Tag: Lawsuit

Epic Settles Lawsuit Against Minor Fortnite Cheater


Epic Games has agreed to voluntary dismissal and settlement in its lawsuit against a minor filed last year in the eastern district of North Carolina court. As part of the lawsuit and due to the defendant being a minor, certain documents have been sealed on order of the court and the defendant has since been simply named by his initials M.F. Epic had instigated the lawsuit after filing a DMCA takedown notice against the defendant’s video allegedly advertising cheats in their game Fortnite. When the defendant counter-claimed the video, Epic issued its complaint to the court.

Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc., by and through its attorneys, hereby gives notice of the settlement and dismissal of this action. Each party shall bear its or his own attorneys’ fees and costs.

The terms of the settlement are not being made public. Epic’s other lawsuit against another minor is still being pursued, with a recent court document submitted detailing issues that the prosecution had with finding and serving the defendants.

(Source: Court Dockets)

In Plain English: Crytek V Cloud Imperium Games (and RSI)


1. Dismissal Sounds Unlikely

Let’s start off at the same station and make a few things clear: Despite what is being tossed around on the internet, this case is not a slam dunk for either side (at least not evident from the statements being thrown back and forth). It is very likely that this case is going to go to trial, as there are a ton of allegations being made and accusations that are going to require the backing of email communications and witness testimony. We are not at the point in the case where either side is trying to convince a judge/jury, that won’t come for months down the road.

What Cloud Imperium Games is doing with its response is attempting to have the case dismissed by convincing the judge that the accusations have no merit and including comments that there are no damages to be recovered regardless of Crytek’s claims of breach. Since this is a gigantic lawsuit, I wanted to go down the list of points that I found interesting so far. This is not comprehensive and will certainly be followed up with when more details are presented.

2. The Definition of Exclusive

With this lawsuit between Crytek and Cloud Imperium Games, it looks like we’re diving back into the Clinton era legal argument about what the definition of ‘is’ is. A major point of contention that Crytek is bringing forward in this lawsuit is the definition of exclusive, how it was applied when forming the agreement, and what exactly it means for both parties.

Section 2.1.2 of the Game License Agreement states that this contract gives CIG the rights (and I’m quoting) “to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sublicensable pursuant to section 2.6.” Here’s where we get to the definition of “is” as Crytek is claiming that this passage means that CIG agreed to use the CryEngine and only the CryEngine in Star Citizen, as seen in this section of the original complaint:

“Crytek and Defendants subsequently formalized their relationship by entering into a Game License Agreement. In that Agreement, Defendants promised, among other things, (i) to use the CryEngine game development platform exclusively and to promote that platform within the video game...”

CIG is naturally going to fight this claim, and understandably the wording in the license agreement is incredibly vague for the kind of contract where every line should be worded to remove any doubt or wiggle room for interpretation. To the layman, the wording of the agreement seems to indicate that the license does indeed require CIG to exclusively embed CryEngine and no other engine. As far as contracts like this go, however, such a definition of exclusive is not standard by a long shot. Exclusive in these sorts of agreements is generally understood to mean that Crytek would be granting the license to CIG alone and no other company in the agreement, rather than obligating CIG to use said engine.

CIG’s response:

The GLA further shows that CIG has an exclusive right, not a duty, to use the Engine in the Game. Through hiding the GLA, Crytek contorts the word “exclusively” to argue that the word means that CIG somehow is required to use the Engine in the Game. The plain language of the GLA where the grant of rights to CIG appears, plus the well-established concept of an exclusive license, instead establish that the word “exclusively” simply means that CIG’s right to use the Engine in the Game is exclusive to CIG and Crytek may not give that right to anyone else.

Right, except that this agreement seems to be anything but plain language, and the license agreement actually differentiates the two concepts. Where 2.1.2 allegedly requires CIG to exclusively use the Crytek engine, the question about sublicensing is taken care of in the previous step of the agreement.

