• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 01:03 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

What values executives and investors of Nintendo give to it is frankly irrelevant.

Thats literally everything that matters.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:05 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Thats literally everything that matters.

They aren't above the law, so no, it isn't.
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 01:06 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Minecraft is being sold, the mod isn't. What the hell are you talking about exactly? Are you confused? You think the modders own Minecraft now?

Those are the facts. Feel free to argue otherwise. Why would fan art be different when TPC sells art books?

LOL!
The presence of mods adds value to minecraft. This shouldn't be so difficult. :/
This is like saying a song in a movie isn't being sold! The movie is being sold! (You still need to license the song). Let's make it a mod. Someone licenses a movie, and then adds a song they didn't license. (They still need to license the song...)

TPC selling art books. The pokemon company using its own IP to make money.

Fanart not being sold? usually fine.
Fanart being used on a website that gets ad revenue (ie monetized) probably a problem.
Fanart being sold? You bet TPC will send a C&D
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:08 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by boiled goose

LOL!
The presence of mods adds value to minecraft. This shouldn't be so difficult. :/
This is like saying a song in a movie isn't being sold! The movie is being sold! (You still need to license the song). Let's make it a mod. Someone licenses a movie, and then adds a song they didn't license. (They still need to license the song...)

TPC selling art books. The pokemon company using its own IP to make money.

Fanart not being sold? usually fine.
Fanart being sold? You bet TPC will send a C&D

So you're saying Nintendo would sue Mojang then? You don't seem to make any sense at all. Do you not understand what a mod is? You also convienently ignore the fact they've shut down non-mod projects as well.
"Fanart being used on a website that gets ad revenue (ie monetized) probably a problem.
"
You do realize most fan artists post on such websites and have patreons, yeah?
Parshias7
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:08 AM)
Parshias7's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Sonic? You mean the franchise where SEGA just hired a fan modder to make a official game? That franchise? That's the one you want to talk about?
Yeah the fucking fan modder should just have gone ahead and done his own thing, oh yes, absolutely, that makes a lot of sense, oh so much sense, it's overflowing with sense, it's amazing.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post. Guess it made your argument look too shitty. =/

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

I never said that a avatar is a "capital offense". Just don't say shit about "respecting the IP" when you don't give a single shit about actually "respecting the IP"

You wanna point that part out for me?

---

I'm just wondering why fan game developers feel the need to use someone else's intellectual property without their permission in order to make their game when dozens if not hundreds of other developers don't.

Why can't these fan game makers take their games and put original characters and content into them? If these games are so great and even better than the official games then they must be good enough for people to care about them without needing to copy/paste a Samus sprite on top of them.
notaskwid
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:09 AM)
notaskwid's Avatar

Originally Posted by Atheerios

I wonder why they never took down Pokémon Showdown

That'd be goodbye to Pokemon for me.
Hubble
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:09 AM)
Hubble's Avatar
Wow. This is a big mod. My nephew plays Minecraff a ton and he was playing this mod a lot.
ZeoVGM
formerly omg rite
(07-18-2017, 01:10 AM)
ZeoVGM's Avatar

Originally Posted by Linkstrikesback

And again, to be clear, remember that time SEGA lost the rights to sonic the hedgehog last year?


( From this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt5i4XEqKrI)
They do not have to take fangames/mods down. They're probably in their rights to, but that's different to having to.

Oh god, that "pitter-patter" comment.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 01:10 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

They aren't above the law, so no, it isn't.

What are you even arguing? That its illegal for them to take this down? Considering we're talking about deciding to go after something as dumb as forum avatars or the somehow in your eyes totally equally senseless taking down of fan mods, how does it not matter what Nintendo wants and views as important? Are you saying you want Nintendo to go after avatars?
The Exploder
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:12 AM)
The Exploder's Avatar
It's still mind blowing to me that Nintendo hasn't made a Pokemon-style Minecraft game. Two of the best selling games of all time and they can be seamlessly combined.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:13 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Parshias7

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post. Guess it made your argument look too shitty. =/



You wanna point that part out for me?

---

I'm just wondering why fan game developers feel the need to use someone else's intellectual property without their permission in order to make their game when dozens if not hundreds of other developers don't.

Why can't these fan game makers take their games and put original characters and content into them? If these games are so great and even better than the official games then they must be good enough for people to care about them without needing to copy/paste a Samus sprite on top of them.

You had no argument. People can love games and can make games in those worlds they love, just like they can write a fucking story on that world, or draw that world. Do you go around telling fan artists DRAW YOUR OWN THING YOU DUMBASSES WHY DONT YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN YOUR WORK too? Dont you think you are a little bit obnoxious for doing so?
Do you not know what being a fan is, or something?

Originally Posted by Kyzer

What are you even arguing? That its illegal for them to take this down? Considering we're talking about deciding to go after something as dumb as forum avatars or the somehow in your eyes totally equally senseless taking down of fan mods, how does it not matter what Nintendo wants and views as important? Are you saying you want Nintendo to go after avatars?

