Nintendo Sues "Daily Radar" Owners For Pokemon Shots 111
Bulldawg2000 writes: "Well, it seems Nintendo is suing Imagine Media (Dailyradar's parent company) for using screenshots and names of their most popular video games, specifically Pokemon. Apparently, Imagine Media published a 100% unofficial strategy guide for Pokemon Gold and Silver and Nintendo did like the competition so they are suing. It saddens me to see this as I've been a loyal Nintendo fan and I don't want to see this happen. The article doesn't say why Nintendo is suing, but it most likely falls under UCITA, EULAs, etc.... Imagine Media thinks it has 'fair use' to publish screenshots, but what is IP and what is 'fair use,' I guess we'll see when they go to court."
"Fair use" gets thrown around too often. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
Mind you, this is a commercial venture (the unofficial guides), so fair uses are limited because of this - there is obvious competition between Nintendo's official guide and Imagine's Unofficial. But this has been going on for years, and if this is only the first time Nintendo has thought about it, they might have a tougher time (Remember: you have to fight copyrights at all times, lest you lose them; you can let patents and trademarks go undefended and fight them at the very end without problems from the legal side).
But if Nintendo wins here, it's a stone's throw away from taking action against numerous fan-based game guides (include one that I wrote for Marathon). Most of these are NOT commercial ventures, so fair use is a bit stronger, but still, this situation is not a good one to think about.
Finally, if Imagine is successful at this, I would love to see this used as a precident to attack how most major sporting leagues can effectively block unofficial reporting of games (eg "any unofficial use of this telecast is strictly prohibited"). By their conditions, you're not even allowed to talk about the big play that won the game at the water cooler, though we know that fair use steps it. But say I've got a mailing list for fans of a team, and after each game I write a summary of the game (using the publicly broadcasted information as opposed to the next day's sports page), and then distribute and archive it to that list freely, I should not have to worry about retailation, because all I'm doing is writing in my own words how I percieved the game -- just like writing a game guide is your perception of the game. A few more legal jumps would mean that silly restrictions on Internet reporting at the Olypics would be removed, and the dominos topple from there.
Re:Fair Use (Score:1)
Off the net?
Imagine is being sued over a printed strategy guide - direct competition for Nintendo's product, and using thier trademarks and copyrights (without permission) to do it.
Imagine needs to bitchslap whichever of thier laywer drones that gave that project the green light.
--
Re:Title's Misleading... Plus the Complaint Filing (Score:2)
Innovative?
It's a direct ripoff of the Final Fantasy Legend series.
--
Re:Imagine Media (Score:1)
Vermifax
They aren't trying to prevent strategy guide. (Score:1)
Vermifax
Of course they aren't getting sued over reviews... (Score:1)
Vermifax
Re:Don't post that shit here (Score:1)
There are actually three -- Imagine Media's, Nintendo's, and the truth. Which one will prevail?
Doubt it's the truth.
But you make a good point. I wish Nintendo the best of luck in dealing with the hordes of hate mail that will no doubtedly flow toward them. Maybe we should take up a hipwader fund?
Re:Screenshots (Score:1)
No, patents and copyrights don't need to be defended. Trademarks do.
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
How many slightly bent politicans does it take to screw up copyright?
In March of this year it becomes illegal, in Australia, to install a mod-chip in your Playstation(2). Thankfully the ACCC [accc.gov.au] is looking into region coding as anti-competitive behaviour. They've become a very high-profile (and effective) consumer watchdog since the introduction of GST...
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
be considered shall include". It is NOT a four-part test in which you must meet all criteria to be considered "Fair Use".
I believe that it is generally accepted (by case law, not by the RIAA) that you can tape a complete CD and give it to a friend, as long as no payment is involved. This violates all but the first rule, yet courts have held it as fair use. See the Sony case, for example, that allows anyone to video tape anything on TV and replay it, as long as they are not doing so commercially.
As far as the scope, that is debatable. The law doesn't say "100 screenshots is too much", or even "50%" or any other objective criteria. It's reasonable that their lawyer would like to let a jury decide.
Finally, if they only have to pass a single criteria, I think the fact that they can't possibly have a negative impact on Nintendo sales should be their Fair Use Ace in the Hole.
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
The search for a coherent, predictable interpretation applicable to all cases remains elusive. This is so particularly because any common law interpretation proceeds on a case-by-case basis.