2.6 of the agreement basically just says that CIG can sublicense the engine only to contractor developers, with prior written approval by Crytek, for the purpose of developing the Game. This is one of those lines that is likely going to require witness testimony on what exactly the companies negotiated, assuming the Judge/Jury doesn’t accept either definition of exclusive as a given fact.

3. Do You Understand Crytek’s GLA? Does Crytek?

Here’s an interesting note: You may notice in the passages from the lawsuit and license agreement that both parties say “the Game” (emphasis on the capital G in Game) regularly instead of Star Citizen when referring to terms that both parties agreed upon. There is a legal reason for this.

“The Game” is the legal definition given in the license agreement to, and I’m quoting the agreement here:

“the game currently entitled “Space Citizen” and its related space fighter game “Squadron 42, together hereafter the Game”

No that wasn’t a mistake on my end, yes the GLA actually gets the name of the game wrong and refers to Star Citizen as Space Citizen, but that’s not the key issue here.

This rolls into one of Crytek’s other claims, that the existence of Squadron 42 is a breach of the agreement because while it began as a mode for Star Citizen, it had since branched out into a separate purchase and, according to the license agreement, Cloud Imperium only has the rights to develop one game. Any time you see the word “Game” with the capital G, it is referring to “the game Star Citizen” and “the game Squadron 42,” combined together. Another section of the agreement goes further and states that the agreement does not include any game not accessed through the Star Citizen game client, or sold for a separate fee.

This is why clarity is necessary, and here is where we lead to another issue that the court is going to have to decide. Crytek’s contention with Squadron 42 is that CIG announced in December 2015 that Squadron 42 would be a standalone product. By December 2016, CIG announced that both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 would be moved over to the Amazon Lumberyard engine, and Crytek is going after the year that the game may or may not have been in development under their engine, claiming loss of royalties and upfront payments that would have been owed had CIG licensed a second copy of the engine.

The big question is whether or not the license agreement which appears to explicitly recognize Star Citizen and Squadron 42 as separate games, but licenses them both together, is at odds with Crytek’s claim that selling Squadron 42 as a standalone product is a breach of the terms against selling separate products, or whether any of this is even applicable since neither game is using the engine.

3. Crytek’s Negotiations: A Blank Check In A Used Car Dealership

Another thing you’ll see crop up more than once if you read Crytek’s complaint is how the company graciously negotiated a substantially lower sum than its usual licensing fee on the grounds that Cloud Imperium Games would exclusively use the license and also heavily promote the CryEngine to its base. Since CIG is no longer using the engine, thus depriving Crytek of further licensing fees, the company feels that it’s been substantially damaged by not receiving the full, usual license fee. Money that they willingly gave up in negotiation.

The licensing fee negotiated under the GLA reflected a substantial reduction from Crytek’s usual licensing fees in view of the promotional consideration and other consideration that Defendants promised to Crytek in Sections 2.8.1, 2.8.2,and 2.8.3 of that Agreement. In view of the fact that Crytek has been deprived of that promised consideration, Crytek has been substantially damaged, and has failed to receive the balance of its full, usual license fee.

Crytek is apparently so angry about the conclusion of this agreement that they’ve taken to potentially slandering some individuals involved in the negotiation process. They actually call out by name Crytek co-founder Ortwin Freyermuth, who was a former Crytek employee and negotiated the deal on behalf of CIG, for apparent conflicts of interest and never recused himself from the negotiations or resolved that conflict of interest, despite apparently knowing confidential information about Crytek.

“Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek’s licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek,”

Except that claim is allegedly a complete and outright lie. In the declaration presented to the court by CIG lawyer Jeremy Goldman in support of the motion to dismiss, who also kindly submitted a copy of the license agreement that Crytek for one reason or another had withheld, Freyermuth’s conflict of interest was never in question. In fact, Crytek not only didn’t have an issue with Freyermuth’s involvement at the time, they went as far as writing and signing a conflict waiver allowing him to take part. Goldman has this conflict waiver, apparently, and no doubt we will see it once this case goes to court.