Their claims have no legal basis, no. The only reason this works is because no one wants to fight for years and years against a multi-billion dollar company with a massive army of lawyers.
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 01:14 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

So you're saying Nintendo would sue Mojang then? You don't seem to make any sense at all. Do you not understand what a mod is? You also convienently ignore the fact they've shut down non-mod projects as well.
"Fanart being used on a website that gets ad revenue (ie monetized) probably a problem.
"
You do realize most fan artists post on such websites and have patreons, yeah?

Non mod projects are even more obvious! Wut.

Regarding Mojang, they might. See how US government works with content managers like google to shut down infringements.

The patreon to fanart connection might be a problem. It could be a grey area depending how direct the connection is.

Ads on same webpage? more clear than artist with patreon that does free and monetized art.

Nuance and subtlety whooshing past you.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:15 AM)
Thought experiment: I make a commercial game and then let some "fans" make all kind of free mods that are rip offs of some popular franchises.

This obviously did not happen with Minecraft, but it is funny some people think this could be legal and the owner of the franchises can legally do nothing against it. They can always legally stop this, if they want.

And let's be honest, most of the "fan made projects" on the net are simply used as platforms for the developers, youtubers, artists, etc. to get some attention and sell other projects or advertising. It's okay to try it, but most of them know that they are legally on the edge and some even are waiting to get "forced" to shut their project down, brings even more attention.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:16 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by boiled goose

Non mod projects are even more obvious! Wut.

Regarding Mojang, they might. See how US government works with content managers like google to shut down infringements.

The patreon to fanart connection might be a problem. It could be a grey area depending how direct the connection is.

Ads on same webpage? more clear than artist with patreon that does free and monetized art.

Nuance and subtlety whooshing past you.

Mojang isn't a content manager and this mod isn't hosted in any single of their websites. Why do you keep on trying to link things that aren't linked even remotely?
Also, how are "non mod projects even more obvious" exactly? Didn't you just said fan art without monetizing is fine?
Mael
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:18 AM)
Mael's Avatar
These threads are always full of useless arguments.
Our current legal system is pretty clear, the fact that someone with more resource can exhaust the other party is pretty much by design at this point.
If Mojand and MSFT aren't defending these dudes, the mod is basically toast.
They're not going to cap for people who didn't even ask permission to work on a mod using someone else's IP.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 01:18 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne


Their claims have no legal basis, no. The only reason this works is because no one wants to fight for years and years against a multi-billion dollar company with a massive army of lawyers.

This is completely false. I don't know where you get your information from. Not monetizing use of intellectual property is not suddenly fair use, common misconception. Fan games, mods, fan arts, and even avatars, are not fair use. Its the opposite of what you're saying. They choose not to go after dumb things like peoples avatars because they don't waste money chasing nobodies who don't even have the legal fees to reimburse a lawsuit. Mac Miller lost $5 Million in a lawsuit for using a sample in a remix in a mixtape that was totally free, that he released before he was even famous.
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 01:22 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Mojang isn't a content manager and this mod isn't hosted in any single of their websites. Why do you keep on trying to link things that aren't linked even remotely?
Also, how are "non mod projects even more obvious" exactly? Didn't you just said fan art without monetizing is fine?

Non mod fan projects being sold is more obvious.
Non mod fan projects like AM2R which are free is less obvious to me, but I'm not a trademark lawyer. Given your lack of expertise, we would just be speculating what is legal and what isn't there.

I said fan art without monetizing is probably fine. That said, I'm sure some arguments could be made depending on what is legally protected under fair use. (teaching, satire, etc. )
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:23 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

This is completely false. I don't know where you get your information from. Not monetizing use of intellectual property is not suddenly fair use, common misconception. Fan games, mods, fan arts, and even avatars, are not fair use. Its the opposite of what you're saying. They choose not to go after dumb things like peoples avatars because they don't waste money chasing nobodies who don't even have the legal fees to reimburse a lawsuit. Mac Miller lost $5 Million in a lawsuit for using a sample in a remix in a mixtape that was totally free, that he released before he was even famous.

You mean the lawsuit that never went to trial? What an amazing example.

Originally Posted by boiled goose

Non mod fan projects being sold is more obvious.
Non mod fan projects like AM2R which are free is less obvious to me, but I'm not a trademark lawyer. Given your lack of expertise, we would just be speculating what is legal and what isn't there.

I said fan art without monetizing is probably fine. That said, I'm sure some arguments could be made depending on what is legally protected under fair use. (teaching, satire, etc. )

We're clearly talking about free projects here so I'm not sure why did you even think "being sold" was even in the conversation.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 01:24 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

You mean the lawsuit that never went to trial? What an amazing example.

Because Mac Millers lawyers advised him to settle, because he would have lost the lawsuit. You think he would have paid $5M if he had a case? You say this like its up for debate. Go google fair use
Mael
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:25 AM)
Mael's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

We're clearly talking about free projects here so I'm not sure why did you even think "being sold" was even in the conversation.

