• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Project AM2R getting legally slammed by Nintendo; file hosts hit with DMCA notices

andymcc

Banned
Dec 17, 2007
14,908
3
0
while nintendo certainly have the legal precedent to do this, this game is way better than any other metroid game i've played since zero mission.
 

Adam_Vania

Banned
Mar 19, 2016
2,265
1
0
Atlanta, GA
Regardless of what's happening now, I am just really glad they waited for the game to be finished before this happened. It's like someone had a heart and knew it was the 30th anniversary and that all the fans were getting from Nintendo was Federation Force, so they waited.

exactly how i feel.

lawyers gotta lawyer, this is what they do, they protect your legal property. they have a legal duty to do this.

they could have shut it down before release, heck they could have shut it down before it even got off the ground. this way it's actually giving the game MORE press bc people can actually get it and play it.
 

TheBryanJZX90

Member
May 4, 2012
5,506
2
435
They generally lean towards option 1 though. In Iwata's own words:


So the question is really whether AM2R "dimishes the dignity or value" or Metroid 2 or the Metroid franchise. Obviously, its dignity is perfectly fine and I would argue that there's not really any harm to Metroid's value either. None of Nintendo's current or future known offerings compete with AM2R and I would argue that the original Metroid 2 had little to no value in its original form as of last weekend when the remake released.

It seems like choosing option 1 didn't work out for them.
 

Hero

Member
Jun 6, 2004
14,960
2
1,360
As much as it sucks, this is similar to how Blizzard had to stop those private Vanilla WoW servers a while back.
 

TheBryanJZX90

Member
May 4, 2012
5,506
2
435
I'm sick of all the ignorance and/or lies about "needing" to aggressively enforce copyright or you lose it, so I wrote a brief article here.

Most concerning is that Nintendo themselves are basically lying about the whole "weaken our ability to protect and preserve (our intellectual property)". As I've stated before in this thread, that only pertains to trademark not copyright, the DMCA notice they sent pertains to copyright not trademark, so their words do not back their actions one iota. They're lying to mislead people because, as this thread shows, most people don't know a god damn thing about copyright and just assume companies are always right.



Why do you think this is even an argument? Are games somehow immune to remixing? A remake of a game is extremely comparable to a remix of music or derivative artwork. Games are media just like music, art, movies. They are not magically immune to all forms of reason, fair use etc.

AM2R violates both Nintendo's copyright and trademark rights.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
Did you even actually read what you linked.

Did you?

Abandonment is a legal term.

In current US legal thinking, which errs on the side of the copyright holder, it is currently difficult to relinquish a copyright claim as an IP holder without explicitly licencing to do so, but Nintendo are not a US firm, and 'current' interpretations can easily become 'prior' interpretations.

Legally, the only way to prove a copyright or trademark has not been abandoned is to maintain enforcement of it.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
Did you even actually read what you linked.

I'm going to presume they didn't. Because the alternative is thinking they have zero reading comprehension skills.

edit:

Guess it's the zero reading comprehensions skills one after all.

Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium, whether the copyright holder desires this protection or not. Before the Copyright Act of 1976 an artist could abandon or forfeit their copyright by neglecting to comply with the relevant formalities. Difficulty arises when one tries to apply the doctrine of abandonment to present-day concerns regarding the abandonment or gifting of a digitized work to the public domain. The abandonment of a work is difficult to prove in court, though Learned Hand proposed a test which parallels other forms of abandonment law wherein an author or copyright holder could abandon their work if they intend to abandon it and commit an overt act to make public that intention.[4] Despite this test, the current legal environment towards protectionism is so strong that a court might disregard an author’s statements regarding their intent.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
Sorry, Orphan Works are a thing that exist and are recognised in certain domains and not others.

Until we have the World Court determining World Laws, what one jurisdiction does or does not recognise sets a legal precedence for an owner to follow.

e:
Er... yes, you just bolded what I just said.
Was metroid made before 1976?
Does not pursuing copyright in multiple instances weigh for or against abandonment?
Do "Current Legal environments" change based on judicial rulings?
Are US copyright laws universal?

"Zero reading comprehension" is a pretty petty insult, given, you know, then directly quoting something without understanding it.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
Sorry, Orphan Works are a thing that exist and are recognised in certain domains and not others.