It seems like a lot of this lawsuit is intended to force CIG to keep paying Crytek royalties, because the company made the arguably poor decision to substantially lower its licensing fees on what they may have seen as a huge long term earner, they negotiated a contract that may or may not say what they think it does, and now they’re angry that the money train has stopped so they’re also throwing the guys who did the negotiations under the bus.

4. Why Would Anyone Write No Damages Into a Contract?

One tactic that Cloud Imperium is using to quash this lawsuit before it ever goes to court is to point out that the license bars either party from seeking damages in the case of a breach of contract. If there are no damages that can be recovered, and in consideration of the fact that this lawsuit is popping up because CIG stopped using the engine and considers the contract scrapped, bringing this case to court would just be a massive waste of the court’s time, which when you’re trying to get a lawsuit dismissed this is a pretty logical avenue to go down.

Crytek’s claim for damages — an essential element of any breach of contract claim — is precluded by express language in the GLA barring either party from seeking any damages from the other. The FAC also seeks various forms of monetary damages and equitable relief that are unavailable under the GLA or as a matter of law, including statutory damages and attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act, punitive damages, and an injunction.

I read this response and honestly my first reaction was that CIG had grievously misread or is really reaching for something in the license. For the sake of clarity and the fact that it’s one of the few ALL CAPITAL LETTERS parts of the license, let’s look at that part of the agreement in its entirety.

So neither party can be held liable for damages incurred by either party or a third party, even if advised beforehand on the possibility of damages. In their response, it looks like CIG is going for a more in-your-face approach to their motion to dismiss.

House of cards pleading? Sham interpretation? Someone’s going for the jugular.

5.  Comments, Disclosure, and Public Access

In wrapping up this first bit of coverage, I’d like to share some disclosures. First, I am not a lawyer and nothing in this coverage or anything else on MMO Fallout should be interpreted as legal advice. As such, I try to refrain from making any judgement calls or act as armchair lawyer on how these lawsuits will proceed or which side has the more solid case, rather In Plain English has always been about presenting the allegations as-is and lining them up with publicly known facts and prior cases.

Another note that I didn’t mention is that Roberts Space Industries is a defendant in the lawsuit even though the company claims it isn’t part of the contract as it didn’t sign. Indeed, RSI didn’t sign the GLA and isn’t even mentioned in the list of sublicensed companies, however they did license Autodesk from Crytek who are claiming that that is enough to keep them involved in the lawsuit. RSI is a subsidiary of CIG.

I will be maintaining a publicly accessible Google Drive folder with the pertinent documents at this link here. Feel free to leave any thoughts or allegations of collusion/bias in the comments section below.

Epic Strikes Again: Sues Over Fortnite V-Buck Exploit


Since last October, Epic Games has launched at least six lawsuits against individuals creating or advertising cheats for Fortnite, and as of last week you can add another one to that list. Epic has filed another lawsuit in the Northern District of California court, this time against an individual Yash Gosai, over his advertising of exploits in Fortnite Battle Royale.

While Epic’s previous lawsuits targeted creators and distributors of aimbots, this lawsuit deals with an exploit surrounding Fortnite’s premium currency V-Bucks. According to the lawsuit, Gosai is accused of developing and publicizing an exploit allowing people to gain free v-bucks without paying real money. Epic Games took the action of removing the video via DMCA takedown notice, which the defendant counter-claimed, and now the case is going to court on three claims: Copyright violation, breach of contract, and conversion (monetary damages).

Unlike the other cases we’ve covered where Epic Games is mostly seeking injunctive relief, barring the defendants from playing/cheating in their games, the fact that Gosai is being accused of both using and distributing an exploit to illegitimately acquire RMT currency for Fortnite makes this lawsuit one of the few where Epic is actually pursuing monetary damages. Epic is seeking unspecified damages plus interest and lawyer fees. As Yash Gosai is a resident of New Zealand, this case might take a while.

Both parties are scheduled for a meeting in April.

