Sheikah Posted January 23 Posted January 23 5 minutes ago, Dcubed said: Trademark infringement is much easier to prove than copyright infringement, and Nintendo have already (inavertently) set a legal precedent that allows for plagerism to take place with so called "spiritual successors", so long as assets are not stolen. Nintendo were able to DMCA take down the Pokemon Palworld mod almost immediately because it was a blatant and inarguable infringement on their existing trademarks, but that's not something that can be applied to Palworld proper because it does not explicitely feature the actual trademarked characters seen throughout the Pokemon series. Even though anyone with a working brain can see what Pokemon characters are being ripped off with Palworld, they're not actually the same characters and thus are technically legally distinct as far as trademark is concerned. Now. There is legal precedent that protects the infringement of Trade Dress with video game mechanics and design, specifically Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., but Palworld would be unlikely to fall under this form of infringement, because its gameplay mechanics do not steal from Pokemon; only its character designs and models. And as previously determined by Nintendo VS Enterbrain? Similarity in visual design is not enough to prove copyright infringement. If they want to make a legal case, they need to prove that actual Pokemon game assets were stolen or appropriated in such a way that the models seen in Palworld could not have been made in any other fashion. That's not an easy thing to prove, and also comes with potential serious commericial ramifications for them, as well as the entire Japanese video game industry, if they fail to win such a case. It's not impossible though. But it's something that will take time for Nintendo to dig into Palworld's assets and build a legal case against. To be honest the case is sounding weaker by the minute. Like you say, the only thing that really could be an issue is the 'mon models looking similar and nothing else (i.e. nothing relating to gameplay that could completely take down the game if they had directly copied). You can imagine even if Nintendo could prove some of the models were directly stolen/too similar, the devs would be able to sufficiently redesign any of the 'mon in question to overcome the issue.
Glen-i Posted January 23 Posted January 23 9 minutes ago, Sheikah said: You can imagine even if Nintendo could prove some of the models were directly stolen/too similar, the devs would be able to sufficiently redesign any of the 'mon in question to overcome the issue. It would not surprise me one bit if this happened at the slightest hint of a lawsuit coming their way. In fact, I bet they're trying to make replacement Pals as we speak. They've already got the money from customers, who cares about the potential fallout?
Dcubed Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Glen-i said: It would not surprise me one bit if this happened at the slightest hint of a lawsuit coming their way. In fact, I bet they're trying to make replacement Pals as we speak. They've already got the money from customers, who cares about the potential fallout? Doing so would be tantamount to admittence, and the courts would look unfavourably on it (See Emblem Saga Tear Ring Saga). There's no way they'd do something so stupid. If they were to attempt an oh shit! replacement strategy? The time for doing so would've been well before launch (really, before its first trailer). It's too late now to make that change without legal ramifications. Edited January 23 by Dcubed 1
Sheikah Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dcubed said: Doing so would be tantamount to admittence, and the courts would look unfavourably on it (See Emblem Saga Tear Ring Saga). There's no way they'd do something so stupid. If they were to attempt an oh shit! replacement strategy? The time for doing so would've been well before launch (really, before its first trailer). It's too late now to make that change without legal ramifications. They could just say they're alternate appearances or whatever they want, or simply not make it known that they're working on them. Or they could have even made the alternatives prior to launch for the ones most like Pokemon and have them ready as "prototypes" they already developed. Bear in mind they would only ever switch them in after the point of a successful legal challenge, so no legal ramifications here (in fact it would be to address a legal issue). Edited January 23 by Sheikah
Dcubed Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Sheikah said: They could just say they're alternate appearances or whatever they want, or simply not make it known that they're working on them. Or they could have even made the alternatives prior to launch for the ones most like Pokemon and have them ready as "prototypes" they already developed. Bear in mind they would only ever switch them in after the point of a successful legal challenge, so no legal ramifications here (in fact it would be to address a legal issue). Doesn't matter. The original version is already out there and TPC already have the files to comb through. The game would've already been sold with copyright infringing assets. If they find that the model data matches, Pocket Pair are fucked, and will only be extra fucked if they attempt to remove the models now; because then it becomes obvious that they removed it because they knew they'd get caught. We already have the legal precedent for this, and it's what won Nintendo the Unfair Competition claim in the Nintendo VS Enterbrain case. Edited January 23 by Dcubed 1
Ashley Posted January 23 Posted January 23 On 22/01/2024 at 1:01 PM, Julius said: I'm more surprised they haven't included a Mickey Mouse 'mon, seeing as the character copyright ended at the start of the year. Why not go all the way? Let me play this as dual-wielding Mickey! Speaking of, I hope we get an update on MOUSE soon... Not to be that guy but the character of Mickie is still copyright protected. The short Steamboat Willie is in public domain and you can use that version of Mickie in relation to that public domain story. No gloves, normal size shoes (at least for a cartoon mouse) and the eyes are different. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if the hat has to be included. Just a warning if you were planning to make anything 😋 But if you want to see Disney characters with guns check out their World War II propaganda output. (And my phone wouldn't let me delete that Pokémon video, obviously it's a fan of Mewtwo). As for this game it looks like American teen edgelord nonsense. The kind of thing I imagine Elon Musk financing after being refused entry into the Pokémon café because he was drunk. 1 3
Julius Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) The Dunk delivering the goods as always *sees the rest of the thread* Edited January 23 by Julius 2
WackerJr Posted January 24 Posted January 24 5 hours ago, Dcubed said: Doesn't matter. The original version is already out there and TPC already have the files to comb through. The game would've already been sold with copyright infringing assets. If they find that the model data matches, Pocket Pair are fucked, and will only be extra fucked if they attempt to remove the models now; because then it becomes obvious that they removed it because they knew they'd get caught. We already have the legal precedent for this, and it's what won Nintendo the Unfair Competition claim in the Nintendo VS Enterbrain case. That’s interesting to know. I was assuming they’d get destroyed by Nintendo’s lawyers taking them to town, but would then release all all-new version of the same game but with more original characters and succeed based on the hype that this original obtained. Whereas actually now this has given me hope that they’ll just get royally smacked and the game completely removed (at least as much as it can be now there are so many copies out in the wild).
