Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
judge, not jury. Japan does not use jury in civil trials.
And here's the most important reason as to why Nintendo won't sue.
They do not have design patents on any pokemons outside of specific onces (Charizard, Eevee, Pikachu, etc.) They have patents on a lot of pokemon names, but do not have design patents or copyrights on them.
Let's take Lucario for example.
Lucario has a copyright on:
HGSS Unleashed: Lucario (The trading card.) - Pokemon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew - Supreme Victors: Lucario - PB&W8 - Lucario (77/135) - PB&W8 - Lucario (78/135) - PB&W4 - Lucario (64/99) - PBW11 - Lucario (80/113) - PXY3 - M Lucario-EX (55/111) - PXY3 - M Lucario-EX (55/111) - PXY3 - Lucario-EX (107/111) - PXY3 - M Lucario-EX (113/111) HGSS Call of Legends - Lucario (14/95)
In the Japanese patent office, same deal. He has patents on his name, and his cards. He does not have an image design patent. This is Lucario; one of their big boy pokemons. Does not have an image patent or an image copyright.
Serperior, has a copyright on his cards and a patent on his name. Does not have a patent or a copyright on his design.
Primarina has a patent on his name, does not have a copyright on any part of it.
Gastly? No trademarks. No patents on account of him being a very generic design and name.
This is all public information someone can look up at the US Copyright Office and the JP Patent Office. This is why Nintendo and Gamefreaks won't sue. It's because the designs that people feel are egregious enough to warrant lawsuits? Nintendo never filed an image design patent, trademark, or copyright on.
The World’s Most Popular Video Game Is a Huge Mistake, From ripping off Pokémon to forcing players into the worst possible scenarios, no game is more cursed than Palworld.
BY LUKE WINKIE
JAN 31, 20245:09 PM
With the terms undisclosed, its hard to know what happened, but I imagine Marvel paid the city hero guys' legal fees given half of their case was immediately dismissed before it even reached trial. A notable one was how the Captain America lookalike, which was claimed to be copyright infringement, was directly dismissed.
Moral of the story here, read the articles you link or you'll look like a huge idiot.
Plus, as a fellow observed... If Nintendo sues and loses, they've just provided every competitor a template for how to derive a work off their concept and avoid a lawsuit.
Its pretty moot here though, the similar designs don't violate said base level of copyright.
Strictly speaking, I don't think patents play in here at all. Trademarks are the question, and as the guy says, Nintendo has relatively few trademarks when it comes to the Pokemon themselves.
Copyright is as you say, even in Japan: Create a work of art, you automatically reserve the right to reproduce it. However, in order to be an infringement of copyright, a design has to be close enough that a judge would look at them side by side and feel like posting the "they're the same picture" meme.
There isn't a single Pal in Palworld that stacks up to this standard.
People observe that, say, Galarian Meowth's face is very similar to that of a certain cat in Palworld. But the copyright involves reproducing Meowth, not Meowth's face. Unless Galarian Meowth's face is a trademark of Nintendo or the Pokemon Company, there's no case.
lol
What you said in that horrendous response was the most nonsensical thing I've seen in regards to the Palworld copyright discussion. It legitimately sounds like you were drunk when you typed that. I can't even try to be respectful about it, it was something else on the level of crazy.
I'll try to tackle what can only be described as insane ramblings, starting with intent. Intending to violate copyright doesn't matter too much. If you intent to violate copyright law but create something that is not copyright infringing, you did not violate copyright law. However, if you could prove someone was trying to copy you (and I mean copy, not make something similar), that is a huge factor in a copyright lawsuit.
A hypothetical "it's 90% the same as another art" doesn't really work or make sense. You cannot mathematically evaluate how much something is the same like that in cases of copyright/creative works. For example, take a Pikachu and a Green Pikachu. Only difference is the color. How much percent different is that? Is it like 1% different because only 1 thing was changed? Or is 95% different because the entire body of Pikachu is now a different color, so a majority of the creature is now different? Instead what you should look at is how different Green Pikcahu is just Pikachu, but Green. It has 1 whole difference, and it's still trying to be Pikachu but now is green. Another way I would put it, Copyright is well defined in the sense that you can easily figure out that the Pals in Palworld don't violate it or cross the copyright line, but is not defined enough to say where exactly the line is. Still, if I had to personally estimate it, a design would need to be probably not even 5% different for it to not violate copyright, but it's a meaningless number. Far more effective to look at say Asteroids vs Meteors, where it was found that Meteors shared 22 similarities with Asteroids and yet was still found to be a distinct game that is not violating copyright.
The AI jar is a whole 'nother can of worms. First off, this game didn't use AI. Not only was it being actively worked on far before AI got really good enough to use more competently, but AI still isn't at a level where you could rely on it to be legally distinct enough, which these designs are, without a doubt. And even if both of those weren't true, there's no evidence to prove they used AI, making it insane to bring up.
But let's say they did use AI. Well, there's a few things to consider.
1. Did the AI modify the art? or just refer to it? Modifying means they are using copyright protected art, so it's not good. But if it just learnt from it and made something similar, then it is fine, or at least should be fine. AI stuff is really new.
2. Can you prove the AI used or modify said fanarts? Probably not.
3. Was the fan art in question used fan art of existing Pokemon designs? Or just Fakemon? Because if it's not existing Pokemon designs, then Nintendo cannot sue Palworld over it, because they have no ownership of the work whatsoever.
Of course, something I want to highlight, you cannot "legally violate copyright", that's an oxymoron. You really just should have admitted you were wrong, people would have more respect for you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dragonquest/comments/1ac8p6f/showing_someone_dragon_warrior_and_they_say_the/
look at the side by side of Dragon Quest enemies & Pokemon. If Nintendo won vs Palworld Square Enix would use that as proof for Nintendo copying Dragon Quest.
If no one called them out, they would have continued to allow people to buy it.