(Source: North California Court Docket Case 3:2018cv00152)

IPE News: VIolating A Terms of Service Is Still Not A Crime


Good news, internet-goers, violating a website’s terms of service isn’t a crime. It hasn’t been for years, but a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has gone to solidify and embolden that ruling.

In this case, Oracle USA sued Rimini Street Inc in Nevada District Court over allegations of misuse of their website violating established terms of service. Rimini was brought into court over their use of automated programs downloading support materials from Oracle’s website, which is against the company’s terms of service. Oracle sent a cease and desist, but did not restrict access to said files, and eventually filed suit. The judge ruled in favor of Oracle, stating that violating the terms of service constituted a breach of state computer crime statues.

Rimini appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit who overturned the lower judge’s decision, noting that Oracle prohibiting certain methods of collecting material does not constitute a violation if the material is already readily available. In short, it’s not illegal just because the website owner doesn’t like your methods.

More analysis can be found on the Electronic Frontier Foundation website piece linked below.

(Source: EFF.org)

Another Epic Games Lawsuit Settled With Permanent Injunction


Another Epic Games Fortnite lawsuit has been settled this month. Back in October, Epic Games filed lawsuits against a number of people creating and disseminating cheats for Fortnite in California and North Carolina state courts. A couple of those cases have already been settled and it looks like most of these cases will end with the defendants permanently barred from (possibly) playing and definitely from creating, using, or distributing cheats for Fortnite or any of Epic’s other titles.

Epic alleges that Yakovenko created, developed, and/or wrote a purported software cheat for Fortnite’s Battle Royale game mode; Yakovenko then created and posted several videos on YouTube to advertise, demonstrate, and distribute his cheat; Yakovenko’s videos feature Epic’s FORTNITE mark and full screen gameplay using the purported cheat; and while Yakovenko’s “cheat” does not appear to be a functional Fortnite cheat, it functions as a bitcoin miner that infects the user’s computer with a virus that causes the user’s computer to mine bitcoin for the benefit of an unknown third party.

The terms of the judgement permanently bar Yakovenko from creating or using cheat software in any current or future game owned by Epic Games, or even assisting anyone with creating or using a cheat for one of Epic’s games. Both parties will be paying their own legal fees, and it looks like no monetary penalty will be taken against Yakovenko.

In other news, it looks like Epic Games may have sued another minor. Last year we talked about the lawsuit against 14 year old Caleb Rogers, whose case has not seen any progression since we last discussed it. Epic’s lawsuit in North Carolina court mirrors that of its lawsuit against Rogers, noting that the minor was posting videos on Youtube showing how to cheat and where to get said cheats, with the lawsuit essentially following up on a DMCA takedown notice that Epic had filed. The defendant, M.F., filed a counter-notice under the penalty of perjury that his videos were fair use. In cases where counter-claims are issued, the only option going forward for a copyright holder is to file a lawsuit.

As in the case of Rogers, it looks like Epic was not aware of the age of Moret before filing and as such a number of files have been sealed to the public regarding this case. As with the other cases, Epic appears to be pursuing a permanent injunction on cheating.

Crytek Suing Star Citizen For Copyright Infringement/Breach of Contract


Always read your fine print, folks, it’ll help you out of a lot of problems.

Crytek has officially launched a lawsuit against Cloud Imperium Games and Roberts Space Industries, alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract. The lawsuit alleges that CIG violated its contract with Crytek back in 2016 when they announced that the first person shooter spinoff Squadron 42 would be sold as a separate product. According to the lawsuit, Crytek contacted CIG to inform them that their license only covered one game, and thus Squadron 42 was not licensed for use with their engine.

Crytek has not been compensated for Defendants’ unlicensed use of Crytek technology in the Squadron 42 game, and has been substantially harmed by being deprived of that compensation, which would ordinarily include a substantial up-front payment as well as a substantial royalty on game sales.