Until we have the World Court determining World Laws, what one jurisdiction does or does not recognise sets a legal precedence for an owner to follow.

Well why don't you link us something proving that, rather than what you actually linked us, which says basically the opposite of what you are trying to say? Namely, you are saying "the only way to prove a copyright or trademark has not been abandoned is to maintain enforcement of it."

What you linked says that you don't have to do anything, and that it is so difficult to prove that it *has* been abandoned, that even the original owner saying they are abandoning it might be overlooked.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
What you linked says that you don't have to do anything, and that it is so difficult to prove that it *has* been abandoned, that even the original owner saying they are abandoning it might be overlooked.

It is currently difficult to prove that something has been abandoned, but the only way to prove that it hasn't is to actively maintain ownership.
What "current legal thinking" entails varies from day to day and by jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Corporate lawyers are paid to maintain their clients interests. Corporate lawyers for multinationals have to be even more zealous, because they are dealing with international jurisprudence.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
It is currently difficult to prove that something has been abandoned, but the only way to prove that it hasn't is to actively maintain ownership.
What "current legal thinking" entails varies from day to day and by jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Corporate lawyers are paid to maintain their clients interests. Corporate lawyers for multinationals have to be even more zealous, because they are dealing with international jurisprudence.

They don't *have* to be. Show me the copyrighted material that was lost. Again, if all of Disney's trademarks and copyrights relating to Star Wars, and the characters therein are not considered abandoned when they turn a complete blind eye to the use of those trademarks and copyrights in countless high profile fan projects, what evidence do you have that failing to shut down this project would lead to the Metroid copyright being considered abandoned?

It is demonstrably false that Nintendo *have* to do this as the only way to protect their trademarks and copyrights.

Maybe don't link something without providing any narrative or context next time. Eh?
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
It is demonstrably false that Nintendo *have* to do this as the only way to protect their trademarks and copyrights.

The extent of that protection is an entirely different argument.
"Companies don't have to do anything to protect their copyright, its automatic and forever and nothing can change that" is false.
Abandonment is a legal concept, the only proof against it is defending that property.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
3DS is getting Metroid Federation Force, it's not like they abandoned the IP.

I don't buy that argument.

and yet the thread is full of people saying "fuck you nintendo, you abandoned metroid, finally someone gives us what we want" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Aug 23, 2006
11,624
0
0
The extent of that protection is an entirely different argument.
"Companies don't have to do anything to protect their copyright, its automatic and forever and nothing can change that" is false.
Abandonment is a legal concept, the only proof against it is defending that property.
You might be thinking about trademark (and even that is usually BS trotted out by companies that are doing legal crap, like Monster Cable threatening every company in the US with "Monster" in their name, including Monsters of the Gridiron). Copyrights are automatic and cannot be abandoned.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
The extent of that protection is an entirely different argument.
"Companies don't have to do anything to protect their copyright, its automatic and forever and nothing can change that" is false.
Abandonment is a legal concept, the only proof against it is defending that property.

And as I've hopefully established, you *don't have to prove against it by going after freely released fan projects*. Unless you're going to argue with me that Disney have abandoned the Star Wars copyrights.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
Copyrights are automatic and cannot be abandoned.

Like... I literally linked specifically to current US legal intrepretations of abandonment of copyright, which even in the current extremely pro-corporate US legislature is only difficult to prove.

By necessity an examination of current copyright law specifically as it relates to digital works is going to happen sooner rather than later, and on which side of the pro-business / pro-society fence it falls is basically going to be down to the political leanings of whoevers drafting it.
They're also unlikely to be global laws, even with heavy lobbying by the WTO.
 

ShowDog

Member
May 24, 2005
3,636
0
1,150
If Nintendo didn't do this Capcom could up and decide to make a Metroid game next year and they couldn't do anything about it. Serious business.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
Like... I literally linked specifically to current US legal intrepretations of abandonment of copyright, which even in the current extremely pro-corporate US legislature is only difficult to prove.

By necessity an examination of current copyright law specifically as it relates to digital works is going to happen sooner rather than later, and on which side of the pro-business / pro-society fence it falls is basically going to be down to the political leanings of whoevers drafting it.
They're also unlikely to be global laws, even with heavy lobbying by the WTO.

