Posted October 08, 2015
![amok](https://images.gog.com/5a4ddd5e52655d11e5baf782f13c2013cca6de225d9418db4da0e3576fdc8b07_forum_avatar.jpg)
amok
FREEEEDOOOM!!!!
Registered: Sep 2008
From United Kingdom
![Nirth](https://images.gog.com/d5b8e25ed11f2576ac652b018c8fd1db312cace3892e8b94faa1d673820b204d_forum_avatar.jpg)
Nirth
GFN / VR / Switch!
Registered: Oct 2010
From Other
Posted October 08, 2015
That sounds more like an assumption based on morals. I can't answer that, I don't know. Depends on who you are asking.
The point is that I think copyright laws (among other things) are changed or exploited in favour of large organizations because they can. Do you at least understand that as a concept?
The point is that I think copyright laws (among other things) are changed or exploited in favour of large organizations because they can. Do you at least understand that as a concept?
![amok](https://images.gog.com/5a4ddd5e52655d11e5baf782f13c2013cca6de225d9418db4da0e3576fdc8b07_forum_avatar.jpg)
amok
FREEEEDOOOM!!!!
Registered: Sep 2008
From United Kingdom
Posted October 08, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/d5b8e25ed11f2576ac652b018c8fd1db312cace3892e8b94faa1d673820b204d_avm.jpg)
The point is that I think copyright laws (among other things) are changed or exploited in favour of large organizations because they can. Do you at least understand that as a concept?
Post edited October 08, 2015 by amok
![Nirth](https://images.gog.com/d5b8e25ed11f2576ac652b018c8fd1db312cace3892e8b94faa1d673820b204d_forum_avatar.jpg)
Nirth
GFN / VR / Switch!
Registered: Oct 2010
From Other
Posted October 08, 2015
I did not imply that perfect balance is possible, merely that some changes are needed. Besides, the "fair and equal laws" may work on paper and in people's minds but I doubt that really flies in practice.
![amok](https://images.gog.com/5a4ddd5e52655d11e5baf782f13c2013cca6de225d9418db4da0e3576fdc8b07_forum_avatar.jpg)
amok
FREEEEDOOOM!!!!
Registered: Sep 2008
From United Kingdom
Posted October 08, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/5a4ddd5e52655d11e5baf782f13c2013cca6de225d9418db4da0e3576fdc8b07_avm.jpg)
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/d5b8e25ed11f2576ac652b018c8fd1db312cace3892e8b94faa1d673820b204d_avm.jpg)
I have no problems with unbalanced laws, but I wonder who many actually consider the consequences when they make statements such as you did? It will end in a moral dilemma, yes - it sounds easy to start with, but it will end with consequences where you give people allowance to break/bend the law, depending on social or economic status
Post edited October 08, 2015 by amok
![dnovraD](https://images.gog.com/680326e9fd0e0a1e36e54e40b16c5fba8a67d01894ae5f81218a1e7ef8f0bfb6_forum_avatar.jpg)
dnovraD
2023-08-14: Remember the Spaces!
Registered: Jul 2012
From United States
Posted October 08, 2015
Post edited October 08, 2015 by Darvond
![my name is catte](https://images.gog.com/733fcc8fcd26583e14319e51f8ad9a66211c89e331163f14a419594ca63b675d_forum_avatar.jpg)
my name is catte
i touch your foods
Registered: Mar 2010
From United Kingdom
![dick1982](https://images.gog.com/6e5cc570a5fee10e142176056129930a600e965d41d547e0ae8e7aef060fa4c1_forum_avatar.jpg)
dick1982
-120 Club. ♥XX
Registered: Jul 2012
From United Kingdom
Posted October 08, 2015
their lawyer friends need to eat. and protecting the image of the brand or something.
rampancy: Funny you mention that, since Jim Fucking Sterling Son's latest video tackles that, at least tangentially. It's at least nice to know it's not just me that's noticed the gaming market's apparent lack of memory when it comes to industry transgressions.
And Nintendo is a great example of that. They do, have done, and are doing a lot of good things, yeah. But their stance towards YouTubers and their reputation for being extremely foul towards fan-driven content is utterly abhorrent. Yet, seemingly, whenever they announce a new game or Amiibo from one of their prized IPs everyone announces their apparent undying and uncritical love for Nintendo. Even Jim Sterling (and at least he actually is self-aware enough to admit that). People either don't seem to remember or don't seem to care that Nintendo (and Sega as well) seem to view their fans with contempt if they're not paying them money for something.
