As a woman who has been called a dude online before...let's not guess based on voices.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Nintendo sends a cease and desist to insider that has leaked pretty much every E3 2019 announcement
- Thread starter Atheerios
- Start date
Based on what? You're still completely disregarding my post. In a case of copyright infringement, the offended party has to consider whether this is done under fair use. Further, to not have the case thrown out, before anyone would have to argue for fair use, the offended party would have to establish a prima facie case. Showing they at least have the bare bones of a case.
Assuming the announcement is what's being leaked, and that the announcement can be copyrighted – which you've stated it can – then there's a copyright infringement. Using the four factors of fair use, it's easy to say a leak isn't transformative, that even the name of the project can be considered a substantial part of the copyrighted work, given its importance to the announcement. It's pretty easy to establish that prima facie. From there, of course, it's not a given that it's not fair use, but Nintendo would have a case.
Someone somewhere has gotten their hands on copyright information. Copyright is to give the author of a work the right to control who publishes it. When someone takes that right, it's a copyright issue.
The problem with your idea that this is a "fact" is that it's not a publicly known fact. It's not known, because the author has created it. Controlling the rights of disclosure and publication it is exactly the intent of copyright law. That's why I'm saying you're construing the case to fit your narrative that "it's a fact". That's why it has no basis or bearing. The facts of your work are your right to disclose the way you want.
EDIT: I mean, just look up the ongoing case of Watch Tower v Darkspilver/EFF/Reddit to see how little is needed to be an actual copyright case.
Last edited:
There is no copyright case. Leaking the name of a game and that it exists is not copyrightable content.
No, a generic announcement just stating the facts of release cannot be copyrighted. A specific expression of those facts can be.
Relaying information that an unannounced game is under development = not protected by copyright.
A promo trailer for said game = protected by copyright.
Fair use is a defense to a claim. If there is no valid cause of action, there is no need for a defense because the claim is getting thrown out.
This only applies to the work itself. Not information about the work. You seem to be confusing the two.
It does not matter if something is publically known or not for copyright purposes. The fact that the work exists is separate from the work. The work is protected by copyright. The information about the work is not protected by copyright.
The latter is something that you've conjured up and is not supported by case law.
The information has come from a copyrighted work. If that is the announcement trailer, or if that is the work itself is up for debate. The title of a copyrighted work is not a disparate fact from the copyrighted work. That's why you can't call your book "A Song of Ice and Fire". Or even "A Schlong of Ice and Fire" and not expected some copyright issues. It's not the fact that something is "in development" that copyrighted. It's the fact that you're using copyrighted work, as in the title.
Last edited:
This thread is getting quite large so I might have missed discussion on this point but can leaking privileged announcements be considered a kind of industrial espionage?
Are unreleased products considered a trade secret?
Not suggesting that's what Nintendo would argue, just curious if people think it would be possible to argue that leaking an announcement might cause harm to economic value, 'actual or potential'. Diminished hype due to an unmanaged information release vs a coordinated campaign so to speak.
Are unreleased products considered a trade secret?
Not suggesting that's what Nintendo would argue, just curious if people think it would be possible to argue that leaking an announcement might cause harm to economic value, 'actual or potential'. Diminished hype due to an unmanaged information release vs a coordinated campaign so to speak.
didn't everyone anticipate a new zelda anyways? it's fuckin' nintendo.
It does not matter for the purposes of talking about the work.
Copyright can prevent someone else from naming a book "A Song of Ice and Fire." Copyright cannot prevent someone from saying that "A Song of Ice and Fire" exists, or is in production, even if it is before the official announcement.
Again, this is copyright 101.
Back then? absolutely a zelda was shown close to every year. That was E3 2004 iirc. Wind Waker came out in 2003.
But it was announced in 2001. 3 years before TP did. And SS took another 5 years to get announced. "Shown" isn't the same as "released".
I was pointing out that E3 2004 is a lot different than E3 2019.
Details of Wind Waker, including the art style, trickled out before the game was publicly revealed.
Nintendo used to show Zelda games pretty much at every trade show.
This isn't about saying that is exists or is in production. This is the fact that copyrighted work is being infringed on to share that it is being developed. Talking about "A Song of Ice and Fire" may absolutely be copyright infringement. And if it is, you need an affirmative defense of fair use. This is a huge gray area, but any court would take a case like that seriously.
Anyway, you keep reiterating "this is copyright 101", and you keep skipping the parts where I outline a prima facie, and for no reason to boot. You can't just say "this wouldn't hold up", when I've actually written up a way it could hold up. Since you're not keen to follow those ideas, I think this is as far as we'll come. Have a good day.
I remember E3 2004 pretty well. No, people did not expect it. That it happened, and in the form that it took, was the reason that reaction was so huge.
