• AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    …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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        …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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months 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.