Again, you linked to something that you provided no commentary or context for. The thing you linked *literally says*: "Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium, whether the copyright holder desires this protection or not. Before the Copyright Act of 1976 an artist could abandon or forfeit their copyright by neglecting to comply with the relevant formalities."

Nothing it says suggests that failing to sue someone for using your copyrights in a freely distributed fan project is tantamount to abandonment. *Nothing*.

If Nintendo didn't do this Capcom could up and decide to make a Metroid game next year and they couldn't do anything about it. Serious business.

That's basically what people are saying. Yes. And any studio can make Star Wars movies and release them normally. Anyone can use the Ghostbusters license for anything. Also, anyone can make Star Trek TV shows and air them on their networks with advertising. Because they don't threaten to sue everyone who makes unlicensed freely distributed fan projects that use the trademarks and copyrights. *Clearly*. It's obviously established law. Obviously Disney and Paramount and Sony's lawyers are all just buffoons when it comes to dealing with international jurisprudence. CLEARLY.
 

Kyzer

Banned
Jan 7, 2009
11,985
1
0
And this http://www.starwarsuncut.com/newhope

Both of those projects are free scene for scene remakes that take the original design and in many cases the dialogue.

The Robocop one lifts actual footage from the movie. Their copyrights are just fine.

My point is, that Nintendo had a choice. So we can criticize their choice, even if they legally had the right to make the decision they made. If Disney of all people can let Star Wars remakes and fan films etc etc use what is unquestionably their IP why isn't it fair to think Nintendo could do the same thing without losing their copyright and losing money etc etc.

There is precedent for letting this stuff slide that doesn't cause the company owning the IP any harm at all. That's all we need to think what Nintendo did here was the wrong move.

both of those are parodies...

I'm sick of all the ignorance and/or lies about "needing" to aggressively enforce copyright or you lose it, so I wrote a brief article here.

Most concerning is that Nintendo themselves are basically lying about the whole "weaken our ability to protect and preserve (our intellectual property)". As I've stated before in this thread, that only pertains to trademark not copyright, the DMCA notice they sent pertains to copyright not trademark, so their words do not back their actions one iota. They're lying to mislead people because, as this thread shows, most people don't know a god damn thing about copyright and just assume companies are always right.



Why do you think this is even an argument? Are games somehow immune to remixing? A remake of a game is extremely comparable to a remix of music or derivative artwork. Games are media just like music, art, movies. They are not magically immune to all forms of reason, fair use etc.

Remaking a product that already exists and is available for sale, and giving it away for free, is not the same thing as sampling a song without permission. And FYI, those remixes are technically also infringing on copyright. They are not fair use. At all.* The law IS reasoning. (unless the work has been transformed enough to be unrecognizable)

Youre saying Nintendo is lying but it has nothing to do with Nintendo. This isnt specific to Nintendo. We can also look at Monsanto with GMO cases, where courts ruled that Monsanto has a self set precedence of not suing or intending to sue farmers for cross contimination.

They are literally weakening their legal case if Nintendo, as an entity (not its employees personally), officially knows of its existence, and decides to let it slide. They have a legal division. As far as Im aware, Nintendo didnt even say theyre doing this. Its us, in this thread, who kind of know what we're talking about, who are positing that. They supposedly haven't even sent a C&D to the creator personally yet, he's just taking it down himself too because he knows what's up. (and has asked people to chill and stop hating on nintendo, and instead show support for 2d adventure platformers..)

You are mistaken, sorry. I think your emotions are determining your outlook.

I understand wishing things were different, supporting the guy, his work, loving metroid, all of that. Distributing a remake for free, no matter how much it was out of love, is not right. Hes lucky Nintendo ISNT some "evil corporation" because you really cant get much more cut and dry copyright infringement than this. If this isnt copyright infringement, what is?
 

Gestault

Member
Oct 18, 2012
14,362
3
0
I feel like anyone with even a dozen or so credit-hours in law classes is pulling their hair out right now.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
7,707
6,576
905
35
Austria
3DS is getting Metroid Federation Force, it's not like they abandoned the IP.

