DLed for posterity, so once it's down I can still share it with those interested in actually enjoying it, rather than letting Nintendo continue to ruin shit like the whiny babies they are.

edit: ahem.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's less Nintendo and more shitty trademark and IP laws.

If you don't aggressively go after anyone that is transgressing your IP, you can lose it.

IP really needs major and comprehensive reform. It's not going to happen anytime soon as too much is built up around the status quo, but it really should be done.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that only applies to trademark laws, not IP laws.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Zelda is trademarked

Edit: Also, it's a bit more complicated in terms of IP, but it is relevant to future works.

For example, fictional characters.

Let's take Mickey Mouse as an example. Steamboat Willie is entering public domain, so the protections on the character as defined in that work is entering the public domain. But characterization of the figure in works still under copyright that have added unique details are still protected.

But the test for infringement of a fictional character is twofold. (1) Can the figure be copyrighted? (2) Is there infringement of unique characteristics?

That second part becomes much more difficult to enforce if you've been allowing millions of variations of your protected character when you initial work defining the character is no longer enforceable.

So if LoZ on the NES enters the public domain making 'Ganon' as a pig usable by people, but since that game there's been tons of spinoffs by others having Ganon as a human before Nintendo had Ganon as depicted in OoT, then they'd have a much harder time enforcing copyright on Ganon being depicted as a human even if Ganon as a pig was no longer under copyright.

No lawyer is going to say "yeah, let 3rd parties use your IP willy nilly, I'm sure it will be fine and not bite us in the ass later on."

For example:

Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired. However, if you do not actively defend your copyright, there may be broader unauthorized uses than you would like. It is a good idea to pursue enforcement actions as soon as you discover misuse of your copyright protected material.

Edit 2: Or the statute of limitations:

If you have experienced copyright infringement, you have the right to pursue a lawsuit. However, you only have a limited time frame during which to file a claim. This legal principle is called the “statute of limitations.” Ensuring that you file a claim to enforce your copyright within the statute of limitations is crucial. If you wait too long, you will lose the right to enforce your copyright and obtain your deserved damages.

Source

So a fan project that you don't enforce against for three years which eventually monetizes as competition without infringement trademarks would be a potential concern.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

...yeah?

IP is different from trademark though. You're using them interchangeably.

The main difference being IP doesn't have a "challenge it or you lose it" rule.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See the edit to my comment. It's not as clear cut as you might think, particularly when considering the enforcement across multiple works over time.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

...You realize that none of that is setting precedent, it just means you can't pursue, right? You still can't lose the IP even in the worst-case scenario, and the first example you gave even says that.

Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired.

You seem to just really strongly want to justify Nintendo's actions, which are not the norm across the industry for how IP issues are handled....

Like yeah there's shitty IP laws, and shitty trademark laws, but they don't justify Nintendo's specific reactions.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

which are not the norm across the industry for how IP issues are handled....

Go ahead and cite whatever you think the 'norm' is then.

Where else do you see publishers turning a blind eye to unlicensed remakes of their games?

The difference isn't Nintendo being more legal trigger happy, it's that their stuff is way more often being used in unlicensed ways so they come up more often in stuff like this.

But there's a ton of examples of the same being the 'norm':

You must have an odd sense of 'norm'

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lets see...

-Everything related to Bethesda's mod scene
-The entire Touhou doujin scene, even including sold games/music
-Sonic games which included fans being brought in for sonic mania
-Megaman and Street fighter have huge histories in modding. Pretty sure megaman has an entire fan-game for Zero's orgin story

So...That gives us Bethesda, Sega, and Capcom at minimum for big players, and Touhou pretty much shows you aren't going to lose your fucking IP over this.

No, Nintendo really does just do it more often than everyone else. You don't gain that rep absolutely everywhere just on hearsay.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Bethesda is owned by Zenimax, and an officially licensed mod scene is completely different.

If you want to run the mods for Bethesda's games, you need the retail software to do so.

I guarantee that if a group was creating a Morrowind remake that didn't require owning some Bethesda core game that was being modded to achieve that, Zenimax's lawyers would be quick to be on top of the issue.

It's not like there's not examples where Bethesda's lawyers caused mods to be shut down where it involved redistribution of Bethesda game assets without needing to buy the game.

[–] EnderofGames@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's *less about shitty trademark or copyright laws, and more about Nintendo.

First off, in all of your posts, you really don't seem to realize that trademark has nothing to do with fan fiction or recreations. Not a single project that anyone has referenced has attempted to mimic Nintendo's name and brand to sell a product. Zelda is trademarked, yes, so people can't sell video games with "The Legend of Zelda" name- which has no bearing on this article or the work cited.

Second, the statute of limitations doesn't go back three years to some arbitrary date, it goes back to when the alleged crime or infringement occurs. So if someone begins selling a TLoZ knockoff game, they have no grounds in court to say something dopey, like "well actually I started thinking about selling Zelda knockoff games five years ago, so even though I just started last month it is out of the statute of limitations".

Third, from your list of shitty companies making it the norm, try Valve, who actively gives permission for people to mod and remake their games, and even allow the selling of remakes on their own platform. Or try Capcom, a Japanese company who has never attacked a fan game and still has full control over its IPs. But I digress, not being the norm has nothing to do with this.

If the laws surrounding copyright were suddenly and drastically changed today, Nintendo wouldn't change their stance or their scare tactics. They don't have to do it, they aren't losing out on sales from it- and if modders had the ability to stand up for themselves in court, I don't believe Nintendo would win even a notable amount of cases.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One: Link's Awakening trademark

Two: Actually, per Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's supreme court decision, damages are limited to 3 years prior to the suit being filed with no recovery for earlier infringements.

Three: Capcom cease and desist less than a year ago - did you not even bother checking before confidently stating it 'never' happened?