From the moment that Palworld was publically unveiled, the comparisons of the game to Pokemon have been rampant. Despite that, Palworld's development team, Pocketpair, has stated that they're not concerned with any negative legal action, as the game is not infringing upon Pokemon, nor other IP copyrights. Meanwhile, the former legal team lead of The Pokemon Company expressed surprise at Palworld, saying he was surprised, "it got that far" when the game was released.
Further adding fuel to the fire was a Twitter user by the name of Byofrog, who began directly comparing Palworld models to Pokemon models, showing similarities between the two. While all of these comments and reactions have been from the public, Nintendo themselves haven't made any statement, until tonight. The Pokemon Company put out a short press release, specifically about Palworld. The full comment is as follows:
We have received many inquiries regarding another company’s game released in January 2024. We have not granted any permission for the use of Pokémon intellectual property or assets in that game. We intend to investigate and take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights related to the Pokémon. We will continue to cherish and nurture each and every Pokémon and its world, and work to bring the world together through Pokémon in the future.
For now, there doesn't appear to be any immediate action that The Pokemon Company will take, but only time will tell if any sort of investigation leads to legal action.
Atrio says "the bar has been lowered," but the reality is that the bar was always this low. The "feel" of modern Pokemon games comes down to barely more than generic Unity aesthetics, so I'm surprised nobody has attempted to mimic it before.
Again, no. I count at least ten distinctive differences between the two, without even getting into the fact that one of them doesn't have a 3D model for reference. Do the devs want you to be able to look at their design and replace it in your head with a Pokemon if you want? Absolutely, that's something which is driving the success of the game. It's not legally actionable, however.
There's a clear argument to be had that if they're using the exact models from the games and deforming them, it isn't simply a case of 'reference', it is 'theft'. It's no different than tracing designs and then doing minor edits, which again, ala Pinkachu example, is copyright theft. Be like taking Mickey Mouse, giving him a cone horn on his head, and claiming it's original.
The number of changes don't matter if the 'core' of the design is the same and entirely recognizable. Hence 'silhouette test'.
The Pokemon Company issues [generic canned response #3] regarding Palworld.
"Thank you for bringing this to our attention, we will look into it and take necessary steps. Please let us know if we can assist you with anything else!"
There's a clear argument to be had that if they're using the exact models from the games and deforming them, it isn't simply a case of 'reference', it is 'theft'. It's no different than tracing designs and then doing minor edits, which again, ala Pinkachu example, is copyright theft. Be like taking Mickey Mouse, giving him a cone horn on his head, and claiming it's original.
If there were anything as damning in the files as the "Pinkachu" example, then that's the one people would be highlighting most. Instead they had to use hyperbole and invent their own comparison to support their argument, which actually diminishes its validity from the outside looking in.
You draw Mickey with three circles. If you turn them into three triangles instead, it's not Mickey any more.
If there were anything as damning in the files as the "Pinkachu" example, then that's the one people would be highlighting most. Instead they had to use hyperbole and invent their own comparison to support their argument, which actually diminishes its validity from the outside looking in.
You draw Mickey with three circles. If you turn them into three triangles instead, it's not Mickey any more.
We got the Dark Mutant, who again, while unreleased, blatantly is using MM2Y's model, animations, and skeleton. And I mean blatantly. That it was only discovered recently is the only reason it isn't such a big deal yet. Word's just beginning to spread about it.
We got the Dark Mutant, who again, while unreleased, blatantly is using MM2Y's model, animations, and skeleton. And I mean blatantly. That it was only discovered recently is the only reason it isn't such a big deal yet. Word's just beginning to spread about it.
We don't know what changes might be made to it before release, but even if it released as-is, it's legally distinct enough.
