Slashdot Mirror


Nintendo Shuts Down Fan-Made Zelda Movie

Andorin writes "An independently filmed adaptation of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, called The Hero Of Time, has been taken offline by Nintendo as of the end of December. The film's producers write: 'We came to an agreement with Nintendo earlier this month to stop distributing the film... We understand Nintendo's right to protect its characters and trademarks and understand how in order to keep their property unspoiled by fan's interpretation of the franchise, Nintendo needs to protect itself — even from fan-works with good intentions.' Filming for the feature-length, non-profit film began in August 2004 and the movie was completed in 2008. It premiered in various theaters worldwide, including in New York and Los Angeles, and then became available online in the middle of December, before it was targeted by Nintendo's legal team. As both an avid Zelda fan and an appreciator of independent works, I was extremely disappointed in Nintendo's strong-arming of a noncommercial adaptation to the Game of the Year for 1999."

222 comments

  1. Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We all know you wouldn't get anywhere with Micky Mouse, why should a game character be any different?

    1. Re:Why the surprise? by rhyder128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. What did they expect?

      Having said that, it's about time that there was a standardised way for IP holders to grant a "fan art licence" for projects such as this.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    2. Re:Why the surprise? by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fan projects like this only help to keep the IP in people's minds, effectively generated free promotion.

      Anyone recall the early days of the internet when Fox and Lucas were threatening to sue all the X-Files and Star Wars fan pages on the internet in order to protect their trademarks? At some point they decided it was too hard to fight, and that fan pages weren't a threat to their trademarks. So why are fan movies different?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know you wouldn't get anywhere with Micky Mouse

      speak for yourself you jealous bitch

      -Minnie

    4. Re:Why the surprise? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Big business only likes "grass roots" when they can control it.

    5. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fan projects like this only help to keep the IP in people's minds, effectively generated free promotion.

      It also takes it out of Nintendo's hands and reduces their control over their creation, and hence the ability to steer and sell it the way that they want.

      For example, although a lot of (e.g.) fan-created Sonic the Hedgehog porn exists (no, really...) , I very much doubt that Sega would be too happy with this form of "free promotion". If it was to become more prominent and obvious, it could damage their ability to sell the character in family-friendly games and the like.

    6. Re:Why the surprise? by Derosian · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it has something to do with the large number of games turning into movies, perhaps we should expect a Zelda movie in the near future.

    7. Re:Why the surprise? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Most fan pages don't really have revenue other than ad revenue which probably isn't enough to pay for hosting most pages. A movie that was released in theaters is clearly out to make a profit.

      If the movie was free to view by anyone, I would criticize Nintendo for this. I don't blame Nintendo for stopping others from profiting off their ideas, though.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    8. Re:Why the surprise? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Guess I should have read the smaller print in bad font claiming they intended to turn no profit from it.... either way I think getting permission at the beginning probably would've been their best bet.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    9. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh huh. Are you applying the same rigor to Nintendo? Is 'The Legend of Zelda' completely 100% original, completely uninfluenced by other creative works? Jesus god, people, get a grip-- everyone profits from other people's ideas. You can't put a lock on creative thoughts and concepts, and that's what our brave new corporate overlords are trying to do.

    10. Re:Why the surprise? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not one usually to reference YTNMD on /., but this is appropriate.

      However, if you look at the whole issue from a broader perspective, you begin to wonder if this sort of thing isn't deliberate, by which I mean people must understand the Streisand Effect by now and maybe people are trying to exploit it. The first thought of a lot of people on the internet when they hear 'x is being banned/censored/removed' is 'wow, I need to both satisfy my curiosity AND stick it to The Man!' Maybe some companies are pulling things like this not in a pure bid just to get them removed (since that doesn't work), but really to make them the center of a controversy such that their (albeit hijacked) IP reaches a broader audience that otherwise wouldn't hear about it without free press from places like /. getting upset about stuff being removed.

      Or maybe I'm getting paranoid and seeing conspiracies...

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    11. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why I have absolutely ZERO respect for copyright, patents, and trademark. They've been so abused over the past decades by greedy companies buying laws from corrupt politicians that the original agreement between creator and the people has been bastardized beyond belief.

      Asshole actions like this have turned me into a deliberate violator of these crooked laws. Hope these fuckers are happy with the bed they've made.

    12. Re:Why the surprise? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      That's what they get for making their game characters so damn sexy...

      wait, did I just say that out loud?

      Note to self: work in inner monologue.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    13. Re:Why the surprise? by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean we will instead see a fan made movie soon called "The Story of Zalde: the hero of time", and it will open with Lunk destroying the evil organization of Nintondiz?

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    14. Re:Why the surprise? by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 2, Informative

      We already have the Legend of Neil (contains strong language)...

    15. Re:Why the surprise? by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 1

      I think it was Edmund Burke who pointed out that "It isn't always wise to do what you have a right to do". However, the common law legal system doesn't operate that way. It tends to assume that it you don't exercise your rights, you implicitly abandon them.

      This is what makes companies take legal action in such cases, even if they might have sympathy for the project itself. If they do not, it might be used as a precedent next time, when somebody has a project that is less beneficial to Nintendo.

      So don't blame them -- write to your Congressman instead.

    16. Re:Why the surprise? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      They could sold a trademark license to the group for $1. Legally, they still demanded the trademark be licensed, but they allow the fan creation.

      Wouldn't that move generate positive press?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    17. Re:Why the surprise? by Sethumme · · Score: 1

      What happens if fan-art popularizes counter-culture versions of the IP characters, like Zelda and Link doing cocaine or joining in orgies? It's true that fan art is for the most part supportive of the original artist's direction, much like the amateur film in question, but without any control over which derivative works are allowed, the integrity of the game character could be obliterated. Even something as mild as suggesting Link is gay, while not inherently or morally negative, could hurt the image and damage sales of the Zelda games in areas that aren't as tolerant.

      Sure, small-scale fan-fiction is impossible to control, but for all intents and purposes that type of derivative work only influences the community that created it and finds interest in it. When it comes to something as high-profile as this film, it becomes much more important that the IP holder has some say in how its characters are depicted. However, in general I think companies should be more willing to grant no-fee licenses to devoted fans since it only builds a stronger bond in the community. It's a shame Nintendo is fighting back against this rather than supporting it and sharing in the attention.

    18. Re:Why the surprise? by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering the piss-poor quality of the movie itself I don't blame nintendo either.

    19. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical Japanese thinking for you. Either yes or no. There is no grey.

      or for those matrix fans, "there is no spoon"

    20. Re:Why the surprise? by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      The first 1:20 had character and plot establishment, where we follow the beginnings of Link's self discovery and development as a person arising out of some mysterious tragic death or sacrifice or something. And then Link forgets all that in the montage and last act which packs more story in than had previously occurred in the entire movie, in which he and the princess go on a blood-thirsty impersonal CG rampage to tell an abbreviated story which they didn't have time to show because the pacing and editing was so poor that they managed to fill the first 1:20 with too many story elements which don't matter and which we never see again. There was too many eyecandy town and festival sets filled with people who don't matter to the story, which they could have invested in the ending instead of the bad blue-screen comps of actors in unaltered natural settings. They go through a lot of trouble setting up the sword and imbuing it, and Link with elemental powers, but only use it in a couple of clash-bang sword fights, ignoring that Link has gained super-natural powers along the way. Also, there are lasers from space, and illogical use of a time machine.

      In short, this is what Star Trek: Generations could have been if RDM and Brannon Braga had been able to write a movie.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    21. Re:Why the surprise? by agrif · · Score: 1

      I realize that this is not really a "big business", but I feel that this information belongs somewhere in the comments, so this is a great lead-in...

      They guys working on the Myst Movie (the Book of Ti'ana) started working on it in their spare time, without even telling anyone. Personally, I think they just wanted to exercise some creative skills. But eventually, they had a script and vision that they totally loved. So, they sent it off to Cyan Worlds (makers of Myst, Riven, ...) as this self-shot presentation... and Cyan loved it. They're hunting around now for some production studios, and there are some seriously big names interested.

      Cyan loves it's fans. They're working now on open-sourcing their cult classic (but 2 time failure) Uru Live, and have always maintained a very positive relationship with their fanbase. Other companies, off the top of my head, that have the same relationship include Valve, Valve, and, umm... hrm... why aren't there more?

      All companies should do this! The fans love it, and sometimes the companies can profit, big-time! (Cyan's basically getting a free motion picture, and Valve has co-opted lots of the quality maps for Team Fortress 2)

    22. Re:Why the surprise? by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    23. Re:Why the surprise? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the Myst movie had fucked up the Myst story, Cyan would not have loved it.

      That's basically what happened here, fan makes game movie, game creator hates what fan movie does to his characters, game company kills game movie.

      Zelda is Zelda because of the creative power behind it, and what the fans did didn't jive with the creative power behind Zelda. Ergo, Zelda fan movie was not disirable as it would screw up the future stories.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    24. Re:Why the surprise? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what others have said, it's more a case of it being a complete piece of shit and Nintendo not wanting it to damage the Zelda franchise.