I don't buy that argument.
No one asked for a game like this. Nintendo has countless fans asking for remakes, new games of the Super Metroid formular or another Prime, but instead they offer us this? They are pracitcally ignoring the demand.
Sure, It may be called "Metroid", but its not Metroid.
 

TheBryanJZX90

Member
May 4, 2012
5,506
2
435
I feel like anyone with even a dozen or so credit-hours in law classes is pulling their hair out right now.

Yuuuuuuuuup. Especially at stuff like this:

Like... I literally linked specifically to current US legal intrepretations of abandonment of copyright, which even in the current extremely pro-corporate US legislature is only difficult to prove.

By necessity an examination of current copyright law specifically as it relates to digital works is going to happen sooner rather than later, and on which side of the pro-business / pro-society fence it falls is basically going to be down to the political leanings of whoevers drafting it.
They're also unlikely to be global laws, even with heavy lobbying by the WTO.
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Aug 23, 2006
11,624
0
0
Like... I literally linked specifically to current US legal intrepretations of abandonment of copyright, which even in the current extremely pro-corporate US legislature is only difficult to prove.

By necessity an examination of current copyright law specifically as it relates to digital works is going to happen sooner rather than later, and on which side of the pro-business / pro-society fence it falls is basically going to be down to the political leanings of whoevers drafting it.
They're also unlikely to be global laws, even with heavy lobbying by the WTO.
No, you linked specifically to a Wikipedia page (without any valid references) stating that copyrights must be abandoned intentionally, and that's what's hard to prove, that the owner did it intentionally. That pretty much says no, nothing you can do will accidentally make you lose your copyright, because it HAS to be intentional.

Also, since you've more than once made a big deal about how US interpretations aren't global (after people made you understand that you were wrong about US law), and that Nintendo isn't a US company, then what are the specific laws in Japan? If you are such a legal expert, then tell us how copyright abandonment works in Japan, and how this is why Nintendo MUST do this or lose everything.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
both of those are parodies...

They're remakes. If you haven't watched them, you really should. They're great. They aren't parodying the source at all. Also if you can track down the Raiders of the Lost Ark redux, you should watch that too. It's also copyright infringing but it's an amazing work all the same.

Remaking a product that already exists and is available for sale, and giving it away for free, is not the same thing as sampling a song without permission. And FYI, those remixes are technically also infringing on copyright. They are not fair use. At all. You're the one not applying reasoning and law.

Youre saying Nintendo is lying but it has nothing to do with Nintendo, your emotions are determining your outlook. This isnt specific to Nintendo. We can also look at Monsanto with GMO cases, where courts ruled that Monsanto has a self set precedence of not suing or intending to sue farmers for cross contimination.

They are literally weakening their legal case. As far as Im aware, Nintendo didnt even say theyre doing this. Its us, in this thread, who kind of know what we're talking about, who are positing that. They supposedly haven't even sent a C&D to the creator personally yet, he's just taking it down himself too because he knows what's up. (and has asked people to chill and stop hating on nintendo, and instead show support for 2d adventure platformers..)

You are mistaken, sorry.

I understand wishing things were different, supporting the guy, his work, loving metroid, all of that. Distributing a remake for free, no matter how much it was out of love, is not right. Hes lucky Nintendo ISNT a terrible company because you really cant get much more cut and dry copyright infringement than this. If this isnt copyright infringement, what is?

The question isn't whether or not the project infringes, it's whether or not failing to act on a copyright infringement exposes Nintendo to losing their copyrights.

Many other people do the same thing, and claim the same thing. Yet, many big copyright holders do not, and they haven't lost their copyrights. So whether Nintendo *believe* it to be true or not is besides the point. It isn't true. Again, unless I missed Disney losing the Star Wars IP, and Paramount losing the Star Trek IP and Sony losing the Ghostbusters IP sometime recently. In the US or Japan or Europe, or... you know.
 

Kyzer

Banned
Jan 7, 2009
11,985
1
0
They're remakes. If you haven't watched them, you really should. They're great. They aren't parodying the source at all. Also if you can track down the Raiders of the Lost Ark redux, you should watch that too. It's also copyright infringing but it's an amazing work all the same.