Although the Kinkos case is NOTHING like the current case, the court did provide valuable insight relevant here:
While financial gain "will not preclude [the] use from being a fair use," New York Times Co. v. Roxbury Data Interface, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 217, 221 (D.N.J. 1977), consideration of the commercial use is an important one.
So I stand by my claim that it remains arguable about whether or not this is fair use. Simply saying "they did it for a profit", while not helpful to the defendant, is not enough to shut down a fair use defense.
Re:Fair Use (Score:3)
How do you figure this aint it?
- ...
- (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
A screenshot is a pretty minimal amount of the whole work. Perhaps they published screenshots of every possible scenario throughout the game.It may be that Nintendo also publishes a "Strategy Guide" and they want people to buy that. A third party Guide could have a negative impact on their guide. Even then, they would have to show that the third party Guide was violating the Copyright of the Official Guide, and not the screenshots of the game. I can't write a review of a movie and then claim that other reviews violate my copyright.
Re:Screenshots (Score:1)
Actually, it's trademarks that you lose if you don't police them. Copyrights and patents, on the other hand, do not have to be continuously litigated to remain valid.
Just another item for the real /. FAQ.
I actually agree with Nintendo...to a point (Score:1)
IANAL, these are just my opinions on what is ethically correct based on what I know of the law and of the situation.
Where Nintendo's right:
But Imagine has some strong points to:
Nintendo should have limited the claim to the infringing trademark usage as to the logo and the copyright infrigement to the copied art. Imagine should understand that by publishing the "100% Unofficial" guide to a game, they can't use the official logo and copy the art.
Of course, there won't be any settlement that would be drawn on those lines, and no jury will find so fine a distinction, so we're bound to get a decision that totally wipes any sensiblity to the copyright laws and fair use provisions. Then Sonny Bono will rise from the dead to place everything from the Torah on under copyright and strengthen copyright so that you can't even read something that under copyright.
-sk
Bulldawg2000 needs to read more before he submits (Score:1)
Rather, Nintendo is suing on some pretty reasonable grounds. Imagine copied art from Nintendo's own magazine, guides, and press kits to illustrate their own guide. And Imagine is using the Pokemon logo without licensing it. Just think if Imagine published the "100% Unofficial Guide to Slashdot" and plastered the Slashdot logo all over the place.
Now granted, I think Nintendo overreaches with their claims regarding screenshots, but on the whole, I think they've got a decent case to make against Imagine.
-sk
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
Nintendo is saying that they copied artwork, not just screen shots. Each individual peice of art probably has it's own copyright.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Nintendo makes its own stratagy guides, and trys to sell them. If people can already get all the info they need off the 'net. then they don't need to buy nintendo's.
I'm not saying that what nintendo is doing is morraly right, but it may be legaly right.
Re:Has suing over IP become a cliche? (Score:1)
---
Re:Legalities aside, punishing Nintendo... (Score:2)
There are already several CD-ROMs available on ebay with Windows N64 emulators and games on them. Not sure about anything mature for Linux. None of the CDs for sale are legal, of course.
Thing is - Nintendo is hurt the least by copying - game developers are hurt the most. Developers actually pay in advance for cartridge production. N64 has made its money no matter what, unless they miss out on the developer purchasing an additional run of games, which would take a pretty substantial copying campaign.
The only way the above method of hurting Nintendo is valid is if these are actual Nintendo-branded games that are being shared.
Re:Uh...? (Score:1)
Re:"Fair use" gets thrown around too often. (Score:2)
Not so. People who write reviews for pay have no less (and no more) fair use right to quote snippets for commentary purposes as people who write reviews free of charge.
/.
Lawyermon: Gotta Sue 'Em All! (Score:1)
You're the president of a company, and you run arround collecting different lawyers to do battle against other companies'/individuals' lawyers!
This game could be a HUGE hit!
(anyone wishing to further develop this idea, just add onto the thread)
Has suing over IP become a cliche? (Score:2)
Now with the rant out of the way, do screen shots fall under the same laws as movie screenshots? If so then I can see Nitendo having a small issue over it but in the long run wouldn't it be more free advertisment?