      Can't say I blame them.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    25. Re:Why the surprise? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could see it if they had made a good movie, but apparently it was a real tomato. Licensing it would have been a stupid thing for Nintendo to do, if it was terrible.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    26. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it funny that for my YTMND reference I'm being downvoted as a troll by what I expect are Sega fanbois.

    27. Re:Why the surprise? by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      I agree. What did they expect?

      Having said that, it's about time that there was a standardised way for IP holders to grant a "fan art licence" for projects such as this.

      You mean, the way (this is going to sound odd) Microsoft has done with the Halo franchise?

      Yeah, if only there was a place that Sony's lawyers could get hold of that licensing language to look it over... something like a network of interconnected computers...

  2. "Unspoiled by fan's interpretation's" by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without these evil fans they have no sales. Pricks. And I'm not even a gamer.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:"Unspoiled by fan's interpretation's" by PenisLands · · Score: 0

      Heh heh! PENIS.

    2. Re:"Unspoiled by fan's interpretation's" by Threni · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, Nintendo have to protect them? No, they could license it for free and it would not dilute their ownership of trademarks. It's bollocks - like when companies say "unfortunately we can't fix your product for free". It's not unfortunate - it's a result of their policy, which they could change whenever they felt like it.

    3. Re:"Unspoiled by fan's interpretation's" by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      It's typically some low-level drone on the other end of the phone line that's saying "unfortunately". I think they really do empathize with you in that respect. I've had calls relating to service like this in my life where the dude says (in not so many words) "Dude, I wish I could help you, but it's against the stupid rules we have and I can't afford to get my ass shitcanned."

  3. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Got a link?

    1. Re:So... by mqduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Got a link?

      Yup.

      Way to go, Nintendo. I'd never heard of the movie before, but because of this story, I'm downloading it as we speak.

      --
      Property is theft.
    2. Re:So... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      And soon you'll discover the REAL reason nintendo killed it - it's apparently a piece of crap.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  4. Took awhile? by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

    Surprised it took so long for them to take the thing down, what with it having been in theaters and all.

    --
    "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    1. Re:Took awhile? by skine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As with most slashdot articles, they say [big company] does something outrageous and evil to [little guy who's not even trying to profit or nothing!].

      Then you find out that they're showing it in theaters (which tend to be for-profit ventures).

    2. Re:Took awhile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your proof of this is where? Can you provide a link?

    3. Re:Took awhile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no admission price to the theater showings they hosted. It was FREE, as in beer. So, yes, theater showings tend to be for-profit ventures. But NOT in this case.

    4. Re:Took awhile? by mqduck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even the for- or not-for-profit issue aside, Nintendo has actually apparently been pretty cool about it (so I take back my own sarcastic comment in another thread). From the movie's website: "We came to an agreement with Nintendo earlier this month to stop distributing the film. In the spirit of the holiday season they were good enough to let us keep the movie up for you to watch and enjoy through the end of 2009, but not past 2009."

      Other examples of Nintendo being cool is the way they never tried to stop the fan translation of Mother 3 after they announced it wasn't going to be ported here.

      --
      Property is theft.
    5. Re:Took awhile? by BlackBloq · · Score: 0

      Fans rent theaters stupid so they cover the cost of the rental.

  5. The Hero of Time still lives on... by loufoque · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... on your favourite bittorrent search engine.

    1. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by JumperCable · · Score: 1

      Is it any good?

    2. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here.

      For those too lazy to google it. :)

    3. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by M8e · · Score: 1

      Nice link!

    4. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by phiz187 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I had never even heard of this movie before Nintendo's legal action made this a newsworthy story. This free publicity will actually ensure that MORE people become aware of the movie and see it. So, if that was Nintendo's true purpose, then this didn't really accomplish anything. The film producer's won't make any profit off of bittorrent downloads, so if Nintendo's goals was to prevent people from profitting off of their Intellectual Property, than this may accomplish that.

      As a final word, that statement from the producers is NOT genuine. It reeks of of a forced statement that Nintendo's lawyers forced him to make at "gunpoint" (ballpoint?) to stave off community outrage.

      --
      Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
    5. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a link on my favourite bittorrent site, btjunkie.org

      http://dl.btjunkie.org/torrent/The-Legend-of-Zelda-Movie-The-Hero-of-Time-fanmade-avi/435813d5e16f295de4c8f2540ea0aeb8f58b3ac2ebc0/download.torrent

    6. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Informative

      For a fan made movie it looks pretty good. I mean, it is better done that dragon ball evolution movie. Which somehow was actually studio produced...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHLpTc6Lfhw

    7. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a better one (audio is actually in sync with the video). http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5250999/The_Hero_of_Time_(2009)___Soundtrack

    8. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Actually, I will have to disagree with that. the script was much better. But Joel had no clue about good pacing, post production editing and other things. You could tell the green screen effects and the end where Link kills gannon, they didnt leave the hole in. It looked fan made and honestly it was done badly. The fan made LOTR movie looked like it was made with Peter Jackson's people. It fit. This was sad. So I am not angry with Nintendo because it was done so poorly. However, we do need a fan provision. Basically it should say that us recognize that we can't make money off it and that the characters etc aren't ours and we are doing this to express our enjoyment of the story and as a way to add to it. The rights holder should recognize that we are doing his marketing and that he aren't harming anything (even if the production is really bad) and that a well recieved movie even if it is crappy could lead to a good movie. (i think the movie could have been much better with a couple more actresses, and someone who understood how to edit a film.)

    9. Re:The Hero of Time still lives on... by Supurcell · · Score: 1

      Whoa, I was completely unaware of a Lord of the Rings fan movie. I will soon be watching both LoZ and LotR.

  6. Actually... by NemosomeN · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They took so long to enforce it as part of the agreement. If they don't enforce their trademarks, they lose them. Waiting to take it down was the best they could have done, honestly. Props for waiting.

    --
    I hate grammar Nazi's.
    1. Re:Actually... by Plunky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They took so long to enforce it as part of the agreement. If they don't enforce their trademarks, they lose them. Waiting to take it down was the best they could have done, honestly. Props for waiting.

      No, it was not the best they could have done. That would have been saying "cool" and granting a free licence.

    2. Re:Actually... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. You can enforce your trademarks and still allow fan works. For instance, CBS allows use of Star Trek properties for non-profit use. Nintendo should be encouraging their most enthusiastic fans, not threatening them with legal action.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about sick puppies here, these people are nuts, it's like a religion to them. Much in a way like goths but more proactive, if you don't cut them down once in a while they'll grow in numbers and then dictate what form the product (game) should take, leaving the not-so-nuts-but-still-like-the-game people very unhappy.

      Why do you think they killed Startrek Enterprise ?

    4. Re:Actually... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      [quote]For instance, CBS allows use of Star Trek properties for non-profit use.[/quote]

      Paramount (CBS) wasn't always like that, it took them a while to come around. There was one time where they tried to shut down all Star Trek fan sites, at least partly as a way to funnel fans to the official site, which I think was supposed to be a pay site.

      I can see both sides of it, it looks to me to be a delicate balancing act.

    5. Re:Actually... by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have no right to rip off other people's work without permission. What is an homage to one person is a horrible butchering of something they've spent years of their lives working to another.

      CBS are liberal with permissions to use Star Trek stuff. Good for them. Other creators do not wish the same things of their properties. Do not confuse one group's good will with something that should be expected from everyone.

      I gave to a charity the other day. You should give to them too. It's outrageous that you have yet to donate to them! If I can donate, I see no reason why you shouldn't too!

    6. Re:Actually... by Megane · · Score: 1

      As I recall from knowing a couple of people in the Star Trek fanzine community back in the '80s, Star Trek is a special case as far as fanfics go. It seems that Desilu didn't register the copyrights properly for the first season, so fanfics without Chekov are fair game. Or at least that's how they explained it to me.

      Of course what you have linked to includes Chekov, so they couldn't use that excuse.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:Actually... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      They most likely forgot that the people who made them run since the beginning still exist. All they care about now are grandmas and soccer moms playing Wii Fit...

      I seriously hope their utter lack of respect for their fans comes and bites them in the ass.

    8. Re:Actually... by Mprx · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a serious threat. Think of what happened to the Sonic the Hedgehog series.

    9. Re:Actually... by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do not confuse one group's good will with something that should be expected from everyone.

      I think you're being a little bit harsh but raise a good point all the same. It would be really easy to tweak the story line and character names to come up with an original story. At least then you'd have a small but non-zero chance of being able to sell your final product.

      I've seen the same thing in Star Wars fan films. Some of them are really quite good and required a huge amount of effort. Had they put that effort into an original story in a vaguely similar universe, they'd own it.

      A Zelda fan might enjoy a Zelda-like story line nearly as much. You just have to invest in the back story, which you can skip in a fan film. But if you use a similar setting and environment, the history can be pretty short. A narrator can read it in if you really want to go cheap. The fans will get it. If it's too similar you could still get sued, but then it's a big corporation beating up on a bunch of poor kids. Not a bunch of poor kids encroaching on a big company's copyright.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    10. Re:Actually... by Hatta · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do not confuse one group's good will with something that should be expected from everyone.

