Nintendo Sues "Daily Radar" Owners For Pokemon Shots

Bulldawg2000 writes: "Well, it seems Nintendo is suing Imagine Media (Dailyradar's parent company) for using screenshots and names of their most popular video games, specifically Pokemon. Apparently, Imagine Media published a 100% unofficial strategy guide for Pokemon Gold and Silver and Nintendo did like the competition so they are suing. It saddens me to see this as I've been a loyal Nintendo fan and I don't want to see this happen. The article doesn't say why Nintendo is suing, but it most likely falls under UCITA, EULAs, etc.... Imagine Media thinks it has 'fair use' to publish screenshots, but what is IP and what is 'fair use,' I guess we'll see when they go to court."

Comments

Re:Fair Use

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Imagine Media needs to fire their lawers. Fair use is well defined in the law. This ain't it.

How do you figure this aint it?

... In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

• ...

• (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

A screenshot is a pretty minimal amount of the whole work. Perhaps they published screenshots of every possible scenario throughout the game.

• (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Here's where I think Nintendo is going to have a really tough time. People would generally only be interested in a "Strategy Guide" if they actually wanted to play the game, so their use of Copyrighted screenshots would only be considered to have a positive effect on the market for the nintendo games. No one is deciding to look at screen shots in lieu of buying the game.

It may be that Nintendo also publishes a "Strategy Guide" and they want people to buy that. A third party Guide could have a negative impact on their guide. Even then, they would have to show that the third party Guide was violating the Copyright of the Official Guide, and not the screenshots of the game. I can't write a review of a movie and then claim that other reviews violate my copyright.

Nintendo may win this one.

[DzugZug]

First, Nintendo is trying to prevent strategy guides from being written about it's video games. This is a long shot but Nintendo has nothing to lose but legal fees so they figure just go for it. Since nintendo has, in the past, licensed outside firms to produce strategy guides, it is trying to claim the precedence that such guides must be licensed(See: complaint point 14). I see no such right. There is no valid copyright claim. A review or synopsis of a work is a well defined example of fair use even if the review is comercialized -- movie reviews in newspapers being a prime example.

The place where dailyradar runs into problems is in the fact that they used trade marked images to promote the guide. The credible claim that nintendo has is found on pages six and seven of the complaint. DR used a cover that was deceptivly similar to the one of the nintendo book. They used a similar logo to the nintendo book adding the words "100% Unoficial" in small type. They also claim trademark protection on character images. This is the same protection that doesnt allow me to start printing Bart Simpson shirts. Nintendo may very well win on this point. Daily Radar was using images of character's owned by Nintendo to market it's own product.

Don't post that shit here

[Temporal]

OK, hello? Do you know Slashdot readers? Many (not all) of them absolutely LOVE to act before they think. They jump to conclusions about any conflict, and then flame the other side.

I strongly doubt that anyone here (myself included) has anywhere near enough knowledge about what is going on to be mailing Nintendo about it. At least, if anyone does know enough, they know that there are two sides to the issue. Let me re-state that...

ATTENTION ALL FLAMERS, ZEALOTS, AND ANYONE WHO IS PLANNING TO MAIL NINTENDO: You DO NOT know enough about this issue to be stating your opinion on it. There are TWO SIDES to every issue. NOT ALL LAWSUITS ARE BAD. DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS. If you flame Nintendo for this, not only are you a moron, but you have not helped the issue. You will only be hurting things.

As for you, Alien54, you have no idea how much hardship you have caused to Mr. Kaplan, who probably has nothing to do with this lawsuit? Worse yet is all the people who answer e-mail at Nintendo, who will now have to read mindless hate mail (yes, HATE mail) directed at them when they haven't done anything wrong. Are you proud of this achievement? Do you like it when people suffer? Do you know jack shit about this case, who is involved, what laws were broken, etc.? If the answer were really so obvious, the judge would throw out the case!

And moderators -- next time someone posts contact info for the sole purpose of getting someone flamed, mod them down as "stupid". Oh, wait, there is no "stupid"... Well, take your pick then, but do NOT mod this shit up.

If there is anything I truely hate in this world, it's zealots and flamers. People who believe that there is one right answer in an issue like this, and violently support that side. The ironic thing is that the ones on Slashdot think that they are smart just because they are computer geeks.

------

Someone's Smoking Crack

[RoninM]

You suspect they're suing under UCITA?! EULAs?! What have you been smoking, man? It's a fairly standard copyright case. Nintendo owns the copyright to X and Daily Radar is copying X without permission from Nintendo. And, really, if corporations can get away with making profit from the innovation and work of others, where's the incentive to actually innovate? It seems like this is a fairly standard copyright case that falls directly inline with the meaning and intent of copyright. Which isn't to deny the existence of illegitimate copyright/patent cases that don't uphold the original intent of the law -- those exist. But I don't think this is one of them.

Isn't this like movie screenshots?

[ejbst25]

I thought movie screenshots were illegal without permission...same with like a hockey or football game capture. If so, I'd say this may not be new for Nintendo either.

Screenshots

[ctaylor]

Just to be clear, the suit isn't over screenshots posted to the website, or screenshots used for reviews and previews. Those fall under Fair Use. This is strictly about the 100% Unofficial Strategy Guides. They do not fall under Fair Use. pax, -Chris

Too many lawyers?

[Alien54]

Is me, or does it seem like there are an awful lot more of these law suits going on these days?

It sounds like the legal eagles are trying to make sure that they stay employed by constantly drumming up new angles and new things to worry about. This means that the comapanies have to pay the lawyers (naturally) to protect them from this new threat, real or imagineD.

