Informative post aimed towards those who think Nintendo will sue.

[Jenkem Junkie]

Nintendo only owns the publishing rights to Pokemon. If anybody's gonna sue, it's gonna be Creatures inc. They're the ones who own the actual trademark for the franchise. That's why Nintendo hasn't done anything. They legally can't.

[FlareFluffsune]

And neither can Creatures Inc because you cannot copyright ideas. Capturing monsters for use in battle or other is a concept that came out before Pokemon existed in games like Dragon Quest and Megami Tensei (1987)

[Kriya Takagi]

They don't just own publishing rights. All 3 companies makeup the Pokemon company. Nintendo, game freak, and creature inc. it's kinda a joint ownership deal

[Jenkem Junkie]

Originally posted by FlareFluffsune:

And neither can Creatures Inc because you cannot copyright ideas. Capturing monsters for use in battle or other is a concept that came out before Pokemon existed in games like Dragon Quest and Megami Tensei (1987)

I think people are less upset about the concept, and more miffed at the designs. You're not really convincing anybody, I hope you realize.

[FlareFluffsune]

Originally posted by Jenkem Junkie:

I think people are less upset about the concept, and more miffed at the designs. You're not really convincing anybody, I hope you realize.

Maybe Dragon Quest should sue Pokemon then given they pretty much lifted ALL their first generation Pokemon designs from them.

[Skivin]

Originally posted by Jenkem Junkie:

Originally posted by FlareFluffsune:

And neither can Creatures Inc because you cannot copyright ideas. Capturing monsters for use in battle or other is a concept that came out before Pokemon existed in games like Dragon Quest and Megami Tensei (1987)

I think people are less upset about the concept, and more miffed at the designs. You're not really convincing anybody, I hope you realize.

To sue somebody for stealing your designs, they have to actually steal your designs. Two wolf creatures that look similar because they're both wolves is not valid grounds for a lawsuit when both look entirely different. You can't sue someone for "stealing" the concept of a lizard that shoots water or a dragon that's on fire or any such nonsense. Every attempt to prove that models were somehow ripped from pokemon and edited has fallen flat, all the meshes and topography on the models are clearly different.

When people try to compare the two, the only remotely valid claims end up being ♥♥♥♥ like the galarian meowth and the big purple cat pal having the same face, and when you start complaining about ♥♥♥♥ like that, then we really ought to be encouraging Lewis Carroll's ghost and Studio Ghibli to sue both of them for "stealing" the concept of a toothy cat with yellow eyes from the Cheshire Cat and Totoro's Catbus.

[Jenkem Junkie]

Originally posted by Skivin:

Originally posted by Jenkem Junkie:

I think people are less upset about the concept, and more miffed at the designs. You're not really convincing anybody, I hope you realize.

To sue somebody for stealing your designs, they have to actually steal your designs. Two wolf creatures that look similar because they're both wolves is not valid grounds for a lawsuit when both have entirely different designs and meshes. You can't sue someone for "stealing" the concept of a lizard that shoots water or a dragon that's on fire or any such nonsense. Every attempt to prove that models were somehow ripped from pokemon and edited has fallen flat, all the meshes and topography on the models are clearly different.

I realize this, I think you might have misread the title of the thread if you're writing wordwalls attempting to change my views. This is a thread aimed more towards the people who are against the game, not you.

[HeritoBiBuba]

Originally posted by FlareFluffsune:

And neither can Creatures Inc because you cannot copyright ideas. Capturing monsters for use in battle or other is a concept that came out before Pokemon existed in games like Dragon Quest and Megami Tensei (1987)

Exactly. If it weren't for that, we would only have one car brand, one smartphone brand, and so on. Nobody wants that because a monopoly in such a case would be dreadful.

[Iratus Machina]

Again, repeat after me, "There's no such thing as an original concept."

[Skivin]

Originally posted by Jenkem Junkie:

Originally posted by Skivin:

To sue somebody for stealing your designs, they have to actually steal your designs. Two wolf creatures that look similar because they're both wolves is not valid grounds for a lawsuit when both have entirely different designs and meshes. You can't sue someone for "stealing" the concept of a lizard that shoots water or a dragon that's on fire or any such nonsense. Every attempt to prove that models were somehow ripped from pokemon and edited has fallen flat, all the meshes and topography on the models are clearly different.

I realize this, I think you might have misread the title of the thread if you're writing wordwalls attempting to change my views. This is a thread aimed more towards the people who are against the game, not you.