1. Two pairs of horns facing back versus one pair of horns facing forward
2. Claws on the hands and feet instead of rounded nubs
3. Spikes coming out of the face and arms which aren't present at all on the Mew model
4. Striping which isn't present on the Mew model
5. Completely different and much more defined torso
6. Pointed instead of rounded hips
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. All the small differences add up to make it very different overall. At a glance you could say they're the same, but the longer you look at them, the more obvious the dichotomy becomes.
Using Dark Mutant as a basis, they clearly use the same overall skeleton, they **literally** share the same animations.
Using the Primarina hair, it's literally 99:100 (not 1:1, but so similar it's impossible not to say it's not stolen).
If it was simply borrowing a trait within the design art, that's one thing. But these are clearly, and I don't mean it gently, I mean blatantly, traced or stolen models which have been re-topographized (which is indeed possible)
Those saying topography are different need to look at other details like animation skeletons (which... Dark Mutant/MM2Y are too damn similar), silhouettes, and designs overall.
Are ALL Palworld designs like this? No. Some are at **least** VERY heavily modified models, at the least. And some, like Warsect and Jormungandr, are fucking unique and pure baller. And I can't fault those. My issues come with those that look damningly similar. And as I said: there is the "Silhouette Test". And I doubt many would honestly not think "Mega Mewtwo Y" when looking at Dark Mutant, if they didn't know of Dark Mutant but knew of MM2Y.
If your argument is 'they changed some bits', does that make "Pinkachu" in this below post/animation legally okay because the base scaling dimensions for the file was smaller, and because they changed out the ears and tail (IE: removed Primarina's Beads, MM2Y's 'hoop' on the head, etc)?
Last I checked the conventional argument is 'no'. Because not enough has been changed for it to be considered a 'distinct' different design.
Edit: The Dark Mutant/Primarina Hair designs are both smoke. And where there's smoke, there's likely fire. Does it mean ALL of the designs similar to Pokemon are stolen? No. But it should HEAVILY increase the chances in your mind, and if it don't, it means there's a clear bias in your thinking that's preventing you acknowledging the possibility at least. If you still think it's not stolen, it's fine, but one should admit outright that the designs are at least suspect.
Edit 2: Primarina's hair alone is not copyrightable, but one needs to at least acknowledge the similarities are so absurd that it's unlikely that two 'unique' designs would share so many traits, dimensional consistency, and so little actual differences. That it's such a noticeable trait of Primarina that people automatically zoomed in on it on Azurobe says volumes. That it's so similar also speaks to how suspicious the entire situation is. It's not like the hair's a thunderbolt like Pikachu's tail, for example. That sort of design isn't common at all and it appearing with so many other Pokemon-like designs/models should be cause for awareness.
I understand that you find the similarities problematic, but they really aren't close enough legally speaking. Making similar looking hair or skeleton could for some count as plagiarism to some degree, but it wouldn't reach the threshold for being a copyright violation.
I do think that at this point it's impossible to deny being by coincidence, but they're allowed to use pokemon designs for ideas like that as long as they're not copying or tracing it to a higher degree.
That said, it could still be interesting what arguments could be made in court if it would actually go there. I also wonder if the palworld devs would go as far as to say it's partly parody. Or things like that.
We don't know what changes might be made to it before release, but even if it released as-is, it's legally distinct enough.
1. Two pairs of horns facing back versus one pair of horns facing forward
2. Claws on the hands and feet instead of rounded nubs
3. Spikes coming out of the face and arms which aren't present at all on the Mew model
4. Striping which isn't present on the Mew model
5. Completely different and much more defined torso
6. Pointed instead of rounded hips
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. All the small differences add up to make it very different overall. At a glance you could say they're the same, but the longer you look at them, the more obvious the dichotomy becomes.
Yeah no. This is clearly the same model but deformed.
The general rule is the file itself, the actual original model, is copyrighted. And use of that model/file commercially without permission is illegal.
In short, if a design is clearly based on the original file and can be proven it (the Animation and rigging it clearly mroe than enough to do that), then it's illegal, full stop.
