• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AM2R and Poke Uranium Both Removed From the Game Awards "Best Fan Creation" Category

They can't stop people from talking about a fangame, but an awards show is giving it commercial/professional recognition. Fanarts are mostly tolerated when they don't generate income/competition.
That's not an explanation of a legal right or precedent.

It doesn't seem like it's so much a matter of an actual "right," but them just exercising pressure as a sponsor/participant.
Yeah, I doubt very much Nintendo have any sort of legal "right" to do this.

If they're applying pressure as a sponsor to alter the results of the awards, it basically makes the whole TGAs look as worthless as some people thought they already were.

If awards can be bought and sold through sponsorship (which is exactly what this looks like until Geoff or somebody comes forward and explains otherwise, and the appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety) then what's even the point?
I wouldn't go so far as to say the awards/results are actually bought, although that's not really unusual in the world of media rewards, but I definitely don't love the look of nominees being able to be changed.
 

Nairume

Banned
Aren't Brutal DOOM and Enderal made with officially licenced toolsets? Like, DOOM is a source port with enhanced features and Enderal a mod using the Toolkit. I could see why AM2R and Pokémon Uranium wouldn't fit in the category to begin with. Why not call it "best mod" if they are not listing any movie, comic or anything that isn't a mod?
They fit the confines of the "best fan creation" category. Beyond Nintendo probably not wanting it around (since it dawns on me we don't actually know what happened, even if it's the most likely scenario), the bigger thing that would probably disqualify them when it comes down to it is that AM2R and Pokemon Uranium have both been pulled by their developers and aren't officially available anymore. It'd be weird for the show to be telling people about a couple of games that people can't actually get, beyond trying to shame Nintendo into easing up on them.

Which, yeah, that is something that could/should happen, but there's no reason Geoff would bother.
 
It doesn't seem like it's so much a matter of an actual "right," but them just exercising pressure as a sponsor/participant.

Even if Nintendo did request for these games to be excluded, which we don't even know for sure if it was the case, they likely said once something like "yeah, you know, we're not so cool about being featured in a show that also feature work we're having some legal issues with" and that's that. Which is within their right, not "right", downright right. I very much doubt they strong armed the TGA producers or sent letters with YOU WILL DIE IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT WE WANT.
 

Par Score

Member
Nintendo removed their games from the category. They clearly aren't trying to buy the award so... they are trying to sell it to Doom?
do you realize that every award/competition ever has sponsor pressure right? do you think they give money to do not have input in the whole thing?

There is little functional difference between "These games can't be nominated for an award" and "These games have to be nominated for an award" and "This game has to win this award".

If sponsors have control over nominees (and that is still an if, though it has to at least be considered until Geoff or someone else at the TGAs says otherwise) then they have control over the awards.
 
There is little functional difference between "These games can't be nominated for an award" and "These games have to be nominated for an award" and "This game has to win this award".

If sponsors have control over nominees (and that is still an if, though it has to at least be considered until Geoff or someone else at the TGAs says otherwise) then they have control over the awards.

You do realize they'd have control over nomination of their unlicensed IPs even if they didn't sponsor it, right?
 

marmoka

Banned
Lets nominate them for the Best Fan Creation of the NeoGaf 2016 Awards.

Those Awards don't exist, do they?

Let's do something symbolic at least.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
I absolutely agree, but I believe that timing was also a significant factor here. AM2R released on August 6th, 2016. Metroid Prime: Federation Force released on August 19th, 2016, less than two weeks later.

I think that if AM2R had been released, say 6 months, prior to MP:FF, it would be a very different story. That game could have driven up some interest in the Metroid franchise and for MP:FF despite a large portion of the audience not being particularly happy with what they had seen so far.

However, this is all moot, as Metroid is an Nintendo own IP and they have the right to shut these things down, regardless if it could have been in their favor or not.

Timing has nothing to do with FF looking like shit. Everyone hated it from the first E3 announcement. AM2R did nothing about that.
 

border

Member
I don't see the point of these awards if you are going to let unhappy sponsors yank the nominees. It completely de-legitimizes any winner.

Geoff, just get rid of the entire category.
 
Aren't Brutal DOOM and Enderal made with officially licenced toolsets? Like, DOOM is a source port with enhanced features and Enderal a mod using the Toolkit. I could see why AM2R and Pokémon Uranium wouldn't fit in the category to begin with. Why not call it "best mod" if they are not listing any movie, comic or anything that isn't a mod?
Because it's been called "Best Fan Creation" since TGAs began in 2014. They're not going to change the title of the award or scrap the award just because a solitary year happens to be more dominated by fan games/mods.
You do realize they'd have control over nomination of their unlicensed IPs even if they didn't sponsor it, right?
Based on what?