Star Citizen has not been on the CryEngine in some time, it moved over to the Amazon Lumberyard engine which, incidentally, is based on the CryEngine. Based on the lawsuit, Chris Roberts was able to successfully negotiate a substantially reduced licensing fee as long as they promised to prominently promote both Crytek and CryEngine. In return, CIG allegedly reduced and then removed the copyright notices and trademarks completely.

Outside of copyright infringement and breach of contract, it looks like CIG may have signed a clause into their license that made CryEngine the exclusive engine, thus making their move over to Lumberyard in violation of said agreement. Outside of the obvious now-missing revenue stream, Crytek’s lawsuit also notes that CIG’s license included requirements to send bug fix and optimization reports on at least an annual basis, an obligation that the company did not meet. Crytek also alleges that the Bugsmashers video series constitutes publicizing confidential information regarding CryEngine.

On May 6, 2015, Defendants began posting a series of videos online titled “Bugsmashers.” The videos contain excerpts of information from CryEngine that were confidential, in breach of the GLA, and should not have been shown to the public. The series continues today.

Crytek is asking for damages well in excess of $75,000 (the exact number will be seen). The charges seem pretty cut and dry, if Crytek has the supporting evidence than the next step would be for the court to determine damages.

CIG has commented to several websites on the matter:

“We are aware of the Crytek complaint having been filed in the US District Court. CIG hasn’t used the CryEngine for quite some time since we switched to Amazon’s Lumberyard. This is a meritless lawsuit that we will defend vigorously against, including recovering from Crytek any costs incurred in this matter.”

(Source: Scribd)

Epic Games Settles First Lawsuit Against Fortnite Cheater


Epic Games is on a rampage against cheating in Fortnite, and the first lawsuit has officially ended with a settlement and injunction.

Defendant Charles Vraspir entered an agreement voluntarily with no ability to repeal, that permanently bars him from creating, promotion, distributing, or using any software or device that infringes on Epic’s copyright for any existing or future copyright. Vraspir is restrained from cheating in any game that Epic develops or publishes or even materially contributing or inducing others to cheat in a title that Epic develops or publishes. If Vraspir violates the terms of this agreement, he can be charged $5,000 plus other potential fines.

(Source: Torrent Freak)

In Plain English: No, Epic Games Isn’t Suing A 14 Year Old Just For Cheating


(Update 9/10: Out of respect for the courts, MMO Fallout has redacted the name of the defendant)

Epic Games has made some news this month over the announcement that they are filing lawsuits against people cheating in Fortnite. How many lawsuits? This many, so far:

One particular lawsuit has caught greater attention because it turns out that the defendant is 14 years old. Epic Games filed a complaint against C.R., or Sky Orbit as he is known on Youtube, one month ago for copyright infringement and breach of contract under North Carolina law. The lawsuit here stems from multiple DMCA stikes against the defendant’s channel by Epic Games, taking down videos showcasing and promoting cheating in the video game Fortnite. The defendant appealed said strikes, and under copyright law the only avenue going further for Epic Games is to file a lawsuit.

Further, Defendant is streaming videos of himself playing and cheating at Fortnite by using cheat software (“cheats” or “hacks”) to unlawfully modify Fortnite’s software. In the videos Defendant posts on YouTube, Defendant promotes and demonstrates a Fortnite cheat, and provides viewers with a link to a site from which they can acquire the cheat for themselves.

Epic Games also notes in the lawsuit that defendant has been banned from the game at least 14 times, and continued creating accounts and posting videos on Youtube attempting to promote the cheat program, going so far as to create a second Youtube account to circumvent the takedown notice.

Defendant has been banned from playing Fortnite for this conduct at least 14 times. He nevertheless continues to play using other accounts he created using false names. He has also continued to cheat and to publicly perform and display video of himself cheating on YouTube in an effort to induce others to buy the cheat he sells so that they too can cheat at Fortnite.

A response video by the defendant on the lawsuit can be found here where he disputes the number of bans and claims that the 14 count is exaggerated and is “more like 10 or 5.”

Epic has included the Copyright appeal sent to Youtube.