Corporate Control of the Media (Score:2)
Corporations use copyrights, trademarks, and patents to control those outside of their own corporate umbrella. If Nintendo is able to claim copyright protection over screenshots, imagine the kind of censorship (the most powerful kind, more insidious than direct censorship: self-censorship) control Nintendo will have over review sites and magazines. In theory, consumers rely on these sites for independent information whether it is strategy guides or product reviews. Any strategy guide not produced by Nintendo is a competitor for their own line of licensed and approved strategy guides. These independent companies need to be able to criticise and contradict the companies they cover, without fear of being sued for copyright and other infringements. Unfortunately, Nintendo has the resources of a multinationals corporation behind it, and can therefore dictate the terms of industry coverage to the press.
We must resist corporate control.
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
Copyrights and patents may be slectively enforced at any time by their holders. Trademarks must always be enforced, or they lose their value.
Dailyradar double standard? (Score:1)
When you click on it, it goes to some site called icopyright.com, and it lists a table of fees you can pay to use their material.
Email Send Out
Receipients $
1-20 $5.00
21-100 $25.00
101-500 $50.00
501-1000 $75.00
1001-5000 $150.00
Website reprint
# of month(s) Fees
1-3 $600.00
4-6 $1000.00
7-12 $1800.00
etc etc. Its just weird that Dailyradar can use Nintendo's material for free, but they expect you to pay to use theirs.
---
http://www.coins2cash.com [coins2cash.com] - get paid to surf, receive email, and set your homepage, linux users welcome.
Nintendo may win this one. (Score:3)
The place where dailyradar runs into problems is in the fact that they used trade marked images to promote the guide. The credible claim that nintendo has is found on pages six and seven of the complaint. DR used a cover that was deceptivly similar to the one of the nintendo book. They used a similar logo to the nintendo book adding the words "100% Unoficial" in small type. They also claim trademark protection on character images. This is the same protection that doesnt allow me to start printing Bart Simpson shirts. Nintendo may very well win on this point. Daily Radar was using images of character's owned by Nintendo to market it's own product.
Re:Too many lawyers? (Score:2)
Europe has left most of the feudal ways, the US is reinstating them with corporations as the new nobles. companies give money to the two political parties that have a chance of getting a president. That's not necessarily because they like the views of that party, but it's because they want to buy influence or at least a willing ear.
//rdj
Re:Nintendo got a new lawyer (Score:1)
While I feel that the right to use screenshots would have likely been upheld over Nintendo's objections, it seems that the use of copyrighted artwork goes beyond fair use. It is clearly possible to publish an unofficial strategy guide, discussing the game in depth, without including trading card images. I could quote Harry Potter in a review of the books, but I don't think I should be allowed to cut and paste pictures of the characters. The copyrighted material used in the unofficial strategy guide goes beyond what is necessary to discuss the game, and so has no right to be protected.
Re:Truly amazing (Score:2)
Daily Radar's rant (it's generous to refer to it as an article) is whiny and juvinile. Daily Radar has never been sued for any news story or feature on its website, but they are taking their ball and going home. If they had published the guide on the website, and not charged for it, I doubt there would be any trouble.
Re:Someone's Smoking Crack (Score:1)
The submitter could've checked.
Re:Corporate Control of the Media (Score:1)
It's not just screenshots. (Score:2)
Now, think of it this way: Nintendo lisences other publishing companies to make strategy guides. These companies in turn pay a sum to be able to use Nintendo's intellectual property. This other company does not.
Where does that leave Nintendo? This company is using their IP to cut into their profits.
They have a legitamite case. I don't think I want them to win, but it is a legitamite case. Fair use is most often applicable to reviews and parodies, not making a product about the copyrighted material in question.
If you want to read the actual suit, it's here [dailyradar.com] in gif format.
Oh, and this is a straight-forward copyright/trademark case, no EULAs involved at all. Console games don't have EULAs.
hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Don't post that shit here (Score:1)
How can you expect to post an address like that to Slashdot without causing flame to be sent? If you really believe that your post did not result in flame, you are more of an idiot than I thought. You knew perfectly well when you posted that address that you were encouraging flame.
And my other point which you failed to address: If anyone here is qualified to be sending their comments to Nintendo, they don't need you to help them get the address. You don't know enough about this case to be telling Nintendo that they are wrong. I don't know enough about this case to be telling them that they are right (though that is my opinion, based on what I have heard).
I have no tollerance for those who willfully encourage flame.
------
Re:Consumer's Rights? (Score:1)
My right to wave my hand around wildly ends at your face.
Your right to post contact info for Nintendo executives ends at Slashdot.
