this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
129 points (95.7% liked)

PC Gaming

12117 readers
119 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Omnificer@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Not that this would save the average person from litigation hell, but does Nintendo actually have a legal leg to stand on? What would make a (free) mod any different from any other artistic expression?

Also assuming the mod creator didn't do anything crazy like rip assets from an existing Pokémon game.

[–] RampageDon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It wasn't free is the problem. They were selling it on patreon from what I have heard.

[–] Kid_Thunder@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

In many countries, the question of profit doesn't matter as to whether it violates copyright or not. Who knows where the legal stuff would happen but I looked up Australia's copyright laws as well as I could and it seems similar to US copyright with the fact that it doesn't matter whether someone is profiting from it or not.

[–] Omnificer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Ah, thank you for that context, I didn't see any mention of Patreon in the article.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If they simply exported models from a Pokemon game and ported them to Palworld: That's a straight up, cut and dry copyright violation.

If he made them entirely by hand and just are the artist's own rendition of a real Pokemon... I'm not sure. Fanart is usually considered fair use, and it generally seems like that's how most mods are treated... But there is a chance that even a free, handmade Pokemon fan mod could damage sales of the actual Pokemon games if people think Palworld is a better Pokemon game than Pokemon. Based on that, they very well could have a case against it.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They own all of the Pokemon characters. Any art using Pokemon characters is copyright infringement. Non-profit fan art using those characters is almost never fair use; it's just not worth addressing until it's more significant than a fan drawing Pikachu.

They probably would have sent the takedown regardless, but putting it behind a paywall was a huge red flag begging to be shut down even faster.