Yume Chizu (Cut Ver.)

wait, for real?

i thought a cover of the song is perfectly fine as long as it's not using 40mP's og. version?

We are trying to reach out the artist about the set's rankability, I will resolve this post with 40mP's response about it

I thought covers were fine?

@Sotarks @LGM I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case, because that would mean that 40mP would only be against having the vocaloid's vocals in game, even though he composed the lyrics and the instrumental.

I'll check the copyright page again to see if there are indeed any loopholes, as there are no mentions of covers (or cut versions, for that matter)

not mentioned = ok though, ranking this is not directly breaking a rule.
rules should be more clear then.

The rules really should be more clear on the matter as it doesn't even state it covers with different instrumentals are allowed

This is a derivative work (cover song) so the appropriate authority should be yuikonnu not 40mP.

Kinda long explanation:

40mP is the original creator so they can control IP rights to derivative works (such as covers). yuikonnu may have received permission to do a cover. We honestly don't care whether she did or not.

yuikonnu is the derivative creator of this cover song, so they can control IP rights to original aspects of their derivative works (original remastering/composition/voice) as well as derivative works.

This map is a derivative work of yuikonnu and uses original aspects of yuikonnu's work. Since this map is a derivative of a derivative of 40mP, 40mP is not able to directly control the map's IP rights. You can think of it this way A > B, and B > C, but A cannot > C.

Of course, there are no actual laws or court cases that clearly outline how derivative of derivative works are handled (since these issues tend to be very minor, and no one wants to spend $500k+ on issues that can be resolved in 2 minutes) however, let's say this problem went to court anyways. 40mP would be suing yuikonnu exclusively because "but for" yuikonnu's cover, this map and corresponding derivative of derivative infringement would not have existed anyways. Yuikonnu can then sue the mapper to recuperate some of her losses due to derivative infringement.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, I don't believe blackletter laws exist on this subject, this is just how I think the matter would likely be resolved.

That does make sense to me. What will happen if 40mP replies to Kyuukai with a negative outcome? Would this still be rankable?

lol I was wondering when the lawyer would intervene xD
In any case I think the best thing we can do is wait for 40mP's response.

@Monstrata this might sound like a dumb question, but in this case, is it CERTAIN that Yuikonnu owns the rights to this song under the argument that she's changing it? Because I know that many utaite's don't bother with licensing all that much, since on YouTube all the money from their cover's video goes straight to the original composer.

I would be very surprised to learn that 40mP couldn't compel yuiko to C&D this

It was something that needed to be pointed out.
in Ryuusei Aika's Kyoufuu All back case, it replaced the cover mp3 and pushed to ranked.
This is a precedent that was only possible because there was no wiki documentation, but now that there is, it's important to point out.
(Of course, it's because the wiki article doesn't specify whether it's banning artist's "song" or "soundtrack").

We don't know if yuikonnu owns any licensing rights to this song. We do know that she owns any original elements of this cover (elements that would not exist if she did not exist). For example, her unique voice is an original element.

@Nao - Nah, your intuition is correct to my knowledge. 40mP could definitely compel yuikonnu to C&D this. But yuikonnu can still ignore and face sanctions for ignoring an Order Compelling. 40mP would sue yuikonnu for failure to C&D. This goes back to my analogy that A > B and B > C but A > C. You can't skip over the middle man and ultimately yuikonnu has to be the one to make the C&D on this map, not 40mP.

Ngl, derivative of derivate works seem rife with weird loopholes the more I research lol.

Fair enough. In that case I propose a non legal argument which is that we (osu in general) strive to act in good faith with regard to content that isn't ours. For example by mandating credits for audio, video and background sources. I think that respecting the intent of 40mP requesting his songs not be used rather than the letter would be a better approach as far as acting in good faith is concerned.

Shhh... osu is supposed to have been operating in good faith for... 16 years now... LOL. While I think respecting the intent of 40mP is good, it also tramples on the right of yuikonnu since now it appears she cannot have a say in the matter even though it is her cover.

Also, under the DMCA we assume in good faith that mappers upload their content with permission/licensing rights from the corresponding artist. So until Kyuukai says otherwise, we should operate under the assumption they received approval from yuikonnu. (Legally speaking. Allegedly, 99.99% of mappers don't ask artist for permissions but what do I know?! I'm just a DMCA law abiding citizen operating in good faith)

Hi, I just woke up, and though of something else.

@Monstrata If the law states that the person who made the cover owns the rights to the work as a derivative work, then why does *namirin not feature covers on her featured artist songs listing?

This is particularly important, as *namirin has also covered a 40mP song, called Amaoto Noise (the noise of rain).

@Yumenexa - The law only covers aspects of an artist's derivative work that is original. namirin can't list covers without a license/permission because the melodies she covers are derived from a pre-existing original work.

I think the issue here is about who should have more "control." Imo, yuikonnu is the person who should have primary control regarding the status of this map, not 40mP. This map is a derivative of yuikonnu's work, and a derivate of a derivative of 40mP.

This falls under derivative of a derivative because of the cut version, you mean?

Figure out if covers of yume chizu are allowed so I can remap my ito kashitaro one!!

@Nevo I'll be waiting eagerly for that one 🔥🔥 (choose a better preview point though)

@Yumenexa - all maps are derivate works. When you create any osu! beatmap, you automatically receive copyrights to the patterns you create. But your work is a derivative of a song.

Here, this map is a derivative of yuikonnu's cover, which is a derivative of 40mP's original work. So this map is a derivative of a derivative work.

😵

My brain is frying reading all of this, I just want to map Yume Chizu 💀

Kyuukai just wanted to be happy and mapping his fav artist be like

@Kyuukai honestly I want to apologise, this got blown out of proportion way faster than expected. I also want to apologise because I problem-stamped something which I saw logic to, but still wasn't 100% certain about.

That being said, I'm glad that this is being given thought both from the NAT/GMT's perspective and from a technical legal standpoint. The content usage page is a massive change. Hopefully this gets resolved quickly. Have there been any signs of a response shown from either 40mP and/or Yuikonnu?

There is still no response from 40mP and Yuikonnu doesn't state that she doesn't want her content in the game either.

I'm still willing to try to push this set for ranked section, if I don't get any replies by tomorrow I will resolve this post as the situation has been discussed.

I'll resolve for now, I doubt that there will be a response.

@Nevo You should probably be fine to remap the Ito Kashitaro version, since the instrumental is a different arrangement ^^

Let's just pray that a Sakura no Uta v2 doesn't happen...

Fair, thanks to everyone who participated to the discussion for trying to figure out this particular situation !

glad to see this song pushed again

Yes, fixing it

merci le bossssss