Give me an actual legal precedent or case here to substantiate how they can control the mere acknowledgement of the game's existence.
 
What do you mean "how"? The same way they can take it off the internet. It's their proprierty, I'm pretty sure it applies to any official awards too. Why shouldn't it?

It's still their IPs.

So they'd be legally allowed to force removal of awards granted for a fangame pertaining to their IPs?

Meaning that the "NDMGGs favorite Fangame" award I just made up and gave to Pokemon Reborn right this second would allow them to force me to, uh..., delete or edit this comment?

Nah, sounds like a hell lot of bullshit you two just came up with.
 
I don't see the point of these awards if you are going to let unhappy sponsors yank the nominees. It completely de-legitimizes any winner.

There's a pretty non-negligible chance the producers of the show knew there would be some form of reaction to this and went ahead as a possible way to create controversy which raises awareness about the show.
 

Metal B

Member
There's a pretty non-negligible chance the producers of the show knew there would be some form of reaction to this and went ahead as a possible way to create controversy which raises awareness about the show.
There is a chance for it. Nintendo isn't really included in many nominees and they could try to recreate a "Kojima" moment. Not saying, that this is the case, but It would be an effective viral marketing move.
 
There's a pretty non-negligible chance the producers of the show knew there would be some form of reaction to this and went ahead as a possible way to create controversy which raises awareness about the show.
I'm a total cynic and I didn't even think of that. But, true, it's a possibility.
 
Because it's been called "Best Fan Creation" since TGAs began in 2014. They're not going to change the title of the award or scrap the award just because a solitary year happens to be more dominated by fan games/mods.

Based on what?

Give me an actual legal precedent or case here to substantiate how they can control the mere acknowledgement of the game's existence.

So they'd be legally allowed to force removal of awards granted for a fangame pertaining to their IPs?

Meaning that the "NDMGGs favorite Fangame" award I just made up and gave to Pokemon Reborn right this second would allow them to force me to, uh..., delete or edit this comment?

Nah, sounds like a hell lot of bullshit you two just came up with.

You're right, I don't have any legal precedent and am just bullshitting here, because it's what it seems plainly obvious to me. Company has rights over IP, they also have rights on whether or not they want unnoficial products showing at big awards like the TGA that get broadcasted to a lot of people and isn't just some random forum poll.

I'd like to see why their IP wouldn't be protected by law in this specific case, but I guess the burden of proof falls with me on this one and I have none.
 

Jeffrey

Member
Still think its lame on principal that corporations can remove a game from 'best fan game' award.

Still would love to hear something from Geoff though, would be best on stage, but who knows.

Will risk losing that sponsorship though, but maybe somethings are worth fighting for?


Has Geoff responded to this at all yet?
 
You're right, I don't have any legal precedent and am just bullshitting here, because it's what it seems plainly obvious to me. Company has rights over IP, they also have rights on whether or not they want unnoficial products showing at big awards like the TGA that get broadcasted to a lot of people and isn't just some random forum poll.

I'd like to see why their IP wouldn't be protected by law in this specific case, but I guess the burden of proof falls with me on this one and I have none.

I mean that's simply censorship. You aren't allowed to prevent people from talking about fangames of your IPs. And some made up awards sure aren't excluded from that.
 
I'd like to see why their IP wouldn't be protected by law in this specific case, but I guess the burden of proof falls with me on this one and I have none.

I'm not a lawyer so I could be dead wrong here, but I found this monolithic 500 page manual about IP crimes and on page 236 there's this:

The rights of a copyright owner include the exclusive rights to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work, to distribute copies by sale or otherwise, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, and to display the copyrighted work publicly.

I then checked out fair use rules and found this:

When it comes to fair use, unpublished works are inherently different from published works. Publishing an author's unpublished work before he or she has authorized it infringes upon the author's right to decide when and whether the work will be made public.

If they dispute the ownership of the game, couldn't it be seen as unpublished considering they haven't published it?

Again, I'm not a lawyer and I could be talking shit, but point is I really doubt they have 0 control about the public display of their IPs. Also, just because it could be legal doesn't mean it's a good move.
 
I mean that's simply censorship. You aren't allowed to prevent people from talking about fangames of your IPs. And some made up awards sure aren't excluded from that.

That's... not censorship, at all. And there's a difference between like, making a Metroid game and sharing with a few friends of mine and putting it up on the internet. Mainly because Nintendo wouldn't even be aware, nor care, about the first case.