Then again how free is a project you accept donation from and have ads on top...
Parshias7
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:25 AM)
Parshias7's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

You had no argument. People can love games and can make games in those worlds they love, just like they can write a fucking story on that world, or draw that world. Do you go around telling fan artists DRAW YOUR OWN THING YOU DUMBASSES WHY DONT YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN YOUR WORK too? Dont you think you are a little bit obnoxious for doing so?
Do you not know what being a fan is, or something?

I guess Thomas Happ isn't a fan of Metroid, then. If he was a true fan Axiom Verge would have starred Samus and the final boss would have been Mother Brain. I bet he's really kicking himself over that one.

I guess developers have two options:

A. Spend a ton of time and energy creating a game using an IP you don't own and end up with a product you cannot ever profit from while constantly under the threat that your project can be scrapped by a copyright strike.

OR

B. Make an original game and actually be able to sell it for money.

I mean if the guy who made AM2R wanted to tell the story of Mamus Faran's quest to kill all the Betroids I don't think I'd really care. It wouldn't be the first ORIGINAL CHARACTER DO NOT STEAL game. It also probably wouldn't have been C&D'ed.
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 01:26 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

You mean the lawsuit that never went to trial? What an amazing example.

We're clearly talking about free projects here so I'm not sure why did you even think "being sold" was even in the conversation.

I see a difference between a mod that is part of a sold commercial product and a standalone free product. Yet, both might be illegal. Hell even distribution of fanart might be.

Here is something to get you started.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010...and-copyright/

"What the Law Says. According to copyright law, copyright holders have the sole right to distribute derivative works based on an original creation. ... Yet, despite a relatively strong legal position, lawsuits over fan fiction and fan art are extremely rare."
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:26 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Because Mac Millers lawyers advised him to settle, because he would have lost the lawsuit. You think he would have paid $5M if he had a case?

Many people settle cases because they'd rather not waste their money and time on legal battles that take a crapload of years to complete. Again, feel free to find a actual example of someone losing a case that goes to trial about the use of a IP on a free project. I'll be waiting.

Originally Posted by Parshias7

I guess Thomas Happ isn't a fan of Metroid, then. If he was a true fan Axiom Verge would have starred Samus and the final boss would have been Mother Brain. I bet he's really kicking himself over that one.

I guess developers have two options:

A. Spend a ton of time and energy creating a game using an IP you don't own and end up with a product you cannot ever profit from while constantly under the threat that your project can be scrapped by a copyright strike.

OR

B. Make an original game and actually be able to sell it for money.

I mean if the guy who made AM2R wanted to tell the story of Mamus Faran's quest to kill all the Betroids I don't think I'd really care. It wouldn't be the first ORIGINAL CHARACTER DO NOT STEAL game. It also probably wouldn't have been C&D'ed.

Or, you know, both are fine? Why do you keep on shitting on good developers? What sense do you think that makes? You just keep on saying shitty thing after shitty thing about people that like things and make things about that thing. Do you hate fan artists as well?

Originally Posted by boiled goose

I see a difference between a mod that is part of a sold commercial product and a standalone free product. Yet, both might be illegal. Hell even distribution of fanart might be.

Here is something to get you started.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010...and-copyright/

"What the Law Says. According to copyright law, copyright holders have the sole right to distribute derivative works based on an original creation. ... Yet, despite a relatively strong legal position, lawsuits over fan fiction and fan art are extremely rare."

They are rare because the "relatively strong legal position " isn't strong at all. Instead of trying to just search on google for "copyright and fan art", you might want to read up on fair use, for example.
Last edited by BernardoOne; 07-18-2017 at 01:33 AM.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 01:37 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Many people settle cases because they'd rather not waste their money and time on legal battles that take a crapload of years to complete. Again, feel free to find a actual example of someone losing a case that goes to trial about the use of a IP on a free project. I'll be waiting.

Lmao

Are you kidding me? He'd rather settle for $5M ??? You're not making the point you think you are, you're looking more and more dense and obtuse. Many people do avoid court cases. That doesn't mean that's what happened, nor that thats all that C&D letters are.

Do you understand how many people do this stuff every day? Devote their life to it for extended periods of time? This is not a mystery. Musicians can't remix songs and put them up for free without being at risk. Fans cant make games using other peoples characters and not be at risk. It doesn't matter if it's free or not. And they already know this. Artists already learn this stuff because they look it up to see what they're allowed to do. ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FAIR USE LAW :

Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

And by the way, putting Pokemon in a Minecraft mod is not a transformative work. Creating Digimon or a Pokemon clone would be transformative. Blurred Lines was NOT transformative enough, and that didn't have Marvin Gays face slapped all over it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Pokemon IP is TPC's to control and theirs alone, they can C&D ANYTHING thats available publically that isn't a parody or educational/quote/commentary. Google fair use. Google copyright law. Google copyright law fan projects. Do you need me to LMGTFY?

How about you provide ANY at all argument as to how theres no legal basis, because your argument of it being free is false and irrelevant. You're talking about examples of court cases. How about one where the company lost because the project was free? "I'll be waiting"
Last edited by Kyzer; 07-18-2017 at 01:41 AM.
Bollocks
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:42 AM)
Bollocks's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

So you using photos and logos you haven't licensed in any way is "fair use" but people doing similar to make a free game isn't "fair use"? How so?

