×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Square Enix Wins $600,000 from Unlicensed Sword Sellers


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ai no Kareshi



Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 561
Location: South Africa
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:45 am Reply with quote
Xanas wrote:
I care about bootlegs when the official stuff is out there because I like to support creators as much as anyone else, but when there is no official stuff I could care less. Square could have hired these groups. Ok, you can say "but they are so immoral" but that's meh. If Square isn't making the stuff then what exactly are they taking? The "reputation" is not taken unless these are advertised as official Square products. I would imagine most know that Square didn't make them when they buy them, but if that isn't true I do disagree with that part of it.

This is, of course, the same argument used to defend fansubs. Which, while I watch fansubs myself, I do not support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger My Anime My Manga
Unit 03.5-ish



Joined: 07 Dec 2008
Posts: 1540
Location: This space for rent
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:46 am Reply with quote
Ai no Kareshi wrote:
teh*darkness wrote:
Unit 03.5-ish wrote:
I just wish that money would be put to better use...like making some kind of new and amazing game that did not contain the word "Final" or "Fantasy"


Hm, didn't they just do a worldwide simul-release of something called The Last Remnant?

I know this is probably a case of coincidence, but I find it amusing that Unit 03.5-ish complains about the word "Final" in their titles and you respond with one that contains a synonym. Laughing That said, back to slaying each other over copyright.


Interestingly enough, despite that fact, Last Remnant is, apparently, nothing like Final Fantasy, but I imagine it wasn't developed by their FF team. I'm just saying that the company has left a sour taste in my mouth because IMO they have yet to match the excellence of their 16-bit days, but that's just old school gamer snark kicking in
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger My Anime
Ai no Kareshi



Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 561
Location: South Africa
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:51 am Reply with quote
Hey, I can relate to some extent. Sega, Sonic, yeah.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger My Anime My Manga
turboyoshi



Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 16
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:39 am Reply with quote
Xanas wrote:
Square could have hired these groups. Ok, you can say "but they are so immoral" but that's meh. If Square isn't making the stuff then what exactly are they taking?

How do you know they didn't try? Of course, SE likely asked for remuneration for items already sold under their name and the illegal producers probably said no. SE has a right to protect their license and I'm glad they exercised it and in fact the settlement seems like a reasonable one.

Quote:

The "reputation" is not taken unless these are advertised as official Square products. I would imagine most know that Square didn't make them when they buy them, but if that isn't true I do disagree with that part of it.


Actually it doesn't matter whether SE produced the swords or not. If a lawsuit involves an SE product, SE will become named as a defendant. Simply because lawyers have to cover every possible connection or they risk being dismissed for incompetency. And little Jimmy's mom, who's all traumatized cause little Jimmy lost an eye using a replica SE sword, is sure to want SE named since they have the most money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brians9824



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 281
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:50 am Reply with quote
So much bad info being said here I want to clear up a few things. First its been a while since i did my classes in Copyright laws so if i'm off on a few points sue me Laughing

Basic items like belts, shirts, etc can't be copyrighted. Individual designs can within reason but for items like that its the brand name thats copyrighted, not the actual design.

For items like guns, swords, etc its usually not the actual appearance of the weapon thats copyrighted but the manufacturing process or the internal workings. Anyone can draw a gattling gun, the image of it isn't copyrighted. Also most gun designs and images are public domain. Anyone can draw an AK-47 or use a model of one in a movie, etc. Their is no copyright protecting the image of the gun, just its internal workings and name. I can't make my own gun and call it an Ak-47.

For buildings the exteriors are considered public domain and free for anyone to use. Interiors require permission if you want to model them, but their are exceptions for certain buildings (I believe public buildings) Prime example is Tokyo Tower. No one needs permission to have Tokyo Tower in an anime.

When Square creates a game they don't license any individual item, they license all contents , weapons, artwork, etc. As such anyone modeling weapons off of their game and/or using their name is violating their copyright.

Now in order to actually file a copyright lawsuit you have to prove one of two claims. Either a loss of profit or a loss of image. In this case as it has been pointed out there was no real loss of profit. Their was a loss of image as the swords ARE branded Buster Sword, keyblade, etc. As such they have a right to sue to protect their image.

These items WERE branded and sold as replica's of Final Fantasy Weapons. I actually have a small Gunblade on a stand in my room which I guess is unauthorized. I had no idea when I purchased it that they weren't authorized. The average consumer has no idea if company X is allowed to make replica's of weapon's.


Last edited by Brians9824 on Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address My Anime
teh*darkness



Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 901
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:52 am Reply with quote
ikillchicken wrote:
teh*darkness wrote:
ikillchicken wrote:
I'm sorry but this whole thing leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Sure Square Enix is technically right here. However, when you consider that they don't make and don't seem to have any plans to make, any kind of comparable product themselves, it just seems like a bit of a needless money grab. If these guys were selling posters or figures or at the very least something vaguely within the realm of normal memorabilia that an average FF fan might buy then fine. Swords are just so out there though. Does some company producing replica swords based on games or whatever really create any kind of problem for the company that produces that game?