...what?

so the enjoyment of watching children carry a trash can dressed as R2D2 is not a parody, but...what? realistic budget constraint? thats not meant to be an entertaining parody of the original? lol are you kidding me
 

MrBadger

Member
Dec 5, 2013
9,124
1
0
I feel like anyone with even a dozen or so credit-hours in law classes is pulling their hair out right now.

 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
...what?

so the enjoyment of watching children carry a trash can dressed as R2D2 is not a parody, but...what? realistic budget constraint? thats not meant to be an entertaining parody of the original? lol are you kidding me

Shoestring budget remakes aren't parody. It's working with what you've got. It's ingenuity and creativity.

Here's a complete recreation of the final scene from Star Trek: TOS by the amazing team behind Star Trek Continues.

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

It is stuffed full of copyrighted material and trademarks owned by CBS Studios. Yet CBS allow Star Trek Continues to make further material using their characters and properties.

They haven't lost the copyright to Star Trek.

*Clearly* Nintendo had the option of turning a blind eye to this. They absolutely had a choice.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
No, you linked specifically to a Wikipedia page (without any valid references) stating that copyrights must be abandoned intentionally

That's not what that article says. At all.
Read it.
The legal concept of Abandonment is part of international jurisprudence, I'm not 'wrong' that US courts will tend to favour against it; they still understand the legal concept because it still exists.

Some jurisdictions do not recognise the concept of Orphan Works - that doesn't mean that therefore orphan works do not exist.
Some jurisdictions do not recognise the concept of Public Domain - that does not mean that public domain works do not exist.

If you are such a legal expert

I'm not a legal expert.
Nor is anyone else in this thread.

Particularly in international law - which is considerably more than just US and Japan.

Do you know who are the legal experts in this matter?
The lawyers who issued the DMCA.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
That's not what that article says. At all.
Read it.
The legal concept of Abandonment is part of international jurisprudence, I'm not 'wrong' that US courts will tend to favour against it; they still understand the legal concept because it still exists.

Some jurisdictions do not recognise the concept of Orphan Works - that doesn't mean that therefore orphan works do not exist.
Some jurisdictions do not recognise the concept of Public Domain - that does not mean that public domain works do not exist.



I'm not a legal expert.
Nor is anyone else in this thread.

Particularly in international law - which is considerably more than just US and Japan.

Do you know who are the legal experts in this matter?
The lawyers who issued the DMCA.

You keep ignoring my clearly stated point about other companies who do not issue DMCAs to freely distributed unlicensed fan projects. Or my requests for examples of companies who lost their trademarks and copyrights for failing to DMCA such projects.

Are Disney's lawyers not legal experts? Sony's? Paramount's?
 

Kyzer

Banned
Jan 7, 2009
11,985
1
0
At this point releasing a good metroid game is arguably a parody of what Nintendo wants to do with the series.

Yes I'm only joking, potential neogaffer who is about to take this too seriously .

LMAO

Shoestring budget remakes aren't parody. It's working with what you've got. It's ingenuity and creativity.

Here's a complete recreation of the final scene from Star Trek: TOS by the amazing team behind Star Trek Continues.

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

It is stuffed full of copyrighted material and trademarks owned by CBS Studios. Yet CBS allow Star Trek Continues to make further material using their characters and properties.

They haven't lost the copyright to Star Trek.

*Clearly* Nintendo had the option of turning a blind eye to this. They absolutely had a choice.

Good luck convincing your investors, legal team, and company executives that...

I really dont think you guys understand how hard it would be to just have this lax attitude of letting unofficial versions of your own products be distributed for free and make waves on major gaming sites. letting it slide cuz its cool. its not just you, this cool young guy, on neogaf, running nintendo, making decisions like, hey, let this one slide ;)

its not as simple as "be cool, nintendo"

...and all they did was send a cease and desists lol...and apparently the creator took it down of his own free will...but whatever. nobody cares about anything except justifying how bad they wish this game could continue

You keep ignoring my clearly stated point about other companies who do not issue DMCAs to freely distributed unlicensed fan projects. Or my requests for examples of companies who lost their trademarks and copyrights for failing to DMCA such projects.

Are Disney's lawyers not legal experts? Sony's? Paramount's?

