NBA 2K21 proves that the lone basketball sim we have now has largely stagnated. It is a complete package, for certain, but one which demonstrates little-to-no motivation to meaningfully improve upon itself. That doesn't take away from the powerful base which makes NBA 2K an enjoyable and rewarding time. However, when you go through precisely the same grind and the exact same procedure with only superficial modifications, you simply get burnt out quicker than years before. If ball is still existence, NBA 2K21 is as good a version as any to pick, but even the best ballers require a rest.
On Thursday, the video game industry won a significant battle in a longstanding controversy over the breeding of tattoos in sports video games. In the case, Strong Oak Sketches sought damages under the Copyright Act Take Two Interactive Software Inc. for containing reproductions of the the supposedly copyright-protected tattoos on avatars for James, Martin and Bledsoe in the favorite NBA 2K movie games.
In the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain discovered that: (a) the level of copying of these tattoos had been de minimis rather than large, (b) the manufacturer needed a non-exclusive implied license to replicate the tattoos at the video games, and (c) the copies constituted"fair use" for the transformative nature. To best understand the importance of Judge Swain's conclusion, it's necessary to unpack every finding, beginning with the degree of copying.
To sustain a copyright act, the plaintiff must include in their asserts enough evidence to demonstrate that the defendant copied their work and the copy is substantially similar to the initial creation. To get a copy to be eligible as substantially similar under the Copyright Act, the similarities between the works have to be more than de minimis (i.e. minuscule). Judge Swain found that the level of copying in this case fell below the threshold of substantial copying. In reaching this decision, Judge Swain used the ordinary observer test, which requires the court to take into account whether a lay person would understand that the breeding substantially copied and made use of the plaintiff's copyright protected function.