Why is Nintendo so Overprotective of its Intellectual Property?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 01. 2023
- Nintendo is famous for the extraordinary harshness with which it protects its Intellectual Property.
But why exactly IS the Big N so harsh? Is Nintendo behaving reasonably, when it issues takedowns, or files lawsuits? What can you do to protect yourself? And what does the future hold for Nintendo and its attitude towards intellectual property?
Let's figure it all out together. Let me know what you think too, in the comments!
- Moony - Hry
In what seems like cosmic irony, I am unable to monetize this video due to a copyright claim by, of all entities, Universal Pictures, for using the Mario Movie trailer footage!
The money is not important, and it was never the point of Moon Channel, but the coincidence is a great footnote for this video!
This video has also taken off far beyond my wildest expectations. I am considering a follow-up video regarding Sega that is focused a little more on Corporate Law, with a little meander into IP again.
I'd also like to do some other gentler videos, like going over the new Nintendo Direct and offering thoughts.
Let me know what you think and what you'd like to see. I am deeply humbled by all the comments and support. I will aspire to continue to make videos that hopefully are a bit more serious without being anxiety-inducing, mature without being condescending, and wholesome without being overbearing.
Thank you for tuning in!
Ah, how the turntables.
lol universal pictures pulled a nintendo
14:06 when your parents call some piece of tech a Nintendo XD
Sorry to hear that dude! I think whether you proceed with more legal / corporate videos or turn towards more casual gaming retrospectives, your channel will grow rapidly. This was a FIRST CLASS video essay. Educational, entertaining, well written, well narrated. Subbed.
I just love the line "the final boss of intelectual property law, disney"
Especially with the boss music in the background.
@@BigKnecht Exactly. A slowed-down One Winged Angel playing alongside the iconography of Disney Castle, *outside* the context of Kingdom Hearts? So good.
Me and the boys on our way to destroy copyright law over a 100 year old cartoon about a mouse on a boat
🎵 Sephiroth! 🎵
*intellectual
*Disney."
The irony of going from winning a lawsuit against Universal to opening their own section in Universal's theme park is not lost on me
irony, how?
@@abaque24 Whether you see Super Mario Bros Land as Nintendo invading Universal's space or as a piggyback ride, the fact that their relationship started as a lawsuit in the 80s is amusing
The meta-irony of Unviersal Pictures copyright claiming this very video is not lost on me either 😂
Oh no! How is the consumer supposed to differentiate between the King Kong and Donkey Kong rides
They took down a dragon, and they're still taking it for a ride.
If I was single-handedly holding onto the last vestiges of Japan's entire postwar economic miracle, I'd be pretty paranoid and skittish too.
Damn this is so true!
Oh goddammit it's a cultural thing. Fuck.
FACTS! They have every right to as well!
... never even thought of it that way. That's a genuinely good point.
@Calkimchi Damn so if Skitty’s name origin is copyrighted, am I also not allowed to say squirt or turtle, Nintendo-san?
“Big Business is ranked competitive capitalism” might just be the most phenomenal sentence I’ve ever heard
Hey work hard and get paid........ how it should be.
@@PaulGirdlestone it's not that simple 😂 , some less fortunate people know no matter how hard you work you'll never get Rich
@@memenation5105 Never said working hard would be getting rich. But people also need to have realistic expectations on life. Unfortunately people think that if you aren't making 6 figures you are poor. It also depends on what your idea of 'rich' is. I do well for myself and have worked my way onto the property ladder with 3 to my name so far. But my main wealth is my wife and daughters. It depends where you place your value. But moping arpund and not working hard because you know it won't make you rich is just a flimsy excuse to be lazy.
@@PaulGirdlestone can't deny that line at the end is exactly what a majority of people need to hear. I myself would be ecstatic if I could even earn 5 figures a year, I'm 19 and I'm currently in college. My main goal in life is to make enough money so that I may spend more time with my loved ones, it's a shame that in today's world many forget about their families , not knowing how precious time is with them.
@@PaulGirdlestone thats not the point though its not that 5 figure salaries are too small its that many people cant even afford education or rent and have no prospect of a better future while also being subjected to poor mental health due to the circumstances they live in which is something well off people cant even begin understand because they never experienced it
You ever just get the urge to grab an entire civilization by the collar and scream 'YOU REALIZE THERE ARE OTHER WAYS WE COULD BE DOING THINGS?"
Oh, absolutely -- I would even go so far as to say that most lawyers think that. It's just, civilization also likes to grab us lawyers back and yell "changing the system in this way has consequences you aren't accounting for!!"
Which only makes a lawyer want to yell louder, of course! In a nutshell, this is the never-ending cycle of (common) law.
Revolution is always a gamble. If we got together and had a covention to change these things I'd bet on moneyed interests making them worse.
Dude. Every single hour i have These toughts 😣
Lets just say i could take that sentiment way farther than video games
Constantly.
As someone who had done CS at Nintendo (not a former employee tho, which I say for legal reasons LMAO), this is why I was not allowed to say “Switch” or “Joycons”. It was only “Nintendo Switch” or “Joycon” (for plural and singular), cuz I was told saying the other ones weakened Nintendo’s legal ability to hold onto them.
Curious about something: when talking about Nintendo games do you always have to end your sentence with "game" like the way Nintendo Direct presenters do? For example, they don't say "Super Smash Bros. Ultimate", they say "the Super Smash Bros. Ultimate game". Seems pretty specific but I always found that use of language very confusing.
@@RoboticEdward not the OP, but if I were to guess, I'd say they probably had a specific way they needed to say that, yeah. The CZcams channel Kit and Krysta, whom are former Nintendo employees, have talked about such specific terminology requirements extending to various other things too, for the same reason OP mentioned.
@@jaykebird2go Any specific video where Kit & Krysta mention that or is it one of those things mentioned in passing?
@@jaykebird2go I'm also curious if there's a specific video you remember from Kit & Krysta about that
@@jaykebird2goany word on that kit and Krista video mentioning that? I also want to know.
I laughed so loud at "we need to talk about parallel universes... Actually, we need to talk about the law, which is worse and more confusing"
The mention of trademark generalization brought me back to a scene of Drake and Josh where the Nintendo DS is featured. In the scene Megan is playing on it and says "I'm going to play my Nintendo DS" her brother then takes it from her shortly afterwards and then she says "give me back my Nintendo DS!". For the longest time even as a kid I was confused as to why she said the whole name rather than just DS and for some reason that question lingered in my mind for years. That is until I started getting into law, then it clicked: Nintendo's fear of trademark generalization probably forced the show runners to write the script as the full name instead of its abbreviation. Really goes to show the lengths Nintendo would go through even in things where it was only mentioned for 20 seconds
Nintendo is like a stereotypical single mother who gives death threats to her only son’s passionate friends (in a way the government would have to take the mother away)
Except iirc the console was called a pintendo gs or something to get around that.
@@eclecticmuso I’m glad to see that this specific scene is being talked about for once as it’s something I have extremely pointless information about, I only know this because I like Nickelodeon lost media and this is a small almost unnoticed example of it. Mainly because people are more into the unaired pilot of Drake and Josh rather than the changed of scripts that have happened.
The original commentator is talking about a lost scene from the original airings of Drake and Josh. Back when the script was first being made they wanted to feature the Nintendo DS and call it that but the writers changed it last minute to píntendo DS in the script, this is the one you saw that aired in the American English version of Drake and Josh. However in the original dubbed versions that released in other countries notably the Spanish dub that aired in Mexico the “Pintendo GS” is referred to as the Nintendo DS. This is probably the version that the commentator above you watched. There’s a lot of lost media of dubs that aired for many shows that have minor changes in the script due to translation and communication issues and this is an example of one of them. That’s why some remember it is Nintendo and others Pintendo.
Except... They didn't say that. They said "Pintendo GS." Media often does product "displacement", inventing parody products that are obviously meant to be stand-ins for their real-life counterparts to avoid actual product placement meant to make the world seem more believable, like there are brands and products characters use that mirror our own. Sometimes the parodies are satirical, and so the fake brand prevents the real brand retaliating.
You see this a lot where characters will have computers with a logo of any fruit besides an apple on it, or even in the same show, Drake and Josh, with the "GameSphere", a parody of the GameCube. They also don't call it the "Pintendo GameSphere". I think just the term "GS" wouldn't register as anything to people so having the fake brand name makes it more clear what they were talking about. Also, do you think nobody calls the DS by its full name? No offense but your comment is just conjecture based off of something you misheard.
"They forced the scriptwriters to say 'Nintendo DS', just goes to show you how anal Ninty's lawyers are."
I would wager to say every aspect of this notion is wrong.
