• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

BernardoOne
Banned
(07-18-2017, 03:40 AM)

Originally Posted by Kyzer

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.]

A good enough lawyer can fit this mod to most of those. Just like legal teams of porn parodies can sucessfully defend a porn parody despite the parody present being a very loose term of what's happening.

Originally Posted by boiled goose

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. :)

That's quite funny, considering you haven't been able to read what I said to him at all. Do you just continously make stuff up for some weird reason? Why are you making stuff up that I haven't said? Why are you saying I "moved goalposts" when I'm still talking og legalities with Kyzer? Please go and actually read?
Kyzer
Banned
(07-18-2017, 03:44 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

A good enough lawyer can fit this mod to most of those. Just like legal teams of porn parodies can sucessfully defend a porn parody despite the parody present being a very loose term of what's happening.

That's quite funny, considering you haven't been able to read what I said to him at all. Do you just continously make stuff up for some weird reason?

Yeah but this isn't a parody, and it uses Pokemons property. Its clearly the straight up copyrighted Pokemon characters, its not nonprofit use (which applies to nonprofit organizations btw), its not a reference or excerpt or quote for criticism, its just not fair use in any scenario. If they don't want it to be used, they can do that. Theres certainly a legal basis, its their copyright to control as they please. Its really as simple as that. When you create and copyright something, you have ultimate say in who gets to use it and how unless it falls under above circumstances, under which it is protected. Fan games and mods are akin to remixes of songs, they are not protected if they are distributed. Making something on your own for your own private use is ok if you bought whatever you transformed.
MetalliCabombination
Banned
(07-18-2017, 03:44 AM)
Modders being antagonized.
Im shocked.
Btw does nintendo sue cosplayers?
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 03:46 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

A good enough lawyer can fit this mod to most of those. Just like legal teams of porn parodies can sucessfully defend a porn parody despite the parody present being a very loose term of what's happening.

That's quite funny, considering you haven't been able to read what I said to him at all. Do you just continously make stuff up for some weird reason? Why are you making stuff up that I haven't said? Why are you saying I "moved goalposts" when I'm still talking og legalities with Kyzer? Please go and actually read?

I can easily recognize porn parodies as parodies.
Not sure I can say the same in this case.
Hell, I'm sure there are some pokemon porn parodies out there.

Make a short legal argument for why this falls under fair use. Since a "good enough lawyer" can do this, I'm sure there are examples online as precedent or perhaps you can come up with an argument yourself.

More insults. :)
BernardoOne
Banned
(07-18-2017, 03:53 AM)

Originally Posted by boiled goose

I can easily recognize porn parodies as parodies.
Not sure I can say the same in this case.
Hell, I'm sure there are some pokemon porn parodies out there.

Make a short legal argument for why this falls under fair use. Since a "good enough lawyer" can do this, I'm sure there are examples online as precedent or perhaps you can come up with an argument yourself.

More insults. :)

Saying you've made stuff up is now an "insult"? Jesus, that's quite interesting, you are the one literally making stuff up and yet i am the one "insulting" lol

Also feel free to google Lenz vs Universal Music.
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 04:21 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

Saying you've made stuff up is now an "insult"? Jesus, that's quite interesting, you are the one literally making stuff up and yet i am the one "insulting" lol

Also feel free to google Lenz vs Universal Music.

Main outcome of the claim was this:

"the district court held that Universal must consider fair use when filing a takedown notice, but noted that to prevail a plaintiff would need to show bad faith by a rights holder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v...sal_Music_Corp.

So I don't see how it applies here.
Plaintiff would need to prove bad faith by Nintendo to prevail in a misrepresentation case...
Nintendo just needs to consider fair use before filing takedown notice.

Seems you just googled a random case without really understanding what it really was about. :/

This is why "just search it on the internet!" is always a non answer. Next time explain how the link is relevant before wasting my time.
Cipherr
Member
(07-18-2017, 04:25 AM)
Cipherr's Avatar
Ahh yes, the brigade of e-lawyers who studied at Wikipedia university, once again here to tell us about how all forms of fan projects using characters and IP that don't belong to them is Peeeeeeeerfectly legal.