      Good will should be expected from everyone. Without it, you're a dick, by definition. And when you give good will, you get it back.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Actually... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      They killed Enterprise because the writers were so tapped for ideas that they were rehashing old Voyager scripts, that's why. Hell they would have been better off if they would have let the fans write the show. The fans couldn't have done worse, and I have read many a fan fic that was actually better than the crap the writers put out.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Props? They could have just not fucking took it down in the first place.
      They could have said something like, "Here, we will help you with your work and get you some profit if you give us a cut, this relationship could benefit us both"
      We would have seen it and possibly more, but no, businesses just being idiots as usual.
      Whoever was in control with that decision should be fired.

    13. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good will should be expected from everyone.

      By whom? You're telling me that I should expect good will from everybody? With out any regard for pretext? Sounds naive, and you contradict his sentiment by calling GP a derogatory name because he disagrees with you.

      And when you give good will, you get it back.

      I would mod your post down if only I had the mod points...

    14. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good will should be expected from everyone. Without it, you're a dick, by definition. And when you give good will, you get it back.

      Did you give to one or more charities?
      Did you donate blood?
      Did you drop off foodstuffs at your local food bank?
      Did you offer to volunteer your time at a youth center?

      If you didn't do all of the above, are you a dick?

      There are countless organizations and people who could use your help. Is it reasonable for all of them to expect some form of support and/or goodwill from you or anyone else specifically?

      Also, when I donate to charities or drop off items at youth support centers, I expect, and invariably receive, nothing back.

    15. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butchering? Who cares? Their work is not sacred or inviolable and deserves no such protection.

      Get over yourselves, no art or entertainment is that special.

    16. Re:Actually... by phiz187 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the nature of "Intellectual Property" rights. It is not a "natural right" (such as the the right to bodily integrity). It is an artificial state-granted monopoly. And it's purpose is not to grant control over a person's work because they have a property claim to it. The US's IP regime exists to incentivize people to produce, because it benefits the public good. You appear to have some conception that producer's have an innate right to rigorous control over their work. This isn't how things work (at least in the US), and if you push on some of your assumptions, you will see how your system would lead to some absurd results.

      --
      Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
    17. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is a "natural right", all your rights are artificial rules backed by law enforcement and the military.

      The only natural law/right is "might makes right"

    18. Re:Actually... by Hatta · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm not calling the GP a dick, I'm calling Nintendo dicks. Shutting down someone's project just because you can is a dick move. Being nice about it would get Nintendo good publicity, keep the fan community healthy, etc. It's a win win situation, and the only reason to shut down this project is to be a dick because you can be.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:Actually... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You have no right to rip off other people's work without permission.

      While it may be true that you have no legal right, you do have every moral right.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:Actually... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I've seen the same thing in Star Wars fan films. Some of them are really quite good and required a huge amount of effort. Had they put that effort into an original story in a vaguely similar universe, they'd own it.

      I think it should be obvious that anyone doing fan-fiction of any sort is not interested in "owning it" - no one with even the tiniest sense of the real world expects the sort of monetary gain that can come from rights ownership to occur with fan-fiction. Instead they are looking for the benefits that have little to nothing to do with rights ownership - public accolades from the community and the satisfaction of creating something being at the head of the list.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    21. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a lot of damn gall to think you have the right to control what another thinks/imagines/creates based on what you have "put out there".

      If "other creators" do not want their works re-imagined, they should not make their "original" work available in the first place. The only way to control what is done with an idea is to keep the idea a secret. (Mass marketing a work is NOT keeping it a secret.)

      Copyrights were intended as a monopoly granted by society to protect an "original" creator for commercial purposes ONLY.

      Please stop thinking it a tool of mind control.

    22. Re:Actually... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      This production was original enough that it probably was not a copyright issue. It was a film adaptation of a game, which is going to be very, very different (and different is key with copyright).

      Where this project gets into trouble is with Trademark infringement. Zelda is trademarked, and owned by Nintendo. They must vigorously defend this trademark or it becomes null.

      Fan fiction is generally considered fair use, it's just those trademarks that can get you in trouble. As long as nothing is sold I think you're in the clear, but once money changes hands there is infiringement on the trademark.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    23. Re:Actually... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Part of protecting a trademark is making sure its value is preserved.

      The movie was crap and any sort of official backing from Nintendo would have damaged their value.

  7. Pick and choose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it... Nintendo let the (completed) and arguably much better Light of Courage Zelda series stay up. Why would they take this one down?

    1. Re:Pick and choose? by hort_wort · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This probably isn't the best time to bring attention to another of your liked series. Just a thought.

  8. Nintendo sucks by russotto · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    We understand Nintendo's right to protect its characters and trademarks and understand how in order to keep their property unspoiled by fan's interpretation of the franchise, Nintendo needs to protect itself -- even from fan-works with good intentions.

    It's bad enough Nintendo shut them down. Forcing them to put out a "mea culpa" statement like this (no doubt with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of lawsuits promised if they did not) is absolutely disgusting. Even if they did manage to put a little edge in it.

    1. Re:Nintendo sucks by Sowelu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Proof, please. Imagining the worst possible motives and threats when you don't know what really went on is absolutely disgusting.

    2. Re:Nintendo sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't find this disgusting at all, just realistic. Corporations do not ever deserve the benefit of the doubt, because they will always disappoint. Sorry if you think otherwise.

    3. Re:Nintendo sucks by russotto · · Score: 0, Troll

      Proof, please. Imagining the worst possible motives and threats when you don't know what really went on is absolutely disgusting.

      Absolute proof isn't a luxury often available, certainly not in this case. Which do you believe? That Nintendo convinced these people that making their film was actually harmful to Nintendo, and that they truly regretted it, or that Nintendo forced them to say so despite their belief otherwise?

      I don't see any evidence at all for the former proposition aside from the bare statement itself. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for the latter proposition, however, including Nintendo's known litigious nature and the existence of such high penalties in copyright law.

    4. Re:Nintendo sucks by Sowelu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't see anything about regret. All I saw was "Yeah, they have a legal or financial need to protect their brand, so they had to take us down". Why would you even think that their statement was coerced? Sure, they were forced to take it down to avoid big lawsuits, but that's not what you said. You said "Forcing them to put out a "mea culpa" statement like this (no doubt with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of lawsuits promised if they did not) is absolutely disgusting." Again, what exactly makes you think it's coerced?

    5. Re:Nintendo sucks by superslacker87 · · Score: 1

      Proof, please. Imagining the worst possible motives and threats when you don't know what really went on is absolutely disgusting.

      Proof is nonexistent, and probably always will be. You want proof? Next time someone gets sued by (insert big evil corporation here), make sure they have the funds to go to court. Settling prevents anything from becoming public record.

      --
      I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
    6. Re:Nintendo sucks by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      While it's always possible it was something else, I think it's by far the most reasonable explanation for the given text. Why else would they write in legalese repeating what looks like what would be the Nintendo party line?

    7. Re:Nintendo sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had for whatever reason put years of effort making your fan movie, and all the sudden its poof gone, your not as likely to be walking around going... "ya know i shoulda just know better." Its just not in human nature to not only admit defeat, but to rub the salt in your own wounds. Heres my analogy, A school bully gives you a swirly, then he tells you hes gonna give you a swirly every day of your life unless you give yourself a purple nurple. Note im just translating and could give a rats ass about that

    8. Re:Nintendo sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You find that someone making an assumption that Nintendo are being a bunch of litigous assholes is "disgusting"? Cut the fanboyism, ok? Look at nintendo's history. This is right up their alley, and you have a pretty twisted definition of "disgusting".

    9. Re:Nintendo sucks by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      what exactly makes you think it's coerced?

      The wording has a distinctly corporate/legalese air to it. No need for that sort of precise construction unless you are trying to satisfy someone else's requirements.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:Nintendo sucks by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      That's one way to look at it. Another is that the movie makers are artists. This group varies wildly on what they think should be allowed with other people's art, but because they create art, they understand the possessiveness one feels when you pour your heart and soul into a project and the desire to protect said project against outside influence at all cost. Because of this, I find artists tend to be surprisingly lax when it comes to take-down notices like this one.

  9. Derivative Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The owner of the copyright has the *exclusive* right to make derivative works.

    That includes everything, for-profit or not-for-profit.

    If you want to make a derivative work of someone else's stuff, you have to ask for (and receive) permission first.

    I realize the slashdot crowd doesn't agree with all that, but it is the existing law.

    1. Re:Derivative Works by Plunky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The owner of the copyright has the *exclusive* right to make derivative works.

      No, the owner of the copyright has the *exclusive* right to distribute, and the *exclusive* right to licence others to distribute.

      The owner of the trademark has the *exclusive* right to make derivative works, and the *exclusive* right to licence other derivative works.

      That they chose to deny approval to a derivative work is their choice even if it shows them up as asshats

    2. Re:Derivative Works by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      The editor of Mad Magazine would like to have a word with you.

      Parody is derived is it now?

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    3. Re:Derivative Works by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Serious fan-films like this aren't seen as parody though.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:Derivative Works by mdwh2 · · Score: 2

      Yes, thank you Captain Obvious. Is anyone claiming otherwise?