Even if your avatar is fair use and a game isn't, you're still not "respecting the IP". Don't you feel ashamed for that?

why do you put fair use in quotes? it's officially recognised by us law:

Fair use is a doctrine originating in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder.

Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.

Copying video games without asking for permissions does not to fall under fair use, bummer.
It is what it is, and it's not the same.

Respecting the IP is to not operate in the same domain the copyright holder is operating in. aka don't make a video game from the IP of another video game.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:43 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Lmao

Are you kidding me? He'd rather settle for $5M ??? You're not making the point you think you are, you're looking more and more dense and obtuse. Many people do avoid court cases. That doesn't mean that's what happened, nor that thats all that C&D letters are.

Do you understand how many people do this stuff every day? Devote their life to it for extended periods of time? This is not a mystery. Musicians can't remix songs and put them up for free without being at risk. Fans cant make games using other peoples characters and not be at risk. It doesn't matter if it's free or not. And they already know this. Artists already learn this stuff because they look it up to see what they're allowed to do. ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FAIR USE LAW :

And by the way, putting Pokemon in a Minecraft mod is not a transformative work. Creating Digimon or a Pokemon clone would be transformative. Blurred Lines was NOT transformative enough, and that didn't have Marvin Gays face slapped all over it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Pokemon IP is TPC's to control and theirs alone, they can C&D ANYTHING thats available publically that isn't a parody or educational/quote/commentary. Google fair use. Google copyright law. Google copyright law fan projects. Do you need me to LMGTFY?

How about you provide ANY at all argument as to how theres no legal basis, because your argument of it being free is false and irrelevant. You're talking about examples of court cases. How about one where the company lost because the project was free? "I'll be waiting"

I don't think you know what "transformative" means, it seems. Making a Pokemon clone isn't "transformative", it's literally making a different game with different characters. Fair use literally doesn't come up at all in that situation, the work already has jackshit to do with the original IP it came up from. So much for you reading about fair use I guess.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

why do you put fair use in quotes? it's officially recognised by us law:

Copying video games without asking for permissions does not to fall under fair use, bummer.
It is what it is, and it's not the same.

Respecting the IP is to not operate in the same domain the copyright holder is operating in. aka don't make a video game from the IP of another video game.

The person that owns the copyright for the photo of Kaz you have on your avatar literally works on making money off photos of people. Try again. Also, video games do fall under fair uses. Commentary and parody can very well be made with a videogame. In fact, it's quite common.
Last edited by BernardoOne; 07-18-2017 at 01:46 AM.
Parshias7
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:45 AM)
Parshias7's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Or, you know, both are fine? Why do you keep on shitting on good developers? What sense do you think that makes? You just keep on saying shitty thing after shitty thing about people that like things and make things about that thing. Do you hate fan artists as well?

Why would I care about fan artists?

We have seen developers find ways to create original works that are heavily, if not in some cases nearly entirely, based on someone else's work. And yet these developers have found a way to make their games their own.

Would AM2R be a worse game if Samus wasn't in it? Replace her with a red-haired lady in a blue space suit. Rename some of the abilities. (here's a free one: ULTRA Missiles!) Make some new alien that is functionally the same as the Metroids but it looks different. The game should still be great, shouldn't it? And I have an inkling that Metroid fans just might be able to take a look at it and think, 'yeah, that looks like Metroid.'

But that didn't happen. Why? Could the creator not come up with his own enemy designs? (there is an original boss or two in there, so probably not) Could he not come up with his own level design and needed to use Metroid 2's? (again, all new areas and some tweaks, so I guess not) Could he not think of any new abilities for his Samus-pastiche to have and decided to just use the original? Was he worried that no one would pay attention to a Metroid-adjacent game rather than a fan game with all the trappings?

I don't know, man. But I think that years the guy spent on his fan game could have just as easily been spent on making the same game with some tweaks that would actually make it his own game and not yet another Cease and Desist-ed fan game. I guess wanting people to be able to profit off of their own hard work is just me being shitty.

I don't care about this whole 'is it legal or illegal' bullshit either. Because at the end of the day the game still got taken down. The developer could have easily avoided this outcome. They didn't.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 01:47 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

I don't think you know what "transformative" means, it seems. Making a Pokemon clone isn't "transformative", it's literally making a different game with different characters. Fair use literally doesn't come up at all in that situation, the work already has jackshit to do with the original IP it came up from. So much for you reading about fair use I guess.

THATS THE FREAKING POINT

Putting Pokemon characters in a Minecraft mod is not transformative. A pokemon clone that has nothing to do with Pokemon but is clearly inspired by it is SAFE because it is transformative, TPC would have no case. Using someones work as inspiration or in a totally new and unrecognizable way is ok. Straight up using other peoples intellectual property is not. And do you have an actual rebuttal or just sarcastic shitting on my intelligence? Your argument is wrong, being free is not fair use. Fan mods are not fair use. You were sitting here a minute ago talking about forum avatars and how they're technically illegal now you're trying to act like you don't understand how this isnt fair use?
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:47 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Parshias7

Why would I care about fan artists?

