-
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.
The Pokémon Company Sues Fan for Copyright Infringement, Demands $4,000 in Damages
- Thread starter Enter the Dragon Punch
- Start date
- Status
Why do you think the number is important, exactly? This is a message. Plain and simple. That's the bigger issue to TPC.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
this is sad lol wtf
It's a pretty shitty message then. What about the countless knock-offs you can find on the app store alone? All this does is piss off people that actually care about the franchise.
Ken Levine never owned Bioshock nor would he care that an adult game would be the theme of an adult party.
A knock off is different from stealing and misusing copyrighted material for profit.
If they want to send a message, why don't they go after all the people selling shitty apps on the App store with stolen assets or extremely similar assets?
Because they aren't easy targets. But this fan is...
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
It's sad that rather talking about how rather bad the whole thing is, instead you got people using it as a platform to bash the franchise. Like if Naughty Dog did something irrelevant to their games you'd get people suddenly bashing Uncharted series.
I'd actually counter your post but Coltraine already did it for me. Reeks of stupidity and "heart and soul" shtick that people try to use when they try to rationalize their posts in attempt to look proper.
I'll just say that you sounded like someone who never played Pokemon and simply going off from what posters say, i.e. bandwagonners. You actually played the games? Well maybe next time you will construct proper, actual posts.
You manage to "see" those posts yet you never bothered to read why it wouldn't work just like that? Like did you miss the fact that they are given free range regardless of ownership that Nintendo can't even lock them in their products?
Typical day at Gaming I guess.
I'd actually counter your post but Coltraine already did it for me. Reeks of stupidity and "heart and soul" shtick that people try to use when they try to rationalize their posts in attempt to look proper.
I'll just say that you sounded like someone who never played Pokemon and simply going off from what posters say, i.e. bandwagonners. You actually played the games? Well maybe next time you will construct proper, actual posts.
You manage to "see" those posts yet you never bothered to read why it wouldn't work just like that? Like did you miss the fact that they are given free range regardless of ownership that Nintendo can't even lock them in their products?
Typical day at Gaming I guess.
AcademicSaucer
Member
yah....
The Pokemon company is totally going to sue a smal business in Middle of nowhere,Indonesia.
But it totally sued a small business owner running a passion-event for fans.
Difference is that one used official artwork, the other one doesn't.
If the guy used even fanart on the poster, it wouldn't be a problem. But slapping official artwork on the poster is what triggered this. He could've contacted them, submit the artwork and get approval if he really wanted to use it. At worst, he would've received a notification of denial or a ceast and desist.
But the bad placement of it, just shows this was just something quickly put together and never thought of the consequences. Hence the reason of the $4k. Is not as if they need the money, but just an arbitrary number as a penalty to let others know "ask us first".
People are quickly throwing and mentionjng games on iOS and Android, but who says they haven't sent notices already? The only reason we know of this is because the person that was sued posted about it after the party was cancelled and because it was a well known event. Makers of this iOS-clones won't go around talking about lawsuits and stuff, because everyone knows they'll become the butt of the joke (just look at the debacle around Meme Run -which ironically Nintendo allowed on tbeir eShop for some time).
Again, it sucks. But sadly, is the kind of thing that they're within their rights to do. The 10 pages of the lawsuit are centered mostly on the artwork and how TPC is the sole owner of said artwork along Pokémon Works. Considering it was the 5th year of this (and the many events that are thrown around), in a way shows that they don't care, as long as you don't use official artwork for promotions...and much less, charge money for said event. This were the 2 red flags around this.
It was because of the official artwork in the poster (Pikachu and Snivy) and the official artwork (same Pikachu) promoting it on Facebook.
He charging money (even if it wasn't for his own profit) was also a factor, but the main "thing" was the use of the official artwork. Like 3-4 pages of the 10 pages lawsuit were about it and even with pictures of the trading card, artwork of Pikachu and Snivy along explanation of the characters and how Pokémon Works and TPC are the sole owners of it.
Heaven forbid they get away with having parties for fans of the game they like.
The idea that they can use these copyrighted images on their clearly professionally designed posters and make untold riches off of Nintendo's hard work makes me SICK to my stomach.
So you are saying I can't make a poster or a Facebook invite about a party I am having at my house with official art work? Wtf or am I not reading this right?
This generation considered..Can you really blame them? They have been slowly losing touch with their fanbase and grasping at anything they could for control over every money making aspect of their IP's. This will start happening more. Catch enough people messing up and it could be a lucrative venture.
freeofgreed
Member
Da fuck is this nonsense? I know TPC is technically separate but it is still owned by Nintendo so I have no problem shifting the blame to them as well. Since they've also been known to have similar shit policies, it's not unreasonable to assume where they came from.
