Japanese Game Website Owner Arrested For Screenshot Scans

Thanks to 1UP for its news story reporting that the owner of popular Japanese videogame website Gameonline has been arrested for copyright violation regarding unauthorized screenshot scans, since "several hundred [screenshots available on the site] were allegedly found to have been taken from magazines and overseas game sites without the permission of the game publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law." The story continues by explaining: "Gameonline, one of the most popular game sites in Japan until its sudden closure last month, was a for-profit site that made its money exclusively via advertising. The site's owner had received permission from several Japanese publishers to post screenshots from their games, but other companies, including SNK Playmore, Capcom, Square Enix, and Namco, allegedly found media from their games posted on the site without their permission, leading to today's arrest."

Comments

Seems pretty straightforward

[Tezkah]

I mean, the companies didn't want their games being shown on that website, and the owner didn't comply. There has to be more to this story, because I doubt they'd have him arrested if they had not asked him to take the screens down before resorting to legal action. Then again, Japan has a much different culture and their copyright law seems more strictly enforced than the US. Any one have any experience with Japanese copyright law?

Re:Seems pretty straightforward

[Tezkah]

The site's owner had received permission from several Japanese publishers to post screenshots from their games, but other companies, including SNK Playmore, Capcom, Square Enix, and Namco, allegedly found media from their games posted on the site without their permission, leading to today's arrest.

I dunno, the graphics are some of the best parts of Squenix's games :P

Capcom I could see getting upset, using sprites from 1994 for games a decade later.

I dont why they wouldn't want the hype, but its their product, and they can do with it what they want. Just like Linux people would be upset if someone violated the GPL, even in good spirit (although they, most likely, wouldn't have the violater arrested, but these are companies who probably have a team of lawyers just to protect their "intellectual property")

Re:Seems pretty straightforward

[Maiko]

I suppose it could also be read that since he scanned images from magazines and other sites, it would therefore be stealing potential readers from them for his site's own gain. These magazines could have had exclusivity agreements with the publishers, guaranteeing the content would only be available from one source for a period of time before anyone else is allowed to shout the same stuff from the rooftops.
As for the screenshots, there are services available such as Gamespress.com that allow game sites and magazines to get hold of screens submitted by the publisher for the media to use. Sure, the screenshots may show the game's best features and nothing to the opposite, but at least the PR companies aren't as likely to demand an instant removal of them.

Just my misinformed one cent and candybar wrapper...

Videogame

[Molina the Bofh]

In A.D. 2004
War against pirates was beginning.
Pirate: What happen ?
Webmaster: Somebody set up us the DDOS.
Sysoperator: We get connection.
Pirate: What !
Sysoperator: Main screen turn on.
Pirate: It's you !!
DMCA: How are you gentlemen !!
DMCA: All your warez are belong to us !
DMCA: You are on the way to fdisk.
Pirate: What you say !!
DMCA: You have no chance to survive make your time.
DMCA: HA HA HA HA....
Pirate: Take off every zip.
Pirate: You know what you doing.
Pirate: mv zip greatjustice

(all right, I do know DMCA does not apply in Japan.)

Of course...

[b00jah]

Because, damn, what kind of a game developer would want to have their game getting the attention of fans and possible customers? That would be stupid, wouldn't it.

Re:Of course...

[Seumas]

It isn't just that he was posting screenshots of videogames. He was also posting images and screenshots that, while of games, were (sometimes) copyrighted material. I suppose you could think of it like someone being arrested for passing off one of those Getty/Associated Press photographs as your own.

Granted, it's unpleasant to think that you can beat your wife and children and not raise anyone's attention and even shoplift without much more than a quick trip to be booked and released with a fine, yet arrested for showing an image on your website that originally game from some videogame magazine.

But of course, corporations don't run our governments, politicians, police forces and legislation. Why, that would be a silly claim... Just silly... *cough*

Screenshots are the artistic work of the player

[aminorex]

It seems obvious to me that the person who created
a screenshot is the person who performed the gameplay
required to put the game into that configuration.

Pissing on your customers is bad business, by the way.

Re:Screenshots are the artistic work of the player

[mehu]

It's easy to miss this part:

several hundred [screenshots] were allegedly found to have been taken from magazines and overseas game sites without the permission of the game publisher

He wasn't just posting screenshots, he was taking other sites & companies' screenshots. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a problem if he'd made them all himself?

I wonder...

[Suhas]

why the spurt in tech related crackdown?

My thoughts.

[Grey Ninja]

I think it's completely stupid that a game news site gets their panties in a twist when another game site takes a scan/picture of a game that neither of them owns, and uses it for whatever purpose.

And likewise, I think it's equally stupid that artist who make pictures for Linux get upset when Linux developers use their pictures. I mean, it gets to a point where we should just keep our stuff to ourselves if we are THAT concerned about someone using it for something that you didn't intend.

Yeah yeah, I know. Beating a dead horse, and being hopelessly idealistic. But I really do think that people need to just step back once in a while and take a good long thought if what they are doing is worth it, or if it's just plain pointless to even be thinking about it.

Exclusive?

[miTTio]

I would imagine that some of those images taken from magazines were exclusive. Everytime I go to a magazine stand there is some gaming magazine touting that they have exclusive images of game X. I don't think this is any different than if EGM scanned some images from a GamePro magazine and used it in print. Perhaps the magazines put some pressure on the companies to press charges.

Simple solution

[NetDanzr]

Apparently, the game publishers who were involved didn't want people to know about their games, so let them have their wish and let their games be ignored, possibly by everybody.

A long time ago, Steve Jackson Games, which holds the copyright on titles based on their games, such as Autoduel, did the same. Very quickly, all their games disappeared into obscurity, and if you ask the average gamer, he won't be able to mention a single computer game based on Steve Jackson's GURPS. By the time the company turned around and declared that it would allow people to review their games and share the screenshots, it was too late. I really hope the same would happen to the companies involved in this case.

Lack of Quality by Association and Possible Errors

[MiceHead]

There are reasons why a game publisher might not want a website to post its screenshots with others, but I wonder if there might just be an error in the linked article.

In independent games, the question of quality-by-association comes up when a company approaches a developer with a request to include its game in a CD compilation. One side of the argument is that the presence of a title on a shovelware compilation can detract from its perceived quality -- your game might appear among a hundred Sokoban clones, or in an extreme case, you might see children's software next to more adult software. So, it is conceivable that publishers might have considered association with this website (archived here) a bad thing.

But I don't buy it. Entire conferences are devoted to publicity, and as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. (To wit, I'd talk up my postman about my software if I thought it'd help. He's a nice guy; we talk about other things.) The only tidbit that screams copyright violation as I understand it is this: Of this collection, several hundred were allegedly found to have been taken from magazines and overseas game sites...

However, I do not understand the end of that sentence: ...without the permission of the game publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.

To my knowledge, it is not illegal in the States to take and post a screenshot of a movie or game to the Web; my understanding Japanese intellectual property laws is limited, but given the number of Japanese film/gaming sites that do this, I don't believe that game publishers have any say over what screenshots are presented. I think 1Up may have meant this, instead:

without the permission of the website's publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.
_________________________
I long for the day when Google stops asking me, "Did you mean: inigo rage"