I’m not defending Nintendo, because they are a shithouse of a company, but I do feel Pocketpair could have avoided all these wasted legal fees by not just blatantly copying a bunch of very recognisable Pokemon, and at best recolouring them, or giving them another Pokemon’s ears.
That yellow Gengar with a machine gun on all their advertising for starters.
It’s like when you go to Aldi and see their knock-off products. Although Tunnock’s don’t have a copyright on stripes, diamond shapes, red, gold, chocolate, wafers, or caramel, there’s no accident that their own brand can be mistaken for the real thing if you’re not paying attention.
And sure, it may well hold up in court, but it’s still going to be expensive finding that out.
A large number of pokemon are based on animals/mythical creatures.
A large number of pals are based on animals/mythical creatures.
They both have a very similar artistic style. But you can’t copyright a style. At some point using a similar style on similar animals will get you similar looking results.
Allowing companies to copyright styles would be a very bad thing.
Sure, nobody owns the artstyle. Nobody owns the idea of collecting animals. Not suggesting they do.
But you get enough things the same, lawyers will start sniffing around.
Tem Tem is pretty much Pokemon, far closer in gameplay than Palworld tbh, but they sensibly made it look different, didn’t try to ride the coattails of a lawyer-happy multi-billion dollar corporation, so avoided all this drama and nonsense. Digimon and Yo-kai Watch, again, very games. Different enough marketing that they didn’t get sued.
Sony don’t own metal dinosaurs or post apocalyptic scenarios (although they make so many of the latter they might as well), but when Tencent did this:
… just what do you expect their lawyers to do? Not get paid?
The HZD example is way different. Company wanted to make a Horizon game, had the go-ahead, presented a demo, deal was terminated, then they made a knock-off anyway.
Palworld is clearly both a parody and in a completely different genre.
There’s actually plenty of material to compare to, with a swath of Pal designs that are clearly original, in a similar style with similar inspirations. Then there are models with almost precisely the same silhouette and proportions as iconic Pokemon, which are frankly just worse designs for it, since the altered colors and markings clash with the original concept and result in a generally forgettable whole. They clearly had the skill and motivation to innovate more within their niche, but instead the game is half-full of what feel like hastily painted over placeholders.
Actually in many countries there’s a thing called “parasitism” which is not legal.
E.g.:
Taking advantage of the reputation, investments, or efforts of another economic operator by placing oneself in their slipstream (copying a business model, marketing concept, or commercial method…).
It does feel a little like going after Al Capone on tax evasion, but here we are.
There’s other games that do the sued for things, and they didn’t get sued. Tem Tem, etc. World of Warcraft’s pet system was very Pokemon-like.
Palworld isn’t even like Pokemon games. It’s Ark Survival Evolved with a Fortnite look and Pokemon instead of dinosaurs, as far as I can tell.
Blatantly swiping the art style and several Pokemon designs, and plastering it all over their marketing clearly pissed somebody at Nintendo off. They decided to sic the lawyers on them for something, even if it wasn’t what they were angry about.
I’m not defending Nintendo, because they are a shithouse of a company, but I do feel Pocketpair could have avoided all these wasted legal fees by not just blatantly copying a bunch of very recognisable Pokemon, and at best recolouring them, or giving them another Pokemon’s ears.
Which pals used Pokemon trademarked material?
That yellow Gengar with a machine gun on all their advertising for starters.
It’s like when you go to Aldi and see their knock-off products. Although Tunnock’s don’t have a copyright on stripes, diamond shapes, red, gold, chocolate, wafers, or caramel, there’s no accident that their own brand can be mistaken for the real thing if you’re not paying attention.
And sure, it may well hold up in court, but it’s still going to be expensive finding that out.
A large number of pokemon are based on animals/mythical creatures. A large number of pals are based on animals/mythical creatures.
They both have a very similar artistic style. But you can’t copyright a style. At some point using a similar style on similar animals will get you similar looking results.
Allowing companies to copyright styles would be a very bad thing.
Sure, nobody owns the artstyle. Nobody owns the idea of collecting animals. Not suggesting they do.
But you get enough things the same, lawyers will start sniffing around.
Tem Tem is pretty much Pokemon, far closer in gameplay than Palworld tbh, but they sensibly made it look different, didn’t try to ride the coattails of a lawyer-happy multi-billion dollar corporation, so avoided all this drama and nonsense. Digimon and Yo-kai Watch, again, very games. Different enough marketing that they didn’t get sued.
Sony don’t own metal dinosaurs or post apocalyptic scenarios (although they make so many of the latter they might as well), but when Tencent did this:
… just what do you expect their lawyers to do? Not get paid?
The HZD example is way different. Company wanted to make a Horizon game, had the go-ahead, presented a demo, deal was terminated, then they made a knock-off anyway.
Palworld is clearly both a parody and in a completely different genre.
There’s actually plenty of material to compare to, with a swath of Pal designs that are clearly original, in a similar style with similar inspirations. Then there are models with almost precisely the same silhouette and proportions as iconic Pokemon, which are frankly just worse designs for it, since the altered colors and markings clash with the original concept and result in a generally forgettable whole. They clearly had the skill and motivation to innovate more within their niche, but instead the game is half-full of what feel like hastily painted over placeholders.
Actually in many countries there’s a thing called “parasitism” which is not legal.
E.g.:
Source: https://www.grelieravocat.com/en/expertise/unfair-competition-economic-parasitism
That’s not why they were sued tho
It does feel a little like going after Al Capone on tax evasion, but here we are.
There’s other games that do the sued for things, and they didn’t get sued. Tem Tem, etc. World of Warcraft’s pet system was very Pokemon-like.
Palworld isn’t even like Pokemon games. It’s Ark Survival Evolved with a Fortnite look and Pokemon instead of dinosaurs, as far as I can tell.
Blatantly swiping the art style and several Pokemon designs, and plastering it all over their marketing clearly pissed somebody at Nintendo off. They decided to sic the lawyers on them for something, even if it wasn’t what they were angry about.