Sure guys... Sure..
BernardoOne
Banned
(07-18-2017, 04:26 AM)

Originally Posted by boiled goose

Main outcome of the claim was this:

"the district court held that Universal must consider fair use when filing a takedown notice, but noted that to prevail a plaintiff would need to show bad faith by a rights holder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v...sal_Music_Corp.

So I don't see how it applies here.
Plaintiff would need to prove bad faith by Nintendo to prevail in a misrepresentation case...
Nintendo just needs to consider fair use before filing takedown notice.

Seems you just googled a random case without really understanding what it really was about. :/

This is why "just search it on the internet!" is always a non answer. Next time explain how the link is relevant before wasting my time.

That's just one of the holdings that came from the case. You didn't bother to read the actual case?
lmao at "googled random case" when you didn't even bother to read the case and just looking at the holding and literally nothing else on the case.
BY2K
Membero Americo
(07-18-2017, 04:32 AM)
BY2K's Avatar
Since there isn't much info in the OP on what Pixelmon actually looks like, I googled it and the first thing I found was a video by a kid talking about the shut down thinking it meant the TPC was about to announce a open-world Pokémon game because it "got shut down in a similar way as AM2R."

Keep dreaming, kid...
Ambition
Member
(07-18-2017, 04:42 AM)
Ambition's Avatar
I fucking hate TPC. Funny how they will never surpass what a Minecraft mod did with their IP
boiled goose
good with gravy
(07-18-2017, 04:56 AM)
boiled goose's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

That's just one of the holdings that came from the case. You didn't bother to read the actual case?
lmao at "googled random case" when you didn't even bother to read the case and just looking at the holding and literally nothing else on the case.

I'll repeat: Next time explain how the link is relevant before wasting my time.
Clearly I missed something despite my honest effort, so please do enlighten us :)
BernardoOne
Banned
(07-18-2017, 05:09 AM)

Originally Posted by boiled goose

I'll repeat: Next time explain how the link is relevant before wasting my time.
Clearly I missed something despite my honest effort, so please do enlighten us :)

The entire case is about a video. A video of dancing, that used copyrighted work, a song, in it's entirety. Not a sample, not a remix. The actual song.
Was still considered fair use.
Despite not being a parody, not being criticism, not being research or news. Despite not being transformative.

I didn't give you a link btw, why do you keep on making stuff up over and over. I told you to google it. You know, research it, actually read it? Do I need to hold your hand through everything ?
Reading headlines is also not "honest effort".
Galang
Banned
(07-18-2017, 05:26 AM)
Galang's Avatar
I find it funny how people always run to insult companies that shut down these fan projects. These IP don't belong to the people that make these at all. Yeah it sucks if you enjoyed it... but TPC has every right to protect their IP. Doesn't matter if some companies let them get away with it, doesn't mean all have to or should
Bubbavelli
Banned
(07-18-2017, 05:29 AM)

Originally Posted by Bollocks

good, IP needs to be respected.

"CORPORATIONS ARE MY FRIEND AND I LOVE THEM"
LincolnTunnel
Member
(07-18-2017, 05:46 AM)
LincolnTunnel's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

The entire case is about a video. A video of dancing, that used copyrighted work, a song, in it's entirety. Not a sample, not a remix. The actual song.
Was still considered fair use.
Despite not being a parody, not being criticism, not being research or news. Despite not being transformative.

I didn't give you a link btw, why do you keep on making stuff up over and over. I told you to google it. You know, research it, actually read it? Do I need to hold your hand through everything ?
Reading headlines is also not "honest effort".

That isn't actually what the case was about at all. First of all, the video is question used a 29 second clip of a song, not the whole song. Second of all, at no point did any court rule that Lenz's use of the song was fair use or not.

The case was filed in response to Universal's claim that they were going to unilaterally remove any user generated content utilizing Prince's music, with Lenz arguing that Universal was issuing DMCA notices in bad faith by not taking the time to consider whether or not fair use applied.