"With this approach, the author of a digital file that is reproduced without authorization could claim a moral right in the work if their authorship is called into question. Article 6bis of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which establishes minimum international standards of protection in the field of copyright, states that the author has “the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.”
According to google, Prejudice (Prejudicial) in law means:
"LAW
harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment.
"prejudice resulting from delay in the institution of the proceedings""
Considering there are copyright laws that say if Nintendo doesn't even TRY to defend their IP, they can lose rights to it, if they do not eventually act here, that would harm their reputation as they would not 'own' the Mega Mewtwo Y model anymore.
And that's if we go past the 'or', and ignore that the law states simply put "the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of"
TL;Dr: There is no legal right to be able to copy someone else's design file without authorization. And considering it SEEMS the animation files are in Dark Mutant's files (hence the above Twitter user having the model's animations), it makes it harder to say that these are NOT the ripped files from a Mega Mewtwo Y.
If you're going to say that 'well it's a coincidence', you're going to need to explain the coincidence of almost every dimension of Dark Mutant, when put even in scale (same height), being NEARLY 1:1 with relevant body parts of a Mega Mewtwo Y. At this point, it's a bad faith argument to say that it's 'designed similarly' because, as an actual 3D modeler notes:
I understand that you find the similarities problematic, but they really aren't close enough legally speaking. Making similar looking hair or skeleton could for some count as plagiarism to some degree, but it wouldn't reach the threshold for being a copyright violation.
I do think that at this point it's impossible to deny being by coincidence, but they're allowed to use pokemon designs for ideas like that as long as they're not copying or tracing it to a higher degree.
That said, it could still be interesting what arguments could be made in court if it would actually go there. I also wonder if the palworld devs would go as far as to say it's partly parody. Or things like that.
Parody requires 'commentary' on something as part of the design. IE: Making a derpy ass pikachu, or commentary in the story about how stupid something looks. These do not 'commentate', by technicality. "A parody, in copyright law, "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." - https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/c.php?g=158548&p=1581719
At LEAST, in part, comments on the original author's works. But does palworld do that? Not really.
C'mon man, one of the models isn't even 3D. They are not the same by any logical standard. If you want to claim that they "feel" the same, I won't dispute that, but feels are not legally admissible evidence of wrongdoing.
C'mon man, one of the models isn't even 3D. They are not the same by any logical standard. If you want to claim that they "feel" the same, I won't dispute that, but feels are not legally admissible evidence of wrongdoing.
Even the tweet says it's "less animated," which is a creative way of saying the animations are different. There's less movement up and down, as well as less movement in the middle of the head-tail, but more movement in the legs/toes and arms. There's only so much that can be done to make floating look unique, thus the entire concept of floating cannot be copyrighted.
They're really different enough xD. You can see it's derivative of mewtwo y, but the differences are what count, and that there's no way to prove that the model was used. You can take ideas from something that exists. The animations do look different even if similar.
Right. We'll see if/when Pokemon Company files any potential lawsuit, which I do believe to be likely.
Edit: And let me be clear: Took a Western Company like Riot Games 2 years to sue someone that stole assets from them and did 'changes' like Xzi claims. And that company settled in the end. I don't have any doubts Nintendo's going to form a REALLY close to airtight case before we EVER heard about the actual lawsuit, presuming Palworld's company don't quickly settle. It will takes months, maybe years.
I think that lawsuit would've been filed months, if not years ago if it was going to happen at all. The game's been in development for over three years, and Pocketpair is a Japanese company whose office is apparently within a few blocks of some of Nintendo's. Odds are extremely slim that they just found out about it when it released in early access.
I think that lawsuit would've been filed months, if not years ago if it was going to happen at all. The game's been in development for over three years, and Pocketpair is a Japanese company whose office is apparently within a few blocks of some of Nintendo's. Odds are extremely slim that they just found out about it when it released in early access.