------
Don't post that shit here (Score:5)
I strongly doubt that anyone here (myself included) has anywhere near enough knowledge about what is going on to be mailing Nintendo about it. At least, if anyone does know enough, they know that there are two sides to the issue. Let me re-state that...
ATTENTION ALL FLAMERS, ZEALOTS, AND ANYONE WHO IS PLANNING TO MAIL NINTENDO: You DO NOT know enough about this issue to be stating your opinion on it. There are TWO SIDES to every issue. NOT ALL LAWSUITS ARE BAD. DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS. If you flame Nintendo for this, not only are you a moron, but you have not helped the issue. You will only be hurting things.
As for you, Alien54, you have no idea how much hardship you have caused to Mr. Kaplan, who probably has nothing to do with this lawsuit? Worse yet is all the people who answer e-mail at Nintendo, who will now have to read mindless hate mail (yes, HATE mail) directed at them when they haven't done anything wrong. Are you proud of this achievement? Do you like it when people suffer? Do you know jack shit about this case, who is involved, what laws were broken, etc.? If the answer were really so obvious, the judge would throw out the case!
And moderators -- next time someone posts contact info for the sole purpose of getting someone flamed, mod them down as "stupid". Oh, wait, there is no "stupid"... Well, take your pick then, but do NOT mod this shit up.
If there is anything I truely hate in this world, it's zealots and flamers. People who believe that there is one right answer in an issue like this, and violently support that side. The ironic thing is that the ones on Slashdot think that they are smart just because they are computer geeks.
------
Re:Nintendo sues everyone... (Score:1)
"We aren't a monopoly! See, we're offering people discounts on our monopolized games!" Think Bill Gates will try this tactic? :)
-Legion
Do some research (Score:1)
Some people argue that Nintendo is just trying to supress smaller companies in order to make more money off of Pokemon products; that might be the case, but it's really a separate issue.
This will probably get modded way down as redundant, but it has to be said again.
-Legion
First nintendo now Unisys (Score:1)
Re:Irony (Score:1)
you mean... konami... and capcom? 3rd parties don't usually publish games that were developed by someone else. companies like infogrames, activision, microsoft, etc are publishers. they publish games that other folks make.
Someone's Smoking Crack (Score:3)
The infringement is the artwork. (Score:1)
The brief says that there are other strategy guides that Nintendo has licensed, therefore giving their publishers rights to use the copyrighted images. Imagine doesn't have this.
If I understand this right, if Imagine's strategy guide contained a bunch of screenshots and words, but not one cartoon-drawing of Ash or Pikachu or any other Pokemon, then Imagine would be within their rights. Or at least closer to being within their rights. Of course, all the page background images and filler images would have to abstract and pretty much un-Pokemon-related. Like
If someone sold a unofficial guide to a Disney game, you would expect them to pay Disney for the use of images of Mickey Mouse that appear on the cover, right?
I'm pretty much on Nintendo's side with this one. Daily Radar puts a pretty good spin on it, though.
-Grant aka JimTheta
---
This is interesting... (Score:1)
Nintendo sues everyone... (Score:1)
I say we boycott! (Score:1)
I already sent my email off.
Re:hmmm (Score:1)
And in other news, the may be the straw the makes me decide to stop purchasing Nintendo systems after 15+ years.
Isn't this like movie screenshots? (Score:3)
Re:Imagine all the problems, I wonder if you can.. (Score:1)
-Brian
Lotta misunderstanding... (Score:1)
You don't need the rights to make a guide, or to take screenshots. That falls within fair use. But that has nothing to do with the complaints filed by Nintendo. And Nintendo is well within the law with its complaints.
Lastly, this will not kill Pokemon. It will just kill a Pokemon guide that costs $2.00 less than the Officially Licensed Pokemon guide.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
- W
Re:Too many lawyers? (Score:1)
mmft.
Ho ho ho ho... ha ha ha ha ha ha
...read...no pictures...
Booha ha ha ha
That's fucking hillarious....
Man, if I had my Mod Points....
Slashdotters... this story is way skewed. (Score:1)
---Don't take pictures (screen-shots) of/from my stuff and sell it as your stuff.
---Don't make your stuff look like my stuff and try to legitimize it with a lame 100% Unauthorized disclaimer.
---Nintendo is a hard ass on this stuff; always has been. However, the quality of their products has always been good (which is not to say they make the best games (although Super Mario 3 & 4 did rock)) probably due to this diligence.
---anylou, that's how I feel.