It actually seems like another form of blackmail, or extorion, playing off the fear. I have heard of several situations where once a suit was filed, it HAD to continue because if it was settled, then the lawyers would not get their fees, and so they would sue the corporations!

In any case I applauded the action of Daily Radar, as seen in this snippet

It seems to us that Nintendo has filed this lawsuit in an effort to bully us into ceasing coverage of its properties in ways that it does not like (unofficial strategy guides, for instance). We refuse to be bullied -- both for our sake, and for the sake of our readers. A company that desires press coverage of its products, but only when it is pleased by that coverage, should not be allowed to litigate its way to happiness. To let Nintendo bully us by continuing to write about Nintendo games on Nintendo's terms would mean that you, the reader, would receive compromised coverage (i.e. "Here's the news about Nintendo that won't get us sued"), and that we, the game critics, end up pulling our punches, watching our backs and fearing lawsuits from a company that, essentially, we were spending our days praising and advocating.

I recall other articles recently where certain non-disclosures were offered by various companies which essentially forbade writing about the product in a negative fashion. The upshot being, honest reviews where not the ones you saw in advance on the product release, but some months after. I even understand that EULAs are getting into the act as well.

maybe someone can provide some links.

The lawsuit is ethical!

[AaronStJ]

Despite many the fact that many Slashdot readers are jumping up (as always) to exclaim "Copyrights are bad! Big Coprorations are bad! Nintendo is bad!" Nintendo is well within the right, not only legally, but ethically. If you would care to read the orgininal suit (http://www.dailyradar.com/features/game_feature_p age_2135_1.html) you would see that, too.

One fact that can not be ignored is that Nintendo is alleging that Imagine printed complete reprodcutions of several of Nintendo's (legally copyrighted) playing cards. Under "fair use" (which many Slashdot readers are quick to cite, as if it nullified all copyright law), Imagine is withing their right to, say, quote the text of the card. However, by reproducing the copyrighted artwork on the card in whole, they are clearly in violation of copyright law, both in letter and spirit. It's failry obvious that Imagine is making money off of artwork created by Nintendo. The same goes for other artwork that Nintendo alleges Imagine ripped out of their own manuals ans strategy guides.

Despite the fact that Nintendo is a big company, and they are making money, they had to work for it. Pokemon did not create itself, the people at Nintendo worked hard and made it a success through hard work, excellent marketing, prodcuts people like, and hard work. and no matter how "bad" people pokemon may be it is, supply and demand still rules, and there is definately a demand for pokemon products. As the copyright holders, it is Nintendos right to be the one making money off of Pokemon. For imagine to steal artwork is unethical and illegal. Nintendo is simply protecting their copyrights the way a good company should.

Those quick to judge Nintendo becasue in the Slashdot copyright protection is a capital crime should step back and look at what is really going on.

(Keep in mind I have not seen the Imagine publications allegedly in violation. My argument are made assuming that Nintendo's allegations are true, and that Imagine did in fact publish Trading Card scans and other artwork from Nintendo's manuals. If Nintendo is making this up, please, carry on with the Nintendo bashing.)

Support Nintendo

[quintessent]

If Nintendo wins, then there will be one less Pokemon site on the web. Then we all win!

Before you get your panties all in a knot...

[X-Dopple]

Consider the fact that the guide in question featured several pieces of artwork ripped DIRECTLY from Nintendo's guide.

I don't think 'fair use' covers charging for someone else's artwork without their permission either. Imagine Media was charging $12 for stolen artwork. Doesn't that make you feel all warm inside?

Not so insightful ^^

[2nd Post!]

Its more than just about the Strategy Guides. There is info at this link

Besides the screenshots(which I think are bogus allegations and fair use) there's also the artwork from the Pokemon trading cards as well as other promotional/product artwork.

That's clearly a violation, if they haven't licensed such artwork from Nintendo.

Geek dating!

A new move

[HongPong]

Haven't game magazines, even those not owned by Nintendo, Sega, etc., always published screen shots and such? What business interest, exactly, is Nintendo trying to protect here?

Title's Misleading... Plus the Complaint Filing

[xenocide2]

The summary is a little misleading in that its not Daily Radar being sued. Daily Radar's parent company is being sued for a different enterprise completely unrelated to Daily Radar. Radar just broke the news first, and explains how they are affected, to the extent they can explain things.

On a side note, I found the complaint Nintendo filed publicly with the court, scanned and archived by daily radar themselves. Apparently the bulk of the charges rest on Imagine using artwork from manuals, and deliberate copying of the Pokemon Gold's manual cover style.

Personally, its a toss up for me. Its a bad prescedent, but maybe its worth it to kill a trendy, no-gameplay scourage like Pokemon...

Fair Use

[FatHogByTheAss]

Imagine Media thinks it has 'fair use' to publish screenshots, but what is IP and what is 'fair use,' I guess we'll see when they go to court."

Imagine Media needs to fire their lawers. Fair use is well defined in the law. This ain't it.

--

In case you didn't read the complaint ...

[The NT Christ]

I'm waiting for a build so I had time to read all 19 pages.

Imagine Media published an unofficial strategy guide, including over 100 screenshots which, when pieced together, represent a large proportion of the Pokemon world. They included 250 images of Pokemon characters. They copied the cover style of the official strategy guides completely, adding merely the words "100% UNOFFICIAL". And then they added a copyright notice claiming all of that was their own creation.

I think Nintendo have a pretty good case against them. Fair use this ain't.