This will be fascinating. If The Pokemon Company sues/wins there will be HUUUGEE financial repercussions for the Palworld studio since they sold so many units and had so many people engaged with the IP and buzz around it. If they lose/not sue, it gives opportunities for pretty much everyone else to ape and copy Pokemon designs from that point forward.
Does Palworld break Pokémon's copyright? We asked a lawyer
Pocketpair's monster-collecting survival game Palworld has rekindled the eternal debate over what exactly constitutes a…www.rockpapershotgun.com
Concluding my chat with Cotton, I noted that Palworld giving its Pokémon equivalents guns might be especially provocative for Nintendo, who avoid featuring firearms - and certainly not real-world firearms - in their games. I wondered whether this might make it harder for Nintendo to bring a case of copyright infringement, because after all, everybody knows that Pokémon don't wield assault rifles, and as such, Pals are very decidedly not Pokémon. Cotton suggested, however, that this could get Pocketpair into hot water on another front.
Actually, that could potentially be a ground for them to sue them," he said. "That they are distorting [people's impressions of Pokémon], because of the similarity to Pokémon, although not a direct copy of it, they're almost implying that Pokémon are happy to endorse the gun culture that Pals are doing. That could be an avenue for Nintendo to go down to sue them."
As far as I know ripoffs aren't illegal as long as nothing is copied 1:1 and there were no assets stolen
Production companies like The Asylum have been doing obvious ripoffs for years
If anything I'd argue some of these have a bigger chance of being mistaken for "the real product" than Palworld.
The model comparison was misrepresented somewhat because he manipulated the models to make them fit.
You know absolutely nothing about IP law.
Or to put it another way: Rip offs and parodies are completely legal as long as they don't use any specific copyrighted or trademarked material.
"Square can sue" Yeah, no. Firstly the designs are massively different; lol at the Gyarados comparison to pad out that list. And secondly, they had their chance in the 90s. No court will take them seriously coming at them three decades later.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not. You are clearly responding to a parody of a historical post that makes it round on this forum for comedic value. Its not to be taken seriously.
lughnasadh123
?
I can't tell if you are being serious or not. You are clearly responding to a parody of a historical post that makes it round on this forum for comedic value. Its not to be taken seriously.
I'm I right
You're describing how you think it should work, not how it actually does. Trademark holders HAVE to go after potential violators or the trademark can be invalidated. Trademark law is notoriously riddled with insane frivolous cases for precisely this reason.
I hope this is a joke post because if not:
knowyourmeme.com
Most of it amounts to sending out C&Ds to much smaller companies who would rather back down immediately or sign a licensing agreement because litigating would be prohibitively expensive. Only a fraction of these "defenses" of trademarks actually get litigated in court. Often companies actually prefer going after the little guys because the objective isn't to win money, it's to demonstrate a history of defending their IP.
If it helped sell their game and helped get Microsoft to pay to get it on gamepass then chances are the Pokemon company would be successful in the UK, at least to take legal action against them trading their Palworld product via the Pokemon brand, which they obviously have no rights to do so.
It's not really a "better version of Pokemon," it's really way more like Ark (or even Minecraft) than Pokemon, but then it has these Pokemon and Breath of the Wild elements sprinkled in. It doesn't really play much like Pokemon at all, even if it has some of the same appeal.
The visual style with more Monster Hunter style armour instead of trendy urban youth clothing, the guns & violence makes the game more visually distinct from Pokemon and that's important because of this case.Does Palworld break Pokémon's copyright? We asked a lawyer
Pocketpair's monster-collecting survival game Palworld has rekindled the eternal debate over what exactly constitutes a…
Concluding my chat with Cotton, I noted that Palworld giving its Pokémon equivalents guns might be especially provocative for Nintendo, who avoid featuring firearms - and certainly not real-world firearms - in their games. I wondered whether this might make it harder for Nintendo to bring a case of copyright infringement, because after all, everybody knows that Pokémon don't wield assault rifles, and as such, Pals are very decidedly not Pokémon. Cotton suggested, however, that this could get Pocketpair into hot water on another front.
Actually, that could potentially be a ground for them to sue them," he said. "That they are distorting [people's impressions of Pokémon], because of the similarity to Pokémon, although not a direct copy of it, they're almost implying that Pokémon are happy to endorse the gun culture that Pals are doing. That could be an avenue for Nintendo to go down to sue them."
You put the blame into Square moving into this movie! Which would’ve ended Square. But Enix was the one that bailed them out with the merger. Square name maybe first but Enix is the in control. Square is more known in the west that’s why it’s Square Enix not Enix Square!
True, it was planned and the heavy losses from the movie gave Enix the upper hand. The original Square basically dissolve after merger.
Pokemon ripped of Dragon Quest in the 90's....so.........
