Copyrights

[AyameHikaru]

You miss understood me
About the videos I still think its still Fair Use as the people bought the games them self they payied money for the games

I do understand what you are saying that if they did a part of the game here and there it might be ok but I still belive it going to come down that there is no Violation if you post a full video

Sorry for the misunderstanding about the first part, I understand better now. :smile:

But no, I hate to say it, but you're still wrong as far as the video games go. Yes you pay money for the video game. However, that money is to pay for your exclusive use only. For another example, take movies. I paid for a movie. I own the movie. I don't own the RIGHTS to the movie, so it's still illegal for me to post it online, or show it publicly in any way. (Outside of fair use, of course.) There's a lovely copyright screen at the start of every movie to illustrate that. Video games don't have that screen, but the basic idea is the same.

Buying the game =/= Owning the rights.

Bought the game:
You can play it.
You can lend it to a friend to play.
You can use small bits of it for personal projects, as long as they are within fair use (Like music videos, section walkthroughs, etc.)
You can't make more copies and sell them.
You can't post the entirety in a public place.

Own the rights:
You can make more copies and sell them.
You have complete freedom with what you do with the footage.

 

[PokePop]

I don't know.
Beckett's counter argument is that since TPCi has advertised in their magazine and didn't complain about it for years means that they have given implicit consent to Beckett's use of the card art.
Should be interesting to see a judge's opinion on the matter.

 

[MattPL]

I don't know.
Beckett's counter argument is that since TPCi has advertised in their magazine and didn't complain about it for years means that they have given implicit consent to Beckett's use of the card art.
Should be interesting to see a judge's opinion on the matter.

Yeah yeah, we've already heard your opinion. :lol:

Honestly though, that is a very good point. But if TPCi is tired of it in general, then what can Beckett really do about it?

 

[P_A]

Other than start paying for it, and perhaps stop using card likenesses? Like I said earlier, this could end badly regardless of who wins.

 

[FunnyBear]

I would bet this will never go to court. Beckett will eventually agree to pay some reasonable royalty and things will go on as before. Beckett's magazine does not take sales from Pokemon's. It just gets more people interested in the game and enhances both products. I doubt TPCi really wants to enjoin them from publishing.

 

[AyameHikaru]

Agreed. I bet Pokemon just wants a cut of Beckett's sales.

About the 'implicit consent', hasn't Pokemon been arguing with them for quite some time now? (Arguing in the, er, legal fashion.) Because if they haven't I think you're right, Pop. If it were a new magazine Pokemon could feign ignorance and say they just found out about it, but since it's unlikely they just heard about a magazine they've been eyeing for years. :wink:

 

[MattPL]

I would bet this will never go to court. Beckett will eventually agree to pay some reasonable royalty and things will go on as before. Beckett's magazine does not take sales from Pokemon's. It just gets more people interested in the game and enhances both products. I doubt TPCi really wants to enjoin them from publishing.

Agreed. There is most likely going to be some out of court settlement for this issue.

 

[NoPoke]

why? TPCi want Beckett to stop using their card images and Beckett seem determined to continue to use them.

 

[MattPL]

why? TPCi want Beckett to stop using their card images and Beckett seem determined to continue to use them.

Well then I suppose that will be there downfall.:nonono:

 

[travis3290]

So the moral of the story is : dont break copyright laws

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Squidwina]

At a high level, that is basically how it works. But only the trading cards are copyrighted, and not all of their characters are registered as trademarks.

Are you sure? I find it extremely hard to believe that Nintendo doesn't have ALL of its characters copyrighted.

(Or trademarked or registered--not sure of which terminology applies to characters.)

 

[DonphanAtoZ]

Yeah, doesn't it say in the fine print on their products, "All characters are copyright GameFreak/Ninteendo" or something like that?

 

[jaws_is_ra]

Sorry for the misunderstanding about the first part, I understand better now. :smile:

But no, I hate to say it, but you're still wrong as far as the video games go. Yes you pay money for the video game. However, that money is to pay for your exclusive use only. For another example, take movies. I paid for a movie. I own the movie. I don't own the RIGHTS to the movie, so it's still illegal for me to post it online, or show it publicly in any way. (Outside of fair use, of course.) There's a lovely copyright screen at the start of every movie to illustrate that. Video games don't have that screen, but the basic idea is the same.