Having the actual models in their hands would be a HUGE requirement for actually filing a lawsuit of this sort, and having a successful case. That, and many of the smoking guns would be hard to confirm without having the available models, or the files revealing stuff not in the trailers like Dark Mutant.
Having the models on hand allows Nintendo to investigate in detail and look for damning similarities in animations/etc, rigging, topography (where rarely lines up, such as Serperior and Azurobe supposedly having the same 'rings' on their topographies), etc etc etc. And then they would need to write up a very clear law document, covering all their basis.
This isn't like Epic Vs Apple where Epic legitimately forced Apple to act and had a lawsuit prepared within hours because they set up a trap and planned to catch Apple off Guard.
Edit: It's of note most projects NIntendo shuts down with lawsuits, or threats there-of, are 2D where it's objectively easier to just point out design theft. 3D projects require a LOT more legwork.
Having the models on hand allows Nintendo to investigate in detail and look for damning similarities in animations/etc, rigging, topography (where rarely lines up, such as Serperior and Azurobe supposedly having the same 'rings' on their topographies), etc etc etc. And then they would need to write up a very clear law document, covering all their basis.
I think that's the disconnect here: an airtight case would require they demonstrate 1:1 copies, not simply "similarities." There are a lot of similarities between Pokemon designs and other original works, after all.
Nintendo doesn't have to worry about their bottom line no matter what happens, so it may not be worth the risk of turning public opinion against them by being overly aggressive toward a smaller indie studio. The demand is clearly there for alternate gameplay within the monster catching genre, and if GameFreak isn't willing to fill that gap, they must allow others to.
Nintendo / GameFreak / The Pokemon Company have a very distinct visual design language when designing Pokemon, a visual identity that most Pokemon share. There is a list of common traits, guidelines, visual elements, color palette, shading... in creating a new Pokemon that ensures a coherent, distinct, and immediately identifiable visual style.
And it is so distinct and recognizable, that there are lists and guides and tutorials out there on how to design new Pokemon that looks Pokemon-like. It's not hard to figure out.
But the thing is, the "style" isn't copyrighted or owned. There are thousands of Fakemon out there (starting with Sylveon ) that are not only "Pokemon inspired", and "similar" to Pokemon, they are intended to look like a new Pokemon and not a creature from a different game. But still different enough from any existing Pokemon to not be a direct copy, but a unique critter. But still following enough style guidelines and design elements to look just like a next gen Pokemon. And so on.
And as long as you don't claim any relation to Pokemon, you can include those critters in your own games. I mean, look:
Call it "heavily inspired", call it "copied", call it "ripoff", call it "completely unique and unrelated design any similarity is purely coincidental", you can't deny they look kinda familiar. But they are not identical to any existing Pokemon, so it's fair game.
The game has been on Steam since 2017-
Then there's friggin Nexomon on the Switch:
Point is, you can have a design style that is undeniably, intentionally, Pokemon-esque, but if it's not an existing Pokemon, it's fair game.
Getting back to Palsworld, their designs are undeniably Fakemon head to toe, but they are still unique character designs no matter how they were arrived at.
I think that's the disconnect here: an airtight case would require they demonstrate 1:1 copies, not simply "similarities." There are a lot of similarities between Pokemon designs and other original works, after all.
Nintendo doesn't have to worry about their bottom line no matter what happens, so it may not be worth the risk of turning public opinion against them by being overly aggressive toward a smaller indie studio. The demand is clearly there for alternate gameplay within the monster catching genre, and if GameFreak isn't willing to fill that gap, they must allow others to.
To be fair, nintendo doesn't seem to care that much about public opinion fully, when they go and shut down so many fan projects, media, and making so many barriers for the smash competitive community.
But that said I doubt they'll go for a lawsuit they know they can't do much to win. I'll be interested if they do though.
like i said earlier now that they are investigating this they will find a loophole and do whatever it takes to take this down. because the prick in charge of the company now has basically turned it into the new apple!
