Support NeoGAF

[KuroPyonyo]

@Everyone who quoted me:

Are you talking about the end of ownership or what?

No nothing insane like that.

Simply that the law needs major reworking, from people that are preferably not 50+ years old, is something I think everyone can agree on.

Now, the specifics are debatable and this is what I personaly want:
Easily abusable nonsense like DMCA claims need to go.
Transformative work (eg. lets play or sampling) belong to 100% to the creator.
Derivative work (which is this specifc case) needs to be legal as long as it is non commercial.

 

[Oppo]

I'm sorry but I disagree. If Nintendo is still producing products with that character or IP and still making money from it, why should they have to give it up, just cause some time has passed? I'm sorry as an artist I just don't agree with that. If I'm going to loose what I create after a certain amount of time has passed then fuck you, you don't get to see my creations. Why should how I make my lively hood be hampered just because some time has passed?

Because – and this discussion is too broad for this one thread, but – there have been many great derivative/inspired works based on copyright-expired properties, and this has absolutely enriched the culture immeasurably. Just to name an obvious few: Brothers Grimm tales, Shakespeare, an ocean of classical music, etc. You should lose it, you and your estate or a corp shouldn't get to own IP like that until the end of time, that's absurd. You should think about this more, there's a great debate about it, and if you care about this stuff, read up on Mickey Mouse Copyright Act and the repercussions.

Why do you need Mario? Come up with your own character. Its the same with Mickey Mouse, why do you need Mickey Mouse, come up with your own character and tell stories with that.

Why do you need Holst's The Planets? Why do you need Taming the Shrew? If I want to portray a muscley guy sitting down and thinking, do I owe the estate of August Rodin a fee?

I'm sorry but this whole its been X number of years everything should be mine now is a bullshit attitude.

You'll make a great Disney exec some day

I do think its different if the person/company producing the IP is gone, sure let it be public domain then. If they're still around and still producing that IP then no, it shouldn't be public domain.

Well currently it's 80 years PLUS the lifetime of the creator so it's already a bit overboard even by your own expectation.

 

[jerry1594]

I guess this means theyre making Super Mario 128

 

[lyrick]

@Everyone who quoted me:


No nothing insane like that.

Simply that the law needs major reworking, from people that are preferably not 50+ years old, is something I think everyone can agree on.

Now, the specifics are debatable and this is what I personaly want:
Easily abusable nonsense like DMCA claims need to go.
Transformative work (eg. lets play or sampling) belong to 100% to the creator.
Derivative work (which is this specifc case) needs to be legal as long as it is non commercial.

Oh fuck no, lets not let Gen Ys decide anything regarding ownership.

 

[Tregard]

Es tut mir leid

 

[Brainiac 8]

Hint hint Nintendo. I'd buy a faithful Mario 64 HD remake with Mario Galaxy style graphics.

No thank you. Mario 64 was revolutionary. Mario 64 DS was a fun remake. The game has long since been surpassed though with the Galaxy games. I'd rather have Galaxy 3.

If they spent more time listening to what fans want than fannying around with gimmicks and lawyers then maybe they would make a metric crapton more money.

Not even remotely true. While fans have had some good ideas that Nintendo could have used and it would have turned out better for them, the majority of ideas are great in theory but would not necessarily prove financially feasible.

 

[BadRamen]

I see most people still haven't actually read why the creator released this. Not to "profit", "thieve" or "steal" fucking Mario 64 from Nintendo. Mario 64 was used to get people interested in his Unity plugin for 3d character control. As another poster said, I doubt any news websites would have given one shit about a Unity plugin but WOW MARIO 64 HD IN MY WEB BROWSER WHY DID THIS GUY BLATANTLY STEAL MARIO 64????? WTFFFFFFFF GOTDAM PIRATES AND LAZY THIEVING DEVZZZ

 

[dickgumshoe]

I see most people still haven't actually read why the creator released this. Not to "profit", "thieve" or "steal" fucking Mario 64 from Nintendo. Mario 64 was used to get people interested in his Unity plugin for 3d character control. As another poster said, I doubt any news websites would have given one shit about a Unity plugin but WOW MARIO 64 HD IN MY WEB BROWSER WHY DID THIS GUY BLATANTLY STEAL MARIO 64????? WTFFFFFFFF GOTDAM PIRATES AND LAZY THIEVING DEVZZZ

If he uses the game to advertise his product, it's not just a fan project anymore.

 

[K-A-Deman]

Please show me a single case where a company not issuing a takedown notice for a fan game led to a bigger problem.

