As a woman who has been called a dude online before...let's not guess based on voices.unless they undergone a change, or the girl has a somewhat manly/nasally voice. Sabi sounds like a dude.
As a woman who has been called a dude online before...let's not guess based on voices.unless they undergone a change, or the girl has a somewhat manly/nasally voice. Sabi sounds like a dude.
There is nothing to respond to. A filing of copyright infringement in response to someone reporting on a leak would be thrown out of court for failing to state a cause of action.
What you are trying to claim isn't supported by the law. With no cause of action, nothing else matters. There is to claim to be heard by the court.
There are ways to address leaks. A copyright claim (outside of someone, say posting a whole announce trailer) is not one of those ways.
You can always say "X developer is working on Y game" and that will never fall under copyright protection.
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.
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.
all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.
Everything but Nintendo has been leaked pretty much.
Let's put this on the table.
This is arguably the greatest E3 moment of all time and aided in a resurgence in Nintendo love which benefited their busines moving forward.
Would it have got the same reaction if some git leaked it on Twitter?
They can easily argue the loss of opportunity cost.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.
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.
You act like Zelda is released or announced every year.didn't everyone anticipate a new zelda anyways? it's fuckin' nintendo.
Where was it last year then?didn't everyone anticipate a new zelda anyways? it's fuckin' nintendo.
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".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".
Damn that was so long ago I can't even remember!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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
didn't everyone anticipate a new zelda anyways? it's fuckin' nintendo.
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).
Talking about the leak, if we were using the leaked information in this discussion, would be transformative, so it'd have a stronger case. It is a burden for the offended party in a copyright case to consider if it was fair use, so right holders can't sue people and make a huge problem for them. That's what's preventing a lot of grey area cases. Frivolous lawsuits are really hit hard when it comes to copyrights. But just because there's precedence, doesn't mean it's legal.
Well, it's not really my job to argue it, but that's a venue the lawyer for this case could do. As I've stated previously, I think it's easy to establish a prima facie case. Whether or not it's ruled illegal is of course a different case.
The actual lawyers here aren't arguing with each other.I live for watching the law students/lawyers in this thread fight over copyright law
This is thrilling
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.
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.
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.
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.