Copyright and Illegal Content Notices

Project creators and owner, hosting, and contact

Plaryn.com is the brand and project created, built and owned by the creators acting as Plaryn Team. Plaryn Team is a creative team designation, not a separately registered legal person. Hosting the website on Bomega infrastructure does not give Bomega ownership of the project or brand.

Technical hosting and support for Plaryn.com are provided by BOMEGA spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (BOMEGA Sp. z o.o.), Długa 2B, 56-416 Twardogóra, Poland, KRS 0000841054, NIP 9112034523, REGON 386056613. Bomega hosts the service on its servers and performs related technical data operations. Hosting alone does not make it the project owner, the contractual service provider to users or the personal data controller.

Contact for hosting and technical assistance: [email protected]. Plaryn Team creates and owns the project, while Bomega provides hosting and technical operations.

Plaryn Team is the creative team designated by the owner as the creator and owner of the project and brand. Economic rights to particular works, software and games follow actual authorship, contracts and licences; users who submit games retain their lawful rights. Bomega does not acquire any rights to Plaryn.com, its brand, code or games merely by hosting them.

Detailed rules for the functions and rights covered by this document. The provisions distinguish currently available features from options not yet enabled for paid orders.

Scope of copyright and illegal-content notices

Plaryn displays Games, Creator content, Release files, descriptions, images and community material. A report can concern specific code, graphics, music, recordings, trademarks, photographs, reviews or other user-supplied content. Copyright infringement and other forms of illegality are different grounds for a notice, even when they concern the same resource.

The reporter should identify locatable material and explain the concern. A general assertion that an entire Game is unlawful may be insufficient where the dispute concerns one external work. The response can appropriately affect a particular Card, file, image or Release depending on the violation and whether the element can be separated.

Creator rights and no automatic assignment

Creators retain rights they lawfully own under applicable law and contracts. Uploading a Game, joining a Team or participating in a Jam does not automatically assign copyright to Plaryn Team, Bomega or other participants. The Service may use submitted material only within its actual licences and the permission needed for the requested functions.

Hosting a file does not make the infrastructure supplier its copyright owner. Equally, a public claim of authorship does not alone settle a complex dispute among collaborators. Contracts, employment relationships and applicable law may determine ownership. An appropriate temporary restriction can be justified where credible conflicting rights require assessment.

Compliance with third-party component licences

Games may contain open-source software, licensed models, stock graphics, audio, fonts and other third-party resources. Creators must respect applicable obligations, including attribution, licence notices, reporting modifications and source availability where required. Permission to use one component does not automatically extend to unrelated works.

A licence-related notice should identify the component, use and relevant condition. Not every attribution error requires removing the whole Game; sometimes correction is possible. Where a package must change, the replacement should pass the appropriate technical approval procedure.

Trademark, image and identity claims

Trademark confusion, unauthorised use of another person's name, misleading claims of endorsement and misuse of personal images can be reported separately from copying a protected work. The notice should identify the affected material, its location and the rights relied upon.

Similar names or references do not necessarily amount to infringement. Context and the applicable law matter. The platform must not arbitrarily assign another person's brand or copyright to a complainant. Restricted access may be justified while a credible risk is assessed.

Information needed for a usable notice

Where possible, provide the exact URL or Game identifier, location of the file or passage, explanation of the violation and enough detail to investigate. For copyright complaints, it is useful to identify the original work and whether the reporter is the rights holder or an authorised representative. Passwords, secret access keys and unrelated identity documents should not be required.

Illegal-content notices covered by relevant DSA provisions should include information enabling identification of the material and a reasoned explanation of the alleged illegality. Knowingly false statements can harm others and may breach legal obligations. Where important detail is missing, the appropriate team may request clarification instead of treating every assertion as proven.

Reporting channels and different procedures

Use the relevant reporting tools in Trust Center or next to the affected material. Technical issues and requests for forwarding can also be directed through [email protected]. This is an infrastructure and forwarding contact, not automatic proof that the hosting company is the legal decision-maker for every content matter.

Ordinary Game errors, future payment disputes and allegations of illegal files may require different procedures. The channel should match the nature of the concern. Immediate threats to life or health should also be reported to competent emergency services, because moderation tools are not an emergency response system.

Review process and possible outcomes

Authorised personnel may examine the identified material, context, Release status, claimed rights and any available Creator explanation. Outcomes can include no action, requesting clarification, correcting a description, restricting an item, withdrawing a file or proportionate Account measures. Decisions should correspond to the relevant risk and legal grounds.

A notice is not a court judgment and does not automatically transfer rights to the complainant. A problem may affect only one version rather than every historical Release. If the Creator must correct an approved package, a new submission should pass the relevant release checks rather than silently replacing published files.

Statements of reasons and transparency

Where applicable legislation requires reasons for a restriction affecting content or an Account, the affected person must be given the legally required information about the grounds, scope and means of challenge. This can include duties under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 for relevant intermediary services.

Case information must respect the privacy and safety of third parties. Not every technical anti-abuse detail must be made public. Nevertheless, Users should receive the explanation needed to understand the restriction and submit a reasoned challenge to the extent required by law.

Challenges, licences and counter-evidence

Creators may identify a decision, explain the origin of a resource, provide relevant licences or proof of rights and indicate an identification error. Reporters may supplement a notice where appropriate. Review should take account of the legal rights involved and credible safety risks.

Internal handling does not eliminate judicial remedies or other applicable legal channels. Full confidential licence agreements should not automatically have to be published in an open appeal. Where a mistake is confirmed, corrections should follow the technical publication process without erasing legitimately retained case history.

Knowingly false and abusive notices

The reporting process must not be used deliberately to suppress lawful competitors, intimidate Creators or make false claims to obtain access to code. Reporters should supply accurate facts and not conceal material licence information. Persistent procedural abuse can lead to proportionate measures within the law.

A mistaken assessment is not always bad faith. A person can reasonably misunderstand the similarity between works. The response should reflect context and opportunities to correct the notice. Anti-abuse rules must not prevent a well-founded report about genuinely illegal content.

Evidence retention and restricted access

Assessing a case can require retaining a limited copy of a notice, file identifiers, checksums, decision timestamps and relevant correspondence. These records should be protected and retained only for an appropriate lawful purpose and period. Removing a public Game Card does not always require immediate destruction of justified evidence.

Disclosure to other participants needs an appropriate basis and must respect privacy. Competent authorities may receive information when required or permitted by law. Reporters and Creators should avoid publicly reproducing sensitive evidence when a description or secure private channel is sufficient.

Unpublished Games and private source files

An unpublished project, source code or rejected package does not become public merely because it was reviewed. Authorised personnel may access it only to the extent needed for safety and rights checks. Creators should retain their own source backups and protect technical access credentials.

Draft material may contain trade secrets, collaborator information and licensed resources. It must not be copied into public reports or reviews without authorisation. A dispute concerning one package cannot automatically transfer the entire project to a complainant.

Relation to other policies and contact

This procedure supplements the Terms and Community Guidelines for specific rights and illegal-content problems. Ordinary technical complaints, privacy requests and future payment issues may follow other relevant procedures where consistent with law.

Reports can use Trust Center or [email protected] for technical forwarding. Hosting details do not determine copyright ownership or the legal service provider for every feature. Nothing in this procedure limits mandatory statutory rights or duties.