It becomes a precedent to be cited "they didn't act against X for Y case, so there are grounds to have inclusion!" Will it go anywhere? probably not. Will it be time-consuming and potentially costly? Almost definitely.

And how many of those dedicated fans gave up and pirated it before Nintendo decided to release the game through Gamestop? Reggie made a pretty good point that petition signs =/= sales, and the end result only proved him right.

 

[petran79]

I guess it'd be that Sierra hasn't held the same care/reverence for King's Quest that Nintendo has had for Mario.

I basically agree that this isn't malicious and a shame it's being stopped (he's not charging for it, not remaking the whole thing, it's clearly to demonstrate Unity) but I can't understand why Nintendo aren't content to let things lie, even if in a perfect world they would.

.

Remember Sonic Fan Remix? C&D by Sega, yet it trumps all their new Sonic titles.

This would lead to a bad precedent for Nintendo.

There's still the Oculus Rift Mario demo.

 

[Glowsquid]

I see most people still haven't actually read why the creator released this. Not to "profit", "thieve" or "steal" fucking Mario 64 from Nintendo. Mario 64 was used to get people interested in his Unity plugin for 3d character control. As another poster said, I doubt any news websites would have given one shit about a Unity plugin but WOW MARIO 64 HD IN MY WEB BROWSER WHY DID THIS GUY BLATANTLY STEAL MARIO 64????? WTFFFFFFFF GOTDAM PIRATES AND LAZY THIEVING DEVZZZ

That would actually makes things worse (or rather, more understandable for Nintendo to issue a takedown notice). He's using someone else's IP unauthorized to promote his product.

 

[C.Olimar788]

Seems like a really weird thing to C&D, especially since Nintendo rarely does that sort of thing. I mean, it was one level, a proof of concept, and the author wasn't planning on working on it further...

Gotta say, though, I'm glad it was this and not something else. I saw "Nintendo issues takedown" and I immediately panicked for PM. >>;;

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Because – and this discussion is too broad for this one thread, but – there have been many great derivative/inspired works based on copyright-expired properties, and this has absolutely enriched the culture immeasurably. Just to name an obvious few: Brothers Grimm tales, Shakespeare, an ocean of classical music, etc. You should lose it, you and your estate or a corp shouldn't get to own IP like that until the end of time, that's absurd. You should think about this more, there's a great debate about it, and if you care about this stuff, read up on Mickey Mouse Copyright Act and the repercussions.

All your examples are hundred + years old. Not 20 years later while the original creator is still alive. I've been apart of these debates before. I'm sorry but as an artist I don't think the general public should have any right to my work just cause 20/30/40 years have passed. If Disney or Nintendo were out of business for 15 years then sure, public domain, if they're still going and making products and living from their creation then no, the general public doesn't get it.

Why do you need Holst's The Planets? Why do you need Taming the Shrew? If I want to portray a muscley guy sitting down and thinking, do I owe the estate of August Rodin a fee?

OK do you not see the difference between using a similar archtype (muscly guy) vs copying something exactly?

You'll make a great Disney exec some day

As an animator, one can only hope.

Well currently it's 80 years PLUS the lifetime of the creator so it's already a bit overboard even by your own expectation.

No its not, my expectation is are the people who created and own the IP still producing work with it and making money from it. If the answer is yes then the general public doesn't get it.

Like I said, if Disney/Nintendo/ETC were out of business and nothing had been made with the IP in 15 years let the public have at it, other wise no I don't think the public should get it.

You reference Shakespeare, he did in 1616, its now almost 400 years later, that is a different situation than a character created 25 years ago, by a group still making new products with that character today.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Coincidently, 2016 marks Super Mario 64's 20th anniversary. Can it be......

 

[JoeInky]

I actually do find this very surprising considering the thousands of Mario fangames out there. as well as all the other Nintendo franchises fangames.

Most of them used ripped assets as well so that's no excuse.

 

[Swarna]

So why is Project M still alive?

 

[Hubble]

Nintendo is so out of touch with the community. They should embrace it instead of killing it.

 

[Oppo]

All your examples are hundred + years old. Not 20 years later while the original creator is still alive. I've been apart of these debates before. I'm sorry but as an artist I don't think the general public should have any right to my work just cause 20/30/40 years have passed. If Disney or Nintendo were out of business for 15 years then sure, public domain, if they're still going and making products and living from their creation then no, the general public doesn't get it.

They are old examples of Public Domain works, because the copyright extension has been pushed back again and agin by congress, in the US (and world © bodies follow).

Again, I feel that this is outside of the scope of the thread, but I will respond once more: You are arguing © term lengths. I was originally saying that it simply should not be forever. If you want to argue that it should be "lifetime of creator", that is valid, though I disagree (and I do creative work as well). Nintendo is what, 180 years old or so?