I'm not a lawyer so I could be dead wrong here, but I found this monolithic 500 page manual about IP crimes and on page 236 there's this:



I then checked out fair use rules and found this:



If they dispute the ownership of the game, couldn't it be seen as unpublished considering they haven't published it?

Again, I'm not a lawyer and I could be talking shit, but point is I really doubt they have 0 control about the public display of their IPs. Also, just because it could be legal doesn't mean it's a good move.

I think "unpublished" here means something the author has made, but is published without his consent. But anyway, that's pretty much what I expected. I don't think they have 0 control of what appears with their IPs all over it. That would be kinda insane.
 
You're right, I don't have any legal precedent and am just bullshitting here, because it's what it seems plainly obvious to me. Company has rights over IP, they also have rights on whether or not they want unnoficial products showing at big awards like the TGA that get broadcasted to a lot of people and isn't just some random forum poll.

I'd like to see why their IP wouldn't be protected by law in this specific case, but I guess the burden of proof falls with me on this one and I have none.
They obviously have certain rights they could flex on the game. They can C&D the game's creators. They could prevent TGA from providing links to download the game. They probably could even prevent TGA from showing footage of the game during a nominee sizzle reel.

I just don't see any justification for them being able to prevent TGA from the mere acknowledgement that it exists to be nominated in this category. That seems like a basic speech issue.

And anyways, the issue of they "can" doesn't answer the question of "should they."
 
That's... not censorship, at all. And there's a difference between like, making a Metroid game and sharing with a few friends of mine and putting it up on the internet. Mainly because Nintendo wouldn't even be aware, nor care, about the first case.

What the hell are you talking about? Weren't we just discussing your claim about an IP holder's supposed right to interfere with award shows when there's awards pertaining to fangames of their IPs? Did I miss a few pages?
 

guybrushfreeman

Unconfirmed Member
Nintendo have no legal right to have the games removed from an awards show. That's beyond absurd. IP law does not give Nintendo the kind of crazy rights to remove discussion of something anywhere. I wish people would get this exaggerated view of copyrights out of their head. Much of the strong arming Nintendo (and other companies in this sector do) they only get away with because people can't make any attempt to defend themselves. IP is not this absolute censorship tool people seem to think it is.
 
They obviously have certain rights they could flex on the game. They can C&D the game's creators. They could prevent TGA from providing links to download the game. They probably could even prevent TGA from showing footage of the game during a nominee sizzle reel.

I just don't see any justification for them being able to prevent TGA from the mere acknowledgement that it exists to be nominated in this category. That seems like a basic speech issue.

And anyways, the issue of they "can" doesn't answer the question of "should they."

The only people qualified to answer the "should they" question are their lawyers. And I guess they already had their say on that.

What the hell are you talking about? Weren't we just discussing your claim about an IP holder's supposed right to interfere with award shows when there's awards pertaining to fangames of their IPs? Did I miss a few pages?

Right, but you made an abrupt jump to censorship that didn't seem to make any sense to me. I feel like that word is used too broadly with no actual meaning behind it. Getting a nomination on a big show is way ahead of people just talking about it too. I mean, I'm not sure this even has precedent in any other medium
 

guybrushfreeman

Unconfirmed Member
They obviously have certain rights they could flex on the game. They can C&D the game's creators. They could prevent TGA from providing links to download the game. They probably could even prevent TGA from showing footage of the game during a nominee sizzle reel.

I just don't see any justification for them being able to prevent TGA from the mere acknowledgement that it exists to be nominated in this category. That seems like a basic speech issue.

And anyways, the issue of they "can" doesn't answer the question of "should they."

I don't think they could even prevent a short clip from being shown. I agree will all the other points though.
 

guybrushfreeman

Unconfirmed Member
The only people qualified to answer the "should they" question are their lawyers. And I guess they already had their say on that.



Right, but you made an abrupt jump to censorship that didn't seem to make any sense to me. I feel like that word is used too broadly with no actual meaning behind it. Getting a nomination on a big show is way ahead of people just talking about it too. I mean, I'm not sure this even has precedent in any other medium

This is definitely corporate censorship in a pretty basic form. The Game Awards came up with a list of 'Best Fan Games' and then a sponsor had a problem with the list so they changed it. I can't really think of a more blatant form of a sponsor censoring speech than that.

Now, rather than the list they intended we only get the one 'approved' by the shows sponsors. How can that not be censorship? How can anyone take the awards seriously (yes, I know people already didn't) if we know everything can be bought if sponsors don't like it?
 
This is definitely corporate censorship in a pretty basic form. The Game Awards came up with a list of 'Best Fan Games' and then a sponsor had a problem with the list so they changed it. I can't really think of a more blatant form of a sponsor censoring speech than that.

