Forum - View topicINTEREST: Fans Recreate Classic Zelda in 3D for 30th Anniversary; Nintendo Takes it Down
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
H. Guderian
Posts: 1255 |
|
|||||
|
Since you'll never be able to monetize a project like this, might as well have released the source and had dozens of people put it up.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Violynne
Posts: 128 |
|
|||||
This example is completely missing the point, and more importantly, it just literally destroyed your own argument.
This is a prime example of the copyright fallacy, and it's the major problem with copyright. The actual law has nothing to do with business, yet these arguments never cease to relate them. I'll get to your failed point in a second, but let's look at this from a different take. Instead, assume the second painter uses the first painting as an element to create a better painting and sells it. While the paintings may look different, the original painter is still upset and now sues the second painter because the works look too similar, even if they're not identical. Hence...
This is how your statement backfires. There is no 3D version of the game currently, so there's no loss by Nintendo. Granted, Link and Zelda are trademarks, but the game is not an infringement. They're completely separate games. Where copyright law fails everyone, except those with large pockets, are two distinct and vulgar additions added in 1976 called "transformative" and "derivative" works. These clauses are what allows Nintendo to take down non-infringing works. The reality is copyright does nothing to protect anyone's "intellectual property" (which is a pretty damn stupid thing if you think about it) because copyright isn't about protecting ideas. It's unfortunate those with deep pockets believe that's exactly what copyright protects. The law is being abused and there was nothing wrong with the 1909 law which protected works for a maximum of 28 years if 1) a valid copyright was registered (which is still required when filing lawsuits, and only then) and 2) the author filed for the 14 year extension. Now, it's life of author + 75 years, which is just stupid on every level of common sense. Not that it matters. In 6 years, copyright is going to be turned on its head again. Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain and you can bet Disney isn't having any of that. |
||||||
|
||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||
Not that I can profess any expertise in matters such as this, but it does not seem implausible that the creators intended for someone to do this, and for their work to be disseminated through extra-legal means. After all, video game modifications containing copywritten content often survive beyond the scope of official distribution channels. |
||||||
|
||||||
Kalessin
 Posts: 931 |
|
|||||
|
Well, that's definitely cool, but it was pretty much a give that it was going to be taken down. I don't know how anyone remaking an existing game that they don't own - especially a well-known, popular one where the company that owns it is very much alive and well - can expect to be able to make something like this and expect not to get a cease-and-desist notice. And it's clearly well outside the bounds of fair use, even if it's cool.
Copyright law can get very weird. Sometimes, if you don't stomp on infringement, even if it's harmless, then when you do need to stomp on infringement that very much is not harmless, you can lose in court, because you allowed infringement previously. So, from a legal standpoint, it's very much in the best interest of the copyright holders to stomp on all forms of copyright infringement and not even allow the harmless stuff. Now, fortunately, there are companies that allow all kinds of fan-made stuff and manage to make it work, but you have to be careful about what you allow if you don't want legal problems later, and there are plenty of companies out there that care way more about protecting their IP than actually pleasing their customers, and those sorts of folks definitely aren't going to allow anything to slide. Of course, remaking an entire game from a company is pretty major infringement. That would be a bit like remaking a hollywood film and making it freely available (though obviously, the cost involved with that would make it prohibitive, especially if you were going to do a good job, which isn't the case with a game like this). The fact that this is a classic game where Nintendo obviously made their money back ages ago and then some does make it so that maybe it's the sort of thing that they should let slide, but given how much old games get sold on newer systems now or remade for newer systems, it's not like these guys are remaking something that is obviously never going to be released again. So, remaking the game like this is arguably not harmless to Nintendo's bottom line. It's possible that a company that was much more friendly towards fan-made stuff would have allowed it, but AFAIK, Nintendo doesn't have a reputation like that. And realistically, as much as taking it down will annoy many fans, is it really going to affect Nintendo's sales? I very much doubt that any fans are going to choose to not buy then next Zelda game just because Nintendo forced this remake to be taken down, whereas if Nintendo was going to release a remake themselves on one of their systems (or even for mobile), folks might not buy it if this remake were available. So, while this is very cool, there was no way that Nintendo was ever going to not make a fuss about it. |
||||||
|
||||||
enurtsol
 Posts: 14756 |
|
|||||
May be loosening up: How Disney learned to stop worrying and love copyright infringement How 'Frozen' fandom changed Disney's stance on copyright infringement |
||||||
|
||||||
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||||
Ah, okay then. So if it's absolutely cool with them that it was taken down, and they knew Nintendo would take legal action against it, then I have no ill feelings towards anybody.
Nintendo of America only deals in localization and distribution. They do have programmers and people with game design experience, but they're used only for modifying existing games (such as changing text boxes to display English instead of Japanese). The only case I know of where Nintendo of America made a game, StarTropics and its sequel, they were very low-profile releases, and the Japanese headquarters seems to pretend they never existed.
But it IS intended to play as close to the original game as possible. That is, it CAN substitute for the original experience for free. That The Legend of Zelda doesn't have a 3-D version makes it okay for fan programmers to produce a 3-D version and have everyone play it for free is like saying it's okay for amateur animators to make a 3-D version of What's Opera, Doc? and have everyone watch it for free because an official 3-D version doesn't exist. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
#838774
Posts: 158 |
|
|||||
|
Not surprising but still disappointing. Nintendo has absolutely zero chill when it comes to things like this. I really have little respect for them as a company because of how they treat fan works of all shapes and sizes. They are right up there with Anne Rice and her nazi campaign against fanfiction.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Twilightmaster
 Posts: 129 |
|
|||||
You don't get to just go make a 3D copy of any old game out there from the Pre-PS1/N64 days. If you took out Link, Ganon and Zelda and replaced them with other characters but kept EVERYTHING else you're still stealing the music someone else composed, the dungeon layout someone else developed, and the overall code that someone else created. Work is put into everything, and copying 80% of it is still copying it, even if that 20% difference is only what dimension the visuals are displayed in. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group