Nintendo Doesn't Want To Criminalize Obsessed Fans... But Sometimes Will Anyway
from the well,-that's-comforting dept
A whole bunch of you have been sending over a blog post from Kotaku quoting Nintendo president Satoru Iwata responding at a shareholder meeting to a question about how the company handles "fan activities" that technically infringe on Nintendo's intellectual property. Iwatu said they don't want to criminalize fans doing something out of appreciation, but that there's a lot that goes into the decision making process:As the principle, please understand that the question is regarding a rather delicate issue to which no one can perhaps identify a clear-cut criterion. Of course, we cannot say that we can give tacit approval to any and all the activities which threaten our intellectual properties. But on the other hand, it would not be appropriate if we treated people who did something based on affection for Nintendo, as criminals. It is true that some expressions are detrimental enough to diminish the dignity of our intellectual properties, and others destroy our intellectual properties' world-views by connecting them with something not based on fact. We think one of the criteria for deciding how to respond is whether the expression in question socially diminishes the dignity or value of our intellectual properties or not. Of course, it is very hard to have a blanket standard as this problem involves many complex elements that are very difficult to judge.While a lot of people are suggesting this is a revelation, I'm not so sure. Lots of companies give this kind of wishy-washy answer on such things. I remember hearing something quite similar from Warner Bros. general counsel concerning how it views fan fiction as well. But, again, the proof is in the pudding, and when we hear stories about Nintendo shutting down a fan-made film based on The Legend of Zelda, it suggests that perhaps they're not necessarily living up to the claims made by Iwatu.
In these meanings, we cannot say OK to any and all such activities and, at the same time, it is not feasible for us to immediately respond to each small issue of this nature every time. However, these days an individual can easily transmit information through the Internet. Hearing your question today, as we cannot find these problems only by ourselves, we feel that a kind of contact window should be set up so that people can somehow report to us any inappropriate uses of Nintendo's intellectual properties which diminish their dignities or values, so that we can respond appropriately.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminalize, fan fiction, fans
Companies: nintendo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Its a muddy area
If the film were going to start actually turning a profit for the creator then they kind of crossed the line where they're profiting off someone else's intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its a muddy area
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this statement, which makes no sense unless you're an executive of a company and/or greedy.
Just because someone is making money from your IP doesn't mean you are losing money. A quick Google search shows me that there are no "offical" Zelda movies, so no matter how much money the fan movie might make, it isn't taking revenue from Nintendo, as they do not have a competing product. The worst it can do is nothing, the best it can do is drive more people to play the game.
The fans would be happy and Nintendo would stand to make more money. That is called a "win-win" for those of you playing at home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its a muddy area
I think that the built in assumption here demonstrates clearly a part of the problem.
Why shouldn't someone profit off another's "intellectual property"?
If the net effect on the original rightsholder is not negative then there shouldn't be a problem.
It's this greedy/jealous/"dog in a manger" attitude that needs to be revised.
Jesus had it right here:
(Luke Ch 9)
" 49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's no mud
But even if they did want to make a profit off someone else's intellectual property, I wouldn't see a problem with it. I'm not into mandatory licensing for things like a porn parody, but even if companies ARE actually using their IP in the same medium as a fan project, I think the fans should get a license. Maybe the license is half the profit.
If the fans are fronting the cash to fund the project and putting the effort into it, they would be profiting from their own investment and hard work. If it's inferior to what a professional production company would come up with, then it's no threat to the IP. And if it is as good as or better than a professional product, Nintendo's half-of-the-profits could net them a tidy sum and they didn't have to do anything.
If company's don't use their IP, they should lose the right to complain about what others do with it. And the value of a product does not lie in the IP it was based on. It lies in the effort put into it. A non-sanctioned Zelda sweater still takes time to knit and will still keep you warm when you wear it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a perfect solution, but something to think about? Some sort of 'Unofficial' license like Creative Commons?
As for fans turning a profit from their work which uses Nintendo characters... if you're trying to turn a profit, you're not a fan anymore. If you're a fan, you do it for free, only for the fun of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I still don't understand this line of thinking. Are you saying that despite the work that goes into making a movie, because it's based in a fantasy world he didn't create (but is part of his culture) that he doesn't deserve to be rewarded for his talents? Care to explain why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I think if you want to paint your room with Nintendo characters, that's fine. If you want to paint your friend's rooms with Nintendo characters, that's fine too. But once you start changing them for the paint... you know what I mean?
Also, if you're a fan of something, money should not be a consideration for you. You do something out of the love for the fantasy world itself. And you should be at liberty to explore that world and add to it and make it your own. But again, the second you start making money off of it, then you're in the grey area. Because you can always claim that you're not turning a profit, but the fact is you're making money from it.
From the company's point of you, I think it's fair to see it that way. Let your fans explore your world, but they should do so for the pleasure of it, without seeking monetary rewards. If their project requires financial ressources, you might want to try to partner with the actual company.
Just my thoughts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Nor do I - and it is nowhere to be found in any of the earlier versions of copyright or trademark law. Copyright originally only dealt with literal copying - and trademark originally only dealt with situations where the customer might be misled. Neither is happening here - these concepts have been somehow wished into existence through the practice of asking permission and doing licensing deals where it was unnecessary and by a kind of ratchet effect of case law gradually extending the reach of copyright and trademark - and sometimes eliding the two together.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Riivolution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
here is the link in english ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old School Pirate Ethics
What? That "bootlegging" is a different sort of thing than "swapping". Of course this is addressed in the original copyright law. It's very explicitly addressed by making the distinction between commercial and non-commercial infringement. Even pirate culture makes this distinction and severely disapproves of "bootlegging".
Even among the scofflaws, there isn't an "anything goes" sort of mentality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Old School Pirate Ethics
Do you have any thoughts on the topic at hand, perhaps? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Someone needs to hold a "Hollywood Accounting" workshop for fanfilm projects. That way they can all prove that they haven't earned a dime and everyone will be happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Hero of Time
In that respect I can understand why Nintendo shut it down... It certainly "diminished the dignity" of The Legend of Zelda. :p
It's one thing if a fan movie is limited in special effects, but this movie was limited in more basic things like story and acting.
Maybe I'm too hard on books/movies/games, but man...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's no mud
Replace with "the value of an idea does not lie in the exclusivity the man who had it can get on it" and it's golden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
r4 rts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also, I'm going to leave you with a thought regarding your final sentence: Creativity isn't applying new ideas to new brands- creativity is applying new ideas to any brand. Just because someone came up with something new regarding a pre-existing world doesn't mean the idea is inherently bad- that's shallow thinking.
For sake of example, Richard Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen uses characters he didn't make, including some still-copyrighted ones in a myriad number of clever ways. Does the book suck solely because Alan Quartermain or Moriarty are in, invalidating all creative ideas actually executed with them? No. So you can see why your final sentence appears ignorant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]