@@NoTuizNo, they just misheard. Nowhere does it say they were part of a secret Spanish screening of a draft of the episode before it was final. They just did not pick up on the "Pintendo GS" parody. Straight-up.
29:15 "This isn't harvest moon, it's story of seasons"
This is actually a whole legal trademark rabbit-hole itself
I literally fell out of playing Harvest Moon (or rather Story of Seasons) because of this. Used to play a lot of the older games and absolutely loved them, but sometime around 2013 when I didn't even know about the whole legal case I bought a recently released Harvest Moon and played it and... I honestly don't know exactly what it was, but something felt like it was missing and I couldn't get into it like the previous games, so I just stopped playing.
About two years later I learned about the whole copyright thing going on with the developer and localizer and how the localizer owned the Harvest Moon name and the original developer had to change it to Story of Seasons, and how the localizer was still making games in order to capitalize off of the name.
And that's when it hit me. What was missing was the developer's vision in story and environmental design and the reason that game felt so, I guess bland, was because for all intents and purposes it was a soulless cash grab by a company who thought they could continue to profit from the IP despite only ever translating the games...
@@lannobile7260 Same thing happened to the Operation Flashpoint games , it sucks when the game creator loses the rights to their IP.
@Lan Nobile I saw a video about that whole debacle (I think it was an episode of Wha Happun with Matt) but I came away thinking it was the localiser that was screwed over by the developers. After how many years of translating the games for them without issue they pull the rug out from under them by creating their own translation team and cutting them off. In that situation, honestly what were they supposed to do just roll over and die? Of course they're gonna try to make money off what they can which was just the name. This whole situation seemed like a perfect set up for the developers to have created their own worst enemy but lucky for them, the localisers can't make a game worth a damn.
@@jive238 Actually I think the split that happened between Natsume Co. Limited (now Natsume-Atari) and their NA branch Natsume Inc. in 2013 had more to do with it than anything...
@@lannobile7260 what? you stopped playing a series you liked because it changed names??????
One Winged Angel playing over the Disney castle logo was a stroke of genius. As someone constantly harping on about how how Disney made an empire off of expired copyrights while simultaneously making sure that those copyrights never expired again, I salute you. This is the music mashup I'll be using to illustrate the point from now on. Disney these days truly is the Sephiroth to anyone with artistic integrity.
Disney is almost single-handedly the ENTIRE reason why copyright law is so absurdly bad. They keep lobbying to extend copyrights even though that should have never happened in the first place. But of course people with the most money get to write the rules because that couldn't possibly go wrong
@@LilacMonarch Oh it can and will go wrong just better not be in the lifetime of whoever's lining their pockets...
Expired copyrights implies there was a copyright at all. Most Disney material is based on stuff that precedes copyright law and is thus automatically public domain
The Shinra Corporation music would've been more appropriate imo xD
@@KyrieFortune Yes. But Disney has lobbied that, let's use one of their oldest examples. Snow White, if you were to just translate the Bros. Grimm story into the big or small screen. They'd sue you for copyright infringement, since their version of Snow White doesn't deviate too far from the source material. Thus their version could, in theory, be confused with yours. And the rat's lawyers have more money than you do.
Something like The Snow Queen vs Frozen however, thankfully, has so much of the source material changed that they couldn't argue that in court. Same for their version of the Jungle Book. It's beloved, because it's the last film Walt ever worked on, but it's very apparent if you've read the original novel, that the similarities between the novel and movie are slim pickings.
Yes by technicality the stuff that Disney picked were from things before laws were even in place, and as you said public domain by the time people even thought to pen down these types of laws. But acting like the point that Disney pilfered stuff that anyone can use, then maliciously preventing others from using it, is really shortsighted
Man, imagine being John Kirby. The frickin dopamine rush you'd get every time you see a Nintendo ad or anything to do with Pokémon and just be like, "I made that happen."
for nintendo the day the lawyer saved their company was an important day in their company history, but for kirby it was probably just another day at work
@@dj_koen1265is that a Street fighter the movie reference?
He sees an ad for a Kirby game and does the Leonardo DiCaprio pointing meme
John is dead now, but his kids and grandkids can point to Kirby, who is canonically the most powerful character of all the Nintendo multiverse, and say, “there’s the poyo that was named after the lawyer that saved Nintendo against Universal.”
@@connormclernon26 The character was originally called Twinkle Po Po. So Nintendo knew that Kirby would be slightly easier to take seriously.
I think one missing point is that at a time they were licensing their IPs in 90s, specifically the philips CDi console and the infamously bad legend of zelda games. This was another blow to Nintendo regarding to the act of lending their rights to be used by third parties and that's another traumatizing blow that made Nintendo very protective of their IPs
Don't forget the 1993 Mario movie, which came out the same period of time as the CDi Mario and Zelda games.
@Calkimchi I am sure Nintendo would have liked to license their IPs locally, but to whom?
@@yesyes-om1po The only one in recent memory that I know of was that Crypt of the Necrodancer/TLOZ crossover - apparently it's pretty good
The USA trying to blow Japan since time immemorial
That is pretty interesting, especially considering that the worst Pokemon game recently (Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl) was also done by a third party. Then again, Pokemon Go has been majorly successful and that was also a third party project 🤷♀ So it's mixed
Important note: Pokemon is not owned by Nintendo. It is much stickier than that. Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures Inc. have partial pieces of the pie, but it is managed by The Pokemon Company LTC. Add on top of that a term known as "slicensing", or granting extemely specific copyright licenses, and it gets even more hairy. Under slicensing, the same copyright holder could grant one toy company rights to make a 2" non-poseable figure, and a completely different company rights to a 2" poseable figure. All that to say, I once tried to get the license for a non-collectable Pokemon card game, but due to the multiple shareholders and the slicensing, nobody was able to figure out who actually owned the copyright, and I eventually gave up.
Which is just nintendo, game freak and creatures put together(pokemon company) created by the three coming together to create a "seperate company" to manage the ip
Pokemon Company is just a shell company comprised of Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures Inc as brand management. (Overseeing products and other aspects of the franchise) Nintendo owns the I.P. & publishes the games. They call the shots.
@@SpookyDollhouse Game Freak has gone on record saying that there is no situation in which Nintendo can pressure them, and that they are the ones who control development.
@@oyeh8908 Not what I said, yo
Is that why Marvel and Sony have a similar problem with Spiderman? I always thought it was so stupid that Sony owns a character from a brand but not really the brand, like how the hell does that work?
Fun Fact: The whole "New York" setting wasn't a thing stated in any official material until the Super Show came out, and apparently this isn't a retcon, it's just that for some reason after the super show came out everyone knew that the Mario Bros. were from Brooklyn
As you say, It wasn’t official for quite a while, I remember just that people who played the game: 1. Knew about King Kong. 2. Saw the construction girders, an Ape, and that Mario was advertised as an Italian Carpenter at the time. (Prior to being fully established as a plumber) We all made our own assumption, given the visuals, that this was in New York, somewhere. As you said, the Super Show established official location and also narrowed down that they came from Brooklyn.
I watched the Super Show as a kid, so I had ALWAYS assumed that the Mario Bros are from Brooklyn.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 That strange feeling when Mario 64 came out and he didn't have that thick Brooklyn accent anymore...
@@NimaBlaydz
Mario: "Yah! Woohoo! YAHOO! Oof! Woo! Wah! Here we go!" 😂
BROOKLYN'S FUCKED, LUIGI.
"Now let's take a look at what Nintendo fears."
*Captain Crunch ad*
Truly the most terrifying thing
It completely baffles me up to this day that Pokemon is literally the #1 biggest media franchise on this entire planet, surpassing the likes of Disney, Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, Marvel and such. That is a very acknowledgeable feat. This brought in some extra info I never knew about Nintendo and their overprotective nature. I never knew they had a problem with the very company that they are now working with to make a Mario movie coming put soon at the time of this comment. Hearing this from a legal perspective from an actual lawyer made this all the more engaging and informative.
No way.
I don't see much people do pokemon.
@@FirebombFritzz to be fair, it's mostly popular in Japan (at least as a game).
@@FirebombFritzz I do I do.
To also be fair, it only happened after Pokémon Go but it’s still the case to this day. It was already high but that game makes billions a year alone so that helps a lot
Kids love their Pokemon
I've always wanted a geniune and educated breakdown as to why Nintendo is how it is legally, but never found anyone actually explain it. As a big Nintendo fan, thanks alot! I appreciate it! I'll try to show this video to other curious, and uneducated people such as myself.
we need more people who are humble like you! we are all learning and not born all knowing lol
Right? Usually it's just some incredulous gamer bro saying Nintendo is just being stupid or crazy, that they're just being "anticonsumer" for no reason.
They’re a Japanese company. That’s the main answer
capitalism.
"BUT DA BIG COMPANY WANT TO KEEP MAKING MOENY" is not a good defense
I'm pretty sure Japanese copyright laws may be the primary reason behind both Nintendo's overprotectiveness and business practices because Japan has a different viewpoint on how people should consume media, which is why J-Pop hasn't become mainstream like K-Pop due to copyright laws from Japan's music industry.
That's not true given other companies like Square and FROM have no problem with it.
Plus, J-Pop is as trash as K-Pop.
What is Japan's viewpoint on how to consume media? I don't know
IMO it shaping NoJ's mindset and what mindset gets adopted makes sense for sure.
@@LunaDragofelis What's important to know about Japanese IP Law is that there is NO such thing as fair use for any reason, what so ever, no matter what. You either explicitly have a contract with the IP owner or don't and exist with a Sword of Damocles over your head. The observant might note that despite this fact, doujin exists...but this is because many manga authors by this point were Doujin authors themselves. A Japanese manga company would 100% be in the legal right to take down a doujin, but that puts them at risk of an author revolt. When your business is selling Manga, that is a crippling potentially company ending affair.
So when Nintendo of Japan gets legal advice, they get told the above. When Nintendo of America gets legal advice, they get told what was mentioned in this video. What Nintendo as a whole here is...this stuff isn't legal and can get you screwed over in the US if you don't constantly defend....while being surrounded by several Godzillas as normal sized Mario with zero golden bells, giant mushrooms, or stars. This is not an environment conductive to being tolerant of fan related stuff.
the japs thikn they can enforce their bullshit copyright laws on the rest of the world when they really shouldnt be allowed to do so but since theyre boomers they dont understand the difference with everyone else having different laws they only know their laws this is why i pirate all of nintendos games now cause im sick of how they treat fans and fanmade games
I like what you said about permissiveness as part of public goodwill. Someone was comparing Bethesda's permissiveness like with the Fallout London mod to Nintendo's strict control with zero nuance. It makes sense from both company's perspectives though. People generally have a good opinion of Nintendo, whereas Bethesda, especially the core studio, is in a bit of a rough patch with fans after years of disappointments like with FO76 and the multiple delays for Starfield.
Your comment is so insightful: the next video on Sega, and Sonic, will go much further in depth on exactly this topic!
@@moon-channel thank you. I only found your channel today, but I already eagerly await that next video!
Bethesda did not permit Fallout London's development due to needed good will. They've been supporting the modding community with official tools that the devs actually use (Creation Kit) since fallout 3. They also gave modders time to actually use the newer Creation Kit with the Skyrim Enhanced Edition *before it was released*. That aside, a fan made Fallout 3 remake was sent a cease and desist letter not because they disliked how their IP was being used but because they used voice actors's lines from the games themselves and maybe the music. That's not entirely something that is within their control outside of spending money to license these voices again for said mod. The actors were paid to voice Fallout 3 and that game only. Bethesda also themselves had hired prolific modders before.
@@nathandam6415 A few years before that they tried to take down a couple game because it had "Fallout" in the title, the games had nothing to do with the Fallout franchise, were made by like 2-3 people, one of them was a tower defense mobile game, but this was back when they were alot more popular and they were much more willing to use copyright to their favour.
The glaring difference between Bethesda and Nintendo is that one consistently and frequently releases full complete games with passion and little no bugs and the other delivers half-finished, bug filled, and, lately, poorly made betas. Bethesda supports modding because they can release games half done and have the community, modders, finish it for them for FREE. It's brilliant, really. That's why Skyrim keeps getting re-released on everything under the sun and they fought hard for mods to come to consoles. It also goes without saying that the Bethesda of today is a former shell of the Bethesda that was once legendary. Starfield seems very ambitious but I won't hold my breath. I only hope it isn't a repeat of No Man's Sky
this video sat in my recommended for about two weeks before i finally decided to watch it. to be honest, i've been fatigued of nintendo content and commentary on the company's approach to IP. your video, however, is not just a step, but an entire staircase above the rest. truly an amazing video. thanks for making it
That's because the other videos are made by NPC's that regurgitate eachother without knowing anything about law or business.
Ironically, most youtubers do the exact thing Nintend does on a smaller scale in effort to keep their channels not only profitable, but existing.
Y'know, given all this law messiness, it only makes me completely more amazed that Sakurai was able to, with Bandai Namco, wrangle so many IPs into one game. Surely Sakurai studied up heavily on law to understand how to speed things along? He is truly incredible
Or how Ready Player One was even able to exist.
No, Nintendo did that. They decided the DLC characters and were responsible for the negotiations.
Sakurai is what you might call a "contractor".
Nintendo doesn't even "hire" Sakurai. He's not their employee. Sakurai is employed by SORA (Himself) and gets royalties from the games he makes. Ofc, he has some deciding power on the cast and other little things but at the end of the day is the Nintendo lawyers who make all the shit happen.
Related to this video btw, a lot of people were joking that Nintendo would be eventually be owned by Disney since they partnered to include Sora and we all know how Disney rolls.
It's exactly what this video was about. Disney can bullshit their way through layers to say "Hey, Sora is in smash... that means we own smash... which is owned by Nintendo... that means... we own Nintendo now". That's why Sora doesn't reference Donald or Goofy at all besides the little Keychain. Besides Square Enix is entangled in there too.
Again, law is stupid and overly complicated. There's no way one guy with zero law credentials would have sped up things. Don't give him that much credit. I also like Sakurai but he's not a god you know.
@@9Tensai9 100% Everyone acting like Sakurai worked on Ultimate by himself. When realistically he probs just screams "Get it done!" lol
Yeah he had to study up on politely asking rights holders for a license.
With hyper focusing on Nintendo and King Kong, you miss a whole lot of other cases related. There's a great documentary on how Nintendo got the rights to make Tetris. More importantly, look into the Magnavox Odyssey (The first console ever). The creator had some very insane patents that he harassed (and won) against Atari, Nintendo, and a host of other companies. To me, this was one of the most defining understandings Nintendo had on Copyright and how it could be terribly abused. One last case is related to Sonic. In the Archie comics, one of the artists discovered that they had no copyright to their characters and decided to copyright them himself. He's sued Sega over and over again everytime it seems they vaguely impeded on his rights. Talk about nightmares.
I was recommended your video of "Why kill gods?" a few days ago and it was extremely intriguing to listen to while I played Tears of the Kingdom. Then this pops up and now I understand why Nintendo is so overprotective. As you said, while as a fan I may not agree, but as a business, I understand why it's so protective. Your content is really good and I'm looking forward to seeing more. It's nice to keep learning more, little by little.
i wish more people would do this… kinda tired of angry fans declaring “Nintendo hates their fans!” and “cease and desist coming” every time someone makes a Nintendo drawing or animation, especially since it doesn’t actually happen 9 times out of 10…
"Big business is ranked competitive capitalism."
Holy shit that changed my point of view. Probably forever.
Literally always what it has been
Marx pointed this out almost 200 years ago. Nothing new at all.
always has been.
If you need an example of what he means when he says that competitors are often trying to pray on Nintendo's success just remember... Microsoft bought Rare ONLY because they thought they were getting the Donkey Kong IP. They didn't care about Banjo. That's why they haven't made any Banjo games since Nuts n' Bolts.
They may have believed they were getting access to the IP via a license, but I can't fathom Microsoft believing Rare owned the entire Donkey Kong IP. Nonetheless, Nintendo was smart enough to ensure that wasn't the case - RARE staff has stated the understanding that the DKC games were always Nintendo's property (I think they still have to credit RARE but no royalties are owed).
Microsoft tried to buy Nintendo themself. Interesting, they tried if before buying RARE?
@@x149te They tried before the Xbox hardware was built and the reasoning was they wanted to acquire both the hardware experience and software experience - something that MS didn't have at the time (they had made games before, but not console games). MS also tried to buy Sega as well but neither company was interested (MS has commented that the interest from Nintendo was immediately no). I don't think the Rare deal happened until much later after they tried to buy.
When I spread misinformation on the internet
@@stomboyyuffie8511 I like that you say that without including anything to disprove them lmao
Can we share this with the entire Nintendo fandom? This neeeeeds to be seen and known.
Agreed!
start reposting then
But why? So fangames and mods don't exist anymore of Nintendo characters?
I've heard in forums that Nintendo is heavy-handed in desperate attempts to not lose hold/control of their IPs, but I've never really given it more thought until seeing this video pop up in my feed. The Universal/King Kong lawsuit feels vaguely familiar to me, like I might've seen it referenced before in another creator's video content or from Reggie's/Iwata's recent (?) books, but much obliged for contextualizing it in this video of yours regardless.
Yeah the Nintendo Ninjas are real physical people who will watch you if they deem you high enough threat
It's fucked
FYI, Story of Seasons -IS- the Original Harvest Moon series. Natsume retains the copyright to market off the “Harvest Moon” title for its own substandard spin off products, but the series was always called “Story of Seasons” in Japan and Marvelous is just translating and marketing the series to the rest of the world itself now. It’s not a ripoff of Harvest Moon, you could say the new Harvest Moon games are instead rip-offs of Story of Seasons.
Xseed became Marvelous Entertainment's in house localizer/translator, when they became a subsidiary of Marvelous. That spurred the whole issue with Natsume. Natsume didn't want to give up ownership to "harvest moon" so they started producing their own sub-par farming sims under that title to avoid losing their control over it.
I came across a similar question recently when I watched a YT video *_What Happened to Sliders_* ? And lots of commenters wanted a re-make of the TV series. And I chimed in that anyone could do a re-make, they just couldn't call it *_Sliders,_* nor could they use the same characters, nor could they call it *_Sliding_* technology. ...But then, I thought of the possible loop-hole of _WHAT IF_ they did it as a *_Korean_* re-make... Then the question arises, could they legally translate the Korean back to English as the verb "Sliding" ? (which is the process of traveling from one Parallel World to another).
A better comparison he should of made would've "It's not Harvest Moon, It's Stardew Valley."
It reminds me on how during the 3DS and Wii U era, they did the Nintendo Partner Program, where they partnered with content creators (getting a revenue split), and later changed it to Content Guidelines, where they specifically allow the use of gameplay "non-commercially" (I wonder how you can slice that onion) and get revenue from it.
that's called free advertising.
let's say you're not sure if you want a game because the trailers don't show enough to convince you, you could look up a review or let's play to hopefully convince you to buy the product
Matpat theorised the Wii U failed due to Nintendo being too strict with showing footage
The problem comes when your game is pure story like danganronpa ace attorney etc. Ppl dont play those games from what i have seen jist watch others sp the sales are bad and we dont get a physical release or sometimes they dont give us those game at all here in the west. Thats why games like persona have a limot on how much you can stream in the first few months. And i am all for it since i find it kinda stupid that ppl can play a game and make more then the dev that created it.
A few years ago i did a few pulls on reddit about it and over 80% of ppl said that they dont buy the game since they either dont play or just dont need to anymore.
The only exception to this are games that are fighters and shooters and i dont think i need to explain why thats the case.
Thats why companies try to oncluse miltiplayer in every single game it seems nowadays just to get ppl to play it. And if they take down a video from some youtuber the drama and backlash that comes from their fans is enough to damage the sales witch i find insane tbh. Sorry for the ramble its just weird to me that one person plahing a game can have so much power.
Jesus christ i hate typing on mobile....
@@HandheldGamer1991 I agree with you. Reviews and Let's Plays can be good advertising for a game; but if you're posting videos where you're playing the entire game, well how is that different from posting a movie? So there definitely should be some sort of limits
@@solution4551 if the experience of your game can be felt without playing it, you havent made a game at all, youve made a book or movie
I would love to see a more in depth video on IP law. Specifically focused on the how a major IP can slip away if not well guarded.
Well SEGA amd Capcom have no trouble with fans so…
@@bailujen8052 Their IPs aren't with shit compared to Nintendo tho
I like how this video really goes in-depth with these issues instead of just being like, “Nintendo Bad! Gamers Good! I’m so angry! Give me attention!”
Nintendo: Coughs in "free updates" for rushed games
@@bailujen8052 What rushed games?
Nuance is incredibly important indeed.
The problem that I have with your comment is that two wrongs doesn't make something right. Yes, after watching this video some of the most outrageous decisions that Nintendo made as a company and game developer make much more sense and shed light into their's unknown(at least for me, you and the majority of this video audience) struggle over the years and the sheer herculean challenge that is defending the most profitable and new IPs that this world has ever seen from some of the most powerful for-profit organizations in the world.
Yes they have a reason for their behavior but this doesn't make said behavior in any way good. There are people that had their lives ruined by the unreasonable lawsuits of Nintendo, countless years of work and dreams of fan developers crushed under their boots and decisions that not only hurt their fans but also hurt their profits and reputation as a company.
Even before watching this, my opinion about Nintendo and their behavior as a gaming company and a gaming developer were already pretty mixed. And after watching they become even more so, since I can see now where their coming from and the absolute bloodbath they endure at the hands of the corporate world. But the sheer scale of the damage that they inflicted upon their audience is very much comparable to the struggles that they face in their battle. And it would be best for them(as a company) and for us(as consumers) that Nintendo left their over zealous behavior in the past, since the digital age is here and adhering to copyright laws made almost a century ago and fully distorted by the greed of media corporations over these last decades could be reformed.
@@matthewlasalvia7026 Kirby Star Allies, Mario tennis aces, Mario golf super rush, Switch sports etc
This whole thing really emphasizes just how broken the current legal systems are when even highly successful CEOs have so much to fear.
It makes me think of medieval England just before the Tudor dynasty. Despite having the impunity of God, every king was holding his bejeweled crown, dreading the day someone would ride in with a blood claim and public support. Except for no threat of violence or death, not much else has changed for people at the top!
The existence of IP itself is a Human right violation.
Not sure I'd agree, a system where highly successful CEOs don't have much to fear seems like it'd be worse.
@@enrymion9681 Not worse than current system when successful CEOs can just crush anything they fear so it isn't an actual threat.
It's not really about the law tho, it's about inequality, where money can buy you the best lawyers, and shit ton of them too. If everyone was actually equal before the law it could be a lot better, but they aren't.
Private lawyering should be highly limited, if not outright banned.
@@A_B_1917 "CEOs can just crush anything they fear so it isn't an actual threat." Are you saying that for example Google's CEO can crush any other company and thus has nothing to fear? But you're also saying that in a good system success should equal being less afraid than a random nobody but I'd argue that the opposite is the case, being highly successful should increase your fears and not reduce them.
As someone with a budding interest in applying for law school and for the law, I would love a more comprehensive video on copyright law. I remember a friend explaining the copyright cluster mess with music regarding Neon Genesis Evangelion and music on different mediums. This is such a fantastic video, and hope you have others in the future.
Hi Antoine! I am so glad you enjoyed the video, especially as a potential future attorney yourself! it does seem that there has been quite a bit of interest in exploring IP law further. I will have to consider a followup video, in the future!
Check out Hoeg law on CZcams. He is a lawyer that covers a lot of business things.
As someone who isn't interested in applying for law school and for the law, I would also love a more comprehensive video on copyright law tbh...
current IP laws should be abolished.
@@kvdrr I will take a wild guess and say that you haven't created anything of significance that would be protected under IP laws.
It seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy when Nintendo no longer sells a game anymore and offer no other options for people to play it than it's only natural that people turn to emulation but Nintendo being Nintendo would take down emulation I can see emulation being normalized down the road once a game is old enough and Nintendo refuse to offer other options to play it under the name of game preservation
That concept is totally foreign to them. Even back in the 90's you could clearly see their mentality whenever a game would release first on the SNES. Nintendo wouldn't even let the IP owners port the game that was first developed for the SNES to other platforms such as the Genesis/Mega Drive and DOS. Take Turrican for example. Turrican 1 and 2 (Amiga) were never released on SNES nor Genesis. The first Turrican game to ever be released on either console was Super Turrican, an entirely new game (It's not Turrican 1, 2 nor 3). What did the Genesis get instead? Turrican 3 under the name of "Mega Turrican". If the devs had made it for the Genesis first, I bet both consoles would have ended up with the same game. It's also for that reason that all DOS games/ports that were also released on Genesis and SNES were actually always the Genesis version. Aladdin and Jurassic Park are good examples of that.
Anyway. Nintendo can try to cancel everyone but they won't succeed.People have already leaked Tears of the Kingdom for PC users to play in 4K but instead of cutting water at the source, they're cracking down on all switch emulators as if that would ever succeed. The damage has already been done and even if all current Switch emulators were to cease their activities, others will pop up later and nothing will have changed. They also tried to sue a guy who uses a R.O.B body as a case for his Linux device that runs TAS speedruns. Nintendo sued him for reverse engineering when all the program does is execute inputs at very specific times just like a piano roll would. They ended up backing off but yeah. The dude had to defend himself in court for something Nintendo didn't even understand in the first place.
Nintendo can't take down emulation because emulation isn't illegal
@@gustru2078 Referring to the first part of your comment...you know exclusivity is a thing, right? It's not only Nintendo who's done that, and it still happens to this day on all platforms. Platform holders pay to get games onto their consoles/services, and more importantly (to them), to keep them away from those of their competitors. What's ironic is that Nintendo seems to have backed away from that practice over time, relying more on their own IPs as exclusives and the unique features of some of their hardware to keep games on their platforms.
emulation is just 2nd hand archiving.
I do always find the more legal and business side of these companies to be interesting because there tends to be a LOT more going on behind the scenes that influences their decisions. So a lot of the issues people end up having that they make out to be simple might be some kind of web legalities and business practices. And is why we do need to be a lot less closed minded when it comes to these games and try to get in the mindset of these companies to get better understandings of the situation.
Again you don't have to like it or agree to it, but I think it's better that we try to understand this reasoning. Especially if we want to make arguments against said practices.
I actually emailed Nintendo (of Europe, I'm from the UK) a few weeks back asking if I had to apply somewhere to acquire permission to make a video review about one of their products (specifically the DS port of Sonic and SEGA All-Stars Racing, actually!) Turns out they responded by saying the act of recording footage directly from Nintendo hardware is a violation of their EULA, and that the EULA of the Nintendo DS, 3DS, and of the Wii U, override the changes to Nintendo's content policy, despite existing before them - and thus mean that making any content whatsoever about a DS game is a direct violation of the EULA because of "unlawful distribution" of content.
Given they've responded, obviously my hands are tied (and the last thing I need is a cease and desist permenantly making it unlawful for me to own video-editing equipment) - but it's interesting to see how tight their grip is.
That would mean that no gameplay footage of any Nintendo game would be allowed on the internet, yet there's millions of videos of that, so what's the deal?
@@TheFrantastic I'd like to know too, if I'm honest! I asked them for some kind of explanation of why they responded the way they did but I'm still waiting for some kind of response aside from the automated "we ask that you respect our intellectual property", etc.
My best guess is that it's just what one of the people working at NofE thinks, hence their response - but still, kinda crazy stuff.
@@bethanylowe4683 Maybe what they meant is directly as in, directly from the hardware, as it would be the case with portable consoles, since ones that hook up to a TV have an external video output. Still, as far as you said, you never mentioned doing such thing, I'm sure you would have just taken footage from the internet, so that's a response that is completely blown out of proportion.
@@TheFrantastic Possibly? As I say, I'm not quite sure why exactly I recieved the responses I did. It seems a little backwards considering the changes to the online content license and the like!
Truth-be-told, I'm not 100% sure how to record directly from DS hardware. (Between you and I, I was planning to emulate it anyways, but I never brought that up in email correspondence.) Obviously now that they've denied it it'd be illegal for me to continue anyways (and the last thing I need is to be legally disallowed from accessing computers given I'm in a games design course at university) so my hands are pretty much tied.
@@bethanylowe4683 why did you ask for a game thats not even made by them?
Something else worth noting is that there is no japanese equivalent to fair use. Based on the laws of their home country, nintendo sees no difference from a piracy website and a youtube poop. This can partially explain why they are so adamant over the littlest things like an out of print strategy guide; they see that action as criminal even if it technically isn't and they have no legal leg to stand on if someone had the time and resources to fight them.
you're telling me that doujin culture is gray area? come on.
@@kvdrr Considering that _doujin_ means 'self-published', yeah.
Edit: Okay, _doujin_ means "a group of people with shared interests", basically a fandom, and _zasshi_ means magazine, combining to form _doujinshi,_ a self-published fan magazine. Happy now?
@@deus_ex_machina_ at least research the topic before replying, thank you
That's not even remotely true as there are plenty of Japanese game companies that allow their gameplay all over the place. SquareEnix, FROMSOFT, etc. They know there's a difference. They just don't want to change.
@@deus_ex_machina_ mere etymology does not answer my question. if what OP said was true then we should see every single company going after fan-made content
Great video, thanks so much! I'd definitely love a video diving deeper into how intellectual property works.
Woah, it's VGST
@@SynoPTL Woah, it's Parappa the lagger
@@VideoGameStoryTime wooooah
@@SynoPTL woooooooooooaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh
Wish I have watched this sooner. I always say Nintendo is not this monster people say it is and acting like that could only make things worse, that when Nintendo takes something down, it's for a reason, and that if it wasn't like that, we probably wouldn't have Nintendo anymore. Sure, sometimes they make some really bad choices, but so do everyone else.
Thanks, Moony, this is very insightful
So as most of us suspect.
It is because the law is exceesingly dumb.
Disney can bribe their way out to keep Mickey forever, while Nintendo can lose it if they breathe wrong.
Yeah, I kinda feel bad for Nintendo
The reason Disney has to bribe is because they also can lose Mickey if they breathe wrong. And they are actually not bribing enough to keep Steambot Willie out of public domain. January 1st 2024 inches ever so closer...
Disney doesn't deserve its IP at the moment tbh
The same law you saw is “dumb” also protected Nintendo in the Donkey Kong case and allowed it to continue profiting from that arcade game, allowing the company to grow and expand. Nintendo might not be the same company we know it today if it had lost that legal case.
@@VAULT-TEC_INC. The problem is that the law, and interpretation of it by the courts, has not changed with the advance in technology. It's like acting like the law on book reproduction is the same after the invention of the printing press.
So, protecting copyright is the avenue to protecting trademark, or at least the most significant avenue? I learned quite a bit today, and in a very pleasant way. Great montage of related footage and music. Thank you.
No.
Tradmark is BRAND.
Copyright is Product production and selling.
Yes it uncludes Trademark to a point but not always
You can make a pokemon plushy and sell it, Copyrigt withouth trade mark.
Seelig a "Pokemon" chain is Trade mark.
Other example are the abuse of trade mark, Some scumy company tried to Trade mark "Scroll" a. Common word, if it where to do so ghen ANYONE wanting to use this in any product must pay the company or just dont use it.
This laws are about EXCLUSIVE RIGHT.
When something reach Publci domain mean they loss the EXCLUSIVENES, Not the use
Now EVERYONE can use Scroll in their products, and no one can claim they are the SOLE OWNER of it.
Lawful Evil is the most sinister alignment, since they will always have people thinking they are still acting in good faith by following the letter of the law.
If one lives in Infernal Cheliax, to obey the law is to be evil. IP law in the US is painfully ambiguous, which causes a lot of trouble for companies and consumers alike. Oftentimes, to obey the law means to do something that is anti-consumer. To be clear, I am not happy that any of this is the case... but it is the case, nonetheless.
There’s a reason why that one former Nintendo lawyer effectively said it boils down to "if you make too big a racket, we have to take it down", and online media outlets don’t help.
How many times have you seen mass-copied clickbait rags going "THIS fangame is what Nintendo SHOULD be doing"; they’re directly invoking threat of the trademark, at which point Nintendo’s obligated to take action and shut it down.
There’s still metric tons of fangames out there. Hell, there’s a ROM-based Pokémon MMO, for crying out loud. Nintendo doesn’t want to take your fangames away, they want you to stop making asses of yourselves publicly and force them to do it.
…Except that one Smash tourney. Seriously, who the hell though they were going to mass-advertise an emulation-managed event using pirated software for a prize pool and believed they could just get away with that-
I have a question: Do you think it’s possible that Nintendo is working to being more flexible as they are now? With them forming an animation studio, theme parks, etc?
To be fair, I rather they kept it controlled and well managed so they don’t end up like Disney or Sony and Microsoft during the start of this Gen. That slow start nearly killed their investor confidence.
I think that your analysis is right on the money -- Nintendo's newer, more business savvy leadership seems to be working to create a more flexible Nintendo, as evidenced by the theme parks and animation studio, but also in games like Mario & Rabbids, the Niantic mobile games, and more, thereby leaning slightly away from "old" Nintendo and more towards the direction of Disney.
The pace of change being very controlled and managed, as you stated, is very characteristically Nintendo!
@@moon-channel Indeed! Also, I'm going to share this video so you can get more attention.
It would take a change of guard at the top. Japanese are culturally bound to serve the authorities, even when they're wrong.
No. HAHA. Nintendo needs to see value and that value has to be high in order for them to get the capital/funding. Nintendo, like any other corporation, isn't liquid. They either have to pull loans from a bank (which the Japanese banks are clamping down on loans or tacking huge interest rates), or through venture capital (which is a whole other hellish nightmare to deal with)
Nintendo's stance has its own issues such as giving them a very negative public reception from everyone that aren't diehard Nintendo fanboys
Japanese copyright laws being so much stricter than US copyright laws may be the reason why it's pretty easy to find a MtG clone but damn near impossible to find a YGO clone: US laws specifically exclude game mechanics from copyright, while I figure JP laws don't specifically exclude them or in fact may imply game mechanics can be under copyright.
Which is be hilarious, because many Japanese things exist thanks to the specific exclusions of US copyright laws (like the entire beat 'em up genre, Capcom tried to claim copyright and failed miserably), or even by breaking US copyright. The first Final Fantasy would have not existed without breaking the actual trademarks Dungeons and Dragons holds, and it keeps breaking them RIGHT NOW, you can kill Mindflayers in Final Fantasy XIV.
It's high time copyright laws get updated, and Japan needs an update more than anyone else, specifically to fuck with Nintendo.
There is plagiarism even in Japan and it's no surprise their laws mostly look after Japanese IP holders and not the foreign ones they take "inspiration" from.
I hope there is some Japanese Fair Use organization that wishes to improve the copyright situatiom in Japan. Even if it takes 100 years to succeed
the Law in the US is so corrupt that allow US companies to do illegal things, Nintendo will always have a disadvantage against US companies inside the US courts so it only make sense that Nintendo do all they can to protect their IPs
not too long ago, Warner Brothers managed to secure a patent on the Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor after several failed attempts at doing so. I wonder who they paid off to finally win
@@mrhat1073 lmao, we will never see that game system again now.
It makes sense, especially with the soundtrack example:
Nintendo does not care about copyright when it comes to smaller franchises like Advance Wars - but it does care when it's Mario, Pokemon or Zelda. It won't take down Advance Wars clones or fangames, soundtrack uploads, and strategy games.
Wow, a mature and reasonable take on Nintendo’s IP policies - I never thought I’d love to see this day!
This is a fantastically detailed analysis in all parts, but my favorite is the historical clarity on "a Nintendo (noun)". I'm from the Wii era, and never heard this growing up... but it appears to have been very common before my time. Always been curious on the context behind the language shift!
Yes, I imagine it sounds kind of weird to younger generations. I was born in the 80s, and during the NES and even into the SNES days, it was common for one to say they were going to "play Nintendo." This was the equivalent of saying one was going to play video games. Also cartridges were sometimes referred to (incorrectly) as "tapes" due to the prevalence of audio and video cassettes at the time. Language is interesting. 😁
So basically it so popular in the early 90s....all game consoles were referred to as "A Nintendo"
@@thenewaeon Funny ya mentioned cartridges being referred to as tapes, Famicom, Super Famicom and N64 carts were officially called "cassettes" in Japan!
i am a boomer, and yes, people would refer to it as a nintendo. And also a Sega Genesis was "Sega" lol.
Just a quick correction/clarification that I think is important: "If you want to borrow, say, Nintendo's platforming mechanics, or its game design, that's not something the big N tends to have a problem with." It's worth pointing out that these are things Nintendo DOESN'T have any ability to protect, at least in the USA. Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act prevents copyright from applying to "any idea, ... system, method of operation, [or] concept," and multiple examples of case law, dating as far back back as Atari Inc. v. Amusement World Inc. in 1981, established that this means that video game mechanics are design ideas are not covered by copyright. Only the "expression" of Nintendo's games are protected by copyright, including the art, characters, and code that comprise the games.
Curious for you to say that, given that there have been cases of gameplay mechanics being copyrighted.
@@superkoopamocha in the interest of Nintendo, they do support indie games that are clearly inspired by them, being shown in directs and within the direct trailers sometimes saying that their inspired by Nintendo games
so that part is absolutly true
There are TONS of patented mechanics, what do you mean. Even fucking Bloober patented their dumb split-screen thing from Medium.
@@superkoopamocha What are some examples? I can’t really think of any I know
Then how can Crazy Taxi sue other people from making games like theirs?
This helps lift the veil I had of them of being heartless bastards with their IP.
Still don't agree with a lot of it, but at least now I have a better understanding as to why
This video could go hand in hand with Nerrel's "a world without emulation", one shows the consumer/fan side of the issue and the other shows the legal perspective that could explain the company's behavior.
"Big business is ranked, competitive capitalism" that line is great
I suggest we kill the game fir good
Given how much I dislike ranked competitive games, I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising how much I dislike capitalism as well.
People and companies don't want to improve to be the best they can be. They just want to be seen as better than the next guy, or even the best. If they're already the best, they don't need to improve anymore and can instead focus on preventing anyone else from reaching them.
@@angeldude101 in actuality they destroy there own foundations with layoffs and cut cutting measures to brag about increasing profits to the shareholders until they inevitably fail to grasp the one truth that should have been hitting them in the face for decade
Infinite growth is a lie
@@angeldude101 And what system encourages people to be the best they can be? For me that's why I LIKE capitalism. It's the only system I've seen that can _potentially_ (not always, unfortunately, no) create a market where businesses are pushed to do better. Even if it's just "better than the next guy." Everything else I've ever seen just stagnates because, obviously, companies don't WANT to change or get better.
@@ZeroKitsune Extrinsic motivation is no motivation at all. It doesn't actually push them to _be better;_ only to _appear_ better, and competitors will do whatever underhanded schemes are necessary to do that just for profit and fame. This is why anti-consumer practices are common in business, why doping is common in sports, etc. Because the only thing that matters is winning, and not how you do so.
The best system that to push one to improve would be one's own _desire to improve._ Unfortunately, that _intrinsic_ motivation is severely lacking, especially with such strong extrinsic motivation that will outright _punish_ genuine improvement if it doesn't bring profit.
Well, I’ve found another video that helps inform me on how this one company still manages to be difficult to understand and to deal with. I’m right now reading a book called, “Super Mario - How Nintendo Conquered America” by Jeff Ryan. I saw this book at a convention and met the author of the book and asked him about it. I then got it for Christmas. Most of what you mentioned about their lawsuit battle with Universal reminded me what I learned through reading that chapter, and I was correct to believe what I believed before. When I read that chapter in the book, I said to myself, “My god. Is this the reason why their so overprotective of their own intellectual property? That their afraid of losing what they have, just like what happened to Universal with King Kong?” I knew about this who lawsuit years ago, but reading this after and watching this now, it makes even more sense. And your correct about what the future will be for this company and other companies possibly. Eventually, new executives will have to replace the old, and changes to company’s policies will be made. It may take years for that to happen, but it’s bound to happen eventually. We would just have to wait and see what comes next.
So the question I have that is gone unanswered is, why aren't we seeing every company that allows fan work going under and suffering all these things Nintendo is afraid of? And if that isn't happening, isn't that proof that Nintendo isn't actually in as much danger as it thinks it is?
Yeah
It is answered though. Because Nintendo is only alive due to their properties. Other companies are not. Microsoft isn't dependent on its games, it has better hardware to sell, it has the world's most used OS etc. If Nintendo loses the rights to their properties like Pokemon, Zelda and Mario, what else do they have left? They have a console that is worse than those of their competitors. They have a few party games but those won't last on their own. Because let's face it. These are bought because people already own a Nintendo console. And they own a Nintendo console because of the aforementioned properties.
@@Modie What I'm curious about is why Nintendo doesn't go after doujin soft or manga that uses their characters. If Nintendo has done that you never hear about it.
@@NotaPizzaGRL
Tbh, I am not versed enough in this sphere to even know what exists. But I think that first of all, you need to separate official ones and unofficial ones. Someone can just draw a Manga with Nintendo characters and even sell them. Doesn't mean it's okay. But tracking down all unofficial Manga is not that easy. Because I also think at the end of the day, you will find CZcamsr that use mods and tell people how to mod and they are not striked. Just because they are under the radar.
As for official Manga, I could imagine that those might have some form of rules they need to adhere to in order to allow these to exist. After all, there is no true objective decision on what Nintendo sees as a problem. It's a decision made by certain people and if they think it's not harmful to them or their brand, they will allow it. Also, at the end of the day, as the video also pointed out, you can see that there is a shift in how Nintendo views these things. Especially when it comes to alternative media. Otherwise the Mario movie would never have been made. Though I would like to know how the original Live action one even got greenlit in the first place. That is such an odd outlier to their whole stance.
@@Modie I can understand Nintendo not being able to go after every doujin manga. What I find odd is why when it comes to doujin soft (look up Super Marisa World), you never hear about Nintendo shutting games like that down.
PLEASE do an in-depth video on intellectual property law.
Would also love some details re: how certain huge copyrights expire despite being used by a huge company (i.e. Winnie the Pooh and Disney).
This was such a great essay, thank you for all you do!
the choice to pair one-winged angel with the introduction of disney cannot be overstated-- it was perfect.
"Pokémon has generated more revenue then Mikey Mouse and Friends by a factor of Spider-Man." I love that line!
This video had a lot of great insight into this topic, great job! I recently read that Chris Meledandri of Illumination was invited to join the board of directors over at Nintendo. With the record-breaking success that the Mario movie saw in the box-office, I'd say its safe to say that Nintendo and Universal will continue their partnership further. With this relationship with Universal, I wanted to get your thoughts on why you might think Nintendo is behaving this way, and if you think they may be "letting their guard down," in any way. I'm not sure if this could be Nintendo noticing value in expanding their IPs to different demographics in attempt to gain more growth. However, being tied to Universal tells me that might not be the case. It’s also especially ironic that it would be Universal to partner with, due to Nintendo’s past lawsuit with Donkey Kong. You mentioned how Nintendo must “play defense” in their business decisions, as much larger companies lack the IP power that Nintendo has. If you're able to provide any insight into why Nintendo is opening up their IP to a large company like Universal, I would be very interested in hearing! Again, great job, subscribed :)
Great videos about Nintendo and Sega, man. It really reveals why decisions are made the way they are in Nintendo. What you’ve described accurately lines up with what’s happened and is happening with video games and is 100% with reason. Very informative videos. Would love to see more in the future. Subscribed.
I'm a long time Nintendo fan and I've always thought it reasonable that they'd want to protect their copyright, but god damn I wish they'd just sell their music to the public already lol I'd subscribe to official Nintendo music accounts for their music! Just please: make your stuff more open, Nintendo, then we won't have all these fights with fans who don't understand why you're so protective of your stuff
Yeah, it's annoying that they take down content that they don't even actively sell
They kinda upload music on their UK channel
Their legal team sure is a cluster, they just don’t know when they take steps too far. It is quite annoying.
I swear just add their music library to nso, problem solved. Make the deluxe package have something that real fans want as a service in a way that makes sense. Boom instant millions all over again.
They do sell some of their music, I think on iTunes? It might just be Pokemon music, though.
Thank you for this video definitely the most mature video on why Nintendo is so overprotective
Meanwhile over on the Smash community. There was once a group that reached out to Nintendo for esport sponsorship and they got it.. when it was Smash WiiU
Switch Smash Bros, no one talks to Nintendo. The old group now moved on and professional players do stuff and get angry at Nintendo for.. oh I don't know.. not getting in touch with the copyright owner
No, it's more like the most shill-based, corporate-worshiping, capitalism-worshipping video on why Nintendo is so protective of its IP and trademarks.
The smash comunity is mostly a binch of idiots that think they own the game for some reason and can dictate what nintendo can or ant do. The big n will never bring back the old smash games since they want you to play the new one.
@@rayminishi689 this undersells what the Melee drama was really about, but i hate the current state of the competitive scene in the Smash community so i'm not even gonna correct you on this..
@@rayminishi689 SWT & Panda Cup situation?
you're my new favorite video essay channel for exactly the reasons you've stated in your purpose, i feel so cozy and curious right after your every video and that you valued our time and attention to talk about something that's relevant but in a tone that's not polarizing but is actually very patient and clear. thank you so much moon!
As long as Miyamoto-san walks this Earth, Nintendo's brand will be in good hands!
This makes so much sense, considering that Nintendo as a company has otherwise been more or less very consumer-friendly, with the trademark issue being somewhat of an outlier for its image.
Thats ironic that Universal sued Nintendo, only to end up working with them multiple times a couple decades later
Companies already know why fight each other when you can work together to scam the consumers.
@@zrolyn6367How is this theme park a scam?
Besides the brilliant points established by the video, I think another valid point to consider, in regards to what the video already has said, is that Nintendo was founded in Kyoto, the ex-Capital of Japan.
Looking with a stereotypical geoculture perspective of Kyoto and its people, it is (in)famously known for being the most formal, feudal and strict part of Japan in terms of its collective locked mindset over all.
Most people and companies from the old generation there, are very much against new modern societies (and the concepts following along them), and therefore prefer to keep most things as conservative and traditional as possible, ergo, no change or openness to any new viewpoints - and so, are very protective (and as such, afraid) all around in general.
I randomly found this video as a suggestion and watched it on a whim and I was very impressed and especially liked your voice. Needless to say you got a new subscriber from me
I found this at 4am last night while I was drawing. It was very insightful and enjoyable. I appreciate your mature demeanor and managing to be entertaining and objective while not feeling the need to cram a joke into every other sentence. I hope you can get back to making more content soon.
I got you beat, I found it at 5 am while drawing >:)
I think there is a huge market for explaining complicated copyright and IP law to the general public, as reading up the law itself without any appliance on real life examples can get quite confusing. I'd be hugely interested in further deep dives into such topics on your part, as this video is quite excellent and very enlightening.
In short: Great video, keep it up!
this is such a high quality video from such a fledgling channel. love it brother keep up the hard work
you explained it so well that 22:05 gave me chills
It's so refreshing to hear an account on this topic that is actually sensible. As annoying as it all may be, this makes a lot of sense.
As well as actually knowledgeable.
21:40 OH MY GOD, that image got me in the nostalgia!! My first cell phone was a Motorola V220. My family all got the 180, but I was like... nah... the 220 has a camera. So eventually the rest of my family switched out and upgraded theirs to get V220s as well... Such a throwback. :)
This video was incredibly helpful for me to understand Nintendo's mindset. Thank you so much for taking the time to dumb down the complicated legal process, and make things understandable to us laymen.
This video is just an opinion.
Man this video couldn't have popped into my recommended at a better time. I'm currently working on a fan game for the Fire Emblem series and I was bouncing back and forth between doing something like "[name of game], A Fire Emblem Fan Project" or using the standard naming convention for the series and calling it "Fire Emblem: [name of game]" because it doesn't seem like Nintendo goes after Fire Emblem fan games with the standard naming convention. This video, however, has gotten me to make up my mind and go with the former, because I understand *why* Nintendo is the way it is, so thanks for that!
It's criminal that this video isn't on the top 50 of trending, however, there isn't exactly a law that exists that can contribute CZcams be liable in this situation.
Jokes aside, Fantastic video m8.
Thanks you so much for actually explaining why Nintendo is so strict with its IPs, this is so clear and well explained, i hope most people will see this video and finally understand Nintendo's position. Also it's funny how Nintendo's first enemy was Universal and now they're making themeparks and movies together !
the funniest thing to me is that its obvious as hell that nintendo knows they cant stop everyone from emulating their games, and playing their music- and mostly do the protecting they do cuz they ‘have’ to- which mean little in actual practice, but people still complain about it like it actually means anything today.
I am not an expert, but I think the video exaggerates quite a bit the possibility of Nintendo loosing any trademark or copyright. There is no precedent really, all of the examples cited are mostly about house hold common items like aspirin and velcro not IPs or trademarks related to any form of art. And Universal didn't loose king kong for not being careful, they never had him, by the time they thought they bought it, it was technically already in the public domain. None of that has anything to do with fan games or old strategy guides.
I don't see any realistic scenario in which nintendo would loose any trademark or IP in those ways. Like I said, I don't believe there is any precedent for it, unless everyone comes back to call videogames "Nintendos" or starts calling all videogame characters something like a "Mario".
It really just seems to be paranoia and maximize profits
Actually, real reason is something completely different : Nintendo is a dying company. They were, first and foremost, game console manufacturer. Now, they are out of that race. They only have hopelessly outdated and overpriced Switch, in a market dominated by cheap and increasingly powerful Android phones. Modern kids do not care for Mario, Zelda and even Pokemon. Nintendo IPis worth less and less, and yet it is the only thing they have left. So they cling to it desperately.
@@aleksazunjic9672 market analyst entered the chat lol XD
@@abaque24 ;)
A Pointcrow comment sent me here. I am so very glad it did. Have yourself a sub, lawyer friend.
I loved this so much, really well done stuff, I hope you channel continues to grow
Still doesn't explain why, when it came to rom preservation, they made sites take down ALL roms and not just the ones they own the rights for
anything LICENCED by nintendo still has NINTENDO's logo on it.
Most sites I know has ads on them, which makes them revenue, that is also a red flag for Nintendo.
@@urdeadnotbigsuprise7439 usually those people use the revenue from ads for server upkeep
@@magicmasterplayer There is also another way called donations, which is a lot better compared to ads.
Talking about Disney to the sephiroth music killed me 🤣
this is one of the more honest and reasonable reflections on those of Nintendo's actions which, as a consumer, seem to be bizarre beyond explanation. it misses some marks, some which likely stem from lack of time to elaborate and some which may require further research.
1) I'm not positive what holds together the connection between Universal losing suit over an IP they only owned certain rights to and Nintendo establishing and enforcing strict rules over usage of IP that came directly from their development offices. At the very least, I find it difficult to imagine anyone coming away from the King Kong v Donkey Kong argument with the conclusion that 'it is easier to lose exclusive rights over IP than previously believed.' source is needed.
1a) one caveat to this note is that Nintendo has a long history after this lawsuit of aggressive litigation to protect their growth as an industry leader. in Game Over, Press Start To Continue, David Sheff managed to grab a series of interesting quotes from one of Nintendo of America's former chairmen, Howard Lincoln, who at one time was engaged in a legal battle with Blockbuster over the entire video game rental industry.
tl;dr: Lincoln spoke on the issue as if he were personally directing and representing the developers in Japan who he claimed were losing sales to game rentals (going so far as to call it 'nothing less than commercial r!@#,' which is language you would only expect from a true gamer). It would be pretty childish to take these words at face value, but they do belie what I believe to be one of the core business philosophies that have helped Nintendo (the publishing executives) push past competitors as well as influence some modern policies and actions that at the very least seem consumer-hostile. it doesn't appeal to consumer sentimentality and definitely comes across as psychopathic, but as far as I can tell it's just business as usual. as Mr. Lincoln used to say, 'f!@# with us and we will destroy you.' I can more easily imagine *this* being the takeaway from the Universal suit by Nintendo's execs, especially considering how that philosophy actively drove NoA's litigious nature for the next decade or so (it never really stopped, it just got quieter as it was normalized); not traumatic, just educational.
2) pretty bold to assume this explanation comes across as more complex than it should be. on the contrary, the direct action Nintendo has taken to protect its IP, everything from wordlessly shutting down tournaments to hiring people to stalk and harass ROM distributors, deserves a much grander dive into their history and rise in the industry. after all, who was risking the integrity of Nintendo's IP when they set up strict rules for their own writers and developers to follow regarding 'modification' of Mario characters?
also, considering how the legal terminology is succinct (at least in the US), what legitimate risk of damages does 'user-generated' content pose to Nintendo IP other than perceivable public image? Nintendo's failure of a Partnership program on CZcams was, after all, allegedly established to avoid people associating Mario with gamers who say cusswords like 'commercial r!@#'
I think one thing which would help further establish this video's conclusion, as well as help the consumers who have a difficult time understanding why Nintendo doesn't love them, is to firmly distinguish the difference between the development teams native to Nintendo and Nintendo's executive and publishing branches. one part of public perception which Nintendo has succeeded in managing is the marriage of their development and publishing teams to the point of conglomeration. in the public eye, Nintendo's corporate structure is non-Newtonian. many people might even assume the company is led by Miyamoto and Doug Bowser, and that all of their exclusive titles and consoles are developed and shipped from one generic office building in Japan.
however, their executive structure and business strategies are solid as a rock and have barely changed since the 80's. even the strategies behind their legal protection against potentially damaging user-generated content mirrors the structures of their legal battles back in the early days, where every goal of litigation was approached by claiming IP protection regardless of the nature of said goal.
to Moon Channel's curator, since you're likely one of the few still reading: I must assume you haven't yet read David Sheff's Game Over. it includes direct quotes from some of Nintendo of America's top brass during the 90's and dives into Nintendo's incredibly colorful history from a significant aesthetic distance. like myself, I imagine a majority of what you'll read will come as no real surprise as it truly does reflect what we've seen from a much quieter but equally punchy modern Nintendo.
As a law student currently taking property law, this was extremely interesting & a great way to apply the IP knowledge i’m getting to something I’m interested in! Thank you!
4:28 Umm... you forgot to mention the Universal themselves had argued, successfully, that King Kong was in the public domain and was thus open to the commons and not owned by anyone. That was how they were able to make the King Kong film in the first place
I just stumbled across your channel with this video and I really enjoyed it. It was quite informative and enlightening. I would indeed like a more in-depth follow-up video of the legal aspect of Nintendo's protectiveness of its IP to better understand their point of view. Thanks for this great video and I hope you continue! Cheers
Thanks to this video, I just now realized that the exact same movie company that lost to Nintendo in the 80s is in charge of both Mario theme parks and Mario films. What a world.
Congratulations on your video blowing up! You earned a sub.
You have a great chance here! Keep your channel and content rolling and you're in the perfect position to launch a very successful channel!
Thanks so much for this video! I find it difficult to find any accessible content on business & video game law but it's something I'm very interested in. This does a great job of illustrating its points and I really appreciate all the metaphors & examples you used to break down complex legal terms! Very excited for whatever you choose to do next ☺️
Would love a follow up on IP law, public domain and Disney! Great vid!
Great video, I appreciate all the time and work that went into it.
This is a really interesting video and perspective, changes everything, I now understand why nintendo is so strict with this stuff, it’s always seemed like nintendo was just being strict without really a reason to me and many others not being professionals in this stuff, really interesting, and I’ve seen sonic fan games ask for money to continue development, so I know other businesses are not strict enough or well not defensive enough like SEGA, but that’s a really good point of nintendo being on top.
6.45k subs is insane for such a high quality video
Got yourself a new subscriber! As a big Disney and Nintendo fan, this is right up my alley and explains a lot. I have come across a video that highlights Disney becoming less lawsuit-happy than they were in the late 80s and 90s and that they better realize how fan works contribute to promoting their IP. Would you say that Nintendo is in a similar stage to where Disney was? Keeping in mind context such as how Disney narrowly avoided a hostile takeover earlier in the 80s and their feature animation department was in danger of being shut down that same decade.
I think you've got exactly the right idea! In the coming ten years or so, I suspect we will see Nintendo follow the Disney trajectory in this regard.
the difference, i feel, is that disney is like MS. its big and powerful enough to enforce, even brute force some legal stuff. is nintendo that big, or, at least, does nintendo think its big enough?
Given Nintendo's protectiveness I have always wondered if Gaijin Goomba's use of one of their characters falls under either fare use or counts as transformative?
His character, I imagine, can be fair use. But his usage of the Goomba name would not.
@@suuslime3908 come to think of it, doesn't he spell it "goombah" ? and if spelt that way, isn't that even an already existing word
Thanks for taking the time to make such a good video! So sorry to hear about the copyright strike … I would happily contribute to a Patreon or a ko-fi (or whatever they call it). Good luck - thanks for this treasure of a video.
If I recall correctly, however, and if someone hasn't pointed it out, Universal didn't really lose the right to King Kong, they argued in another case that the character was in the public domain and won another lawsuit. Kirby then used that as a defense, if the character was in the public domain as Universal proved it, then they had no exclusive rights to the character
Thanks for the clear breakdown! As a fan and "little guy" it's a topic that has concerned me significantly. I could only hope that for fans who simply want to celebrate and express their appreciation for trademarked characters and franchises, the law is amended at least slightly for such allowances, but who knows if that will happen with how everything is so complicated. And asking permission from mega corporations seems as viable as not asking at all. I am curious to ask, though, what would constitute a "transformative" as opposed to a "derivative" one?
That's another enormous can of worms - but it's a can that fanfiction authors have been dealing with for a very, very long time. The Organization for Transformative Works is a group that you can check out that does work in that area
14:05 genericized trademarks are always the worry of trademark-holders. Just thinking about it, I realized that people use “photoshop” as a verb (and have for some time), and that has to have Adobe on edge.
To think that “Nintendo” was once on the verge of something similar surprised me a little bit. I’ve always associated Nintendo with their gaming consoles, handhelds, and products, not as a generic term for a gaming console.
Haven't watched it all yet, just hit the part with Velcro. Going to assume it's about genericization.
A huge example we also use basically daily was the Escalator. Specifically the Otis-brand Escalator. They're a REALLY big example of how to screw yourselves: the word escalator had become so commonly used that the trademark stopped meaning anything. Escalator was, originally, a registered trademark. It's ubiquity invited competitors. Otis, too, fell victim of the genericization of the word, and IN THEIR OWN PROMO MATERIALS were using mixed-case for the word escalator; sometimes it'd be Escalator, others it'd be escalator. Other companies selling similar machines had to used "motor stairways" or other such generic terms, and were tired of it.
In comes the trademark challenge. Otis ultimately loses the trademark because their own promotional materials referred to an escalator (with mixed case again) in a generic way. They lost the trademark, and now everything is an escalator.
The point here is that it's a VERY real threat. I feel like Nintendo could be easier to work with regarding licensing (give the indie devs doing fan games a cheap license or something, they're only going to HELP your IP). That's neither here nor there, though.
Other, less brutal examples are Xerox, Google, Photoshop.
Edit: Glad genericization was the route, the aspirin example is great.
OKAY the reference at 15:25 is so brilliant tho 😭, great video!