Buying the game =/= Owning the rights.

Bought the game:
You can play it.
You can lend it to a friend to play.
You can use small bits of it for personal projects, as long as they are within fair use (Like music videos, section walkthroughs, etc.)
You can't make more copies and sell them.
You can't post the entirety in a public place.

Own the rights:
You can make more copies and sell them.
You have complete freedom with what you do with the footage.

I think when it all come down Pokemon did not have the videos remeoved becuase like if you read one this one site

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/gaming...ended-from-youtube-by-false-copyright-claims/

One of the videos was not removed for Copyright but because the guy Claim

Another was taken down by a user who claims ownership over Chuggaaconroy’s voice.

I think when it comes down Pokemon are not going to say much about the Videos of the video game they need ot be hiting the Eps of the show before the Hit personal Videos of people playing the game

I think Pokemon are not going to say much because these videos are also helping the sells of the games

 

[DonphanAtoZ]

"Another was taken down by a user who claims ownership over Chuggaaconroy’s voice."

lolwut

 

[losjackal]

Yeah, doesn't it say in the fine print on their products, "All characters are copyright GameFreak/Ninteendo" or something like that?

Are you sure? I find it extremely hard to believe that Nintendo doesn't have ALL of its characters copyrighted.

(Or trademarked or registered--not sure of which terminology applies to characters.)

Copyright protects "original works of authorship", which includes pictorial works. And yes, their stuff probably says copyright and they reserve all rights. It's a protective measure. But if you're going to vigorously defend one, especially suing something over it, it's better to be a registered copyright. You can search the U.S. database here. For instance, if you search for "Jumpluff", you'll only see the trading card from Heartgold Soulsilver.

Trademarks are another matter, where a distinctive mark represents your business or trade. For instance, the Mickey Mouse ear shape is synonymous with Disney, so it's a trademark of theirs. Pikachu is a registered trademark of Pokemon. But not all of the Pokemon characters are registered trademarks.

 

[ninetales1234]

Exactly.

Pokemon didn't care when Beckett was making magazines in 1999.

They just now start caring about it when they have their own magazine?

It is sad how things are nowadays; Usually when people use the legal system, it's not a matter of principle, but instead it's just about being selfish.

---------
I see all this talk in this thread about the effect on the market, fair use, the purpose of the magazine, what constitutes copyright infringement- essentially whether what's being done is legal. Why are they talking about this? So far, it doesn't seem that anyone's asked a much bigger and more important question:

Should people be allowed to issue threats of violence to other people who publish things they don't like? Should there even be such a mechanism for people to do this in the first place? Should people be allowed to issue threats of violence to people that publish magazines with pictures in it they don't want to be published?

The government has controlled the debate by pushing special language on us that works to obscure what's really going on. Words like "copyright", "lawsuit", "civil action", "statutory damages" all complicate the issue and inhibit our ability to see the facts clearly. Let's break it down to its simple elements and not decorate it with silly language:

The Pokémon Company has taken note of people printing magazines. They have told them that if they place their own ink on their own paper in specific combinations that TPC doesn't like, then TPC will send them a letter in the mail with a threat in it. They have told them that Beckett must stop putting ink on paper in combinations that are offensive to TPC. They will also tell Beckett that they must appear with TPC in a special room, where TPC will demand that they get help stealing up to $150,000 from Beckett. If the people from Beckett do not appear in this special room or hand that money over to TPC, the people will be approached by a bunch of armed strangers in blue uniforms, who will kidnap them and put them in a cage.

^That is the real story. That's what's really going on here, when we don't pretty it up with fancy language, we can see that it's just threats of violence.

This is why you can't take a blank playmat, draw some Pokemon on it, and sell it. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple. Nintendo owns the copyrights to Pokemon and you would be using their idea without permission to make money = stealing = not cool.

In this case, Nintendo is erroneously claiming partial ownership over your blank playmat and the crayons, colored pencils, or paint that you used to make the new playmat.

In this situation, Nintendo would be violating your property rights, because they claim the power to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own colored pencils. They are using the concept of some special, fictitious, made-up property (Pokemon characters or photographs of them don't exist; they're just an idea) in order to restrict what you can do with real property (the colored pencils actually do exist).