I remember when some companies used to revel in the attention generated by fan communities and fan-created content, even when it verged into unexpected silliness. Now it almost seems like they really do want the benefits of a rabid fanbase with none of the consequences, as noted earlier. Just people blindly lining up to buy the latest Mario or Zelda game.
rampancy: Which I sadly agree with, but honestly, I don't like the alternatives. (Apathy? Acquiescence? Whole-hearted embacing of it?) im disgusted that you even associate pokemon fans with FPS-only mouth-breathing "it's gay so it's funny" brofisters. bad comparision. you should be ashamed.
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/9860e60954e8efd959bc72517ac3ca4004702a3919ba1cd198a00c37d18c48ca_avm.jpg)
And Nintendo is a great example of that. They do, have done, and are doing a lot of good things, yeah. But their stance towards YouTubers and their reputation for being extremely foul towards fan-driven content is utterly abhorrent. Yet, seemingly, whenever they announce a new game or Amiibo from one of their prized IPs everyone announces their apparent undying and uncritical love for Nintendo. Even Jim Sterling (and at least he actually is self-aware enough to admit that). People either don't seem to remember or don't seem to care that Nintendo (and Sega as well) seem to view their fans with contempt if they're not paying them money for something.
I remember when some companies used to revel in the attention generated by fan communities and fan-created content, even when it verged into unexpected silliness. Now it almost seems like they really do want the benefits of a rabid fanbase with none of the consequences, as noted earlier. Just people blindly lining up to buy the latest Mario or Zelda game.
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/9860e60954e8efd959bc72517ac3ca4004702a3919ba1cd198a00c37d18c48ca_avm.jpg)
Post edited October 08, 2015 by dick1982
![rtcvb32](https://images.gog.com/77665aa6affc77960e6b537ee348222af4d3fecc684f14d10088eae491b41e33_forum_avatar.jpg)
rtcvb32
echo e.lolfiu_fefiipieue|tr valueof_pi [0-9]
Registered: Aug 2013
From United States
Posted October 08, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/b702551b3e665296e17462efe22cd94b173f58b129d52286ec815da94df207ba_avm.jpg)
No... i think it's just too many companies and people are sue-happy... looking for any excuse at all. Actually there's troll patents that get vague huge coverage of patents, and then attack hundreds of companies at a time threatening to sue, but accept settlements because settling is much cheaper than hiring lawyers and fighting it in court. This is just another one of those things as far as i'm concerned.
![my name is catte](https://images.gog.com/733fcc8fcd26583e14319e51f8ad9a66211c89e331163f14a419594ca63b675d_forum_avatar.jpg)
my name is catte
i touch your foods
Registered: Mar 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted October 08, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/e042d6b70bbe50b6e96c3a20ddbd5bcc5299ae09e14b1f2ad1a305ada1fe5e08_avm.jpg)
And yes, blank wall themed would be fine. As would characters of his own design, something public domain or even something he'd licensed. This isn't some kid printing out a Pokémon birthday card they made in publisher and then having a SWAT team bust down the door, this is an adult repeatedly using copyrighted characters to advertise his business and to attract people to an event for which he charged money. He's an idiot.
Are they being heavy handed? It certainly sounds like it. Are they wrong to stop him? Not at all, it just should have been a cease and desist. For all we know, he got one and ignored it.
Post edited October 08, 2015 by SirPrimalform
![rtcvb32](https://images.gog.com/77665aa6affc77960e6b537ee348222af4d3fecc684f14d10088eae491b41e33_forum_avatar.jpg)
rtcvb32
echo e.lolfiu_fefiipieue|tr valueof_pi [0-9]
Registered: Aug 2013
From United States
Posted October 08, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/b702551b3e665296e17462efe22cd94b173f58b129d52286ec815da94df207ba_avm.jpg)
Let's change the situation. Let's assume someone who's a fan of Disney, goes to Disney's theme park and buys tons of stuff ends up opening a cafe or something, and they decide 'i'll just decorate with the toys and stuff i got over the years!' this includes posters, stuffed animals, hats, etc. Now just for fun since they found a lot of interesting pies cakes and other stuff in the disney movies, they decide to make their own versions of those so people can order them. They optionally allow waitresses to cosplay if they want as any disney character they want (assuming it's not impractical and can still serve tea and cake, etc). Hell they probably even have Fantasia in the background for music if they want.
The cafe will be making money, and they will be using copyrighted materials to advertise their own shop. But none of the stuff that makes the theme is being sold, it's just on display to make the theme, something to make it stand out as different, not because the cafe couldn't stand alone as a normal cafe. Sorta like having a tiny park in the middle of a city, it's just a little break from the norm.
