I believe, though, that under US law if you don't act to protect your copyright or trademark then it can lapse. So some companies will sue for what they see as copyright or trademark infringement even if the infringer is not doing so for profit - just in case, in a future court case, the court rules that the company has a history of not defending.

I may be wrong about this, would love to know for sure if there are any legally knowledgeable members around.

Anyway, surely even if someone makes no money they can still be sued for damages and in addition have punitive damages applied?

[edit]

Also, if found guilty of trademark/copyright/IP infringement, mightn't the defendant be liable for the injured party's court costs? Those can be staggering.

People are getting sued over creating mods of trademarked property now? Seriously?

Is this a new trend or just MLB throwing a fit? I don't know anything about MLB, but this is the first time ive ever heard of something like this happening. It sounds like they're, yeah, throwing a fit and don't really understand how mods work in the first place.

They would have to prove that the copyright infringer irreparably damaged the monetary value of the copyrighted property. So yes, if that is the case. But, in this situation I am pretty sure the red sox did not lose any value from this image in the game.

You are right about the lapse, if they do not exercise their copyright it happens. So, I think this situation is all formality with little to no chance of the modder getting monetarily sued. I think that Bethesda could get sued if they condone this behavior since they sell the product that indirectly is causing the infringment. But, obviously they will never condone this.

We have. It's not that great. Now it's time to actually finish working on the game since the devs probably won't.

i'm not to be confused with a legal expert, however i believe your post is pretty accurate.

i'd also be suprised if bethesda didn't look into getting the licences but just didn't want to pony up the money. hence it is not red sox uniforms, not the green monster and it isn't fenway. the licence holders make make money from the fees and if you aren't going to pay, they aren't going to let it slide if they see you getting it in there for free.

You seem to be the one not thinking clearly, and don't recognize anologies. While drawing your favorite character, you also would put "Red Sox" on thier uniform, drawing it yourself, or putting a "Red Sox" sticker onto it. It would be the same thing, the modder created something ("drawing"/"mod") then shared it with his friends (youtube)

Because modding Bethesda games is fun, and a huge part of it's community, they basically come hand in hand. Don't compare it to hacking and cheating. It's basically it's own artform now, if you're so upset about it, i hate to see how you feel when Bethesda releases the Creation Kit.

Now, what about the Skyrim mods, the My Little Pony Dragons, or Zelda sword and shield in the Steam workshop? Are those not copyrighted images?

When defending a trademark or copyright is at the discretion of the individual and various owners, under multitudinous legal systems (and corporate cultures) around the world, then a rational and consistent common-ground isn't the first thing I'd be looking for