No its not, my expectation is are the people who created and own the IP still producing work with it and making money from it. If the answer is yes then the general public doesn't get it.

Yes, it is. Actually I was 10 years off. Read. https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

 

[bananafactory]

Nofunallowed.jpg

 

[Portalbox]

@Everyone who quoted me:


No nothing insane like that.

Simply that the law needs major reworking, from people that are preferably not 50+ years old, is something I think everyone can agree on.

Now, the specifics are debatable and this is what I personaly want:
Easily abusable nonsense like DMCA claims need to go.
Transformative work (eg. lets play or sampling) belong to 100% to the creator.
Derivative work (which is this specifc case) needs to be legal as long as it is non commercial.

If that was the case (and we're still talking about SM64HD) suppose Nintendo remakes the game and this guy had set precedent with a non-commercial SM64HD... Could the creator of the derivative work sue since he made it 'first' and technically it's part of his work?

Also, the derivative work is potentially taking sales away from the 'Mario HD Experience'.

It'd be a legal mess unless Nintendo always has priority over these things. I'm with Nintendo (and with the law) on this one.

 

[Killer]

Nintendo really hates its fans.

 

[EviLore]

All your examples are hundred + years old. Not 20 years later while the original creator is still alive. I've been apart of these debates before. I'm sorry but as an artist I don't think the general public should have any right to my work just cause 20/30/40 years have passed. If Disney or Nintendo were out of business for 15 years then sure, public domain, if they're still going and making products and living from their creation then no, the general public doesn't get it.




OK do you not see the difference between using a similar archtype (muscly guy) vs copying something exactly?



As an animator, one can only hope.



No its not, my expectation is are the people who created and own the IP still producing work with it and making money from it. If the answer is yes then the general public doesn't get it.

Like I said, if Disney/Nintendo/ETC were out of business and nothing had been made with the IP in 15 years let the public have at it, other wise no I don't think the public should get it.

You reference Shakespeare, he did in 1616, its now almost 400 years later, that is a different situation than a character created 25 years ago, by a group still making new products with that character today.

There really is always a defense force somewhere for everything despicable in the world.

Copyright law is maybe the single most blatantly bought and paid for major law on the books. Good luck with your aspirations as a corporate ballwasher.

 

[M3d10n]

Surprising as Nintendo almost never sends C&Ds over non-commercial fangames.

That's because internet "news" sources usually didn't bother parading most them around as loudly as this one did.

It was literally plastered all over the internet in a matter of days, while being nothing more than the 3D equivalent of someone using Super Mario World sprites on their hobby Flash game. It was not a commercial project, but the sheer amount of publicity ballooned it into something Nintendo's lawyers couldn't ignore.

Anyway, all the attention this guy's project got will certainly make it easy for him to find someone to make/donate him some replacement 3D models.

 

[MrBadger]

So why is Project M still alive?

Because you have to buy Brawl to play it, and while a lot of people do just pirate it, this game is readily available in a browser

 

[K-A-Deman]

So why is Project M still alive?

A question that to this day its answer still eludes me...

Nintendo is so out of touch with the community. They should embrace it instead of killing it.

Nintendo really hates its fans.

You're right; clearly they hate their fanbase so much they announced a media event to directly talk about their games instead of being total bffs and giving it to bloggers to hold over their fans heads, or include a mediocre but strangely endeared roster selection in Bragging Rights: the Game. Ooh, or how about how they insult the fanbase by making full games with little to no glitches and that aren't microtransactioned to hell and back. Yes, clearly Nintendo hates all of their fans...

...wait a minute.

 

[BadRamen]

That would actually makes things worse (or rather, more understandable for Nintendo to issue a takedown notice). He's using someone else's IP unauthorized to promote his product.

If he uses the game to advertise his product, it's not just a fan project anymore.

A project he clearly said no more work was being done on it, not selling it, etc. No money is required to use his "product". Aren't Unity licenses free all around now? I also agree with another poster who said if it wasn't named so blantantly, assuredly most or none of this hullabaloo would be happening. Plus, I am more responding to those overblown "HE IS A DAMN THIEF, THANK YOU NINTENDO FOR PROTECTING YOUR WORK FROM THIS MARIO 64 STEALING JERK. IT IS THEIR GAME, LEAVE IT ALONE!" and less the actualy yes true merit that he used existing IP to POSSIBLY (it was my guess he did it for promo anyway) show off his FREE TO USE FOR EVERYONE (including Nintendo!) in Unity.

