of success in disputes arising between game companies and gamers or the Russian state; the legal implications of qualifying an in-game asset; and whether the use of loot boxes in a game can lead to the game being qualified as gambling.
{"title":"The Russian approach to regulating video games: a play-through","authors":"Ksenia Danshina","doi":"10.4337//ielr.2020.01.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337//ielr.2020.01.07","url":null,"abstract":"The Russian video game market is one of the world's biggest markets with a total revenue of USD 2 billion in 2019, making it potentially attractive for investors to explore. Although launching a product for the Russian market may require a lot of attention to regulatory details, on many issues the Russian legal environment seems to be favourable to game companies. This is an analysis of a number of typical issues that a game company may face in the Russian market. In particular, the following issues will be considered: the likelihood of success in disputes arising between game companies and gamers or the Russian state; the legal implications of qualifying an in-game asset; and whether the use of loot boxes in a game can lead to the game being qualified as gambling.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41471356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：