We have seen developers find ways to create original works that are heavily, if not in some cases nearly entirely, based on someone else's work. And yet these developers have found a way to make their games their own.

Would AM2R be a worse game if Samus wasn't in it? Replace her with a red-haired lady in a blue space suit. Rename some of the abilities. (here's a free one: ULTRA Missiles!) Make some new alien that is functionally the same as the Metroids but it looks different. The game should still be great, shouldn't it? And I have an inkling that Metroid fans just might be able to take a look at it and think, 'yeah, that looks like Metroid.'

But that didn't happen. Why? Could the creator not come up with his own enemy designs? (there is an original boss or two in there, so probably not) Could he not come up with his own level design and needed to use Metroid 2's? (again, all new areas and some tweaks, so I guess not) Could he not think of any new abilities for his Samus-pastiche to have and decided to just use the original? Was he worried that no one would pay attention to a Metroid-adjacent game rather than a fan game with all the trappings?

I don't know, man. But I think that years the guy spent on his fan game could have just as easily been spent on making the same game with some tweaks that would actually make it his own game and not yet another Cease and Desist-ed fan game. I guess wanting people to be able to profit off of their own hard work is just me being shitty.

I don't care about this whole 'is it legal or illegal' bullshit either. Because at the end of the day the game still got taken down. The developer could have easily avoided this outcome. They didn't.

Yeah, let's just shit on people for being fans of things and caring about them i guess, what an amazing view of the world for sure.

Originally Posted by Kyzer

THATS THE FREAKING POINT

Putting Pokemon characters in a Minecraft mod is not transformative. A pokemon clone that has nothing to do with Pokemon but is clearly inspired by it is SAFE because it is transformative, TPC would have no case. And do you have an actual rebuttal or just sarcastic shitting on my intelligence? Your argument is wrong, being free is not fair use. Fan mods are not fair use. You were sitting here a minute ago talking about forum avatars and how they're technically illegal now you're trying to act like you don't understand how this isnt fair use?

A clone isn't a copyright infrigement, ergo why the fuck are you even talking about fair use. Have you even bothered to read fucking anything about fair use?

"Fair use is a doctrine originating in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material "

like this is the very essence of fair use. Using the copyrighted material. Why are you making shit up about something that literally does nothing described on fair use?
Last edited by BernardoOne; 07-18-2017 at 01:50 AM.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 01:51 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Have you even bothered to read fucking anything about fair use?

Yes, unlike you. Clearly. If what you took away is that its okay to use copyrighted material.

Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.

Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

How in the world do you read that and think this is fair use? What is NOT fair use to you?
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 01:52 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Many people settle cases because they'd rather not waste their money and time on legal battles that take a crapload of years to complete. Again, feel free to find a actual example of someone losing a case that goes to trial about the use of a IP on a free project. I'll be waiting.

Or, you know, both are fine? Why do you keep on shitting on good developers? What sense do you think that makes? You just keep on saying shitty thing after shitty thing about people that like things and make things about that thing. Do you hate fan artists as well?



They are rare because the "relatively strong legal position " isn't strong at all. Instead of trying to just search on google for "copyright and fan art", you might want to read up on fair use, for example.

I mentioned fair use before. Not everything falls clearly under fair use.
It's not just a matter of strong legal position, it's a matter of resources and priorities.

The issue in question in the OP is much more obvious to me than the fanart.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:53 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Yes, unlike you. Clearly. If what you took away is that its okay to use copyrighted material.

It's literally about using copyrighted material. Yet you seem to think that fair use is actually about making stuff that has literally nothing to do with the original material in the slightest. Do you realize how non-sensical that is? Fair use is literally about using copyrighted material

It also seems that you haven't actually looked how Pixelmon plays either.
Last edited by BernardoOne; 07-18-2017 at 01:56 AM.
Parshias7
Member
(07-18-2017, 01:54 AM)
Parshias7's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Yeah, let's just shit on people for being fans of things and caring about them i guess, what an amazing view of the world for sure.

So you don't have a rebuttal? That's cool.

Somehow hundreds of developers have been able to balance being fans of a certain game and making something original. Even if it is barely original.

I can only imagine the mental fortitude it took for the Salt and Sanctuary developers to not just make a sprite of Solaire and call it a day. But noooo, they had to go and take all the elements they liked from Dark Souls, put their own twist on them and make something new.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm a big fan of Monty Python so I'm just going to film a bunch of episodes of Flying Circus and call it a fan work.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 01:57 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Parshias7

So you don't have a rebuttal? That's cool.

Somehow hundreds of developers have been able to balance being fans of a certain game and making something original. Even if it is barely original.

I can only imagine the mental fortitude it took for the Salt and Sanctuary developers to not just make a sprite of Solaire and call it a day. But noooo, they had to go and take all the elements they liked from Dark Souls, put their own twist on them and make something new.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm a big fan of Monty Python so I'm just going to film a bunch of episodes of Flying Circus and call it a fan work.