      The issue isn't what the law is, it's what the law should be, as well as how companies should use the law. When there's a story about the use of the DMCA, do you go posting the text of the DMCA, saying "But that's the law!"? In yesterday's story, are you going to explain what the current copyright law is, and therefore those items won't be entering the public domain today?

    5. Re:Derivative Works by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Trademark has absolutely nothing to do with this case, particularly considering that they avoided using any trademarks in the title.
      The copyright holder, or more specifically the author, needs to grant permission for derivatives. Often they will do this liberally for fans, but if it's a huge corporation and an important franchise, they will be concerned about having a negative effect.

    6. Re:Derivative Works by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Using a character from a series of works is most certainly potential trademark infringement... Even if you don't register, there's an argument to be made in protecting it. But everyone and everything with a name in Nintendo's worlds is trademarked.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Derivative Works by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      'Derivative work' is a term that applies entirely to copyright law. The closest analogue in trademark law is 'passing off', which is very different. Distributing a derivative work of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner is copyright infringement.

      You can argue that the protections of derivative works are too strong (and I would agree with you) but arguing that they don't exist is entirely wrong.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Derivative Works by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The owner of the copyright has the *exclusive* right to make derivative works...I realize the slashdot crowd doesn't agree with all that, but it is the existing law.

      Apart from the first statement being simply untrue (there are a number of uses permitted without the copyright holder's permisssion), it is also completely irrelevant - this case is not about copyright, it's about trademarks. I know the fudmongers want us all to be seduced into the "information is property" paradigm, but copyrights and trademarks (and for that matter, patents and trade secrets) are not the same thing at all, and blurring the distinctions between them does nobody any good. Before you go berating us all in your role as AC law expert you might want to get a better understanding of the law yourself.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    9. Re:Derivative Works by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Using a character from a series infringes on copyright more than anything. By that however I mean more than just the name. The history, appearance and setting is more decisive than common christian names.
      Using a trademarked name within a work doesn't necessarily infringe on the trademark.

      Thus I could write a crime novel in which a character appears with the name Harry Potter, as it is a common name. If I make him the main character and start promoting it with that name, I would be progressively infringing on the trademark.
      Of course JK Rowling and company will see it a little more agressively but that's for the courts to decide.

      In this case they don't appear to have promoted the film with the trademarked Zelda and Link names, but they set the movie in the Hyrule Universe, copied the story from the game and used the characters. A clear copyright case.

    10. Re:Derivative Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What law has to do with rights?

    11. Re:Derivative Works by selven · · Score: 1

      Arguing what the law is is boring - the first one to Wikipedia wins. Slashdot arguments are about what the law should be.

    12. Re:Derivative Works by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Distributing a derivative work of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner is copyright infringement.

      Bingo. If people without javascript got mod points anymore, I would mod you up (and the other guy down for simply being wrong).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  10. Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, after viewing the trailer, it's like we dodged a bullet there, the world is looking a lot brighter now. Thank you Nintendo!

  11. Streisand effect! by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now I'm curious and I'm going to have to hunt down a copy of that movie, that I would never have heard of had Nintendo just let it be.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Streisand effect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two nearly identical torrents on both the Pirate Bay and BTJunkie which seem to be gathering seeds as I write this. A copy of this movie is already available at your favorite wretched hive of scum and villainy, and now that Nintendo's gotten all haughty about it and pissed everyone off, that situation is guaranteed not to change any time soon.

      Way to go, guys.

    2. Re:Streisand effect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy as pie: http://thepiratebay.org/search/The%20Hero%20of%20Time/0/7/0

    3. Re:Streisand effect! by Velodra · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is Nintendo's way of helping them. Instead of ignoring them, they shut them down and gave them a lot of attention they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

    4. Re:Streisand effect! by superslacker87 · · Score: 1, Redundant
      --
      I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
    5. Re:Streisand effect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm skeptical of the streisand effect in this story. So much crap like this happens that we are being desensitized to it. Also, in this case, this happening is exposing me to a product I won't care about in a week (the actual fanfic), and is making me more aware of the Zelda franchise, which actually helps Nintendo.

      I think the streisand effect, in small doses or for things that are more significant, can have a positive effect in select cases, but not here.

    6. Re:Streisand effect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank You. AC. And to think, I might have even payed for it.

    7. Re:Streisand effect! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to upload a torrent and include this sound file.

    8. Re:Streisand effect! by bmpc · · Score: 1

      I actually came across the video a week or so ago... watched a few seconds and dispatched the link to a friend of mine's that is a Zelda-addict.

      And I probably wasn't gonna go to the site again.

      Then I saw this on slashdot... and my interest went up and I started to look for it on torrent sites.

      Funny stuff.

  12. Maybe people should learn about IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe people should learn that you simple have very little rights to do anything with other people's IP. Yes it does not seem fair but that's how it is.

    Use and leverage things which allow you to exploit them, like open source software or creative commons licensed works.

    Personally I want to see the copyright holders become more vigilant so that the world can realize the dangers of IP and maybe from that we can learn to have a more constructive society with more open-IP.

    For the time being, don't take the IP others, leverage what is available in the community.

    1. Re:Maybe people should learn about IP by grumbel · · Score: 1

      I bet most people are well aware that fanart is on sketchy legal grounds, but they don't care for a simple reason: Basing your work on popular commercial IP allows you not only to recycle ideas, but more importantly it lets you recycle the fan community. You get the social connection (forums, chat, etc), maybe costumes, maybe music and all that kind of stuff for free.

      If you would start with something totally original on the other side, you would have a hard time finding anybody interested enough in it to contribute and you would have no place to go to find contributors.

  13. Why did they bother?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that these people are fans, but I don't get why they put all their energy into creating a project that was going to shut down?!

    Instead, why didn't they create a work influenced and inspired by Zelda and put that out instead? People might remark that it was derivative, but it would be far better than a project that was doomed to be forced underground.

    I know some people will say that they wanted a Zelda movie, but Nintendo don't want to make one, but that's Nintendo's tough shit really, though - they'll not see any of their fan's money because of it!

  14. Lessons Learned by westlake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fan spends four years in production. The film is screened in New York and L.A.

    It never occurs to him at any point along the way to ask Nintendo for their permission and support. It comes as a surprise when the rights holder pulls the plug.

    There is a way to get it right:

    The Hunt for Gollum
       

    1. Re:Lessons Learned by digitaltraveller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It never occurs to him at any point along the way to ask Nintendo for their permission and support. It comes as a surprise when the rights holder pulls the plug.

      I get what your saying but...c'mon. Artists shouldn't have to ask permission to do their work.

      This happened because trademark law says companies are required to defend their TM or lose them.
      The rise of the global DNS makes (word) trademark law obsolete however it will probably take at least another
      century before governments figure this out.

      In the meantime, the creators of this should rename their word to the Legend of Velda, to avoid the legal
      hassles.

    2. Re:Lessons Learned by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful


      The fan spends four years in production. The film is screened in New York and L.A.

      Sounds like they did it about exactly right. They finished the film, had it shown in at least two major cities, had it up for online distribution for a month, and now there's a story about it in one of the best places to advertise.

      So you REALLY think they should have tried to approach a company as large as Nintendo and alert them to the fact they're trying to make a movie that would make Nintendo essentially zero dollars and Nintendo would have zero input on? It might have worked, but I wouldn't bet on it. It would be tough enough to just get an ANSWER from them. The most likely scenario is you'd get a letter from legal telling you how they'll sue you if you release the movie. Why bait the sharks?

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asking for permission can be a thorny issue.

      Sometimes, there is a tacit understanding that you can do certain things and get away with it, as long as you don't force someone to state whether what you're doing is OK or not. One example might be people sharing live recordings of independent musicians - chances are most musicians won't come down on you if you do it, but if you explicitely ask if you're allowed to do so, they'll say no, simply because they cannot say yes.

      Maybe these guys thought the same would be true: that while Nintendo couldn't say yes, they wouldn't say no.

    4. Re:Lessons Learned by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get what your saying but...c'mon. Artists shouldn't have to ask permission to do their work.

      That's a bit on the utopian side. They're making a derivative of someone else's "art". If it's really artistry, then it seems to me that they could have been more original than that.

    5. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never occurs to him at any point along the way to ask Nintendo for their permission and support. It comes as a surprise when the rights holder pulls the plug.

      "Contrition is better than permission."

      If they had asked Nintendo, it's a near certainty that Nintendo would have said "no!" and that would be that. This way, they got to make their movie, screen it, and it's now on the Intarwebz.

    6. Re:Lessons Learned by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I get what your saying but...c'mon. Artists shouldn't have to ask permission to do their work.

      Unless their work is a derivative work of someone else's work, then they probably should. And I mean, it's not like we're talking about some light-gray area like a two second sample of a song, or a story that is clearly directly inspired (read: ripping off) another. It's a movie about the Legend of Zelda.

      Maybe in my perfect world they wouldn't need permission, but also in that world it would be polite to ask. In this world, not asking is kinda, well, lacking in foresight. Unless the mentality was "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission". And maybe that was true; Nintendo might have said "no" from the get-go and the film never would have existed. But forgiveness would be even less likely, so this outcome is hardly surprising.