On October 17, 2017, Defendant submitted a counter-notification responding to Epic’s DMCA takedown notice for the First Video in which he stated “i did noting rong this strike is all wrong I was modding in a video game that isn’t against youtubes TOS Why was i striked ?!”

To say that Epic Games is suing a 14 year old because of cheating would be boiling down the story into its base parts and picking out the wrong piece to focus on. It’d be like me covering a burglary and the headline being “Man Arrested For Putting Some Money In His Pocket,” (Note: I’m not equating the two). There is also a misconception going around that Epic cannot sue defendant as he is 14 and therefore not an adult. This is also not true, as in the United States a child can be sued for willful or malicious damages, in which case his parents would be liable for paying said damages. Most states cap this amount, however North Carolina actually doesn’t have such a cap on damages.

In their lawsuit, Epic Games is seeking injunctive relief, barring the defendant from cheating or sharing further videos of cheating in Fortnite, as well as statutory damages due to the defendant distributing said cheats and advertising them on his Youtube channel. One spot where Epic Games may have lost the mark is in their belief that C.R. had a financial investment in the cheat itself. Unless Epic has access to some information that we don’t, the defendant has expressly denied that he is involved in any way with the creation of said cheat program.

On information and belief, Defendant engages in such conduct to promote the cheat via his Sky Orbit and Sky Orbit V2 YouTube channels because Defendant obtains some financial benefit or value in consideration for his video postings and/or the sale of the cheat he promotes and demonstrates in the First and Third Videos.

The defendant’s mother submitted a letter to the court which may or may not have been a bad idea, as it shows a glaring lack of understanding of both the situation as well as what exactly her son is being sued over, and likely divulges more than any lawyer would advise her to say.

Regardless, it is likely that Epic Games did not know the age of the defendant prior to filing said lawsuit, so whether or not they will pursue the case further will have to be seen. This is just one of at least six lawsuits currently pending from Epic toward cheat makers and promoters.

In Plain English: Epic Sues Two Fortnite Cheat Creators


I’m not entirely happy with the press coverage of Epic Games’ lawsuit. If you’ve been reading the news this week, you may be under the impression that Epic Games was so angry about two particular players cheating in Fortnite that the game developer decided to take these two individuals to court. This isn’t exactly the case.

Epic Games has filed complaints against Charles Vraspir and Brandon Boom in separate cases in North Carolina district court. Unsurprisingly, Epic has chosen to go with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for their main point of attack, alleging that the cheats involve illegally modifying the game code. By going for copyright infringement, Epic is looking to slap both defendants with some potentially hefty fines (up to $150,000 each) plus damages and any additional profits that the defendants made from the sale of said cheats. In the interim, Epic is seeking an injunction preventing the defendants from continuing to use and advertise said cheat programs.

One interesting note in this lawsuit that may help their case is intent. The lawsuit docket makes several notes of both Vraspir and Boom stating that their goal is to ruin the business viability of Fortnite by making the game as unbearable to play as possible.

In an effort to adversely impact as many people as possible while playing and cheating at Fortnite, Defendant specifically targets streamers. He has declared that it is his objective to prevent streamers from winning the game and has boasted in online cheating discussion channels that his goal is to “stream snipe,” i.e., kill streamers as they stream. Defendant has said that making streamers hate Fortnite is Defendant “in a nutshell.”

Epic also alleges that Vraspir’s conduct may be related to the fact that he was banned from Fortnite PvE for cheating:

 

Defendant’s unlawful conduct may be the result of a misplaced antipathy towards Epic because he was banned from Epic for cheating.

This is known in court as the famous “u mad” strategy.

Now those of you who read In Plain English know that the legality of cheating has come up in the past. The court ruled that the use of bot software in World of Warcraft did not constitute copyright infringement because the software itself was found to not violate Blizzard’s copyright. If the software is found to be violating Epic’s copyright by making illegal modifications or by violating DMCA rules in circumventing protections, it could spell trouble.