More important than the silhouette test is the squint test, where ALL of the Palworld designs pass except maybe Dark Mutant, which for all we know won’t appear in the official game at all and doesn’t have any actual bearing. Certainly not a “smoking” anything.
Even if we throw a buzzword like plagiarism into the mix that doesn’t mean it’s copyright infringement. Plagiarism is so incredibly close to parody and inspiration that it simply cannot be seen as copyright infringement, especially if (as we see here) those “plagiarized” bits are simply one part of a distinctively unique whole.
Additionally, what’s it matter whether they “stole” content from TPC and rehashed it? The workers for Mewtwo-Y were paid over a decade ago, and the workers for Primarina were paid 8 years ago. TPC made back their money hundreds of times over. At this point it’s simply an argument of “do you value the copyright of multi-billion dollar companies” and truly I cannot care, especially when Nintendo is more than willing to attack innocent fans wanting to make non-profit fan games. In fact, the moral standpoint would be that at minimum Gen I and soon Gen II would be entering the Public Domain due to the fact that they’re both 25 years or older.
Today, April 8th, 2024, at 4PM PT, marks the day in which Nintendo permanently ends support for both the 3DS and the Wii U online services, which include co-op play...
A new Nintendo Switch firmware update is here. System software version 18.0.1 has been released. This update offers the typical stability features as all other...
With Apple having recently updated their guidelines for the App Store, iOS users have been left to speculate on specific wording and whether retro emulators as we...
The time has finally come, and after many, many years (if not decades) of Apple users having to side load emulator apps into their iOS devices through unofficial...
The highly popular and accurate FPGA hardware, MisterFGPA, has received today a brand new update with a long-awaited feature, or rather, a new core for hardcore...
Nintendo might just as well be a law firm more than a videogame company at this point in time, since they have yet again issued their now almost trademarked usual...
TheFlow has done it again--a new kernel exploit has been released for PlayStation 4 consoles. This latest exploit is called PPPwn, and works on PlayStation 4 systems...
Another video game prototype has been found and preserved, and this time, it's none other than the game that spawned an entire franchise beloved by many, the very...
Anbernic is back with yet another retro handheld device. The upcoming RG28XX is another console sporting the quad-core H700 chip of the company's recent RG35XX 2024...
Nintendo has recently announced through their social media accounts that a new Indie World stream will be airing tomorrow, scheduled for April 17th, 2024 at 7 a.m. PT...
Today, April 8th, 2024, at 4PM PT, marks the day in which Nintendo permanently ends support for both the 3DS and the Wii U online services, which include co-op play...
Nintendo might just as well be a law firm more than a videogame company at this point in time, since they have yet again issued their now almost trademarked usual...
With Apple having recently updated their guidelines for the App Store, iOS users have been left to speculate on specific wording and whether retro emulators as we...
The time has finally come, and after many, many years (if not decades) of Apple users having to side load emulator apps into their iOS devices through unofficial...
A new Nintendo Switch firmware update is here. System software version 18.0.1 has been released. This update offers the typical stability features as all other...
TheFlow has done it again--a new kernel exploit has been released for PlayStation 4 consoles. This latest exploit is called PPPwn, and works on PlayStation 4 systems...
Two classic titles join the Nintendo Switch Online Expansion Pack game lineup. Available starting April 24th will be the motorcycle racing game Extreme G and another...
The highly popular and accurate FPGA hardware, MisterFGPA, has received today a brand new update with a long-awaited feature, or rather, a new core for hardcore...
Nintendo has recently announced through their social media accounts that a new Indie World stream will be airing tomorrow, scheduled for April 17th, 2024 at 7 a.m. PT...
In 2017, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed net neutrality. At the time, it was a major controversy between internet service providers...
only ps5 updated to latest firmware can go on psn, jailbroken ones just don't use psn or they risk getting flagged or banned, altho spouting profanity in online play alredy does that
Source