Sheikah Posted January 24 Posted January 24 7 hours ago, WackerJr said: That’s interesting to know. I was assuming they’d get destroyed by Nintendo’s lawyers taking them to town, but would then release all all-new version of the same game but with more original characters and succeed based on the hype that this original obtained. Whereas actually now this has given me hope that they’ll just get royally smacked and the game completely removed (at least as much as it can be now there are so many copies out in the wild). Yeah this is basically what I was suggesting. @Dcubed I'm not suggesting that they would pre-emptively change anything now, I'm saying that if they were actually sued in some way purely on the basis of specific reuse of models then they could technically switch out the models later and the product wouldn't be infringing on anything. Assuming they still had money left after being sued...to be honest I don't really know how it would work, but you'd think they could release a product again if it doesn't infringe on anything, right?
bob Posted January 24 Posted January 24 21 hours ago, Glen-i said: Quite frankly, I think that's a disgusting viewpoint. Actual talent worked on the models that got stolen. You do realise Game Freak commission a lot of freelance artists to design Pokémon for them, right? It does look like Palworld has been plagiarised to buggery, and i expect GameFreak (Nintendo?) will sue them and win, but I don't see how it matters that the art/work that was stolen was done by freelance artists. They have already been paid and have no say on what happens to the work after that - that's what freelance is all about. They are not affected by this. 1
Ashley Posted January 24 Posted January 24 43 minutes ago, bob said: It does look like Palworld has been plagiarised to buggery, and i expect GameFreak (Nintendo?) will sue them and win, but I don't see how it matters that the art/work that was stolen was done by freelance artists. They have already been paid and have no say on what happens to the work after that - that's what freelance is all about. They are not affected by this. Part of me hopes that if they were instructed to just plagiarise someone will blow the whistle about it.
Sheikah Posted January 24 Posted January 24 It's interesting because what we see as a rip off might actually be sufficiently different to pass. I'm reminded of whenever I go into ALDI, there's tonnes of stuff that is very blatantly meant to look like known brand products, yet clearly they've made products differently enough to avoid legal issues. I'm thinking things like this:
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 24 Posted January 24 12 minutes ago, Sheikah said: It's interesting because what we see as a rip off might actually be sufficiently different to pass. I'm reminded of whenever I go into ALDI, there's tonnes of stuff that is very blatantly meant to look like known brand products, yet clearly they've made products differently enough to avoid legal issues. I'm thinking things like this: I wanted to find the moron in a hurry clip from QI, but I couldn't find it
bob Posted January 24 Posted January 24 13 minutes ago, EEVILMURRAY said: I wanted to find the moron in a hurry clip from QI, but I couldn't find it If only you had more time to look... 1
Glen-i Posted January 24 Posted January 24 1 hour ago, bob said: It does look like Palworld has been plagiarised to buggery, and i expect GameFreak (Nintendo?) will sue them and win, but I don't see how it matters that the art/work that was stolen was done by freelance artists. They have already been paid and have no say on what happens to the work after that - that's what freelance is all about. They are not affected by this. No, Pokémon Company winning a lawsuit wouldn't benefit freelance artists. It sucks, but that's not the problem I have. I'm more concerned on what happens if nothing is done. If a precedent is set that you can get away with stealing assets, then why waste money on hiring artists? Just do what Palworld did and get 1 person to tweak existing models. It's a lesser of two evils situation, and I'd rather have the outcome that doesn't speed up the process of cutting hard working people out of the game development process. Especially when Pocket Pair's CEO is very much publicly gung-ho about using AI for precisely that purpose. (That doesn't mean that Palworld has used AI tech like that, mind. That can't be proven at the moment) 1
Ashley Posted January 24 Posted January 24 5 hours ago, Sheikah said: It's interesting because what we see as a rip off might actually be sufficiently different to pass. I'm reminded of whenever I go into ALDI, there's tonnes of stuff that is very blatantly meant to look like known brand products, yet clearly they've made products differently enough to avoid legal issues. I'm thinking things like this: Apparently my role in this thread is to focus on the unimportant things but Oreo isn't even the original. It's a copy of something called Hydrax or something as equally unappealing.