This is a copyright infringement and breach of contract case in which the Defendant is infringing Epic’s copyrights by injecting unauthorized computer code into the copyright protected code of Epic’s popular Fortnite® video game. In so doing, Defendant is creating unauthorized derivative works of Fortnite by modifying the game code and, thus, materially altering the game that the code creates and the experience of those who play it.

The Fortnite cheat in question has been discontinued on the cheat maker’s website, along with a Paragon cheat that was similarly discontinued over legal disputes from Epic.

In Plain English: Imagos Softworks v Alex Mauer


(Editor’s Note: All information presented in this article is sourced from court dockets. As always, nothing in the column should be regarded as legal advice. In Plain English does not attempt to draw conclusions, and all parties are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. I’ve fulfilled my legal obligation. Thank you.)

The Alex Mauer case is one that MMO Fallout has stepped away from covering, due mostly in part to the fact that every major Youtuber from SidAlpha to John Bain and Jim Sterling have more than thoroughly kept up with coverage, as well as that for a while now the story has been moving at such an incredible pace with fact mixing with hearsay that I didn’t feel that I’d be able to keep up with my morning and evening schedule freedom. I’ve always been one to avoid covering controversies until they turn into something genuine, an individual and a company shouting at one another generally leads nowhere, someone gets paid or agrees to stop shooting their mouth off, and we all go home disappointed.

But Alex Mauer’s lawsuit is different, because I think this is the first video game lawsuit in which the defendant has been ordered by a judge to stop sending death threats to the plaintiff. Here is the order:

Defendant shall refrain from making threats of harm and physical violence against Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ lawyer

The case of Alex Mauer really came to a head in June when she began submitting frivolous DMCA takedown notices for game footage of a property that she has no ownership of, but the drama goes further back than that. Mauer was hired by Imagos Softworks in March 2015 by Don Thacker to work on the soundtrack for Starr Mazer, a side scrolling shoot-em-up. At some point during this timeline, Alex Mauer asked for time off for medical reasons, at which she eventually left the team entirely. According to the lawsuit, Mauer came back and began claiming that Imagos owed her money, and claiming rights to Starr Mazer and Imagos’ other properties.

Mauer issued a DMCA notice against Starr Mazer DSP on Steam, forcing Valve to take the game down while the dispute was resolved, over a property that Alex Mauer allegedly doesn’t own. According to the lawsuit, which includes the contract with Mauer’s signature, Imagos Softworks retained all rights to Mauer’s work. Here is the snippet from the contract that discusses ownership:

WORK FOR HIRE: Contractor’s services will be performed as a specifically ordered or commissioned work made-for-hire, and Production Company shall own all results and proceeds of Contractor’s services rendered hereunder in perpetuity to use for all purposes, including without limitation to the exploitation of the Picture or otherwise. This agreement may be assigned to any entity by Producer provided such entity assumes all executor obligations. Contractor may not assign this agreement. Contractor agrees to maintain the secrecy of all Producer’s confidential information which comes into Contractor’s possession by virtue ,of Contractor’s participation in the Production.

Imagos is suing in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has hired Leonard French as their attorney. Alex Mauer, in the short time that this case has been running, has hired and subsequently fired Frank A. Mazzeo. On June 26, Mauer allegedly began sending threatening messages of murder, arson, and vandalism toward Thacker and French, causing Mauer to be taken into involuntary custody while a mental health evaluation was performed. Mauer was released.

Mauer is being charged with Copyright Misrepresentation, breach of contract, defamation per se in regards to the claims of ownership, allegations of misconduct, and damage to Imagos Softworks through said allegations, as well as extortion/blackmail, following Mauer’s comments that the DMCA takedowns were to provoke content creators into contacting Imagos on her behalf.

In their lawsuit, Imagos Softworks hopes to place a permanent injunction preventing Mauer from filing additional claims, a delcatory judgement that Imagos owns its properties, unspecified damages, and any relief the court may deem necessary. The court will be conducting a hearing in regards to the application for a temporary restraining order on July 19 at 9:30 a.m.

%d bloggers like this: