Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo Shuts Down 'Pokemon Uranium' Fan Game After 1.5 Million Downloads (thewrap.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the copyright-infringement dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wrap: The fan-made "Pokemon Uranium" game took a pair of programmers more than nine years to develop. Nintendo needed just about nine days to kill it. "After receiving more than 1,500,000 downloads of our game, we have been notified of multiple takedown notices from lawyers representing Nintendo of America," the creators of "Pokemon Uranium" said in a statement. "While we have not personally been contacted, it's clear what their wishes are, and we respect those wishes deeply. Therefore, we will no longer provide official download links for the game through our website," they continued. "We have no connection to fans who re-upload the game files to their own hosts, and we cannot verify that those download links are all legitimate. We advise you to be extremely cautious about downloading the game from unofficial sources." The role-playing game was free, though creators @JVuranium and Involuntary Twitch were open to suggested PayPal donations of $2-$10. Set in the tropical Tandor region, "Uranium" players can encounter more than 150 all-new species of Pokemon in their quest to collect all eight Gym Badges and triumph over the Tandor League, per the official description. Along the way, the players must battle against a sinister threat that's causing Nuclear Meltdowns.

80 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was anyone surprised by this? If you use somebody else's intellectual property without first getting consent, it seems like you're dooming yourself to similar failures. I don't know what they were thinking using a heavily trademarked and copyrights franchise brand without first seeking legal advice. It's possible they may have been hoping for some "fair use" argument to prevail, but IMO that seems like a long shot.

    1. Re:Surprised? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Was anyone surprised by this? If you use somebody else's intellectual property without first getting consent, it seems like you're dooming yourself to similar failures. I don't know what they were thinking using a heavily trademarked and copyrights franchise brand without first seeking legal advice. It's possible they may have been hoping for some "fair use" argument to prevail, but IMO that seems like a long shot.

      Yeah, I'm kinda shocked they didn't see this coming, this seems like a pretty clear case of trademark infringement.

      They'd probably be fine if they just rebranded their pokemon as fairies or some kind of magical creatures, but calling them pokemon is asking for a lawsuit.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Surprised? by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

      And the nail in the coffin was accepting donations

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they wanted to Streisand from the start?

    4. Re:Surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was going to say about this one. The authors set themselves up for it by calling it Pokemon. There is a limit to how far one can expect to go with a fan creation, and these guys went past it. I know Nintendo gets a lot of flack for going after silly cases but this one is a pretty clear case of infringement.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it was rather stupid. People need to learn that those who have money make the rules. When the rules are abused by people without money, the people with money get tougher rules made.

    6. Re:Surprised? by DMFNR · · Score: 1

      Did these guys have articles on Slashdot before they made this game? I'm sure they knew exactly what was going to happen when they released this game. It's an interesting strategy, I guess we'll have to see if they can parlay this publicity in to some sort of future success.

    7. Re:Surprised? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Whether they gave it out for free is irrelevant. Pokemon is trademarked. If Nintendo doesn't shut them down, that could dilute their trademark and result in a judge tossing out a real trademark infringement lawsuit Nintendo files in the future.

      While I agree the classy thing for Nintendo to do would be to give them a $1 license for the trademark so long as the game is free and they let Nintendo's lawyers scrutinize it before release. But the fact that they didn't reach out to Nintendo before releasing the game would mean Nintendo sets a dangerous precedent by licensing them. Basically Nintendo would be implying that anyone can use their trademark, and so long as they're giving the game away for free they'll retroactively license it.

    8. Re:Surprised? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Indeed. They could have gotten around the problem completely by calling their game something else (Capsule Beasts, Pouch Mutants, etc.) and changing any graphics that were identical or too similar to the Nintendo games'. There's nothing that says that they can't make a similar game (and really there's already plenty of Pokemon knock-offs over the years) and release that instead. They still probably could have gotten a lot of support from the fan community or maybe even started their own series.

    9. Re:Surprised? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

      They DID get away with this. Sometimes its just not about the money. Good practice and massive exposure are a plus, but sometimes you just gotta make something you love.

      Kudos to them.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    10. Re:Surprised? by Hidyman · · Score: 1

      Actually AM2R is still up. They just released an update a couple of days ago.
      They sent C&D letters to the places that hosted the file for download.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me ...
    11. Re:Surprised? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Nine years developing a game that anyone could have told them would be banned almost immediately.

      Either they are naive enough to think the attention will get them a job at Nintendo (it won't), or they are naive enough to think Nintendo wouldn't notice or care (they always will). Either way, pretty naive.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:Surprised? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      But everyone damn well knows they likely wouldn't have gotten 1.5 million downloads otherwise. This is exactly why intellectual property is actually valuable and is vigorously protected. I have a hard time thinking they'd be so stupid as to think they'd get away with this*. It's got to be about the publicity.

      * I could be wrong. People always manage to surprise me on this point.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    13. Re:Surprised? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Donations post free download count for nothing, as it is legally up to the donator what the donation was for. Nintendo in this case is really dumb, basically they were going to get a ton of free advertising for their pay to play games, the better the free version ( as long as it is not as good as the paid version) just promote the brand, way cheaper than any other form of advertisement (free versus millions of dollars) of course, hmm, if the change their mind after the Streisand affect and become all nice and friendly with the free version, much, much, more free publicity, with tech news all over the world jumping in on the story, hmmm, I wonder.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Neither did Pete Townshend or Roger Daltrey.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That was actually the brilliant part. If they sold it, now they'd be SOL. With donations, they may even still make money from games that are now being downloaded from third parties.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Whether it's trademarked is irrelevant. At least to the people who want to play it, they just want to play it. And don't give a rat's ass about your trademark. Whether you make the game or someone else, do I give a shit? If it's good, I play it. Since it's free, it's not like I lose anything by giving it a try.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Or they were brilliant enough to understand what's going to happen.

      First, the name Pokemon alone would ensure that a lot of people download their game.
      Second, Nintendo will rip it from stores.
      Third, this will get reported.
      Fourth, publicity for being a poor, widdle developer who invests NINE YEARS only to be squished by huge corporation
      Fifth, profit.

      Because they ain't selling it. Yes, because. If they sold it, they would certainly not make a dime from anyone who downloads it now from a third party. But by asking for donations, some people will still pay now. And it's pretty hard to demand money from them since they didn't sell it, depending on your jurisdiction you might not even be able to strip them off anything people gave them voluntarily instead of as part of an (illegal) deal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re: Surprised? by brasselv · · Score: 1

      "which was desperately needed "
      I know what you mean, but I can't help thinking 'first world'...

      --
      "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
    19. Re:Surprised? by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Well, they can't strip then of voluntary donations in any situation, but they can try to block new donations by asserting that defying trademarks in such a way is a form of terrorism :P

    20. Re:Surprised? by gsslay · · Score: 2

      Ah, the universal excuse for stealing other people's work; "free advertising".

      What you are over looking is that a crappy "not as good as the paid version" game actually dilutes and damages the brand. It may advertise it, possibly, but not necessarily in a good way.

      Why don't you come put a couple of weeks' work in for me? For free. But it will be excellent free advertising for your other work. The jobs where you actually get paid. I get your work for nothing, and I'll tell everyone what a great job you did and you might get paid work. Everyone wins! Then again, all you might get is more requests from tight-asses who think they can get your work for free, and the reputation you get is as "the guy who works for free". But those are the breaks.

    21. Re: Surprised? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      Not sure, the war in Syria, BLM, Ghostbusters reboot, all could have been avoided.

    22. Re:Surprised? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While I agree the classy thing for Nintendo to do would be to give them a $1 license for the trademark so long as the game is free and they let Nintendo's lawyers scrutinize it before release. But the fact that they didn't reach out to Nintendo before releasing the game would mean Nintendo sets a dangerous precedent by licensing them.