Imagine all the problems, I wonder if you can... (Score:1)
Anyway...
After reading the legal papers, I would have to say the real problem Imagine is facing is not copyright infringment, but rather trademark infringement.
Nintendo does not have much of a case for copyright infringment (though I haven't seen the guide). In the past it has been very hard for game companies to sue guide publishers for using screenshots. This generally falls under fair use, much like Ebert showing clips of the movie he's reviewing. The pictures are generally considered supplemental to the content. Of course, if there isn't enough Imagine-generated content per copyrighted image, Imagine may be in more trouble than I thought.
Trademark infringement, however, looks like a win for Nintendo at first glance. You can't just use someone else's logo without permission to sell your merchandise... which is certainly the case if the logo is plastered on the cover of your book! Imagine already got into trouble with trademark infringment before when their Nintendo64 site first came online. There was no court case, but you can be damned sure they pulled the offending logos after Nintendo sent them a letter.
Bottom line is, I'd be pissed off if I made a strategy guide for my game, and someone made their own strategy guide, and gave it the same look and feel as mine! Trademark diluting is nasty stuff for companies, (ala bandaids, xeroxing, and kleenex) and I don't think courts look highly on businesses that appropriate someone else's trademark.
---------------
It is easy to control all that you see,
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
From what I understand of fair use, they may be on shaky ground ... it's definately not a review, or something very similar. But I am not a kumquat ... no, that's lawyer ... of course, so I'll just shut up about that.
Citizen Mario (Score:1)
Re:Nintendo Contact Info (Score:1)
Re:Don't post that shit here (Score:1)
If the answer were really so obvious, the judge would throw out the case!
Uh, been paying attention to the American legal system over the past 20 years? Our courts/judges/lawyers are fscked up. This is the country where you can sue McDonalds for not knowing their coffee is served hot, and can use Twinkie addiction as a legal defense for murder.
Nintendo got a new lawyer (Score:2)
According to the Daily Radar article, Nintendo is objecting to Imagine's use of screenshots in their strategy guide, and it's trademarks (i.e., the word Pokemon). I would suspect that Nintendo's problem is that Imagine is using their copyrighted work (screenshots and Pokemon) to sell an unofficial strategy guide. While this lawsuit apparently only applies to the strategy guide in question, one might think that it could, if successful, be applied to web sites as well. After all, if I post, say, a review of a game on my web site using screenshots, etc, and I have banner ads above said review, I'm earning money using their stuff.
I'm no big fan of Daily Radar's site, but I think they did the right think in refusing to run any more Nintendo related reviews, previews, etc. Frankly, I would have gone a step farther, and called for an industry wide boycott of Nintendo related articles (though not likely to happen). This crap's got to stop somewhere.
Screenshots (Score:5)
Re:Nintendo Contact Info (Score:2)
I agree there is too much litigation as companies try to sew up the 'net for their own money-grubbing purposes. But there are reasonable lawsuits even though the vast majority of them (if you read
Nintendo vs. Imagine details... (Score:1)
Re:Fair Use (Score:1)
J
Re:Nintendo has always kept a tight grip on they s (Score:2)
-
-Be a man. Insult me without using an AC.
Retaliation (Score:2)
More importantly, though, they can turn this against Daily Radar when they are allowed to publish things about Nintendo again (which they inevitably will) and deny them advertising. Then they will tell their licenses to deny them advertising. Some will follow suit, others will ignore Nintendo, but ultimately Daily Radar will lose some money in this fiasco.
It happened with us at GameSpot in 1997 with a company we gave a bad review to. More publicized was the Capcom/EGM debacle when EGM shot down one of their Street Fighter 2 clones.
-
-Be a man. Insult me without using an AC.
Re:Don't post that shit here (Score:2)
"If you wish to let Nintendo know what your thoughts are about all this"
Not "Flame them"
Note that certain posts require the ability to read and understand concepts without the use of visual aids. An easy knee jerk reaction would imagine a flame, as commonly see in many forums.
A "Request For Comments" to be sent to these guys is not a Request for FLAME.
On the other hand, yours was an excellent troll. Don't worry, I don't bother taking such things personally.
Consumer's Rights? (Score:2)
This walks in the interesting direction of saying that the consumers of a companies' product are inherently unqualified to communicate to the company about a product or a situation involving that product.
Now I'll grant you that *that* is likely *not* what you intended to say. But you can see how it can be taken that way, no?