Again, justify shitting on people because they like things and like to make things about that thing. I'm still waiting for an answer that isn't irrational. Not sure what sort of weird "rebuttal" you want, you are literally shitting on people for no good reason.
Giga Man
Member
(07-18-2017, 02:00 AM)
Giga Man's Avatar

Originally Posted by Atheerios

I wonder why they never took down Pokémon Showdown

Goodbye forever, competitive Pokemon. -_-
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 02:01 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

It's literally about using copyrighted material. Yet you seem to think that fair use is actually about making stuff that has literally nothing to do with the original material in the slightest. Do you realize how non-sensical that is? Fair use is literally about using copyrighted material

Are you purposely trying to not understand english? Making a Pokemon ripoff is not copyright infringement because IT IS FAIR USE. Sticking 560 copyrighted Pokemon characters in a mod is not. You keep doing this thing where you act like everything everyone is saying is nonsensical and crazy but you're just being dense to try and passive aggressively and sarcastically prove points. This argument is not about a hypothetical Pokemon ripoff, which you keep acting senile about me referencing and saying "how does that have anything to do with pokemon?" Really? a hypothetical Pokemon ripoff, you cant possibly stretch your imagination to possibly understand how a Pokemon ripoff would be related to Pokemon? Anyways, this argument is about this fan mod for Minecraft. Its not fair use because its not transformative enough to be fair use, for one thing. Let me use a different example since this is so CRAZY for you. If I sample a song, and totally chop up and stretch the sample to the point where its unrecognizable, guess what, you're still using copyrighted material. So yes, the song is totally different. In your mind where these things are difficult to comprehend, that must mean it "has nothing to do with the original", well, you're wrong. Thats where fair use comes in. If its so transformative that you can't even recognize the original, for example, in a Pokemon ripoff that has totally different characters and a different title, then you have used a copyrighted material (remember, in my hypothetical scenario the ripoff was clearly inspired by Pokemon) with fair use.

How about you tell all of us, under what logic, this specific mod is fair use? You keep putting everyone down with sassy remarks but not really saying anything. Its kind of ridiculous that you're trying to argue that these straight up Pokemon characters being used is fair use, its not even close.
Last edited by Kyzer; 07-18-2017 at 02:03 AM.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 02:05 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Are you purposely trying to not understand english? Making a Pokemon ripoff is not copyright infringement because IT IS FAIR USE. Sticking 560 copyrighted Pokemon characters in a mod is not. You keep doing this thing where you act like everything everyone is saying is nonsensical and crazy but you're just being dense to try and passive aggressively and sarcastically prove points. This argument is not about a hypothetical Pokemon ripoff, which you keep acting senile about me referencing and saying "how does that have anything to do with pokemon?" Really? a hypothetical Pokemon ripoff, you cant possibly stretch your imagination to possibly understand how a Pokemon ripoff would be related to Pokemon? Anyways, this argument is about this fan mod for Minecraft. Its not fair use because its not transformative enough to be fair use, for one thing. Let me use a different example since this is so CRAZY for you. If I sample a song, and totally chop up and stretch the sample to the point where its unrecognizable, guess what, you're still using copyrighted material. So yes, the song is totally different. In your mind where these things are difficult to comprehend, that must mean it "has nothing to do with the original", well, you're wrong. Thats where fair use comes in. If its so transformative that you can't even recognize the original, for example, in a Pokemon ripoff that has totally different characters and a different title, then you have used a copyrighted material (remember, in my hypothetical scenario the ripoff was clearly inspired by Pokemon) with fair use.

How about you tell all of us, under what logic, this specific mod is fair use? You keep putting everyone down with sassy remarks but not really saying anything.

"in a Pokemon ripoff that has totally different characters and a different title, then you have used a copyrighted material (remember, in my hypothetical scenario the ripoff was clearly inspired by Pokemon) with fair use. "
This literally doesn't need to use fair use. It literally uses no copyrighted material whatsoever. "Inspiration" isn't something there are copyright laws about. Fair use literally is not applicable in this case at all because it cannot be seen as a copyright infrigement in any way. Again, it seems you have literally no idea what fair use means or is used for.
Fair use, again, is about using copyrighted materials. You seem to not be able to get this. Inspiration isn't using copyrighted materials.
Parshias7
Member
(07-18-2017, 02:05 AM)
Parshias7's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Again, justify shitting on people because they like things and like to make things about that thing. I'm still waiting for an answer that isn't irrational. Not sure what sort of weird "rebuttal" you want, you are literally shitting on people for no good reason.

Oh, they can keep making things using other people's IPs. And they can keep getting shut down.

I just think they could spend their time a little better for practically the same result. But I mean if they really enjoy getting their projects canceled then good for them.

Developers cracked the "how to show my appreciation for an IP while still making the end product my own" code a loooooong time ago.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 02:07 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

"in a Pokemon ripoff that has totally different characters and a different title, then you have used a copyrighted material (remember, in my hypothetical scenario the ripoff was clearly inspired by Pokemon) with fair use. "
This literally doesn't need to use fair use. It literally uses no copyrighted material whatsoever. "Inspiration" isn't something there are copyright laws about. Fair use literally is not applicable in this case at all because it cannot be seen as a copyright infrigement in any way. Again, it seems you have literally no idea what fair use means or is used for.

