I wouldn't be surprised if the texture of the model in the mod is a photo published by samsung in some way, meaning they would have a copyright on the texture, and publishing a video made with the mod made with the texture would indeed be a legit copyright violation.
Keep in mind that in general all gameplay videos are copyright violations because they display copies of textures belonging to video game studios, just usually the studios don't do anything about it since it's actually free advertisement.
That's not how copyright works. The forms of intellectual property protection that apply to the Note 7 simply don't apply to a texture in a video game that is video-captured. Even setting aside the broad protections given to parodies (in the US at least.)
Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Even assuming it's made from a photo of an actual Note 7, the copyright is still that artist's, not Samsung's.
Think about the implications -- can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7? Of course not.
Samsung probably has some design patents on the Note 7, but that means you can't manufacture phones with the same design. It doesn't mean you can't distribute images of that design.
What? Samsung comes with a copyrighted background image by default on their phones. The modder took that background image, modified it, and redistributed it. That's illegal.
> can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7?
Uh, yes, of course they can. That's why on TV shows they blur out logos of T-shirts, etc. That's why an indie filmmaker was sued because his film had a scene with The Simpsons playing on a TV in the background.
Logos can be trademarks. They're very rarely copyrighted. And they are generally blurred out for product-placement reasons, not because showing them on television is infringement.
I don't know what you're referring to, but if a filmmaker is sued because the Simpsons is playing in the background of a movie... that is definitely a possible legitimate copyright issue. I'd assume that fair use would apply, though.
Logos can be trademarks. They're very rarely copyrighted.
How can that be? Every artistic work is automatically under copyright (see the Berne Convention, which the US adopted in 1988), so why wouldn't logos be?
> Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture.
Yes, and i'm saying it is possible they didn't make the texture, but downloaded a jpg from Samsung's website and used that directly, in which case Samsung would have a solid and legit case.
The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it.
> The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it.
It's a shame that you don't have time to read the rest of the comment, because it explains why your view of how copyright works is incorrect. Your videogame footage example makes this very clear.
The way i phrased the reasoning for skipping it should've made clear that i actually read it. I only skipped responding to it. The entirety of the comment assumes the mod was made without using an image file copy-righted to samsung, which is however a possibility.
Also your comment about the video footage is inane. Yeah, sure, it would likely be resolved under Fair Use, but only once a judge gets involved. The DMCA request is still entirely valid.
Keep in mind that in general all gameplay videos are copyright violations because they display copies of textures belonging to video game studios, just usually the studios don't do anything about it since it's actually free advertisement.