I have to ask what the problem is? Yeah i know disney might make a bit fit of it, or they might send someone to make sure their company name isn't being disgraced and if it is either make suggestions or demand a fee to use the theme (and even let them name the cafe with the disney name) for part of it. But assuming the name Disney isn't used at all and everything just happens to be related to disney, i really don't see the issue...
I'll say though, i know i'm naive and completely ignorant of whatever trademark laws are present, although a number of them are stupid and need an overhaul (if the copyright system is anything to go by).
![Marioface5](https://images.gog.com/c671ca312f5de6a96ca9f239d81712d15a12fcb50e9f9cd808db4ded8e90f19f_forum_avatar.jpg)
Marioface5
New User
Registered: Sep 2011
From Other
Posted October 08, 2015
Do you mean 20 years after the creator's death, or 20 years total? Currently it lasts for 70 years after the creator's death. Personally, I think copyright should last until the creator's death and then end there.
![rampancy](https://images.gog.com/9860e60954e8efd959bc72517ac3ca4004702a3919ba1cd198a00c37d18c48ca_forum_avatar.jpg)
rampancy
Think Different.
Registered: Sep 2008
From Canada
Posted October 09, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/ab896d0f9e3c2c59b389a2b15ac8c5fc07e19b6d44ca9580ee1fb94c023811ac_avm.jpg)
I've mentioned this before, but a developer once had to smuggle Jim Sterling into their booth because the publisher Konami didn't like him. I'd like to think he wore this disguise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t_oTh6qXFs
I'm associating rabid fans with the state of being uncritically devoted to a company or IP (and it can of course be any company or IP), regardless of how horrible their business practices my be.
![rampancy](https://images.gog.com/9860e60954e8efd959bc72517ac3ca4004702a3919ba1cd198a00c37d18c48ca_forum_avatar.jpg)
rampancy
Think Different.
Registered: Sep 2008
From Canada
Posted October 09, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/e042d6b70bbe50b6e96c3a20ddbd5bcc5299ae09e14b1f2ad1a305ada1fe5e08_avm.jpg)
In the case of your example above, Disney wouldn't have any problem with a Disney-themed cafe if it were hosted on a Disney property, run by wholly Disney-selected and trained personnel, used exclusively Disney-provided supplies, and headed up by someone trained in Disney-specific corporate practices. But from their perspective an independently owned cafe run by someone who calls themselves a fan, using the Disney brand in a manner outside of Disney's control would be unacceptable. Disney's so big that it likely wouldn't care about any potential lost revenue.
![my name is catte](https://images.gog.com/733fcc8fcd26583e14319e51f8ad9a66211c89e331163f14a419594ca63b675d_forum_avatar.jpg)
my name is catte
i touch your foods
Registered: Mar 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted October 09, 2015
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/c671ca312f5de6a96ca9f239d81712d15a12fcb50e9f9cd808db4ded8e90f19f_avm.jpg)
20 years is plenty for the original purpose
![avatar](http://images.gog.com/e042d6b70bbe50b6e96c3a20ddbd5bcc5299ae09e14b1f2ad1a305ada1fe5e08_avm.jpg)
Let's change the situation. Let's assume someone who's a fan of Disney, goes to Disney's theme park and buys tons of stuff ends up opening a cafe or something, and they decide 'i'll just decorate with the toys and stuff i got over the years!' this includes posters, stuffed animals, hats, etc. Now just for fun since they found a lot of interesting pies cakes and other stuff in the disney movies, they decide to make their own versions of those so people can order them. They optionally allow waitresses to cosplay if they want as any disney character they want (assuming it's not impractical and can still serve tea and cake, etc). Hell they probably even have Fantasia in the background for music if they want.
The cafe will be making money, and they will be using copyrighted materials to advertise their own shop. But none of the stuff that makes the theme is being sold, it's just on display to make the theme, something to make it stand out as different, not because the cafe couldn't stand alone as a normal cafe. Sorta like having a tiny park in the middle of a city, it's just a little break from the norm.
I have to ask what the problem is? Yeah i know disney might make a bit fit of it, or they might send someone to make sure their company name isn't being disgraced and if it is either make suggestions or demand a fee to use the theme (and even let them name the cafe with the disney name) for part of it. But assuming the name Disney isn't used at all and everything just happens to be related to disney, i really don't see the issue...
I'll say though, i know i'm naive and completely ignorant of whatever trademark laws are present, although a number of them are stupid and need an overhaul (if the copyright system is anything to go by).
Post edited October 09, 2015 by SirPrimalform