Let's look at the defendant's statement again, everyone: [snipped to keep this short]

According to this statement, they were importing swords. What they were sued for was for importing swords made somewhere else, and selling them without having a license to do so. If on top of that, these are also bootleg swords, then the companies that the swords were bought from could also be looking at legal trouble in the future.


Boy, I sure would feel silly if that had a damned thing to do with what I said. Whether they were actually making these things or just importing them, it doesn't make the slightest difference. Stop nitpicking.


Sorry I just happened to pick you to quote on that, but calling it a money grab only counts if there are no official swords out there anywhere. Doesn't matter if S-E makes them themselves, or if they've licensed the rights to make the replicas to another company inside or outside Japan, hence my comment about whether the supplier of these swords is legit or not. If it only boils down to the US companies importing these for sale without the proper license, then it's S-E going after illegal distribution. If they're bootlegs, then the problem is bigger. If there are no official replicas whatsoever, S-E still has a right to protect its brand name, whether it plans to make official merchandise or not. It's not a money-grab, it's protecting IP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Brians9824



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 281
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:11 am Reply with quote
teh*darkness wrote:
ikillchicken wrote:
teh*darkness wrote:
ikillchicken wrote:
I'm sorry but this whole thing leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Sure Square Enix is technically right here. However, when you consider that they don't make and don't seem to have any plans to make, any kind of comparable product themselves, it just seems like a bit of a needless money grab. If these guys were selling posters or figures or at the very least something vaguely within the realm of normal memorabilia that an average FF fan might buy then fine. Swords are just so out there though. Does some company producing replica swords based on games or whatever really create any kind of problem for the company that produces that game?


Let's look at the defendant's statement again, everyone: [snipped to keep this short]

According to this statement, they were importing swords. What they were sued for was for importing swords made somewhere else, and selling them without having a license to do so. If on top of that, these are also bootleg swords, then the companies that the swords were bought from could also be looking at legal trouble in the future.


Boy, I sure would feel silly if that had a damned thing to do with what I said. Whether they were actually making these things or just importing them, it doesn't make the slightest difference. Stop nitpicking.


Sorry I just happened to pick you to quote on that, but calling it a money grab only counts if there are no official swords out there anywhere. Doesn't matter if S-E makes them themselves, or if they've licensed the rights to make the replicas to another company inside or outside Japan, hence my comment about whether the supplier of these swords is legit or not. If it only boils down to the US companies importing these for sale without the proper license, then it's S-E going after illegal distribution. If they're bootlegs, then the problem is bigger. If there are no official replicas whatsoever, S-E still has a right to protect its brand name, whether it plans to make official merchandise or not. It's not a money-grab, it's protecting IP.


Exactly. No loss of revenue is required to win a copyright lawsuit as long as Square Enix can prove that the sales of the swords negatively effected their image. Since those replica's are all clearly labeled as Final Fantasy Replica Swords thats an easy claim to prove.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address My Anime
Mohawk52



Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:09 pm Reply with quote
I just love self remorse. What they meant was "We didn't think you had it in you to actually sue us," and yet they act so surprised when it happens. What are they like? (shakes head)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emerje



Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 7328
Location: Maine
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:13 pm Reply with quote
Brians9824 wrote:
These items WERE branded and sold as replica's of Final Fantasy Weapons. I actually have a small Gunblade on a stand in my room which I guess is unauthorized. I had no idea when I purchased it that they weren't authorized. The average consumer has no idea if company X is allowed to make replica's of weapon's.


If you're talking about a very small-scale Gunblade that someone might stick on their desk then it might be a licensed product. SE did make a few replicas through their short lived "Master Arms" line: Squall's Gunblade, Seifer's Gunblade, Vincent's Cerberus, and the Kingdom Key Keyblade.

Emerje
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
Brians9824



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 281
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:16 pm Reply with quote


Thats the one I have. Don't think its the licensed one.

If its not licensed you can tell its a blatant rip off of the gunblade
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address My Anime
ikillchicken



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 7272
Location: Vancouver
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:11 pm Reply with quote
teh*darkness wrote:
If there are no official replicas whatsoever, S-E still has a right to protect its brand name, whether it plans to make official merchandise or not. It's not a money-grab, it's protecting IP.


I didn't say they didn't have a right to do so. In fact I explicitly said they are technically right. I just don't think because you can sue somebody you automatically should. Protecting your IP is one thing but this seems to me an unnecessary and over the top response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
dragoneyes001



Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 873
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:12 pm Reply with quote
teh*darkness wrote:
Unit 03.5-ish wrote:
But in all seriousness, wow, companies don't mess around with sales licenses. I just wish that money would be put to better use...like making some kind of new and amazing game that did not contain the word "Final" or "Fantasy"


Hm, didn't they just do a worldwide simul-release of something called The Last Remnant?

ikillchicken wrote:
I'm sorry but this whole thing leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Sure Square Enix is technically right here. However, when you consider that they don't make and don't seem to have any plans to make, any kind of comparable product themselves, it just seems like a bit of a needless money grab. If these guys were selling posters or figures or at the very least something vaguely within the realm of normal memorabilia that an average FF fan might buy then fine. Swords are just so out there though. Does some company producing replica swords based on games or whatever really create any kind of problem for the company that produces that game?