Again, you have not made a single argument for how this mod is fair use.

and you're wrong, ripoffs and clones definitely have a lot to do with copyright infringement, and how close they are to the original is exactly what fair use is. You can make a totally original work and it be so close to something else that you have a copyright infringement case. You look silly. You think fair use law is only ever about directly 100% highjacking copyrighted material straight up for other uses, which not only explains why you're so wrong about this, but its funny because thats exactly when its definitely copyright infringement. Like right now
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 02:08 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

"in a Pokemon ripoff that has totally different characters and a different title, then you have used a copyrighted material (remember, in my hypothetical scenario the ripoff was clearly inspired by Pokemon) with fair use. "
This literally doesn't need to use fair use. It literally uses no copyrighted material whatsoever. "Inspiration" isn't something there are copyright laws about. Fair use literally is not applicable in this case at all because it cannot be seen as a copyright infrigement in any way. Again, it seems you have literally no idea what fair use means or is used for.
Fair use, again, is about using copyrighted materials. You seem to not be able to get this. Inspiration isn't using copyrighted materials.

Likeness and names are copyrighted no?
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 02:08 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Parshias7

Oh, they can keep making things using other people's IPs. And they can keep getting shut down.

I just think they could spend their time a little better for practically the same result. But I mean if they really enjoy getting their projects canceled then good for them.

Developers cracked the "how to show my appreciation for an IP while still making the end product my own" code a loooooong time ago.

And some prefer to make games and mods of the things they love, so? What is wrong with that? Why do you keep shitting on them? Even when many of them eventually go and make actual official products? Should the Sonic Mania dev do his own thing? Should Black Mesa developers have made their own Half-Life ripoff instead of doing such a great job that Valve even allows them to sell the game?

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Again, you have not made a single argument for how this mod is fair use.

and you're wrong, ripoffs and clones definitely have a lot to do with copyright infringement, and how close they are to the original is exactly what fair use is. You can make a totally original work and it be so close to something else that you have a copyright infringement case. You look silly. You think fair use law is only ever about directly 100% highjacking copyrighted material straight up for other uses, which not only explains why you're so wrong about this, but its funny because thats exactly when its definitely copyright infringement. Like right now

I invite you again to read the fair use definition once more, because you seem unable to read it so many posts in, it's incredible.
A Pokemon ripoff doesn't use copyrighted material and TPC doesn't own the genre of the game. You don't need fair use to defend this, because it can't be considered copyright infringement to begin with.
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 02:11 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

And some prefer to make games and mods of the things they love, so? What is wrong with that? Why do you keep shitting on them? Even when many of them eventually go and make actual official products? Should the Sonic Mania dev do his own thing? Should Black Mesa developers have made their own Half-Life ripoff instead of doing such a great job that Valve even allows them to sell the game?


I invite you again to read the fair use definition once more, because you seem unable to read it so many posts in, it's incredible.
A Pokemon ripoff doesn't use copyrighted material and TPC doesn't own the genre of the game. You don't need fair use to defend this, because it can't be considered copyright infringement to begin with.

So now were are drifting away from legal arguments to fluffy "what's wrong with people doing what they love"!

Quite a goal post shift haha.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 02:15 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by boiled goose

So now were are drifting away from legal arguments to fluffy "what's wrong with people doing what they love"!

Quite a goal post shift haha.

?
Have you lost your train of thought or something? Do you think that reply was made for you? Did you see who I was quoting? You couldn't tell that it's a separate discussion that has nothing to do with what I'm talking with you and Kyzer? You can't follow more than one discussion at a time?

At least learn what a goal post shift is holy shit.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 02:16 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

I invite you again to read the fair use definition once more, because you seem unable to read it so many posts in, it's incredible.
A Pokemon ripoff doesn't use copyrighted material and TPC doesn't own the genre of the game. You don't need fair use to defend this, because it can't be considered copyright infringement to begin with.

Again, not a single argument for how this fan mod is fair use.

And again, you're wrong. Don't know how many ways to tell you this, but you don't have to directly use copyrighted material to be accused or even guilty of copyright infringement. Fair use is not the law being broken. You don't "break fair use law", you are committing copyright infringement. Fair use are guidelines under which you CAN use copyrighted materials, so again, if you can follow, you can be accused of or even guilty of copyright infringement even without use of the source material. Look at Blurred Lines with Pharrell and Robin Thicke. You can be committing copyright infringement with a Pokemon knockoff, even one that doesn't use the pokemon characters or anything else. Its just really hard to be so close that you actually lose a lawsuit. Unlike a certain mod that literally has 560 copyrighted characters in it. So yeah, you're completely wrong about this thing that you keep trying to make the argument about as well, but yeah still waiting on how this is fair use. Please stop talking about this hypothetical ripoff game and tell me how THIS is fair use, especially if youre so confused as to what Im even talking about . Its irrelevant, just leave it. You dont wanna get it. Just tell me how this is fair use.
BernardoOne
For you.
(07-18-2017, 02:21 AM)
BernardoOne's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Again, not a single argument for how this fan mod is fair use.