I guess it is just funny that people are being silly regarding the man's intentions.

 

[C.Olimar788]

So why is Project M still alive?

I imagine it has something to do with not wanting to alienate and disgust literally the entire competitive Smash community. I hope so, at least - the day PM gets C&D'd is a deeply sad day indeed, and definitely the day that Nintendo loses significant portions of my respect.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yep, thank you GameStop for publishing this in the US.

 

[Lalalandia]

This has to have been the least surprising thing I've heard in a while. If he was just doing this for his own amusement why publish it? I'm sure plenty of devs over the years have tried to replicate the feel of Mario 64 by making private projects but it seems they weren't daft enough to post it on a website. This isn't a dead IP or a game that is barely remembered this a title that got a re-release on the DS in 2004.

I seriously dispute any characterisation of this as non-commerical too, self promotion is patently a commercial use of a product and implies endorsement. I find it especially odd that there is any surprise that Nintendo might be protective of the movement physics in Mario 64 and not be that keen that someone would leverage their work recreating them to promote themselves. Saying 'Jump like in Mario 64' is a very different thing from saying 'the jump from Mario 64'. Given that few folks have the N64 or a DS with Super Mario 64 to test that claim they would use this web version to test that claim. Given that the physics he developed were from this it creates a feedback loop that somehow suggests his aping of the Mario64 physics are correct.

Copyright abuse is a real thing but this is not what it looks like.

 

[KuroPyonyo]

If that was the case (and we're still talking about SM64HD) suppose Nintendo remakes the game and this guy had set precedent with a non-commercial SM64HD... Could the creator of the derivative work sue since he made it 'first' and technically it's part of his work?

On what basis would he be able to sue? For the IP holder it should be as if he didn't exist.
The derivative work shouldn't get any rights.

Also, the derivative work is potentially taking sales away from the 'Mario HD Experience'.

And why is that a problem? If someone can make a non commercial product that's better, then it's on the business to step their game up and deliver worthwhile products.
Perfect example is the virtual console, which is just a joke, while random dudes do a better job at emulating for free.

 

[Art Vandilay]

They should give him a job

 

[Sami+]

.

Remember Sonic Fan Remix? C&D by Sega, yet it trumps all their new Sonic titles.

This would lead to a bad precedent for Nintendo.

There's still the Oculus Rift Mario demo.

Sonic Fan Remix didn't get C&D'd - actually, SEGA's always been really cool about fan stuff. They collaborate with The Sonic Stadium yearly to host the Summer of Sonic event in the UK, and as far as I'm aware don't issue C&D's to nonprofit fan games, most of which use official assets.

 

[Azure J]

There really is always a defense force somewhere for everything despicable in the world.

Copyright law is maybe the single most blatantly bought and paid for major law on the books. Good luck with your aspirations as a corporate ballwasher.

God damn.

I imagine it has something to do with not wanting to alienate and disgust literally the entire competitive Smash community. I hope so, at least - the day PM gets C&D'd is a deeply sad day indeed, and definitely the day that Nintendo loses significant portions of my respect.

I think it's moreso because it exists as something that requires a copy of Brawl and hasn't currently infringed on any major trademarks from the other parties involved in its (Brawl's) creation. It's also the reason why I feel like they're flying too close to the sun if they do start dabbling in additional characters from Sega/Konami or those that aren't represented by Nintendo themselves in the base design of the game. I already felt like the Castlevania stage was something that shouldn't exist just because no Castlevania games are referenced in Brawl's base.

 

[Mory Dunz]

Surprising as Nintendo almost never sends C&Ds over non-commercial fangames.

Yeah, this.

 

[jooey]

Always the same arguments ...
Just because the law is outdated garbage you don't have to abuse it.

Time for both IP/Copyright law and Nintendo to reach the 21 century.

imagine me quoting your avatar here

 

[Lupin3]

Never heard of this before, but it was pretty impressive! Wish I could keep playing!

 

[border]

Would the people intent on bending over backwards to excuse Nintendo's shitty attitude really be so supportive if they started shutting down Project M or Earthbound fan translations?

 

[Mory Dunz]

Oh it was on major news sites? That's why

 

[Natureboy99]

reminds me of this:

Remember how that was because Square was doing a remake of their own?

 

[Shin Johnpv]

There really is always a defense force somewhere for everything despicable in the world.

Copyright law is maybe the single most blatantly bought and paid for major law on the books. Good luck with your aspirations as a corporate ballwasher.

Really, people shouldn't be able to defend what they create? Did you also need to go and attack me?