      They just would have said no like they always do, which is why asking for permission would have been a bad idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Surprised? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      No one with a tiny bit of insight was surprised by this.
      When it came out "how long before the takedown?" was maybe the most common question people asked themselves. Nintendo and the Pokemon company are well known for being very protective of their IP.

      I think even the devs saw it coming, they may even have their response planned in advance. I suspect their strategy was to make a huge buzz early on and exploit the small amount of time they had before the takedown.

    24. Re:Surprised? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You HAVE to press charges against those who rob you

      Not strictly true. They could license the rights for $1 + 80% of "donations" if they wanted.

    25. Re:Surprised? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Trademarks only protect use in trade. As this was basically a hobbyist project and given away for free, was it using the name 'Pokemon' by way of trade?

      That's not even close to the legal definition. Trademark infringement is offering a product or service that is confusingly similar to an official, licensed one by use of trade marks. Why you do it doesn't matter. That it's free doesn't mean much when many actual games have free demos or a freemium business model. Could a reasonable person think that "Pokemon Uranium" is an official Pokemon game? If the answer to that is yes - and this is as blatant as it gets - it's game over.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    26. Re: Surprised? by dottrap · · Score: 1

      Dude, don't get me started on first world problems. We're about to get either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as President. Cut me some slack.

      "Desperately needed" in the sense that Metroid 2 is the hardest game to play *legally* now and the longest in tooth technology-wise. Most people aren't going to casually go to eBay and pick up a working GameBoy.

      The original Metroid got remade as Zero Mission. Super Metroid can be played on Wii U Virtual Console, and at least that game has color. Metroid 2 can be played on 3DS, but the low resolution monochrome graphics are a hard sell in today's modern world of retina displays and GPU in your pocket that are more powerful than the supercomputers of that era.

    27. Re:Surprised? by Holi · · Score: 1

      If they make money off of it, it will give Nintendo a nice opening to sue for pretty much all the proceeds they get and probably more.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    28. Re:Surprised? by Holi · · Score: 1

      But opening yourself up to a very expensive trademark suit is a good idea?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    29. Re:Surprised? by Holi · · Score: 1

      You think because they are only asking for donations that Nintendo could not come in and sue them for any proceeds. If they are profiting off the game they are open game for Nintendo. Since it is such a clear cut case of trademark infringement I doubt the case would last very long.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    30. Re:Surprised? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      They just would have said no like they always do, which is why asking for permission would have been a bad idea.

      You don't get to steal somebody elses shit, or ride off their brand recognition, just because you want to.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    31. Re:Surprised? by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Trademarks have to be defended because it's not just about the property of the trademark owner. It's also about the public being able to know what they're getting. If any software developer could call their product "Microsoft Widgets" then there would be extreme confusion over products. So the onus is put on the owner of the trademark - either defend it, or that word is going to become generic.

    32. Re:Surprised? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Naa, that is The Who, not WHO.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    33. Re: Surprised? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you have to show a penis instead of replacing it with a tentacle.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    34. Re: Surprised? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      "People want to battle an electric rodent against a talking cat, a lot less than they want to defeat Team Rocket's Meouth with Pikachu."

      Those people are fools!

    35. Re:Surprised? by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      A remake of Metroid 2 is not needed. You might want one, but it's not needed. The original game still exists and is still playable (and is, I believe, legally available on Nintendo platforms via the Virtual Console).

      If you want "a modern game that is a lot like Metroid 2", then there are any number of indie game projects that fit that bill on Steam. Some of them are terrible, others are basically more or less as good as the old Metroid games (though they lack the official licence or the nostalgia value). The thing is that while those games are inspired by Metroid and often say as much in their blurb text, they do not call themselves Metroid or use Metroid assets. Hence they do not get shut down.

      To be honest, if you are considering making a game based on an existing IP, you should ask yourself three questions first:

      1) Is the IP in the public domain?
      2) Do you hold the rights to the IP?
      3) Has the rights-holder granted you permission to use the IP?

      If the answer to any one of the questions above is "yes", then knock yourself out. Otherwise, don't bother wasting your time.

    36. Re:Surprised? by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      It is very, very rare that companies would grant permission in cases like this, and particularly in cases where the brand is still actively used. Moreover, it is rare for a good reason.

      Pokémon is a hugely valuable franchise for Nintendo. Really, these days, with Mario and Zelda having lost a bit of their mass-appeal (neither could turn around the Wii-U's fortunes), Pokémon has become the jewel in Nintendo's crown (even if it's technically The Pokémon Company that owns the licence). Nintendo therefore wants to exercise extreme levels of control over everything that goes out under the Pokémon brand. Moreover, as Pokémon is a system-seller for its handheld platforms, it wants to tightly control the availability of Pokémon games.

      Nintendo cannot exercise that level of control over fan-made games and said games tend to be on the "wrong" platform. If the Pokémon Uranium guys went to Nintendo for permission and they said "yes", then even if they did some kind of revenue-deal, they would still be risking damage to their brand and diluting the fanbase. They don't worry about dodgy fanart because nobody is ever going to mistake that for an official product. But a game that could be mistaken for an official game, or act as a competitor to one? Of course they care.

      I don't much like Nintendo as a company. I think they use their underdog status to get away with all kinds of anti-consumer crap (region locking etc) that the rest of the industry has ditched. But in this case, they are absolutely, 100% in the right.

    37. Re: Surprised? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. Any creative work that uses a trademark is subject to trademark law, even free art projects and political campaigns. There are some limited fair-use options, but those are really stringent. Even parody, which can sidestep copyright law, cannot sidestep trademark most of the time.

    38. Re: Surprised? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Careful. Based on Pokemon Go vitality, I'm guessing that's the majority of the population you're defaming.

    39. Re: Surprised? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Actually, they can go after them for defamation of trademark and trademark dilution and get damages far exceeding the donations.

    40. Re: Surprised? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There are certainly harder games to play legally. This game, for one. Or Fighting is Magic, which faced very similar legal issues. For both these there is no way to play them legally at all.

    41. Re: Surprised? by brasselv · · Score: 1

      "Cut me some slack."
      no worries... it was actually meant largely as a self deprecating joke... (because I myself get annoyed maybe 100 times a day for things that I immediately feel guilty for getting annoyed... things like if one badly designed toothpaste tube doesn't let you squeeze it all out... so I have to constantly remind myself "yeah, first world problems".. Btw, I guess this constant self reminding is actually a first world problem in itself, or a first world metaproblem..) cheers!

      --
      "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
    42. Re: Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You cannot squeeze blood from a stone. Sure, you could sue me for more than I own, but rest assured that my money will be gone before you get to see a cent.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    43. Re:Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      And it's The Doctor and not Doctor Who, but nobody ever gives a shit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh ffs, sorry if I don't go with the times and use outdated lingo, it takes a while to get it across the pond and you don't get to hear foreign phrases used often in colloquial speech 'round here.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re: Surprised? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if I make sure to drain your resources, I deter anyone else who wants to abuse my trademarks. It doesn't matter how small your resources are as long as everyone else knows this scheme isn't profitable. At least, that's the legal theory. Whether it works in practice is anyone's guess.

    46. Re: Surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What resources? The first thing I'd make sure when trying to pull something like this is that I would not have any resources left to my name.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    47. Re: Surprised? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The discussion was about taking donations afterward as a way of getting money from this stunt and about the benefits of pulling this stunt. My point was that Nintendo has ways to make sure that people do not get any material gain from doing this. And they can garnish wages from any future resources you try to earn.