Glen-i Posted January 24 Posted January 24 6 minutes ago, Ashley said: Apparently my role in this thread is to focus on the unimportant things but Oreo isn't even the original. It's a copy of something called Hydrax or something as equally unappealing. Oreos do suck, don't they? So flakey...
Ashley Posted January 24 Posted January 24 59 minutes ago, Glen-i said: Oreos do suck, don't they? So flakey... You're thinking of this 1
RedShell Posted January 24 Author Posted January 24 (edited) So the curiosity just got too much for me to handle and I resubscribed to Game Pass to check this out. Well, and Season 11 of Sea of Thieves has just arrived too. Initial impressions were absolutely atrocious, the game wouldn't even start at first! I was stuck in this weird "cannot connect error" loop. After trying several times I just gave up and played Sea of Thieves. After a while I tried again, this time I managed to get to the title screen and into a game, but I was greeted by a pretty badly optimised experience and some graphics settings that didn't function at all (DLSS greyed out ) even so, I was able to tweak other settings to get it running all right on my PC. Heads up for anyone that may be considering the game on PC via Game Pass though, it turns out the Game Pass build is less refined than the Steam version. Anyway, Palworld starts out super slow and boring (like every other one of these survival type games that I've briefly played before ) but once I'd harvested enough materials to build better tools and unlock more facilities it became a bit more streamlined and things got slightly more interesting. There doesn't seem to be all that much restriction regarding how you can build your base either, which is pretty cool but I've not had the chance to fully mess around with that aspect yet. As everyone and their dog is already well aware, this game draws a lot of inspiration takes a lot of content from Pokémon but I actually find myself recognising so many elements from other games as well. Zelda (Breath of the Wild specifically), Fortnite, Animal Crossing, Xenoblade, even Dark Souls... oh- and Goat Simulator, although I don't think they meant to copy that one. It's as if the developers are going for a Guinness World Record on how many plagiarised assets and stolen ideas can be crammed into a single game! It's too soon to properly evaluate, but Palworld appears to be a very unusual experience indeed. What I've seen so far is a glitchy and bizarre mixture of loads of other games (not just Pokémon!) that isn't particularly good, but at the same time there does seem to be something about it, and considering the gameplay mostly involves holding a button down to perform menial tasks and watching timers countdown, it is strangely addictive. I shall continue to investigate... BTW, here's an interesting vid with another angle on the copyright stuff: Edited January 24 by RedShell 2
Ashley Posted January 24 Posted January 24 24 minutes ago, RedShell said: So the curiosity just got too much for me to handle and I resubscribed to Game Pass to check this out. Well, and Season 11 of Sea of Thieves has just arrived too. One game about pirates and one game made by pirates. 6
Dcubed Posted January 25 Posted January 25 TPC have responded! https://corporate.pokemon.co.jp/media/news/detail/335.html Quote ＊Followed by English translation. お客様から、2024年1月に発売された他社ゲームに関して、ポケモンに類似しているというご意見と、弊社が許諾したものかどうかを確認するお問い合わせを多数いただいております。弊社は同ゲームに対して、ポケモンのいかなる利用も許諾しておりません。 なお、ポケモンに関する知的財産権の侵害行為に対しては、調査を行った上で、適切な対応を取っていく所存です。 弊社はこれからもポケモン１匹１匹の個性を引き出し、その世界を大切に守り育てながら、ポケモンで世界をつなぐための取り組みを行ってまいります。 株式会社ポケモン Inquiries Regarding Other Companies’ Games We have received many inquiries regarding another company’s game released in January 2024. We have not granted any permission for the use of Pokémon intellectual property or assets in that game. We intend to investigate and take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights related to the Pokémon. We will continue to cherish and nurture each and every Pokémon and its world, and work to bring the world together through Pokémon in the future. The Pokémon Company Looks like they're gonna go for it, but it's gonna take some time for them to dig into Palworld's files and make their case. 2 1
darksnowman Posted January 25 Posted January 25 Fine statement. Level heads have prevailed from within the company, at least. Will their fanbase follow this lead? Chance'd be a fine thing.
Recommended Posts