      Fanfic authors do their stuff without asking permission, but they're generally aware that this means they're on thin ice and are basically counting on being too insignificant a target for anyone to care about. As soon as you start thinking of adapting your fanfic to the big screen, then some alarm bells should be going off.

      In the meantime, the creators of this should rename their word to the Legend of Velda, to avoid the legal
      hassles.

      Sure. Blinken can search for the Thigh-Master Sword to rescue Drama Queen Velda from the evil but eccentrically effeminate Sha-mon.

      Would a Zelda parody be as popular? Maybe. Would a homemade sword-and-sorcery movie unrelated to Zelda at all be as popular? Probably not. Which is why I don't think "Artists shouldn't have to ask permission to do their work" shows the proper understanding and respect for the debt they owe to the creators of the source material they're working from.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How then do you propose fanart take place, considering nothing from the 1920s will make it into the public domain?

    8. Re:Lessons Learned by selven · · Score: 1

      Just because the fan could have handled this better doesn't make this takedown any less an evil act.

    9. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Shakespeare also did a lot of derivative works, but no one complains about him.

    10. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're making a derivative of someone else's "art". If it's really artistry, then it seems to me that they could have been more original than that.

      Damn right! Walt Disney was a leech!

    11. Re:Lessons Learned by RicardoGCE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about people actually start creating original material instead of endlessly wanking to someone else's creations?

      Yeah, infinite copyright sucks. However, nothing's stopping anyone from coming up with new characters, settings, and stories.

      Write one new story, make one new film, paint one new picture. It'll benefit us all far more than yet another "fan" mashup/fanfic/homage/whatever.

    12. Re:Lessons Learned by russotto · · Score: 1

      If I were an author I'd come down on _any_ fanficcer with the fury of God's own lawyers;

      Good luck with that; I'm pretty sure it's the other guy with all the lawyers.

    13. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALL art is derived, moron.

    14. Re:Lessons Learned by edjs · · Score: 1

      This happened because trademark law says companies are required to defend their TM or lose them.

      Now, TFA is a little light on info (the summary's almost as long), and doesn't really say on what basis Nintendo did the takedown, but as long as the people using the TM are properly acknowledging the TM owner there's no danger of losing the TM. That requires not using it yourself for a period of time or ignoring others using it without acknowledgement, or having it become genericised. That's separate from the TM holder's objections to (and control over) others' use of the TM.

    15. Re:Lessons Learned by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      until you find out someone in a village in southern Missouri 140 years ago wrote a song that shares at least 3 main phrases with your most recent hit. You never heard that song, you used your talent to create your own, so what if the old one is different?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    16. Re:Lessons Learned by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I get what your saying but...c'mon. Artists shouldn't have to ask permission to do their work.

      They're not doing THEIR work, they're adapting SOMEONE ELSE's work. And it's not like Nintendo is abusing a copyright that should have long-since expired by now, either... they're perfectly within their legal and moral right in this case.

      If they wanted to make a fantasy movie, and more power to them, they could have made an *original* one, making it an original work. Then I might be able to respect the film.

      The only reason they did a Zelda adaptation in the first place is to cash-in on the name recognition. Cha-ching.

    17. Re:Lessons Learned by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was long before they invented this sham called "intellectual property".

    18. Re:Lessons Learned by Pherlin · · Score: 1

      Is Michaelangelo's Creation Painting not Art, then? It is a derivitave work, in the fullest sense of the word, but I am fairly certain it is also art in the truest sense of the word.

    19. Re:Lessons Learned by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      They're making a derivative of someone else's "art". If it's really artistry, then it seems to me that they could have been more original than that.

      The Quest of Tilda: Lank's Journey.

      Trouble with knockoffs is they sound like knockoffs, and if they don't, the average fan (normally the only audience for "fan" projects) doesn't have anything advertising to them that it's an homage.
      If I miss a cool Slashdot story, I have a 4 or 5 day window for another editor to repost it, and then I'll never look past the front page again. Without word of mouth, and I mean serious buzz, the chance for a fan project of this scale to also afford and benefit from real advertising (also drawing more attention from IP holders) and gain momentum diminishes towards zero.

    20. Re:Lessons Learned by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      There's two possible conspiracies here.

      Nintendo conspiracy, they see the movie, they like it, and then they get it taken down claiming trademark blabbity blah. They have... something? to gain from it. I don't know. There's lots of angles that could be worked here.

      Filmmaker's conspiracy, they know it's not kosher to make this movie. They also know that Nintendo has a brand image to uphold and while they will threaten litigation, they won't really bring down the hammer too hard because it would tarnish their image. Streisand Effect takes place, people see it, and all of a sudden these fan film makers are a hot property. It's a great way to manipulate geeks into doing P.R. for you for free.

      I imagine that there are hundreds of people who will read this and laugh at its absurdity. I'd also imagine that there's a small handful of people laughing and saying "Holy shit, he figured it out... good thing no one would ever believe him."

    21. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about people actually start creating original material instead of endlessly wanking to someone else's creations?

      You really don't know anything about art do you?

      ALL art is derived. Originality in culture is a post-industrial myth created out of the despair of the universal man required to service the needs of industrialization.

    22. Re:Lessons Learned by mqduck · · Score: 1

      It never occurs to him at any point along the way to ask Nintendo for their permission and support.

      There's no way they would have received it. This way, it got made and people saw it, and Nintendo even allowed them to keep showing it through 2009. The summary here is perhaps purposely misleading. The sentence being skipped over with '...' is "In the spirit of the holiday season they were good enough to let us keep the movie up for you to watch and enjoy through the end of 2009, but not past 2009."

      --
      Property is theft.
    23. Re:Lessons Learned by Andorin · · Score: 1

      And it's not like Nintendo is abusing a copyright that should have long-since expired by now, either... they're perfectly within their legal and moral right in this case.

      Moral rights? I submitted the story so I'll have to disagree with you there. Legal rights? Yes, unfortunately, Nintendo was acting within their legal rights. It was a dick move by Nintendo, but copyright law is partially to blame as well.

      If they wanted to make a fantasy movie, and more power to them, they could have made an *original* one, making it an original work. Then I might be able to respect the film.

      Um, the film's producers wanted to create a tribute to the popular LoZ series, not just any fantasy movie. Kind of defeats the purpose of total originality.

      The only reason they did a Zelda adaptation in the first place is to cash-in on the name recognition. Cha-ching.

      Did you RTFS? The film is nonprofit. It wasn't some group of undesireables trying to pirate Nintendo's IP and profit from it. It was a bunch of Zelda lovers creating a fan film for funsies. Nintendo must be taking lessons from the RIAA on harassing their customers.

      --
      That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    24. Re:Lessons Learned by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Um, the film's producers wanted to create a tribute to the popular LoZ series, not just any fantasy movie.

      Then WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK PERMISSION FIRST!? Christ, are they retarded? What did they think was going to happen, exactly?

      I have no idea why you're expecting sympathy for something like this.

    25. Re:Lessons Learned by Andorin · · Score: 1

      Then WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK PERMISSION FIRST!? Christ, are they retarded? What did they think was going to happen, exactly?

      I have no idea why you're expecting sympathy for something like this.

      I obviously cannot speak for the producers myself, but I personally don't think that permission and/or royalties should be necessary in cases like this. It was clearly noncommercial, and clearly not sponsored by Nintendo. Laws that allow absolute control over any derivative works are a good way to strangle creativity and innovation. Hmm, maybe that's why they were enacted in the first place!

      --
      That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    26. Re:Lessons Learned by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Laws that allow absolute control over any derivative works are a good way to strangle creativity and innovation.

      But the obvious point that you're missing is that this is not creative, nor is it innovative.

      Creative would have been coming up with their own universe to tell a story in. Innovative would be doing something on film that has never been done before. This is neither.

      Look, commercial or not, there's nothing creative going on here, there's nothing innovative going on here, and the movie's producers are retarded for not asking permission *before* they expended so much time and effort on the project. I have zero sympathy.

    27. Re:Lessons Learned by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Any child could tell you that if there's a significant risk of permission being denied, permission should not be sought. The creators of this film made the correct decision; the film's complete and readily available.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    28. Re:Lessons Learned by Andorin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the obvious point that you're missing is that this is not creative, nor is it innovative.

      Have you even watched the movie? Or are you just assuming it's a cut-and-paste of Ocarina of Time in movie form? The plot of THOT is not all that similar to OoT's. The basic idea is the same- Ganondorf gaining the Triforce of Power, and Link and Zelda working to stop him- but aside from that, they made a lot of changes, some minor and some not-so-minor, to the storyline. It's almost its own Zelda story. Because of these changes- for example, Saria is Link's adopted Kokiri mother, instead of his friend, and the king of Hyrule holds the Triforce of Power originally, instead of the Sacred Realm- I see a fair amount of creativity in the movie.

      Creative would have been coming up with their own universe to tell a story in.

      I already told you that the point was a Zelda movie. Not just any fantasy movie. Can't really be a Zelda movie if you don't have any of: Link, Zelda, Ganon, Hyrule, the Master Sword, the Triforce, or any other well-known Zelda-universe names. Complete originality therefore defeats the purpose of the movie.