Yeah I kinda realized that after noticing you're also the OP. Oops!
I'll leave my massive post anyway because I'm sure this thread will attract naysayers.

[Ratch]

Originally posted by Jenkem Junkie:

I think people are less upset about the concept, and more miffed at the designs. You're not really convincing anybody, I hope you realize.

Ice Ice Baby, a more cut and dry case of plagiarism than Palworld, still generates royalties for Vanilla Ice. if Ice Ice Baby is legally distinct enough then damn near anything is. No company can copyright "cute animals" they can do so for certain designs but until one of you finds a 1:1 copy there's no plagiarism. This should be common sense.

[Zaltys]

Originally posted by Skivin:

To sue somebody for stealing your designs, they have to actually steal your designs. Two wolf creatures that look similar because they're both wolves is not valid grounds for a lawsuit when both look entirely different.

Yep. However... Two wolf creatures with the same fur pattern, spiky rock growths from their neck, identical tail, and almost identical dex entries? Hmmmmm.

This kind of thing is what they're talking about: https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot_2-ed1d.jpg

Wixen is an another obvious one. The moment I saw that in game, I went "Oh, they dared to put an actual pokemon into the game?" Only after looking it up, I noticed that there's some differences from the Braixen line.

[alan0n]

They can sue.

You can sue anyone for anything. Will they win? Probably not. Will they do it for the purpose of strategically depleting the studios funds through prolonged legal warfare? Possibly, but again... probably not.

That said, they CAN and MAY sue.

[Skivin]

Originally posted by Zaltys:

Originally posted by Skivin:

To sue somebody for stealing your designs, they have to actually steal your designs. Two wolf creatures that look similar because they're both wolves is not valid grounds for a lawsuit when both look entirely different.

Yep. However... Two wolf creatures with the same fur pattern, spiky rock growths from their neck, identical tail, and almost identical dex entries? Hmmmmm.

This kind of thing is what they're talking about: https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot_2-ed1d.jpg

Wixen is an another obvious one. The moment I saw that in game, I went "Oh, they dared to put an actual pokemon into the game?" Only after looking it up, I noticed that there's some differences from the Braixen line.

There is a difference between copying sentences directly from Wikipedia for your essay, and using Wikipedia and its cited sources for information to write your essay. One of those is plagiarism, the other is completing the assignment. Only the former gets you in trouble with your professor, and only actually copying designs from someone else's IP gets you in trouble with the law.

You seeing something and being simply reminded of something from the game that this one is inspired by and/or a parody of is not grounds for a lawsuit, and if they had any chance to nip this one in the bud Nintendo/Creatures would've done so already.

CAN they sue anyway? Yeah, sure, they could. Why wait until now, and why waste all that money on a case that they'll almost certainly lose? Why not sue them BEFORE they sell millions of copies and easily make enough money to sustain a drawn-out legal battle?
It's just nonsense from weird semi-casual Pokemon fans who are desperately defending their multi-billion dollar company out of tribalism.
Meanwhile, hardcore Pokemon fans are rejoicing that Game Freak finally has some competition in the creature collecting genre because they're disappointed in how lazy the series has gotten in some aspects, and they're hoping this will be the kick in the pants Pokemon needs to get its act together.

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by FlareFluffsune:

And neither can Creatures Inc because you cannot copyright ideas. Capturing monsters for use in battle or other is a concept that came out before Pokemon existed in games like Dragon Quest and Megami Tensei (1987)

Right but to be fair there are some Pals that look a lot like some Pokémon or a mixture of some Pokémon. I personally doubt that it's grounds for legal action but nonetheless there are some pretty major similarities between some Pals and some Pokémon.

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by Skivin:

CAN they sue anyway? Yeah, sure, they could. Why wait until now, and why waste all that money on a case that they'll almost certainly lose? Why not sue them BEFORE they sell millions of copies and easily make enough money to sustain a drawn-out legal battle?

As to a possible answer to that, it could in theory be some shrewd legal maneuvering. Why sue early and prematurely and get practically nothing out of it when they could get a much higher settlement if the company behind Palworld ends up selling millions of copies of the game?

I've seen some folks say that the developer has made many millions of dollars in the few days since Palworld has been released in early access. If I'm a corporate lawyer, I'd say wait and go after them when they're swimming in cash, not before when they're not really worth anywhere near as much.