Let's look at the defendant's statement again, everyone:
article wrote:
"We regret having sold unauthorized replica merchandise based on the Final Fantasy franchise to our customers. We would not have begun importing and selling these swords if we knew that Square Enix would respond so aggressively to stop us. We will never make this mistake again."


According to this statement, they were importing swords. What they were sued for was for importing swords made somewhere else, and selling them without having a license to do so. If on top of that, these are also bootleg swords, then the companies that the swords were bought from could also be looking at legal trouble in the future.

dragoneyes001 wrote:
see thats where your argument falls apart because SE used the items in their products as part of their copy right suit which means any item in their(SE's) products must also be protected by copy right.


And here's where your argument falls apart. S-E never claimed that every single item in their products are protected by their copyright. Simply that the swords being sold are obviously unlicensed replicas of specifically identifiable original designs which they own the copyrights to.

dragoneyes001 wrote:
you mention the common katana and even though its a common item other anime's have also used them PRIOR to SE's use which means their(the other company's) copy right should also include any designs used within their anime or games and that would mean SE owes each of those copy right holders royalties for copying a recognizable item from someone else's work (a katana) because a katana is a very specific item as would be an AK47 or a F18....etc...


Except that as s/he also mentioned, you CAN NOT own the rights to 'a katana'. AK47's and F18's are very specifically created products by specific companies and are so owned by those companies. Those are not the same as 'a katana'. 'A gun' or 'a fighter-style aircraft' would be similar analogies, which no one can own the rights to.

dragoneyes001 wrote:
in effect a blanket copy right as its worded on any game and movies/anime...etc where the copy right holder states they own the rights to EVERYTHING within their product is Plagiarism because others have already used much of whats found within those copy righted products its one thing to say we own this game do not copy and sell this game. its a whole other thing to say we made a game and any item there in is our property when not every single item within the game is unquestionably they're design.


It's a blanket copyright so they don't have to go through the effort of spelling out exactly what is covered. But obviously, in games, movies, what have you, common scenarios and plot points, names, places, shapes of buildings, etc etc, cannot be copyrighted. What can be copyrighted is original designs and artwork, specific characters (in the case of Freddy or Jason, if someone else tried using those characters in some media without paying a licensing fee, they'd get their asses sued off), specifically created fantasy weapons not found in real life, etc. Being as there are things which cannot be copyrighted, it is then rather simple to say everything in the movie [which can be] is copyright INSERT_COMPANY_NAME_HERE. Take your little hate tirade somewhere else. You're not fooling anyone.


your wrong because the copy right does say quite specifically "EVERYTHING there in" they are stating that all within their product is theirs!
sorry to burst your bubble but that includes everything including items they blatantly copied from other peoples design's

as for the weener who doesn't understand a Gatling gun is a patented design as well as the web belt one of which are currently held by the Colt co. SE is actually breaching copy right by designing the arm gun based on the gatling guns original design and then saying they own the copy rights to the design because its within their product.

Quote:
Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling (September 12, 1818 – February 26, 1903) was an American inventor best known for his invention of the Gatling gun,In 1870 he sold his patents for the Gatling gun to Colt


needless to say try looking at the picture of as you call him an original design guess Mr T might find him interesting since other than a gun arm, steel girdle and not quite a Mohawk he's the splitting image of him when he played in the A-team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DerekTheRed



Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 3544
Location: ::Points to hand::
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:30 am Reply with quote
dragoneyes001 wrote:
as for the weener who doesn't understand a Gatling gun is a patented design as well as the web belt one of which are currently held by the Colt co. SE is actually breaching copy right by designing the arm gun based on the gatling guns original design and then saying they own the copy rights to the design because its within their product.

A patent does not prevent a likeness of something from appearing in a fictitious work. It only prevents another person from building, selling, or utilizing an actual gatling gun without the patent holder's permission. Patenting, Copyrighting, and Trademarking are all different things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
DmonHiro





PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:23 am Reply with quote
If something is:

a) patented, then you can not build/sell your own version of said object. The AK-47, is patented, so only those who have permission from the patent holder may build one.

b) copyrighted, then you can not use that object, or design in another work, without permission. Sephiroth is copyrighted by Square-Enix, so he may not appear in any work/movie/game without the approval of Square-Enix.

c) trademarked, you can not sell anything using that name. You can not sell jeans and call them Gap, unless you have permission from Gap to use the brand name.

The company sold items with the names of Final Fantasy characters, thus infringing on the trademark. Fictional object can not be patented, and common object can not be copyrighted.
Back to top
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14746
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:01 am Reply with quote
Greed1914 wrote:
I think some people are a little confused as to what it means to have the copyright to something. Just because Square doesn't make replicas of its own doesn't mean that someone else making them and selling for profit is ok.


I think you're talking about trademarks here. But yeah, unlike copyrights, trademarks can be lost if not protected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group