Dude, context matters, and the fact that you can find a few examples of things that kind of back up some general notion you have of how cool it would be if they let this one go, it doesnt mean thats how everything ever should work or will or has. Youre talking about Sony and Disney FFS? Like they dont issue DMCAs??? YEAH RIGHT

Youre basically arguing that copyright infringement law is moot because PR and people would totally dig it.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
You keep ignoring my clearly stated point about other companies who do not issue DMCAs to freely distributed fan projects.

Because I'm not saying that a DMCA takedown was the only resolution possible, so it doesn't actually matter to what I am saying, which is that there is in fact a responsibility of an IP owner to protect that IP beyond just trademarks.
e:
As I said before - the way this was handled, as in a high profile release of clearly infringing work with headlines across multiple sites almost certainly forced the takedown, in a way that a fan site with a couple of hundred visitors a month probably wouldn't.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
Good luck convincing your investors, legal team, and company executives that...

I really dont think you guys understand how hard it would be to just have this lax attitude of letting unofficial versions of your own products be distributed for free and make waves on major gaming sites. letting it slide cuz its cool. its not just you, this cool young guy, on neogaf, running nintendo, making decisions like, hey, let this one slide ;)

its not as simple as "be cool, nintendo"

...and all they did was send a cease and desists lol...and apparently the creator took it down of his own free will...but whatever. nobody cares about anything except justifying how bad they wish this game could continue

Disney don't have armies of lawyers? They fucking *promote* fan made unofficial versions of their own products on the official Star Wars website. They give them *awards*. ANNUALLY.

Somehow this hasn't harmed the Star Wars brand *or* undermined all the copyrights and trademarks. Some of these videos have been watched by *millions* of people. And still... no DMCAs. No cease and desists.

Dude, context matters, and the fact that you can find a few examples of things that kind of back up some general notion you have of how cool it would be if they let this one go, it doesnt mean thats how everything ever should work or will or has. Youre talking about Sony and Disney FFS? Like they dont issue DMCAs??? YEAH RIGHT

Youre basically arguing that copyright infringement law is moot because PR and people would totally dig it.

I'm not arguing any such nonsense. I'm arguing that you don't have to go after freely distributed fan projects to protect your copyrights and trademarks. That's it. If you are saying some form of 'Nintendo have no choice' you are demonstrably wrong. If you are saying 'I think Nintendo should have gone after this because not doing so would have hurt the Metroid brand or their bottom line' then we can argue back and forth about that. But 'Nintendo had to do this'? Nope. They didn't. At all.

That Sony and Disney aggressively protect their copyrights and trademarks is kind of my whole fucking point. You can do that, without touching fan projects, no matter how high profile. As I've said, Disney actually *promote* fan projects. I'm sure they do it because they believe it's better for their bottom lines... but again that isn't the point here. The point here is that it's utter nonsense that Nintendo had to go after this project or they'd lose control of the Metroid IP.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
Because I'm not saying that a DMCA takedown was the only resolution possible, so it doesn't actually matter to what I am saying, which is that there is in fact a responsibility of an IP owner to protect that IP beyond just trademarks.
e:
As I said before - the way this was handled, as in a high profile release of clearly infringing work with headlines across multiple sites almost certainly forced the takedown, in a way that a fan site with a couple of hundred visitors a month probably wouldn't.

Millions have seen A New Hope: Uncut. It has been reported on by the New York Times and the LA Times. It won a primetime Emmy. High profile has nothing to do with it.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
7,707
6,576
905
35
Austria
AM2R Blog update: http://metroid2remake.blogspot.co.at

The future of AM2R

As you may know already, AM2R received DMCA notices in all the download hosts, and some parts of this blog. So far, no C&D letter was received.

This project began a long time ago, while I was actually trying to learn the programming side of Game Maker. Instead of moving on with something else, when I learned a better way of doing something, I reiterated and improved the old code.
Eventually, I learned to program in C#. Now I'm making a living as a professional programmer thanks to what I learned developing a fan game.
Technically speaking, I'm satisfied.

Artists started offering help. First with the main enemies, then with sprites, enemies, bosses.
The forums started to come alive with fans making feature suggestions, and always being positive and optimistic about the project. I added new contents, trying to be respectful about the established lore. Demo after demo people liked the game. Then the game was out, and for a brief time, players enjoyed the game they were expecting for a long time.
Artistically speaking, I'm satisfied.