We speculated we might hear about it. We thought it was going to be Wind Waker 2 and there was ever reason to think it would be another year or so to be seen.
i remember E3 very well too, I actually had a badge to go but our group had logistical issues.
That being said,the art style being different after Wind Waker was what was shocking. Not the fact that it was a Zelda game per se. Zelda games had pretty much been shown in EVERY trade show from 96 (maybe space world 95?) onward.
You have not done so. You haven't even come close. You haven't even laid out a cause of action under copyright law. Without that, you can't have a prima facie case.
What you have posted in this thread wouldn't survive a summary motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6).
Only if you're including Space World tech demo stuff IIRC. I don't think it was at E3 2003 either, as Wind Waker had already released, but all I really remember about that year was Pac-Man.
Point is, we didn't expect Zelda that year anymore than we expect 3D Zelda this year. It was something that could happen, but by no means was considered likely.
The meaning is lost to history. The significance of that announcement was not a new Zelda game but it was the excitement behind them realizing a vision for Zelda that they promised before the gamecube launched. Many don't remember how unpopular Windwaker truly was when it was released for many fans of the series, especially those who bought the gamecube despite its low market share.
I'm not a major hype guy though, just pointing out why twilight princess was an exciting game for many Zelda fans.
If you'd not just responded to select statements before, this would've been easier to handle. I said I've tried to show how it could be done, not that I have a case that's ready to use. I think that's a ridiculous bar to set to give credit to an application. This is the issue with responding to select statements. You can pick the one you find weakest, and just drill from there, rather than actually discuss the matter at hand. It's not like I am not open to discuss it, but when the only retort is "no", it's hard to move forward.
Again, this doesn't bring anything to anyone. I lament a missed opportunity, but whatever. Again, have a good day.
I live for watching the law students/lawyers in this thread fight over copyright law
This is thrilling
This is thrilling
You know some legal words but have total misconceptions about the mechanics. If you're trying to be a lawyer you need to study more.
If you're a lawyer (somehow) your lack of understanding is genuinely dangerous to your clients.
They showed Four Swords Adventure in 2003. Having a Zelda game in 2004 wasn't what was exciting, it was the fact that it was a "return" to what the Space World demo teased at the Gamecube unveiling that was exciting. Knowing a Zelda game exists was pretty much a non-event, it's the content itself that made it special.
that's exactly the point i was making lol Zelda games were expected, it was the delivery that was special. knowing "oh, Nintendo is going to show Zelda" in 2004 would have been anticipated-- knowing that it was similar to Space World 2001 (?) is what was special.
Reporting on/communicating the existence of a copyrighted work is not using a copyrighted work (otherwise, consumers merely reacting to leaks would be considered infringement). I can see a few arguments Nintendo could leverage for litigation (depending on how they believe the confidential information was obtained), but copyright infringement isn't one of them.
Last edited:
Just "the name of a game that exists" doesn't do much waves for a leak. (unless it's something very anticipated)
But often it comes with expectations of genre or mechanics ("it's a sequel but they dropped this and that feature", "it's a fantasy rpg"), interpretation of the world and plot based on what leaked ("this character on the poster looks like that guy"), speculations from the leaker... based on second-hand early marketing snippets or the description of a disgruntled tester of an early version or leaked design docs.
Agreed that pure "name drop" leaks of new series are often inoffensive since you don't have any other context to build on.
But it's disingenuous to claim that all leaks are simple like that.
But often it comes with expectations of genre or mechanics ("it's a sequel but they dropped this and that feature", "it's a fantasy rpg"), interpretation of the world and plot based on what leaked ("this character on the poster looks like that guy"), speculations from the leaker... based on second-hand early marketing snippets or the description of a disgruntled tester of an early version or leaked design docs.
Agreed that pure "name drop" leaks of new series are often inoffensive since you don't have any other context to build on.
But it's disingenuous to claim that all leaks are simple like that.
Last edited:
Outside of the harsh way of addressing my attempt of applying copyright law, I do concede all my points. My understanding and application in this case is not correct. I enjoy law, I have a great interest in it. I have not attempted to imply I'm a lawyer by any means, or even that I'm studying to be one. I am just a person that figured copyright could be one way for Nintendo to enforce this, and that an NDA wouldn't have to be involved.
This was wrong. I have tried to understand why, but I am not versed enough in its use to understand it. I figured a, say, one-pager for a game announcement could be copyrighted, albeit weakly for being a factual composition. But there's clearly some borders of this I don't understand, and I am not trying to justify anything with this, just to show the idea.
Thank you for correcting me, and giving me an opportunity to gain better understanding.
Same goes as above. I concede my points and have attempted to apply copyright in an incorrect manner. Thank you for taking the discussion with me.