---------
I am always amazed by when a discussion about Intellectual Property comes up, there's always talk about "stealing". As thought the Beckett people forcibly entered TPC offices, picked up a few things, and walked out. I'll tell you where this is stealing however; TPC is demanding that Beckett give them money and if they don't hand it over, they're going be kidnapped by people with guns who will stick them in a cage.

...and before anyone asks if I think TPC is evil or something like that, TPC is not the problem. The problem is that people condone such threats of violence, the problem is that there is mechanism for TPC to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

If I designed a game (or wrote a song, produced a movie, or wrote a book) and someone else was able to use my creation in something good, something that people liked, used it in a way that I was not willing or able to do, I would be flattered. I'd be happy. That would be great that someone saw some value in the thing that I published. It would be great to know that I have a strong dedicated fansbase. Apparently the supporters of Intellectual Property disagree; they just want to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from peaceful people.

 

[losjackal]

You're presenting an interesting philosophical argument, but "intellectual property" isn't something made up that people condone, it's the law. Imagine instead you're a big business that provides jobs for other people and earns revenue to pay your bills and their salary. If someone else's business were capitalizing on your ideas, you could be flattered AND losing opportunity to earn your own money. In that case, the laws are there to protect your rights as the creator. You have the choice to share your rights and let that other company compete with you, or you can reserve your rights to protect and benefit from your own creation.

 

[PokePop]

ninetales: So fake cards are Okie-dokie by you?
They fit the same description that you laid out for "what's really happening".

 

[MattPL]

If I designed a game (or wrote a song, produced a movie, or wrote a book) and someone else was able to use my creation in something good, something that people liked, used it in a way that I was not willing or able to do, I would be flattered. I'd be happy. That would be great that someone saw some value in the thing that I published. It would be great to know that I have a strong dedicated fansbase. Apparently the supporters of Intellectual Property disagree; they just want to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from peaceful people.

Ok, so lets say that you wrote a hit song. It probably took a lot of hard work and money to make such a song, but after many months of struggling, you've managed to pull it off.

Now lets say 100 different people where all making movies. They're movies are going to make millions of dollars each, even more money than you've made with that song. However, the movie is unfinished. All they need is 1 song in the movie, and they'll become rich. Songs cost a lot of money these days, but because they know that you wrote a very good song and that they can rip it off of your for absolutely nothing, they'll go ahead and do that.

Basically, lots of people just made lots of money doing very little work, while you had to work extremely hard to get what you got.

Is this fair?

 

[toxictaipan]

In this case, Nintendo is erroneously claiming partial ownership over your blank playmat and the crayons, colored pencils, or paint that you used to make the new playmat.

In this situation, Nintendo would be violating your property rights, because they claim the power to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own colored pencils. They are using the concept of some special, fictitious, made-up property (Pokemon characters or photographs of them don't exist; they're just an idea) in order to restrict what you can do with real property (the colored pencils actually do exist).

What is making people want to buy the blank playmat that you used crayons, colored pencils, or paint to decorate? Let me give you a hint: it's what you drew on it.

What did you draw on it? Pokemon.

Did you invented, come up with, discover, or otherwise create Pokemon? No.

Who did? Nintendo.


Now assume Nintendo wants to start selling playmats with their creation that they came up with drawn on it. It's already given that you are also selling these playmats. For the sake of clarity, let's also assume that the playmats you're selling and the playmats Nintendo is selling look identical in every way.


For every playmat you sell, you have now taken a customer away from the person (company, whatever) that originally came up with the idea. You are making a profit from someone else's work without their permission and without compensation (see: royalties). For every playmat you sell, they take a loss. If they take enough losses, they go out of business.




Why should you be allowed to do this? Why should you be allowed to steal profits from a company and potentially bankrupt them? And why do you think it's fair that they shouldn't have any legal right to stop you, but be FORCED to allow it to happen?






I personally believe that for a copyright claim to be legitimate, that the copyright holder must be taking a loss (be it monetary, fame, or other). If the copyright holder is not being negatively affected in any way, then I think it should constitute fair use. But it is also my belief that if they are taking a loss, they should have a legal right to do something about that. But that's just my opinion.

That being said, is Nintendo actually taking a loss from Beckett using their card images? I don't know. If they are, and they have kindly asked Beckett to stop using their material and Beckett has refused to do so, then Nintendo should be allowed to do something about that.