      Innovative would be doing something on film that has never been done before.

      I never said the film itself was particularly innovative. Creative, yes. I mentioned innovation because laws that stifle peoples' ability to create do stifle innovation.

      and the movie's producers are retarded for not asking permission *before* they expended so much time and effort on the project.

      I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to live in a 'permission culture' wherein we have to ask for someone else's permission before creating anything. As I've already touched on, no harm was being done here. Nintendo can whine all they want about their image, but the film was clearly an independently made work and not endorsed by Nintendo. Even says so on their website. Besides, if they want to protect the image of the LoZ franchise, there is a lot worse out there online (think rule 34) that Nintendo should be targeting. And if no harm was being done, there should be no reason to have to get permission.

      Of the major gaming companies- Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo- I used to like Nintendo the most. Now I dislike them all more or less equally, and will not be likely to do business with Nintendo in the future. And I can't imagine the film's producers are happy with Nintendo either, not when it would have been so easy for Nintendo to help them out, even with just a free license.

      --
      That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    29. Re:Lessons Learned by shentino · · Score: 1

      If nintendo was concerned about trademark issues, they could have simply given permission or worked out a license deal.

      Bottom line, Nintendo wanted this film dead.

    30. Re:Lessons Learned by shentino · · Score: 1

      If it was original enough to dodge infringement allegations then it would also be too far departed from the game to appeal to the fans thereof.

      The point of the movie was to act out the game plot in cinematic format, much like Advent Children was a continuation of the FFVII storyline.

  15. Kinda shocked by lyinhart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure why Nintendo would want to do this - it's only a negative for them, spreading all this ill will. Look at Star Trek and Star Wars. Lucasfilm and Paramount generally don't "crack down" on fan films or most other fan works, as long as they're nonprofit ventures. And fan films are more comparable to Lucasfilm and Paramount products. Nintendo primarily sells interactive products, so a noninteractive fan film would not be in direct competition with well, anything they sell. That is, unless they decide to develop a full length Zelda film. Remember how well Super Mario Bros. turned out?

    --
    Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
    1. Re:Kinda shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand... there ARE a series of Zelda mangas coming over right now. Could an anime adaptation (done by the Japanese movie industry, unlike the Super Mario Brothers movie) that actually resembles the source material be that far off?

    2. Re:Kinda shocked by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why Nintendo would want to do this - it's only a negative for them, spreading all this ill will.

      Define all. I think it's a bummer for the creators, but in no way whatsoever will this impact my Nintendo purchasing habits. Whatsoever. This is the first time I've even heard of the project, and if I never see it I doubt my life will be lacking for it.

      Nintendo primarily sells interactive products, so a noninteractive fan film would not be in direct competition with well, anything they sell. That is, unless they decide to develop a full length Zelda film. Remember how well Super Mario Bros. turned out?

      Stronger arguments than this used to be made for the case of sharing ROMs without owning the carts, and morally justifying retro game piracy. Then the Wii came out and virtually every mainstream title Nintendo has published is, or will be on their Virtual Console service. Point being, you have utterly no idea what they could be planning to profit from. It's commonly known as having All Rights Reserved.

    3. Re:Kinda shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Rights holders have been trying to crack down on fan productions off and on since the Internet and modern computers started enabling more professional art and efficient distribution.

      Some names noted for their iffy history with fans:

      Paramount/Viacom (Star Trek), Fox (Millenium, Simpsons), Oasis (music band)

      That was just from a quick search on Wikipedia which led me to a Wired article:

      http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1997/06/4231

      I'm sure just about every company has engaged in some form of crackdown, and if there were an easy and cheap way to do it, would close down every site in a heartbeat. However, most have concluded it's not with the time and cost, and opt for the good-feeling PR of letting it go.

  16. Reminds me of... by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of when Sqeenix decided to shut down that Chrono Trigger fan game.

  17. The next game will be... by adosch · · Score: 1

    The Hero of Time will probably be the next Zelda story-line game Nintendo releases... it was a pretty good story line IMHO. It would not surprise me that Nintendo compensated them for the story (I'm sure not much for it being infringement) and will mangle it for their own liking. Any takers?

    1. Re:The next game will be... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Why would Nintendo bother? They are certainly capable of writing their own stories, even ones that have extremely little content.

      For example, here's the complete story for Majora's Mask:
      Link is looking for Navi when he gets ambushed by Skull Kid. Skull Kid steals Link's horse and Ocarina of Time, and Link is turned into a Deku Scrub. Link has 3 Days (with a Groundhog Day effect) in which to find 4 masks to stop the Skull Kid from crashing the moon into the planet.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  18. Seriously? by drej · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "...to keep their property unspoiled by fan's interpretation of the franchise..." Are they serious? Nintendo doesn't even have a consistent timeline for the Zelda games, plus they're currently running the franchise into the ground (Link as an engineer, anyone?). So what the hell are they complaining about? They should be thankful they still have such loyal fans willing to put so much effort into something out of love for the franchise, even though Nintendo has done almost everything to alienate both hardcore gamers in general and their fanbase alike. Nintendo, you used to be cool. Get your shit together.

  19. Nintendo Needs zelda by moniker127 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously- what does nintendo have besides zelda? Mario- thats it!

    1. Re:Nintendo Needs zelda by LuminousSpecter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Donkey Kong, Metroid, F-Zero, Fire Emblem, Golden Sun, Kirby, Starfy, Star Fox, Punch-Out!!, Pokemon, Kid Icarus

    2. Re:Nintendo Needs zelda by moniker127 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Can I borrow your time machine?

    3. Re:Nintendo Needs zelda by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      No but you can borrow my collection of GBA games from those series, almost all of which have open ended plotlines for future expansions of the series.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    4. Re:Nintendo Needs zelda by panthroman · · Score: 1

      [Zelda], [Mario], Donkey Kong, Metroid, F-Zero, Fire Emblem, Golden Sun, Kirby, Starfy, Star Fox, Punch-Out!!, Pokemon, Kid Icarus

      Shigeru Miyamoto made Nintendo what it is.

  20. Well not a shocker... by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    The acting was so bad I couldn't get through the first 15 min of it... No wonder it got canned!

  21. So Rerelease It by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Rename it to Legend of Grizelda, parody the character names and rerelease it as a parody.
    Joke em if they cant take a F**k! The gall! Screw with your fanbase and lose your old friends like Metallica.
    I bet they woulda ate poo if the takedown lawyers told em to. Damn, question authority even if it is as silly and insignificant as a video game company.
    If no one gets feisty, this will get as bad as the stinkin NFL and their fans art. At least they can always watch hockey instead of pansy pad football.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    1. Re:So Rerelease It by superslacker87 · · Score: 1

      Rename it to Legend of Grizelda,

      So it's going to star The Monkee's aunt? I'd think she'd be dead by now.

      --
      I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
  22. Nothing new here. by Stumbles · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just another example of how companies shoot themselves in the foot, strangle interest and circumvent a prime method of promoting their product; all in the name of that false idea of "protecting themselves". Had some one in their executive management pulled their head out of their ass, they could have capitalized on this to no end. Not that I care one way or another how this played out. It just seems one of the major problems companies have is the; not invented here syndrome.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  23. Conversely by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without these pricks, the fans would have no Zelda.

    1. Re:Conversely by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      And with the way things look, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Conversely by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Losing a handful of fan filmmakers wouldn't make much of a dent in Nintendo's sales. But I doubt that the fan film hurts Nintendo any either. The problem is that the fans put a lot of work into something which they don't have permission to use the trademarks.

    3. Re:Conversely by denmarkw00t · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly - oh bawwwww you spent 4 years and lots of time and money to make something based on a franchise you don't have rights to? I'm so sorry! Seriously, all of the effort could have been used in a much more productive way - they could have, you know, written their own set of characters, their own story (granted, I don't know how closely the movie follows Nintendo's lore), and done the work to create a really good, quality independent film. Or they could have donated it to better Zelda games in the future. Or fuck, taken up a new pass-time - such as crocheting.

    4. Re:Conversely by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You clearly don't understand a thing about culture. Taken to its logical conclusion your position would stop all creative work dead in its tracks because nothing exists in a vacuum - nothing is created completely from scratch. James Campbell pointed out that there are probably less than five stories in all of human history, we just keep telling them over and over again with slight variations, and most of those are just retellings of one specific story, the monomyth.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Conversely by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Without these pricks, the fans would have no Zelda.

      I doubt the lawyers a.k.a. the pricks had that much influence in Miyamoto to start making games.

      Also there is this concept I wish american companies were more aware about: Doujinshi.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    6. Re:Conversely by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then how could they have used name recogniction to get a shitty movie into theaters?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    7. Re:Conversely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James Campbell's 'monomyth' is rather silly, to be honest - it /barely/ fits SOME old, classic tales and mythologies, and totally disregards any story or tale that doesn't involve a hero (actually or metaphorically) going on a journey or quest to the unknown and returning with some boon. All it does is name a couple common tropes and state that since those tropes keep popping up, all stories in all of forever are based upon them.

