Why Is Nintendo So Strict With Their IPs?

[AlphaZeroX96]

I know it's their ips and all, but why won't they allow their characters to show up in games on other consoles? Sony doesn't have a problem with Kratos being on Xbox and Microsoft is fine with Master Chief being on Playstation, so why is Nintendo so different about the concept?

[Jamebonds1]

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Publicado originalmente por Jamebonds1:

They still own the video games contents, even if you recorded yourself with their video games for the YouTube. That is their copyright policy.

Their policies are not law.

Actually, there is a law for copyright.

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Publicado originalmente por Jamebonds1:

They don't care. This is why I always see laptop and car logo removed in tv show and YouTube. So, to upload a video that copyright is not your, then you have to make sure that the copyright owner earned credit.

Those are two different things.

It is not.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Jamebonds1:

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Their policies are not law.

Actually, there is a law for copyright.

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Those are two different things.

It is not.

Logos and such fall under trademark law, not copyright. So yes, blocking logos of companies in movies is different than copyright strikes.

[Jamebonds1]

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Publicado originalmente por Jamebonds1:

Actually, there is a law for copyright.


It is not.

Logos and such fall under trademark law, not copyright. So yes, blocking logos of companies in movies is different than copyright strikes.

Actually, it is in copyright law. Please stop arguing with me.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Publicado originalmente por SaviorAssassin1996:

I know it's their ips and all, but why won't they allow their characters to show up in games on other consoles? Sony doesn't have a problem with Kratos being on Xbox and Microsoft is fine with Master Chief being on Playstation, so why is Nintendo so different about the concept?

After seeing how the internet has taken every single Nintendo person and twisted them in some dark R34 way more then any other video game company on earth, I somehow do not blame them

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Jamebonds1:

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

Logos and such fall under trademark law, not copyright. So yes, blocking logos of companies in movies is different than copyright strikes.

Actually, it is in copyright law. Please stop arguing with me.

Not according to the government.[www.uspto.gov] Logos are trademarks and have a whole different set of laws.

Publicado originalmente por USPTO:

Trademarks, patents, and copyrights are different types of intellectual property.


Trademark: What's legally protected?

A word, phrase, design, or a combination that identifies your goods or services, distinguishes them from the goods or services of others, and indicates the source of your goods or services.

[Bankai9212]

Publicado originalmente por Shizune:

Publicado originalmente por SaviorAssassin1996:

I know it's their ips and all, but why won't they allow their characters to show up in games on other consoles? Sony doesn't have a problem with Kratos being on Xbox and Microsoft is fine with Master Chief being on Playstation, so why is Nintendo so different about the concept?

After seeing how the internet has taken every single Nintendo person and twisted them in some dark R34 way more then any other video game company on earth, I somehow do not blame them

Any fact to that? Literally any source of media whether game, show, book has R34 plus that's OG material Nintendo can't take.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Publicado originalmente por Bankai9212:

Publicado originalmente por Shizune:

After seeing how the internet has taken every single Nintendo person and twisted them in some dark R34 way more then any other video game company on earth, I somehow do not blame them

Any fact to that? Literally any source of media whether game, show, book has R34 plus that's OG material Nintendo can't take.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOS2_s6roZQ&list=PLX1YlE6VI14ohIMxnFnEU04mR9cdSO4AF
While its not a very good source, the fact that Nux went and made a series on basically who knows R34 better and uses the context of pictures that exist per choosen word, you'd be a little horrified to learn how many different 'things' have art.....

Like, I didnt know the amount for DK and Mario together was actually high, nor that Sonic had more bi-art then freaking most things...

[Bankai9212]

People have preferences, so long as they keep that to themselves it doesn't effect me or anyone else.

[funewchie]

Publicado originalmente por Bankai9212:

People have preferences, so long as they keep that to themselves it doesn't effect me or anyone else.

Not to mention, it doesn't explain why ONLY Nintendo is doing that... while every other company doesn't seem to mind.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por funewchie:

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Actually most of it is to do with Japanese IP Law, as it's strakly different to the west. It's generally REALLY harsh in certain ways.

Then could someone kindly explain why Sega, Capcom, Konami, Square and so on aren't vicious scum attacking fans and content creators like Nintendo does?

Despite also being Japanese companies, under the same laws, and therefore allegedly required to do the same, if not worse?

Because they have better worldwide support and aren't so stuck in the past.

It's not rocket science.

The point is this IS a traiditonally old Japanese way of doing things and there's clear evidence of it, should you care to look.

But all the companies you mentioned had far more independent offices outside Japan, so they learned how to do business elsewhere.

For example, in Japan it's been an ongoing battle whether you can sell USED GAMES. Back in the 1980s or 1990s on court decided you could, while another said you couldn't (Kyoto and Tokyo can't remember which way round it was). It has raged for years, so this should tell you a fair amount of why copyright questions there are a bit weirder.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por Plaid:

Nintendo will do bad if given the opportunity (like most companies, I'm sure). I remember they essentially bought out the industry in the 80's, leaving but a sliver of competition in the U.S.
Very dishonorable way of doing business.

That's not what happened at all.

What happened was there was a crash in the US during the early 1980s. Done as a condequence of the Activision court case where they were fighting to create their own software for the Atari VCS. When they won, it opened the floodgates to shovelware and things came to a head, with the notirous example of the buried cartridges at Los Alamos.

What Nintendo ACTUALLY did was develop a console. They realised they were pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ as the timing meant they would be trying to sell to a load of stores that wouldn't touch video games anymore. So they changed the desing to an "Entertainment System", changed the Famicom design to be like a VHS machine, bunged in a useless robot, promised a keyboard and sold it as that to get their foot in the door.

People snapped it up in the US.

This is WELL documented, especially in books like "The Ultimate Guide to the History of Video Games" by Steven L Kent.

Or by people like myself who was around at the time.

What they didn\t do was buy up a load of companies. Maybe you're getting it twisted about their licencing.

[Plaid]

arguing over semantics. Look, it's the specifics of those licensing agreements that make the difference.

[Jamebonds1]

Publicado originalmente por Plaid:

arguing over semantics. Look, it's the specifics of those licensing agreements that make the difference.

That being said, to uploading a video of you and video games, then you have to make sure Nintendo get credit. Unless otherwise, agreement between YouTuber and Nintendo is various.

[Thermal Lance]

Because that is all they have.

[funewchie]

Publicado originalmente por Thermal Lance:

Because that is all they have. :bhaal:

Exactly.

Nintendo set out terms for content creators, which they follow... and then Nintendo attacks them anyways.
Mostly cause they want that ad revenue. Free money and all that.

It's funny, people call companies like Capcom or Sega anti-consumer... but refuse to call the company that's actually attacking consumers that.
Rather hypocritical of them.