    48. Re:Surprised? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But opening yourself up to a very expensive trademark suit is a good idea?

      I didn't say that. I only said that asking would have been dumb. I think the whole thing is stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Nintendo's priorities are weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd think they'd be better off c&d'ing all those nintendo/Pokemon sex fetish media/games on certain sites that inundated their rabid fanbase full of teenage furverts damaging their IP permanently, more than some low quality fangame that should've known better to not waste a colossal amount of time for not having the effort to make use of creative imagination.

  3. Checksums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Checksums in case anyone wants to verify any downloads:
    http://pastebin.com/QDgXsxmL

    1. Re:Checksums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but are they the *correct* checksums? You'll never know.

      Malwares: gotta catch 'em all.

    2. Re:Checksums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The checksum matches one of two on a (P)opular (B)ig torrent site. It's pretty obvious looking at the title which one is probably not the one you want.

  4. Well seems like the law works. by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    I'm the first to say pirate on! But here you are using another companies product name and charging for it for commercial gains. What did they expect to happen?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Well seems like the law works. by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Suggested, wink wink nudge nudge.

      Even at two dollars each, with one and a half million downloads that amounts to three million dollars. It's not pocket change anymore.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Well seems like the law works. by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Total potential amount of money doesn't matter. Only thing matters that those are donations. A way for people to vote with their money if they think that Nintendo makes too much crap and could use some good alternative artistic vision..

    3. Re:Well seems like the law works. by Calydor · · Score: 1

      But how alternative is it really if they can't even come up with a different name? Sure, make a game and call it a "Pokemon-style RPG with unique pets!" but just ... just don't put another company's IP right there in the title. They were BEGGING for a C&D letter with that.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Well seems like the law works. by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Trademark law exists only to regulate trade of actual goods and services, using it to limit what sort of information people transmit free of charge to other people would be violation of freedom of speech. And possible donations are a moot point since they're not payments for goods and services. Sure from original author's point of view messing with their canon like that isn't nice, but it shouldn't be regulated by law.

    5. Re:Well seems like the law works. by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      The key moment here is not that there is no profit. The point here is that there is no activity that is subject to trademark law, thus there's simply nothing to pursue, thus no trademark dilution can occur.

    6. Re:Well seems like the law works. by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Yes you anonymous coward.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  5. Nintendo are only keeping up appearances. by Anonymous_Coward_No1 · · Score: 2

    If Nintendo does not shut down these projects their ability to protect their products in the event of real theft vanishes. At face value it appears as though Nintendo is simply inept when they don't act until after these projects (Pokemon Uranium/Another Metroid 2 Remake) are released . However, I believe that they are willfully allowing these projects to complete and release before issuing legal threats with full knowledge that they will never really remove them from circulation.

    1. Re:Nintendo are only keeping up appearances. by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      until these games are released there is not much they can do apart from warn. It is also not Nintendo's responsibility to seek out everyone that may be thinking about infringing on their IP, it is up to the developer to do there own due diligence or suffer the consequences.

    2. Re:Nintendo are only keeping up appearances. by guises · · Score: 1

      Nintendo is under no obligation to shut down fan projects. Someone started a rumor at one point that companies act like dicks all the time then they lose all protection under the law - this is not the case. However, in this instance I don't see that Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Making a fan game is all well and good, but soliciting donations for it is a giant breech of conduct.

    3. Re:Nintendo are only keeping up appearances. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's my novelty flying disc!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Nintendo are only keeping up appearances. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Nintendo is most definitely obliged to do something about it. Trademark laws require companies to actively protect their trademarks or risk losing rights to them. This isn't rumor or fantasy it is basic trademark requirements. Failure to defend a trademark can be treated as abandonment of said trademark.

    5. Re:Nintendo are only keeping up appearances. by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      Certain platforms have rampant trademark infringement in the programs offered on them, especially games. Does the fact that trademark holders (including Nintendo) continue to ignore them cause their marks to be genericized on those specific platforms? (Or maybe they are unaware of the infringement...quite possible, but I am not sure if that matters legally.)

