I saw some info about the latest Call of Duty game having to remove some maps from its multi-player mode because they resemble actual in life buildings like a hotel.
Video games are artwork, playable artwork, but still I thought art was protected in a way. How will VR worlds that resemble real structures be treated?
In high school, a friend of mine was kicked out of school and we were all visited by the police for making a counterstrike map based on our high school.
We did it because it's a maze of blind corners and weird little hidey-hole closets.
But oh boy did I learn about art protections through that process. They don't exist when it comes to violence of any kind, even perceived violence.
It was rumored the Columbine killers had re-created their highschool campus layout in Doom. It was only a rumor[0], but enough people believed it, or at least it indulged their confirmation bias, that game levels are now taken seriously as threats. No doubt the swift response to your counterstrike map was influenced by that legacy.
This is absolutely crazy and saddening. My whole childhood and teenage years I dreamed of recreating some locations from my life in an action-adventure/FPS setting (was thinking more urban exploration than shooters, but still). I also couldn't understand why even games happening ostensibly in a well-known city would be so obviously inaccurate with their recreation. Nowadays I know why...
In all fairness, if I was a hotel owner (or IKEA), I would not want my venues to be recognizable in a video game (or other media). Soon, I would no longer be "that luxury resort with the great customer service" but "that place which has blood flood out of elevators in The Shining". Not the best marketing.
TBH a lot of hotels look similar, and they likely went out to take pictures; resemblances may be unintentional, but easy to do.
> How will VR worlds that resemble real structures be treated?
Probably just like anything else that falls under these laws; copyright laws and licenses. I can imagine a hotel would be OK to be in a virtual world, just as long as no people get virtually shot in there.
"TBH a lot of hotels look similar, and they likely went out to take pictures; resemblances may be unintentional, but easy to do."
Not in that case.
The game takes place in a amsterdam and they intentionally tried to make it as realistic as possible(just changing names). And in that map, you play inside that particular hotel and then part of the hotel gets destroyed.
I’m actually kinda curious what the “legal” definition of art includes. The word already seems to be ambiguous enough. I’ve gotten into multiple arguments here about whether things like music are art.
Video games are artwork, playable artwork, but still I thought art was protected in a way. How will VR worlds that resemble real structures be treated?