Now, rather than the list they intended we only get the one 'approved' by the shows sponsors. How can that not be censorship? How can anyone take the awards seriously (yes, I know people already didn't) if we know everything can be bought if sponsors don't like it.

I don't even think you actually believe what you just typed. It's obvious this is the only list that gets this treatment because it's murky water. Nobody is even raising that as an issue, the only discussion here is if Nintendo is within their right or if they should do this.
 

MuchoMalo

Banned
If I were in charge of that event, I'd remove I'd tell Nintendo to fuck off and permanently lock their games out of the event until they change their ways.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Much of the strong arming Nintendo (and other companies in this sector do) they only get away with because people can't make any attempt to defend themselves. IP is not this absolute censorship tool people seem to think it is.

Both titles in question were C&Ded on copyright infringement grounds, and both titles used actual Nintendo created assets within them.
Neither titles contested the C&D, so both titles are legally the same as pirated software - namely copyright infringing works.

There are organisations such as the EFF who specifically assist in cases where IP owners are over reaching, but it would be extremely difficult to declare either of these fanworks as anything other than derivative works, and the creators themselves have not made any attempt to push back on these C&Ds or make any claims as to fair use or transformative properties.

This topic assumes that Nintendo are actively attempting to stifle discussion, and are in some way strong arming, blackmailing, or threatening the awards in some way to prevent these titles inclusion, when it is just as likely this was decided by the awards organisation themselves that they do not want to promote illegitimate works, even if the voters decide they don't care about IP protections.

If something like PSO:BB was nominated - a cracked demo providing full game functionality, or WOW Vanilla Servers - reverse engineered privately hosted servers bypassing Blizzards commercial interests were nominated, I would also expect those titles to be delisted by the organisers just for reasons of awards show legitimacy, without any necessity of sponsors threatening to withdraw.
 
I think "unpublished" here means something the author has made, but is published without his consent. But anyway, that's pretty much what I expected. I don't think they have 0 control of what appears with their IPs all over it. That would be kinda insane.

Yeah that part was a bit of a stretch lol but I agree that it's highly unlikely they don't control at all how their IPs are displayed.

So I trust you'll be changing your avatar, then?

I think not having active permission is different than displaying unpermitted work. If Nintendo's team of lawyers contacted Evilore and said 'yeah, we don't want avatars with our copyrighted material' and then his lawyers said it's really better if he does, then you could see change like that.
 

fernoca

Member
The main issue seems to be that this are aired/streamed lived and Nintendo having a hand on it. Same way as Nintendo didn't allowed Project M along regular Smash in EVO.

Is not as if they'll ban any mention of this games everywhere (the recent issue of Nintendo Force covered fangames, while the focus were the main games, and Project M is allowed in other tornaments along the regular Smash).

Just that there's a conflict of interests, even more when the actual game is not even nominated because it was released too late for the 2016 date.

Who knows. Considering Reggie is part of the team behind this awards since day one , could be seen as others trying to stir controversy allowing nominations they knew would be removed.
 

Clessidor

Member
If I were in charge of that event, I'd remove I'd tell Nintendo to fuck off and permanently lock their games out of the event until they change their ways.
Which would be the death of the entire award. What do you think how other publishers would react when the Game Awards starts to push companies into certain directions? They would fear something similar might happen to them, stop their support and move/create an alternative event and the old one dies.
 
I don't even think you actually believe what you just typed. It's obvious this is the only list that gets this treatment because it's murky water. Nobody is even raising that as an issue, the only discussion here is if Nintendo is within their right or if they should do this.
It's amusing that this list never got this treatment in the past two installments (even one year which featured a kind of Nintendo item with Twitch Plays Pokemon being a winner), but now suddenly it's under scrutiny.
I think not having active permission is different than displaying unpermitted work. If Nintendo's team of lawyers contacted Evilore and said 'yeah, we don't want avatars with our copyrighted material' and then his lawyers said it's really better if he does, then you could see change like that.
That's nice and all, but this statement:

If it's not ur intellectual property, you can't use it without permission. The end

Seemed pretty absolute and was said without caveats. That avatar isn't their property, according to what they said, they can't use it without permission. The end.
 
It's amusing that this list never got this treatment in the past two installments (even one year which featured a kind of Nintendo item with Twitch Plays Pokemon being a winner), but now suddenly it's under scrutiny.

Twitch Plays Pokemon is something else entirely, mainly because it's not even a fan game, it's the same game but played by a chat room. You could say that it's kinda illegal since it's emulation (even though it can be done on the actual hardware), but Nintendo was admittedly less shitty about this before than now.
 
