this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
20 points (77.8% liked)

PC Gaming

8505 readers
436 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
20
The Palworld Pokemon mod is back, but without the Pokemon (www.pcgamesn.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It already was legally distinct since it wasn’t made by the company behind pal world.

That's not the issue, or what that means here. "Legally distinct" in this context would mean that the product isn't infringing on the IP, copyright, or trademark of a similar product. "Yellow rat" is fine, "Pikachu" is not.

Go ahead and try to explain it using copyright and trademark laws all you want, but I don’t understand how a MOD that isn’t backed by a company can be arbitrarily blocked by another company.

If someone ripped a verse or a chorus from a song, and uploaded it to Spotify, you don't think that Universal could contact Spotify to take it down or block it?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Mods are free and community-driven. This situation is closer to someone using the chorus to a song in their own soundcloud track, which in my opinion should be completely fine

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're also not allowed to use someone else's song to make your own soundcloud track.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm not familiar with soundcloud's TOS, which is why I noted that it's my opinion. When did people decide it's alright for multi-billion dollar corporations to dictate what people create for fun?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

When they're a company that provides something that specific person likes more than their spine, pride, or common sense.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It has nothing to do with anyone's TOS.

People decided that when they passed copyright laws and signed international treaties about it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

IIRC, the mod wasn't free. They were making money off of it using Patreon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

It's this and the fact that Japan has no Fair Use of Copyright as well

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Ah, I didn't realize. That does make the situation a bit stickier, then

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Ignoring that this mod wasn't free, that's absolutely not in the neighborhood of legal.

Nintendo is fully within their legal rights to send a DMCA takedown to every single fan drawing of Pikachu on the planet if they so desire. It belongs to them.