What about the future?
I'll continue improving and fixing AM2R privately.

How will updates will be released, if at all?
I'm still working on it.

My priority now is to fix the invisible gravity suit bug that's hindering many player's experience. If you experience that bug, please visit the forum, and I'll eventually provide a fix.

Please, don't hate Nintendo for all of this. It's their legal obligation to protect their IP.
Instead of sending hate mail, get the original M2 from the eShop. Show them that 2D adventure platformers are still a thing people want.

You're invited to share your thoughts at the Forum, or follow AM2R on Twitter for the latest updates.

Thank you.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Aug 20, 2015
9,769
579
520
Millions have seen A New Hope: Uncut. It has been reported on by the New York Times and the LA Times. It won a primetime Emmy. High profile has nothing to do with it.

Okay, well, good luck with your class action against Nintendo for illegal misuse of the DMCA I guess, as they obviously have no legal basis, obligation or responsibilities for their actions.
 
Jul 16, 2014
1,020
0
0
soundcloud.com
...and all they did was send a cease and desists lol...and apparently the creator took it down of his own free will...but whatever. nobody cares about anything except justifying how bad they wish this game could continue

It's not our job to care about the circumstances that compels Nintendo to protect their copyright. Most of us are not investors or employees, or have any financial stake in the industry. Their business practices which have little effect on content is none of our business. At the end of the day, no matter what law they're following, or what precedent there is, or how important it is to their business, the only thing that effects us as gamers is that Nintendo is trying to suppress a well-made fan game. I don't see how anyone can say that doesn't suck with a straight face.
 

plagiarize

Banned
May 24, 2006
41,133
1
0
Okay, well, good luck with your class action against Nintendo for illegal misuse of the DMCA I guess, as they obviously have no legal basis, obligation or responsibilities for their actions.

They have every legal right to pursue this course of action. You'll notice I never said otherwise. Heck, you'll notice I said just that in my first post in this thread.

My point was and is, they don't have to follow this course of action. And I think it's the wrong move to make to shut down a labor of love from one of your fans. I personally think Nintendo would *benefit* from being more open to such things, as I'm sure Disney benefit from letting Star Wars fan films and games etc exist (hell encouraging them even).
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,621
2,197
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
They have every legal right to pursue this course of action. You'll notice I never said otherwise. Heck, you'll notice I said just that in my first post in this thread.

My point was and is, they don't have to follow this course of action. And I think it's the wrong move to make to shut down a labor of love from one of your fans. I personally think Nintendo would *benefit* from being more open to such things, as I'm sure Disney benefit from letting Star Wars fan films and games etc exist (hell encouraging them even).
Agreed 100%. Encouraging your fans builds a stronger relationship with them.

They had a choice in this.
 
Jul 28, 2014
13,406
25
415
I'm giving this a week, if he isn't contacted in a week then the only real problem Nintendo had was distribution.
 

Negaduck

Member
Jul 27, 2012
2,431
0
0
Full remake with that Nintendo touch for the NX while hiring the guy who made this would be super dope as an end to the story
 

LincolnTunnel

Member
Jun 22, 2012
547
0
0
Disney don't have armies of lawyers? They fucking *promote* fan made unofficial versions of their own products on the official Star Wars website. They give them *awards*. ANNUALLY.

Somehow this hasn't harmed the Star Wars brand *or* undermined all the copyrights and trademarks. Some of these videos have been watched by *millions* of people. And still... no DMCAs. No cease and desists.

This may be true for fan films, but they did just stop the release of the fan made Battlefront 3 remake that was going to be released on Steam for free. There's precedent right there.

I think there are a lot of people here still confused about protecting Copyright vs protecting a Trademark. Yes, it is true that a Copyright can not be lost by failing to protect it like a Trademark can. The purpose of an IP holder protecting a Copyright has nothing to do with abandonment. People or companies that hold copyrights on what they consider to be valuable IP have a duty to protect their copyright in order to maintain the value of the IP. The general idea is that if you let infringing materials to exist for a long enough time, or in great enough numbers, the Copyrighted material becomes devalued in the marketplace. This can directly affect damages awarded in a situation where a copyright infringement case goes to trial.