This is beyond gross. There is no reason whatsoever that a company should be able to get away with just outright scrubbing discussion of a fangame from the internet like this. Not only is it above and beyond any possible justification based on copyright infringement (justification that would not have held up in even just getting the games taken down in the first place if they weren't a big company throwing around their lawyers), it's also just outright scummy.

"We don't like this thing so no one is allowed to like this thing!" Fuck right off, Nintendo. Fuck. Right. Off.
 

guybrushfreeman

Unconfirmed Member
Both titles in question were C&Ded on copyright infringement grounds, and both titles used actual Nintendo created assets within them.
Neither titles contested the C&D, so both titles are legally the same as pirated software - namely copyright infringing works.

There are organisations such as the EFF who specifically assist in cases where IP owners are over reaching, but it would be extremely difficult to declare either of these fanworks as anything other than derivative works, and the creators themselves have not made any attempt to push back on these C&Ds or make any claims as to fair use or transformative properties.

This topic assumes that Nintendo are actively attempting to stifle discussion, and are in some way strong arming, blackmailing, or threatening the awards in some way to prevent these titles inclusion, when it is just as likely this was decided by the awards organisation themselves that they do not want to promote illegitimate works, even if the voters decide they don't care about IP protections.

If something like PSO:BB was nominated - a cracked demo providing full game functionality, or WOW Vanilla Servers - reverse engineered privately hosted servers bypassing Blizzards commercial interests were nominated, I would also expect those titles to be delisted by the organisers just for reasons of awards show legitimacy, without any necessity of sponsors threatening to withdraw.

Push back against Nintendo how exactly? Even the EFF (I like the idea you think I don't know who they are) couldn't afford to do it. Sending a C & D is not a legal ruling. People give in because they couldn't possibly fight it. It's not an admission of guilt.

Even so that's got nothing to do with an awards show which is perfectly entitled to discuss whatever it likes. If you're trying today they published the list and then edited it on their own well I simply don't believe you. It's far more likely it was edited after Nintendo didn't like it. I mean the only games missing are Nintendo's. Don't pretend it's a rediculous conclusion to draw.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Push back against Nintendo how exactly? Even the EFF (I like the idea you think I don't know who they are) couldn't afford to do it. Sending a C & D is not a legal ruling. People give in because they couldn't possibly fight it. It's not an admission of guilt.

Not contesting an accusation is in fact legally an admission that the charge is correct but without claiming guilt.
It is known as Nolo Contendere.

Even so that's got nothing to do with an awards show which is perfectly entitled to discuss whatever it likes. If you're trying today they published the list and then edited it on their own well I simply don't believe you. It's far more likely it was edited after Nintendo didn't like it. I mean the only games missing are Nintendo's. Don't pretend it's a rediculous conclusion to draw.

The only games missing are games that were C&Ded and issued with DMCA takedowns.
It's not ridiculous at all to assume that that is the background to their removal.
 

guybrushfreeman

Unconfirmed Member
I don't even think you actually believe what you just typed. It's obvious this is the only list that gets this treatment because it's murky water. Nobody is even raising that as an issue, the only discussion here is if Nintendo is within their right or if they should do this.
I do mean it. What's the difference between editing this category for a sponsor and editing any other category for a sponsor exactly? The water isn't as murky as you think it is. Giving an award to those games is 100% legal. A sponsor just doesn't like it. The action is the same, we just assume they wouldn't so for some moral reason which they've already shown they aren't bother about. I'm not saying they are doing it mind you. I also assume they wouldn't do it for some moral reason but the action really wouldn't be any different if they did.
 
Well Nintendo doesn't want to have their own 2D Metroid games cannibalized by its publicity. That's just not smart business.


....oh wait.


Sponsor or not, Nintendo sucks for doing this. Those folks worked hard, and they should be proud of their fans being inspired by their work. Smart companies hire those folks.
 
I
do mean it. What's the difference between editing this category for a sponsor and editing any other category for a sponsor exactly? The water isn't as murky as you think it is. Giving an award to those games is 100% legal. A sponsor just doesn't like it. The action is the same, we just assume they wouldn't so for some moral reason which they've already shown they aren't bother about. I'm not saying they are doing it mind you. I also assume they wouldn't do it for some moral reason but the action really wouldn't be any different if they did.

No, it really is. As long as fan games uses assets and designs from official licensed products, they are in murky water. There's a world of difference between this category, which is fan based and most of the other ones, which are jury based. This isn't just petty hate from Nintendo, that's the most childish way of looking at this possible.
 
Top Bottom