    8. Re:Conversely by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      I understand some things about our culture - enough to know that you don't have to rip off a trademark to make a movie. Honestly, I do feel a little bad for these people, but then they should have known that what they were getting into was something that Nintendo ultimately could (and apparently did) pull the plug on. My only reasoning was why not just do something original from the start? And original doesn't have to mean "Don't use story elements found other places" or "You shouldn't ever borrow from other industries or franchises," but when you make a full-length movie, based - extensively - on IP you don't own, don't be surprised when the bottom falls out and Nin says "No." Heck, they even had a good run of around a year or more before anyone stepped in, so I guess thats an accomplishment akin to an original work, right?

    9. Re:Conversely by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      Troll? Word, use your mod points to push my observation of the truth to the bottom! Seriously, whoever modded me troll must be such a creature because IT IS TRUE: Step 1) make a movie with lots of time and money, based on an owned and registered franchise. 2) Put it out in the open and have it at film festivals. 3) Get shut down by the IP owner. 4) Story about it gets posted on /. where "Piracy is LEGAL!" nerds get their rocks off. 5)??? 6) Yell at person who is only regarding the legality as it stands in the matter and label said person troll aaaaand PROFIT!

  24. Preparing in advance by davmoo · · Score: 1

    Whether Nintendo is right or wrong, all of the heartbreak could have been prevented in advance of all that work if the makers of the movie had done one simple thing first...ask permission. Of course, I'm also smart enough to know why they didn't do that...they knew they probably wouldn't get it.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  25. p2p to the rescue by unity100 · · Score: 1

    thats why it is there. and, fuck nintendos strong arming legal team. if anything, they made the company lose much more in value in PR than they made save in zelda's image.

  26. maybe it was exactly why those bastards did it ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    the nintendo party i mean ? by creating a stampede which the net community wouldnt like, they had advertised the thing in a way they couldnt even if they have spent tens of millions of bucks

  27. The Film Can be Found Here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those interested, there are several links to download the film on this thread:

    http://www.legendofzeldaseries.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10488&sid=18caba8996498f0b9de3aa34d9d2718d

    There are torrent and Mega Upload links. Thank you, Nintendo, for generating the press to alert me to this work which I never would've otherwise found about.

  28. in other news today... by ewrong · · Score: 1

    ...torrent traffic sees huge spike for previously unheard of movie.

  29. Great advertisement ;-) by DeBaas · · Score: 1

    I for one never heard of this film and now just started the torrent.

    I even named my cat Zelda, so I want to see this film ;-)

    --
    ---
  30. Streisand... by lq_x_pl · · Score: 1
    Like others have pointed out, I was totally unaware of the movie (and hadn't thought of Zelda for months) until this story came out. I have to wonder if maybe Nintendo is smarter than we're giving them credit for being.

    I am certainly going to hunt down a rogue copy of this forbidden film, and dust off my old Zelda games. When is Nintendo releasing the next Zelda game?

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
    1. Re:Streisand... by ewrong · · Score: 1

      Zelda Spirit Tracks only just came out for the DS.

  31. Re:Streisand effect? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I can see how it's mechanically like the Streisand Effect -- try to silence something, end up drawing more attention to it. But the reason for the suppression isn't that the thing being taken down is embarrassing or otherwise damaging to them, so the consequence seems... inconsequential.

    I also doubt it's deliberate. They probably just don't care. More people downloading the movie from torrent sites is less important than them throwing their legal weight around. The only downside is how we feel about them for doing the take down. Which is the "corporations are jerk-asses" effect, not the Streisand Effect. :P

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  32. Uh... by boxfetish · · Score: 1

    ...I had never even heard of this movie/project until I read this story. I am now happily downloading the torrent for viewing. Several orders of magnitude more people will now see this movie than otherwise would have. Way to protect your IP, Nintendo!!

  33. To keep this from happening again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... next time, make a movie of Ys.

  34. That wouldn't work. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems that Desilu didn't register the copyrights properly for the first season,

    At least in the US, copyright is the automatic default. Anything you do is automatically copyrighted. Registering it is useful, especially if you want to prove it's yours, but not necessary.

    Now, trademarks are different, as are patents. But these are completely different bodies of law.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  35. ambush by shentino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the geeks at Nintendo were even half way awake they'd have noticed this thing brewing a long time ago.

    Wait until the fans sink all their investments into the movie, then blow it out of the water with a lawsuit after they're too low on the budget to fight back.

  36. Protect its characters and trademarks by vyruss000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whereas Nintendo was protecting their franchise with the release of the CD-i rapes of Zelda. I'm sure whatever the amateur fans made couldn't have been as bad.

    http://screwattack.com/videos/AVGN-CD-i-Part-2

    http://screwattack.com/videos/AVGN-CD-i-Part-3

    1. Re:Protect its characters and trademarks by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Whereas Nintendo was protecting their franchise with the release of the CD-i rapes of Zelda. I'm sure whatever the amateur fans made couldn't have been as bad.

      The CD-i Zelda games weren't made by Nintendo, but were apparently made by Philips to exploit a loop-hole in Nintendo's contract with Philips for the SNES CD-ROM addon. Even though said addon never came out.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  37. Congrats Nintendo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You just created the first Streisand effect of 2010. That's almost as good as FRIST POST. Your legal team should be very proud of itself. /sarcasm

  38. Wait a second.. by billsayswow · · Score: 0

    Game of the Year 1999? I thought we were talking about a Zelda game, not Metal Gear Solid... Anyways, I really don't see the hoopla here. These folks made a movie using Nintendo's property. It wasn't like Nintendo sued them into oblivion, as many companies would've done, they came to an agreement with the filmmakers, and even let them ride it out through the end of the year. If anything, this should serve as an example to other companies about how to gracefully pull this kind of thing off without looking like a total wanker. Of course, this is /., and at least 3/4ths of us will demand we go French Revolution on Nintendo's executives.

  39. Evidently Nintendo never been to comiket... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComiketComiket, where characters from all walks of ... from variety of different genres are regularly spoiled in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoujinshiDoujinshi, often in ways not for the faint of heart.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  40. Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nintendo leaves almost exact clones of their games intact, even with copyrighted art if they're not making money. Scale is also a factor - this was airing in *theaters*, and some non-fan moviegoers could *perhaps* get the wrong impression of LoZ.

  41. Fan projects == bad, porn == alright by RyoShin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nintendo has always been stalwart when it comes to protecting their copyrights. Nintendo has a long history of comments about fair use, personal backups, and so forth that might even make Ken Kutaragi, Mr. "PS3 gamers should get a second job", laugh out loud. Their actions are usually quite in line with their statements.

    But, something I have never heard about, despite trawling some of the darkest parts of the internet, is Nintendo going after creators of porn based on Nintendo IP. This has always confused me--I'm not really for nor against them going after the artists, but considering the potential harm they might do to Nintendo's brand, you'd think it would be of a higher priority. Even more astounding, at least to me, is that as far as I can tell THOT was being given away for free, while there are plenty of toon porn sites out there that charge for their content (though piracy often slips around this). I would think it almost a no-brainer for Nintendo to go after the commercial sites and more popular/notorious artists to scare off the little guys. And, yet, I've never heard of a single case or even a C&D.

    In fact, I've never heard of any company acting upon toon porn (and any cosplay porn that may exist.) Why is this? Are they somehow not aware it exists? Rule 34 is a popular enough concept at this point that I would think the idea would have at least entered their head from somewhere. Are they scared of bringing the world of drawn pornography to the limelight? After an Iowa man was thrown in jail for kiddie toon porn ("shota yaoi"), Nintendo (and other similar companies) could get even more help from the FBI and local police forces (looking to make a name for themselves) going after the artists of any underaged characters. Nintendo obviously isn't going just for profit makers (Neither is Disney), so their lack of action in this regard leaves me scratching my head. ..Oh, and, uh, boo copyright, overzealous corporations, fish, fish, etc.

    1. Re:Fan projects == bad, porn == alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drawing fictional underaged characters in sexual acts is not against any laws. That shit was ruled unconstitutional long before "Title 18, United States Code, Section 1466A(b)(1)" was put into law -- re-instating a law that was previously deemed unconstitutional does not make it re-constitutional again. That guy was an idiot for not standing up for his first amendment rights.

    2. Re:Fan projects == bad, porn == alright by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The thing is, some of these pictures are so ridiculous (mildly NSFW)

      and/or funny that they would qualify as parody and be protected.

      You draw a picture of Barney Rubble banging a dinosaur, some Internet dwellers are going to see it as sexy, but the majority of people (including, say, a judge) are going to interpret it as a joke. A sick joke, but a joke, and thus protected as parody.

    3. Re:Fan projects == bad, porn == alright by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Perhaps so, but then how does that differ from THOT?

  42. They could have embraced it by grapeape · · Score: 1

    I cant believe I'm saying this about George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, but perhaps Nintendo would have been better served to take a lesson from them and embrace this fan production for what it is an homage to a great franchise? Anyone remember the fan made "remake" of Raiders of the Lost Ark? They could have even gone so far as to sponsor it, offer it as a download on the Wii or a bonus feature on the next Zelda game, instead all they managed to do was alienate some of the very fans they rely on for their success.