And this does raise an interesting point of when do the consumers of a product have any right to communicate with the company that puts them out.
I'll grant you that it is less useful when it bears a marked resemblance to the jabbering of rabid monkeys.
But I *do* think that the consumer has an inherent right to communicate with the company that produces the product that they buy. Now it is up to each of us to cultivate the intelligence of the consumer.
The data, by itself, is not evil. The correct target is the cultivation of intelligence.
Too many lawyers? (Score:4)
It sounds like the legal eagles are trying to make sure that they stay employed by constantly drumming up new angles and new things to worry about. This means that the comapanies have to pay the lawyers (naturally) to protect them from this new threat, real or imagineD.
It actually seems like another form of blackmail, or extorion, playing off the fear. I have heard of several situations where once a suit was filed, it HAD to continue because if it was settled, then the lawyers would not get their fees, and so they would sue the corporations!
In any case I applauded the action of Daily Radar, as seen in this snippet
I recall other articles recently where certain non-disclosures were offered by various companies which essentially forbade writing about the product in a negative fashion. The upshot being, honest reviews where not the ones you saw in advance on the product release, but some months after. I even understand that EULAs are getting into the act as well.maybe someone can provide some links.
Re:Has suing over IP become a cliche? (Score:1)
The lawsuit is ethical! (Score:5)
One fact that can not be ignored is that Nintendo is alleging that Imagine printed complete reprodcutions of several of Nintendo's (legally copyrighted) playing cards. Under "fair use" (which many Slashdot readers are quick to cite, as if it nullified all copyright law), Imagine is withing their right to, say, quote the text of the card. However, by reproducing the copyrighted artwork on the card in whole, they are clearly in violation of copyright law, both in letter and spirit. It's failry obvious that Imagine is making money off of artwork created by Nintendo. The same goes for other artwork that Nintendo alleges Imagine ripped out of their own manuals ans strategy guides.
Despite the fact that Nintendo is a big company, and they are making money, they had to work for it. Pokemon did not create itself, the people at Nintendo worked hard and made it a success through hard work, excellent marketing, prodcuts people like, and hard work. and no matter how "bad" people pokemon may be it is, supply and demand still rules, and there is definately a demand for pokemon products. As the copyright holders, it is Nintendos right to be the one making money off of Pokemon. For imagine to steal artwork is unethical and illegal. Nintendo is simply protecting their copyrights the way a good company should.
Those quick to judge Nintendo becasue in the Slashdot copyright protection is a capital crime should step back and look at what is really going on.
(Keep in mind I have not seen the Imagine publications allegedly in violation. My argument are made assuming that Nintendo's allegations are true, and that Imagine did in fact publish Trading Card scans and other artwork from Nintendo's manuals. If Nintendo is making this up, please, carry on with the Nintendo bashing.)
Support Nintendo (Score:5)
Nintendo is right. (Score:1)
Re:Truly amazing (Score:1)
Basically, if they're controlling it, it's OK - otherwise it's a little dodgy. Remember Nintendo
Re:Fuck Daily Radar (Score:1)
Before you get your panties all in a knot... (Score:4)
I don't think 'fair use' covers charging for someone else's artwork without their permission either. Imagine Media was charging $12 for stolen artwork. Doesn't that make you feel all warm inside?
They're protecting their published artwork... (Score:1)
See this [dailyradar.com]? There's Pokemon Trading Card artwork, as well as other artwork, that Nintendo believes is infringed upon without due compensation or licensing from Nintendo.
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
No (Score:1)
Specifically addressed by copyright law and not a fair use issue.
See this [dailyradar.com]? There's Pokemon Trading Card artwork, as well as other artwork, that Nintendo believes is infringed upon without due compensation or licensing from Nintendo.
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Not quite (Score:1)
But Nintendo has a legal onus to protect it's IP and copyrights.
See this [dailyradar.com]? There's Pokemon Trading Card artwork, as well as other artwork, that Nintendo believes is infringed upon without due compensation or licensing from Nintendo.
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
They're protecting their published artwork... (Score:2)
See <a href="http://media.dailyradar.com/images/misc/nvi
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Not so insightful ^^ (Score:3)
Besides the screenshots(which I think are bogus allegations and fair use) there's also the artwork from the Pokemon trading cards as well as other promotional/product artwork.
That's clearly a violation, if they haven't licensed such artwork from Nintendo.