      (Not asking for legal advice—just curious...I was actually wondering about that just a few days ago.)

  6. Re:In the News by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    Anytime I hear or read Nintendo, its POKEMON related. Been like that for years now.

    Since that last game though.... this shit is worse than football season.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  7. Rebrand and relaunch in 3, 2, 1 ... by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the big deal? AFAIU the monsters are their unique designs. All they need to do is remove the Pokemon association and trademarks and all is fine and dandy.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Rebrand and relaunch in 3, 2, 1 ... by Christopher+Fritz · · Score: 1

      From the trailer video, it looks like they're using sprites taken directly from some of Nintendo's games, alongside their own invented monsters. They could definitely remove The Pokemon Company's properties and leave just their own, and rename the game and terms in the game to create something non-infringing. It likely would take substantial editing/rebranding.

      Of course, without the name and familiar characters the begin with, this game likely wouldn't have gotten much attention in the first place.

    2. Re:Rebrand and relaunch in 3, 2, 1 ... by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      ...the monsters are their unique designs.

      Not really. For example, one of the screenshots on their website shows a monster named gyarados which features a sprite that looks like nothing more than a recolored version of... well I'll let you guess.

    3. Re:Rebrand and relaunch in 3, 2, 1 ... by Holi · · Score: 1

      Except they didn't, all because they wanted to ride on the success of that brand.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  8. Advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This totally reads like viral advertisement to me. They HAVEN'T been contacted by Nintendo, but they are making a big dramatic statement about removing official download links and and getting loads of publicity for it. Oh, and you can donate some money via paypal hint hint.

  9. Are CEOs idiots? by transami · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand about things like this is why the company doesn't just cut a deal with the chaps and make some damn money.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
    1. Re:Are CEOs idiots? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      1.5 million downloads at a suggested donation of $2-10, meaning it's darned certain they didn't get more than $3 million.

      Nintendo's choice is to "cut a deal" for a fraction of less than $3 million (probably a lot less), thereby encouraging other people to illegally rip off their IP, or spend a couple hundred bucks having a lawyer tell them to knock it off.

      Personally, I wouldn't want to signal to the marketplace that if you rip off my brand, I might pay you for it.

  10. Why do people keep doing this? by Zeromous · · Score: 1

    They have no right to market Nintendo's property for free, donations or anything.

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    1. Re:Why do people keep doing this? by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      A trademark usage by someone other than the owner is legally and monetarily injurious

      Copyright has nothing to do with this as you cannot copyright a likeness.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    2. Re:Why do people keep doing this? by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      A trademark usage by someone other than the owner is legally and monetarily injurious. This has been demonstrated time and time again in court.

      You do not have a right to use someone's art or likeness thereof for your own designs, if it infringes on an actively used trademark.

      Pokemon is an actively defended and pursued and most importantly monetized trademark. If nintendo does not sue, the trademark could be voided. They are obligated to protect their investment.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  11. Re:Something they love... while collecting $$$... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Let's see here... 1.5 million downloads with an optional suggested donation of $2~10 equals about zero.

  12. MdSolar by Scottingham · · Score: 1

    I'm sick and tired on MdSolar posting these anti-nuclear propaganda pieces!

  13. Re:Nintendo should have bought these guys by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Also, even though the infringed on Nintento's copyrights, they built a popular app and it didn't cost Nintendo anything. They should offer to buy the company and app for a small price (something not neither insulting nor outrageously high...

    We don't strictly know that they didn't. Under an NDA, they likely wouldn't be allowed to say why they took down the links - but they would definitely have to and this is a way that would definitely generate a ton of PR. If they were being bought out, this would not be a bad way of going about it. On the other hand, people stumble on better plans by accident than usually happen by intention.