  43. lmgtfy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  44. Dinner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice of *The King* to invite us over for *Dinner* eh Luigi?

    "Ma Boi, that's what all true warriors want..."

  45. Does Nintendo have tunnel vision? by gordguide · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it interesting that this movie can open in theaters worldwide, and in major American markets like Los Angeles and New York, without a peep from Nintendo, but the moment it goes online, the beast awakens?
    Did Nintendo even know about the film before it was posted for all on the web?

    There may be nothing to it, but it does appear, at least, that Nintendo doesn't have any feelers at all in the real world, while actively hunting on the web.

  46. Good for nintendo. by shentino · · Score: 1

    I'm not usually one to buck the mob, but today is an exception.

    Yes, I actually rushed to download and watch the movie before the legal warriors started trying to get it stamped out, expecting to see a great work of art saved from suppression by corporate greed.

    But after watching the mp4, I think I have a pretty good idea why Nintendo would want to suppress this.

    The movie...freaking...SUCKED!

    Way too many deviations from the canon plot of the game, cheesy scripts, and "Darunia" was a complete ditz for a rock-solid "prince of the gorons". He reminded me of a cross between Spock and Jar Jar Binks, in fact, and coming from a trekkie like myself that's saying something. Where's the Zora King? Hell, Epona wasn't even white maned, or even named IIRC. Link? Um...when did he get ADD?

    I could go on...

    In their shoes I wouldn't want my precious mascotts trotted out by amateurs either.

    I am an avid fan of the series and I could barely bring myself to finish watching it. It was sad.

    If Nintendo had had the foresight to make the movie themselves...with a professional cast and a corporate backed budget, you can bet your iron boots they'd have made a fortune on it. They'd have done it right, if they'd have bothered to do it at all.

    1. Re:Good for nintendo. by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      You don't need a professional cast and a corporate backed budget (though I'm sure it helps), but you do need talent. If you're a trekkie you should know about Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning as an example of a low budget knockoff done right.

      While these guys might suck, they still don't deserve suppression. Surely some legal disclaimer bullshit should suffice to create a fan work. Perhaps if they knew it would be legitimate they could have recruited better talent and it wouldn't suck so much.

    2. Re:Good for nintendo. by shentino · · Score: 1

      You do have a point. Nintendo may have done the right thing in the end, but they surely could have done a fat lot better job being nicer about it.

      The characters were the rightful property of nintendo, as was the game plot of OOT that the movie was derived from, so Nintendo is probably on solid ground *legally*.

      However, Nintendo had an opportunity here to work with them on it. Serve as a corporate consultant and possibly work out a royalty deal for the usage of Nintendo's characters.

      Instead, they shot themselves in the foot with a knee-jerk reaction against perceived infringement and completely killed the potential for movie royalties, not to mention generating bad PR by their heavyhandedness against their own fans.

      With some TLC from Nintendo this movie would have made a very nice joint venture, and probably wouldn't have sucked so bad.

      Sadly, this means that "Chivalry of a King" is probably never going to see the light of day either.

  47. 1984-style public recantation by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1

    The thing that really gives me the shudders about this is the 1984-style public recantation: "We understand Nintendo's right to protect its characters and trademarks and understand how in order to keep their property unspoiled by fan's interpretation of the franchise, Nintendo needs to protect itself -- even from fan-works with good intentions." You can just imagine the tearful, contrite speech through broken teeth ...

  48. Personally... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think fan-art is reserved for those with little creative ability, but plenty of time and desire.

    Every time I see fan-art, no matter how good, I end up asking myself "Why don't they just come up with their own works/stories/plots that don't rely on the creativity of others?". The only reason I can come up with is they are incapable.

    My own daughter, a graphic artist, does the same thing. She spends hundreds of hours creating fan-art that has no possible monetary value, then complains that she can't find a job in graphics.
    Does that mean my daughter is not creative? To some extent, yes. But here is the difference. She CHOOSES not to be creative by not even trying to do something outside the franchises of others.

    So, I guess the real question is whether or not people are doing it for "fun", or trying to make a living out of it.

  49. What a load of tosh. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Nobody is 100% creative. Nobody.

    Every major work of art borrows from many other influences.

    Name any piece of creative work and all the influences can be identified without difficulty (that is part of the routine work of the critics in the respective creative fields).

    Creativity is transformation, Picasso learned by emulating Goya, Andy Warhol literally ripped off publicists, musicians all around the world use themes from other musicians for their own work.

    It is a testament to the pernicious cunning of the lawyers of the cartels in the Music and Movie industries, that many people like you conceive creativity like existing in a perfect vacuum, when the reality is that nobody can create anything without learning and copying from others.

    The other day I was watching a nature program in which an older chimp was teaching a younger one how to use a stick to get ants for a delicious meal.

    In the derided world of the "creative" industries, the first chimp should withhold the information for its own benefit instead of spreading the knowledge as widely as possible. This is clearly perverse, but is this perversity where the cartels want us for their own benefit.

    These asinine restrictions on creativity are against human nature, and it is sad to see a father misunderstanding so completely the creative process and indicting, horribly, wrongly, his own daughter as non creative for doing what creative minds do: copying.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:What a load of tosh. by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "These asinine restrictions on creativity are against human nature, and it is sad to see a father misunderstanding so completely the creative process and indicting, horribly, wrongly, his own daughter as non creative for doing what creative minds do: copying."

      I was referring to her ability to make a LIVING doing so. You show me a place to sell her years of Sonic comics and I shall pass it on to her. Unless she uses her creativity to produce something that isn't simply regurgitation, I don't see her as being particularly creative.

      Stirring the mashed potatoes counter-clockwise instead of clockwise does not make them anything other then mashed potatoes.

      Don't get me wrong. I KNOW she is creative, she just doesn't use it because she caters to this tiny little crowd of close friends that have no apparent desire for anything new or stimulating. I am not "indicting, horribly, wrongly..." her creative skills, but rather her ridiculous expectations of being able to make a living making Sonic comics. Her artwork is MUCH better then 99% of the fan-art out there, but it is still fan-art, and thus very unlikely to produce a means to provide for oneself.

  50. Creator complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This then is the problem with a lot of these so-called "creators". They assume that their "creative" work was "created" in a vacuum, as if they their stories are 100-percent original and didn't incorporate elements from already existing works. Isaac Newton, a much greater intellect than 99.99 percent of these glorified hacks, had the humility to say: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

  51. This is just another case of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shitting in the faces of your fans. Whatever happened to "the customer is always right"? Hello, these people are your customers! If you don't treat them with dignity and respect, then they will no longer be your customers. Also like above, the only ones they seem to have problems with are true adoring fans. They have no qualms with hentai porn makers or other people even when their works are derogatory or illegal, but the real law-abiding citizens and fans are where their hatred lies. I've tried and tried again many times to like Nintendo. Between the n64 and psx, I chose the n64 first. Out of the 128 bit systems I chose the Gamecube first and out of this generation I chose the wii first. I think that qualifies me to some respect from nintendo for beo loyal, but me and others like me are be defecated on by nintendo and though many times by the other two, to a much lesser extent. All they see when they look at us is money and we are nothing to them. There, I said it. Nintendo, you better make a Zelda movie or else I will shun you from my household "for all and eternity".

  52. Another fan-made Zelda "Movie" by admiralZ · · Score: 1

    Hey, did anyone here ever see the ign.com April Fools joke trailer for 2008? Watch it here. Compare this with the YouTube trailer for The Hero of Time movie (alternate version). You will immediately notice a difference in quality (in IGN's favor). Nintendo probably didn't pursue IGN for their joke trailer, but that may be due to the fact that IGN wasn't actually making a movie, just an April Fools trailer. But, if I were Nintendo, and I were inclined to grant trademark lenience, having seen both of these samples, I would choose the IGN version, because the Hero of Time movie looks puerile by comparison (and, yes, I do mean that it looks like a child filmed and post-produced it).

  53. Thank you Nintendo! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    Without you I'd never knew about this movie!

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
    1. Re:Thank you Nintendo! by m6ack · · Score: 1

      I discovered and watched this movie due to the negative press, and it is my loss... because it sucks . My thanks to Nintendo for killing something so utterly dreadful -- if only it were possible for them to do so in such a way that news of it would be taken likewise into the abyss with it.

      Really guys, do the world a favor and go shoot this post down, and recommend something better instead -- Never-ending story, Plan 9, whatever -- anything is better than this tripe.

  54. Whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure hope nobody posts anything like this

  55. The movie looked terrible anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw the trailer, It doesn't look like a big loss to the world that it was shut down.

  56. And Nintendo took it down because... by m6ack · · Score: 1

    BECAUSE IT SUCKS!!!

    I watched it, and it really sucks.

  57. Excuse me by Supurcell · · Score: 1

    Well excuuuuuuse me, princess, but I'm not entirely convinced that Nintendo could make a better movie.

  58. Still haven't watched the film. by strawberryutopia · · Score: 1

    Thank Codd I've already downloaded it!

    --
    I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar...
    -Lucy-