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:Screenshots (Score:1)
Forget Imagine Media (Score:1)
Nice analysis (Score:1)
Re:Truly amazing (Score:1)
You're completely right. It's censorship through litigation.
Again, just plain sad.
Truly amazing (Score:2)
So now the fan who doesn't want to pay $20 to buy a (probably watered down) "Official" strategy guide from Nintendo can't go and read shit off the net when they're in a jam? Thank god for GameFAQs [gamefaqs.com].
It's shit like this that makes me ashamed that I owned Zelda bedsheets when I was 10 ;)
Not the first time... (Score:1)
Anyway, the picture used in the ad was of a rider on a horse, waving a sword in the air. The problem was that the picture was obviously lifted directly from my web site, because I noticed a few obvious changes I had made to the graphic in order to fit the site. Age of Empires Heaven has a "heaven" theme to it, so I stuck wings on the rider's back, and some artist idiot at babbages/gamestop.com/software etc. lifted this graphic and stuck it into the ad, despite the fact that there are no winged riders in the game.
Here's what I'm talking about [heavengames.com]. It will show both pictures. I'm not exactly sure what the legal issues are with that, because I didn't create the rider, I just made the wings. Obviously, they shouldn't have used it, though.
I got a good laugh out of it, and an apology from babbages, btw.
Typical Nintendo (Score:1)
Re:Fair Use (Score:1)
Okay... why not? I think IM could make a valid claim that they are "commenting" on the game <Obi Wan>from a certain point of view</Obi Wan>. Let's look at the numbered points, shall we?
So clue me in... why isn't this fair use?
---------
Uh...? (Score:1)
But either way, this person might have to read some hate mail... what do you want me to do? Weep for the "Vice President of Corporate Affairs" at a big company called Nintendo who gets paid way too much for doing not enough?
I think they can handle abit of hate mail, don't you?
A new move (Score:3)
Re:Before you get your panties all in a knot... (Score:1)
Irony (Score:1)
Easy, the magazine and strategy guide market. Nintendo publishes their own propaga--err, magazine, and they also liscence out the right to make Official Strategy Guides. Any competition means less money, but I think the more important issue is that Nintendo doesn't make Pokemon, GameFreak does, a japanese Nintendo Liscencee.
Its kind of sad how little credit asian developers get, ever. How many people know about the companies that make Konami's games, or Capcoms?
Exactly.
Re:Irony (Score:1)
Title's Misleading... Plus the Complaint Filing (Score:5)
On a side note, I found the complaint [dailyradar.com] Nintendo filed publicly with the court, scanned and archived by daily radar themselves. Apparently the bulk of the charges rest on Imagine using artwork from manuals, and deliberate copying of the Pokemon Gold's manual cover style.
Personally, its a toss up for me. Its a bad prescedent, but maybe its worth it to kill a trendy, no-gameplay scourage like Pokemon...
Re:Nintendo has always kept a tight grip on they s (Score:1)
Nintendo may win this, but should they? (Score:1)
The usage of a cover with trademarked images and characters is likely illegal - this was a big no no - especially making it look like the official guides. But, and this is what we need to watch, people do have a right to show a screen shot, especially for a strategy manual, provided it looks like a screenshot.
Note, I'm kind of biased, since my son owns 10 shares of Nintendo ADRs and I own 90 shares (eventually he'll own them all, if he keeps practicing his Japanese). But we also bought the unofficial guide, so we agree that this is reasonable.
As an aside, I had a fun time this Christmas in Mexico, where almost every store pops the seal of Nintendo toys (not even a good job resealing them), takes out the Pokemon cards, and replaces them with fake holograph Pokemon cards which they resell for more money. Pretty amateur job, actually.
I wonder why... (Score:1)
Nintendo's lawyers don't copyright their lawsuit filings?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
winning twice (Score:1)
Can't argue with that logic... (Score:1)
Fair Use (Score:4)
Imagine Media needs to fire their lawers. Fair use is well defined [cornell.edu] in the law. This ain't it.
--
In case you didn't read the complaint ... (Score:5)
Imagine Media published an unofficial strategy guide, including over 100 screenshots which, when pieced together, represent a large proportion of the Pokemon world. They included 250 images of Pokemon characters. They copied the cover style of the official strategy guides completely, adding merely the words "100% UNOFFICIAL". And then they added a copyright notice claiming all of that was their own creation.
I think Nintendo have a pretty good case against them. Fair use this ain't.