A Link to the Past
Banned
TPC made this decision, not Nintendo. It hasn't anything to do with Nintendo.
freeofgreed
Member
Yes it does. Just like if Naughty Dog were to do something similar, it would still lie with Sony as they are owned by them. Even if this wasn't decided by the heads of Nintendo themselves saying "Nintendo is at fault" isn't the stretch people are making it out to be when the company they own is the one making the lawsuit.
Mysterious
Banned
Should Ford take the blame if Mazda sued someone for hosting a Mazda race party?
Nintendo has invested in TPC so they own 33.33% shares of them.
But it's The Pokémon Company that covers everything when it comes to how the franchise is handled, not Nintendo. They're the reason why the Pokémon Amiibos are either not used in other games besides Smash or, in Super Mario Maker's case, why the use of said Amiibos are half-assed. Likewise, they're also the ones who handle the Pokémon mobile games independent of Nintendo (the only one that Nintendo is helping with is Pokémon GO). So yeah, Nintendo has nothing to do with this lawsuit.
Huh? If anything, TPC is pretty good at staying "in touch", considering how well they merchandise and are moving into mobile while still maintaining their handheld line.
e: This thread is hilarious, some are talking as if they seriously think that Pokemon is going to die over one legal dispute spun into clickbait.
Whatcha gonna do when TPC come for you
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Learn to read before presenting shit like that as fact.
Read what? Other shit that people posted here that aren't facts?
Reptars Revenge
Member
Somebody has to pay attorney fees.
Unless you go around advertising the party, charging a fee to pay (even if you don't profit) and such; and had it in a specific place and tied to another event (PAX).
Also keep in mind that Nintendo has been (and was?) at PAX. So, someone advertising a party after PAX with Pokémon artwork could give the impression that it was an official event. Many peoe are like that, just see the images, giveaways and $2 fee and go for it.
It sucks, but it's also a bitch that I had to go through as a graphic designer. I couldn't just choose any picture I wanted and put it in a poster even if it was for a small get together. We either had to ask for permissions, buy the pictures or just use free images.
And even still there are risks. One time, a coworker used an image a client provided claiming it was his and providing the original digital pictures, to use in a mini poster to advertise the launch of a book. A month or so later, the company was sued because "we" used the picture without permission. Turned out the person didn't took the pictures, but a photographer did. He provided digital files without watermarks at the request of the person, as long as he gave credit to him; whuch he didn't. Things were solved and clear labels printed with the name of the photographer were also done to put over (some of) said posters. But is the kind of things many just want to avoid.
Again it sucks, but is nothing extraordinary.
Heck, Sony sued the actor that played Kevin Butler, just because he appeared in another commercial playing Wii. So, he was basically sued for using his own face, since the commercial was from tires and not about gaming.
EDIT:
Or just look at why on sports games some players don't have the tattoos they actually have and how companies has been sued for using tattoos along the person that has it, without permissions.
It's a bit of a fact that TPC is a separate entity from Nintendo. No lie.
This was a really shitty move. He got a cease and desist, then proceeded to cease and desist.
They are either clueless, and don't know free marketing when they see it, or they are cynical, and decided to take a little bit of free marketing and some bad press for more free marketing.
They are either clueless, and don't know free marketing when they see it, or they are cynical, and decided to take a little bit of free marketing and some bad press for more free marketing.
Cool
Anyway Nintendo does have a say on this matter whether it be through TPC or otherwise.
Lol ok
TetraGenesis
Member
You hit the nail on the head with that analogy. Thank you.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It's kind of like how a nursery got sued by Disney for drawing its characters on the walls
"Within your right" and "scummy" are not mutually exclusive. If I may ask, what is the difference between this and TPC's actions? People took a big ol' dump on Disney for that. Maybe people just like Pokémon better so they're willing to make exceptions?
"Within your right" and "scummy" are not mutually exclusive. If I may ask, what is the difference between this and TPC's actions? People took a big ol' dump on Disney for that. Maybe people just like Pokémon better so they're willing to make exceptions?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I mean, I guess if you lack basic reading comprehension.
NoKisum
Member
I'm still trying to understand what "damages" mean in this scenario. If the party had proceeded, would there suddenly be a large amount of people who would opt out of buying the next main Pokémon game? Will people cancel their preorders of Super Mystery Dungeon because they had too good a time at a party?
"I'm wrong but I won't admit it"
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Gotta sue em' all.
The lawsuit itself is the damage. Just petty and dumb to do that.
The lawsuit itself is the damage. Just petty and dumb to do that.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Last I checked ND isn't given the reins to manage a franchise on their own. It's why you can't really compare any studio to them - because TPCi is its own entity that, even though Nintendo has a stake on its own - is given its own management and freedom because they handle a juggernaut franchise.
Why can't people see this?
You should actually read, no one is defending them, just explaining why it happened.
Most of the posts here shitposting on a series they stopped caring about or not knowing how company ownership works lol
As an Indonesian I take offense to this
unless it means Indonesians are exempt from The Pokemon Company's wrath.
- Status