And again, you're wrong. Don't know how many ways to tell you this, but you don't have to directly use copyrighted material to be accused or even guilty of copyright infringement. Fair use is not the law being broken. You don't "break fair use law", you are committing copyright infringement. Fair use are guidelines under which you CAN use copyrighted materials, so again, if you can follow, you can be accused of or even guilty of copyright infringement even without use of the source material. Look at Blurred Lines with Pharrell and Robin Thicke. You can be committing copyright infringement with a Pokemon knockoff, even one that doesn't use the pokemon characters or anything else. Its just really hard to be so close that you actually lose a lawsuit. Unlike a certain mod that literally has 560 copyrighted characters in it. So yeah, you're completely wrong about this thing that you keep trying to make the argument about as well, but yeah still waiting on how this is fair use. Please stop talking about this hypothetical ripoff game and tell me how THIS is fair use, especially if youre so confused as to what Im even talking about . Its irrelevant, just leave it. You dont wanna get it. Just tell me how this is fair use.

Again, a Pokemon knockoff doesn't need to use the fair use defense for anything. "Inspiration" isn't a copyright term or definition and it has nothing to do with it. Anyone that makes a knockoff can simply have that case thrown out without ever using fair use (because again, fair use is literally using copyrighted material. Like, you know porn parodies being able to literally use titles and names from characters/costumes/etc)

This mod is clearly transformative and it doesn't play like an actual pokemon game in the slightest. And even if it did, it would still be legal unless it ripped wholesale from the original. Even Pokemon Prism would be fine in court.
Puruzi
Member
(07-18-2017, 02:22 AM)
Puruzi's Avatar
Good lord this thread is embarrassing
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(07-18-2017, 02:24 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Again, a Pokemon knockoff doesn't need to use the fair use defense for anything. "Inspiration" isn't a copyright term or definition and it has nothing to do with it. Anyone that makes a knockoff can simply have that case thrown out without ever using fair use (because again, fair use is literally using copyrighted material. Like, you know porn parodies being able to literally use titles and names from characters/costumes/etc)

Are you going to tell me how this is fair use or keep being wrong about this other thing too? Parodies are fair use, thats totally different than creating a knockoff, which absolutely is open to copyright infringement prosecution if its close enough to source material, even if no copyrighted material is directly used. Don't know how else I can tell you you're wrong about this, but its not the main argument.

And ok I see your edit, and nope, thats the problem. Its not transformative just because it plays like another game. The characters are copyrighted. They have not been transformed. Chawrmandur might get away with it, not literally Charmander. (and even then, the likeness of the character would have to be transformed as well) Do you see how the knockoff thing applies now? And NO, again, you don't have to directly use their assets to be committing copyright infringement. Making your own model of Charmander does not mean its now yours to use. Your idea that the only time its copyright infringement is when they straight up steal assets is wrong, and the entire premise of your argument. I don't know what else to say after this.

Pokemon Prism would not be safe in court, nor would this mod. You can't use other peoples properties without permission, its pretty simple...unlessssss: [insert fair use here, which is personal noncommercial use, educational use, direct quote, references to material, criticisms, parodies, etc.]
Last edited by Kyzer; 07-18-2017 at 02:36 AM.
Parshias7
Member
(07-18-2017, 02:27 AM)
Parshias7's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

And some prefer to make games and mods of the things they love, so? What is wrong with that? Why do you keep shitting on them? Even when many of them eventually go and make actual official products? Should the Sonic Mania dev do his own thing? Should Black Mesa developers have made their own Half-Life ripoff instead of doing such a great job that Valve even allows them to sell the game?

From what I remember Christian Whitehead pitched his Sonic CD port to Sega under the intention of making it an official product from the start. They didn't just stumble upon Retro Sonic and decided to hook the guy up.

I am not familiar with the Black Mesa developers or whatever arrangement they might have with Valve. I guess having one example where everything worked out is nice and all. I bet there are far more former fan game developers who decided original works were a better use of their talents.

If anything, Taxman seems like a good example for what I'm arguing. He went to Sega and was like, "I wanna make an official Sonic game, look at how good I am at it," and Sega (eventually) said yes. So unless I'm forgetting the part where he just dumped the game out to everyone for free then it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand. The only difference between him pitching the port to Sega and something like Mario+Rabbids being pitched to Nintendo is that Ubisoft didn't put out a youtube video when they did their pitch.
nullset2
Member
(07-18-2017, 02:32 AM)
nullset2's Avatar
"Pixelmon"

Hoo boy that sounds like the perfect breeding grounds for the new chris-chan. The CWC of the future!
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 02:36 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

?
Have you lost your train of thought or something? Do you think that reply was made for you? Did you see who I was quoting? You couldn't tell that it's a separate discussion that has nothing to do with what I'm talking with you and Kyzer? You can't follow more than one discussion at a time?

At least learn what a goal post shift is holy shit.

I was responding to your response to that poster. So the irony of not being able to follow multiple conversations at once is hilarious.
Again with insults and snark, but no actual substance. :)

Thread Tools