The only things determined by this case was that copyright holders do indeed have a duty to consider whether or not fair use applies before sending a DMCA takedown notice and that fair use does not serve as a valid means for one to infringe on a rights-holders copyright, but instead creates a type of authorized, non-infinging use of the copyrighted material.
Bollocks
Member
(07-18-2017, 10:09 AM)
Bollocks's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

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.

too bad the pokemon mod isn't any of that.
also stop moving goalposts, several people already told you multiple times that your assumptions are wrong, just take the L already.
Blizzard
Banned
(07-18-2017, 10:38 AM)
Blizzard's Avatar
I suspect the simple bottom line is:
  • Nintendo didn't have to do this. Nothing will happen to their properties.
  • However, since they did it, they probably have something vaguely related in the pipeline. See also the Metroid fan project takedown followed by the recently announced Metroid game.
JershJopstin
Banned
(07-18-2017, 11:42 AM)

Originally Posted by Blizzard

I suspect the simple bottom line is:

  • Nintendo didn't have to do this. Nothing will happen to their properties.
  • However, since they did it, they probably have something vaguely related in the pipeline. See also the Metroid fan project takedown followed by the recently announced Metroid game.

Not sure I believe this, but I definitely think waiting this long is absolutely bizarre. I remember wondering why this wasn't taken down years ago.
veloxStrix
Banned
(07-18-2017, 12:14 PM)

Originally Posted by Galang

I find it funny how people always run to insult companies that shut down these fan projects. These IP don't belong to the people that make these at all. Yeah it sucks if you enjoyed it... but TPC has every right to protect their IP. Doesn't matter if some companies let them get away with it, doesn't mean all have to or should

I don't support companies that don't respect their communities. I also generally don't support idiocy. Nintendo fighting these IP battles - which you point out other companies are not doing, but failing to note that these companies are not losing their properties - seems to tick both of these boxes. I doubt this mod was stealing customers away from Nintendo. If anything it probably kept people involved in the franchise or brought new people in. They have every right to take these actions, sure. But as a consumer I just won't purchase Nintendo products. Plenty of other games out there and not enough time anyways.
hemo memo
Member
(07-18-2017, 12:38 PM)
hemo memo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tookay

Sometimes it doesn't really matter if something is legal or not. If it costs a shit-ton to litigate and fight against it, that's usually enough to make the smaller guys back down.

Pretty much. Just like how Bethesda forced an indie dev to change their game title because it has the word "Prey".
BernardoOne
Banned
(07-18-2017, 12:39 PM)

Originally Posted by LincolnTunnel

That isn't actually what the case was about at all. First of all, the video is question used a 29 second clip of a song, not the whole song. Second of all, at no point did any court rule that Lenz's use of the song was fair use or not.

The case was filed in response to Universal's claim that they were going to unilaterally remove any user generated content utilizing Prince's music, with Lenz arguing that Universal was issuing DMCA notices in bad faith by not taking the time to consider whether or not fair use applied.

The only things determined by this case was that copyright holders do indeed have a duty to consider whether or not fair use applies before sending a DMCA takedown notice and that fair use does not serve as a valid means for one to infringe on a rights-holders copyright, but instead creates a type of authorized, non-infinging use of the copyrighted material.

The initial DMCA complaint was overturned by fair use.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

too bad the pokemon mod isn't any of that.
also stop moving goalposts, several people already told you multiple times that your assumptions are wrong, just take the L already.

Mind explaining how a video of someone dancing to music applies to any of these? Because that case got the DMCA complaint taken down on fair use terms.
Mael
Member
(07-18-2017, 05:56 PM)

Originally Posted by Blizzard

I suspect the simple bottom line is:

  • Nintendo didn't have to do this. Nothing will happen to their properties.
  • However, since they did it, they probably have something vaguely related in the pipeline. See also the Metroid fan project takedown followed by the recently announced Metroid game.

Well you certainly have it right with this one.

Thread Tools