 

[petran79]

Sonic Fan Remix didn't get C&D'd - actually, SEGA's always been really cool about fan stuff. They collaborate with The Sonic Stadium yearly to host the Summer of Sonic event in the UK, and as far as I'm aware don't issue C&D's to nonprofit fan games, most of which use official assets.

My bad! Those internet links can mess your memory in the long-run!

this made me re-read an actual interview one of the guys behind SFR, Pelikan 13 from Greece, also the guy behind the Kickstarter 90s Arcade Racer. He also worked in Sonic Allstar Racing Transformed (2011), Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing (2010), Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office (2009), Buzz!: Quiz TV (2008), SEGA Superstars Tennis (2008) and XGRA: Extreme G Racing Association (2003).

Yes, Sega's approach is totally different to Nintendo's

 

[EviLore]

Really, people shouldn't be able to defend what they create? Did you also need to go and attack me?

You're explicitly defending the Copyright Term Extension Act, which no one in their right mind has any reason to be doing unless their life revolves around Disney's success. Since you don't seem to work for or invest in Disney, that leaves insane fanboyism cognitive dissonance as the other option on the table.

Unless you know something about life extension that I don't, "people defending what they create" has nothing to do with it. Regardless of what the supreme court has decided lately, corporations aren't people and can and do exist in perpetuity with nothing to do with the creators of the IPs they own. The entire concept of public domain has been put on indefinite hold due to corporate lobbying. This is not in the best interest of anyone other than the corporations doing the lobbying, specifically Disney, which has acquired the largest IP profile in the world in order to exploit the laws that they've had created.

 

[commish]

There really is always a defense force somewhere for everything despicable in the world.

Copyright law is maybe the single most blatantly bought and paid for major law on the books. Good luck with your aspirations as a corporate ballwasher.

Tell us how you really feel, haha.

What, exactly, does something entering into the public domain get you, the average consumer? Or anyone, really? I don't understand your fervor over stuff entering or not entering the public domain. If we were talking patents, then sure, there's a ton of value to society and I'd be all for creating exceptions for certain medicines. If we are talking about decades old copyrights, then, I don't really get it.

Edit: To address the OP, given the popularity of the mod, Nintendo really had no choice but to send a letter like that. Otherwise it would basically be condoning the action which could hurt Nintendo when it tries to protect its IP going forward.

 

[Drkirby]

You're explicitly defending the Copyright Term Extension Act, which no one in their right mind has any reason to be doing unless their life revolves around Disney's success. Since you don't seem to work for or invest in Disney, that leaves insane fanboyism cognitive dissonance as the other option on the table.

Unless you know something about life extension that I don't, "people defending what they create" has nothing to do with it. Regardless of what the supreme court has decided lately, corporations aren't people and can and do exist in perpetuity with nothing to do with the creators of the IPs they own. The entire concept of public domain has been put on indefinite hold due to corporate lobbying. This is not in the best interest of anyone other than the corporations doing the lobbying, specifically Disney, which has acquired the largest IP profile in the world in order to exploit the laws that they've had created.

While I believe copyrights have been extended to insane lengths in the last centery, I don't think Nintendo is doing anything inherently wrong or immoral with exercising their copyright claim here. The unity game iscreator gave his project a lofty title, and had his project get a ton of press, leaving it up could realistically hurt brand image if it somehow gets confused for a legitmate producet or being representative of the original. What happens when Nintendo really does want to remake Mario 64 again? While it would be a minority, you could end up with people beliving this unity game is representative of the hypothetical remake.

I wouldn't even call this a derivative work, it's basicallly a shoddy bootleg copy the game being used to advertise some unity plug in the guy made.

Spoiler

I hope I didn't lose track of the argument somewhere in the quote chain, we ARE still debating about if Nintendo should have filed the cease and desist, right?

 

[monlo]

I mean, I don't mind if the original site has it for download.. Mirrors aren't necessary. Don't need some random android version from China start selling it for $.99, which is gonna happen eventually (we all know it). edit: if anything, I'm glad they took notice, and I hope the creator gets some recognition for his work, from Nintendo and from other companies.

 

[BBboy20]

Good thing I downloaded it then.

 

[AerialAir]

Though it was already expected, i think Nintendo never head of postmodernism, nor appropriation and neo-conceptual art.

 

[Regulus Tera]

Outdated? How should IP law be different than it is now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

edit: fixed link

 

[fernoca]

It sucks, but at the same time he did took the models from other games. It had promise. The remake/stage in Galaxy 2 was amazing, hopefully there will be more of that.

 

[cireza]

reminds me of this:

Remember how that was because Square was doing a remake of their own?

Nobody needed this anyway. The original game is perfectly fina as it is.