4 ms·
The cards are clearly parody (fair use), assuming they would even infringe copyright at all. I'm not sure what Nintendo is supposed to do, but I assume if they
by ronsor 1y ago
The cards are clearly parody (fair use), assuming they would even infringe copyright at all. I'm not sure what Nintendo is supposed to do, but I assume if they do anything at all, it would result in more tariffs (bad for their revenue) anyway.
- CharlesW 1y agoIt's brand-damaging for the government to, for example, represent sexual predators of underage people (speaking here of accusations against Nery Garcia Linares, not the U.S. President) represented as Pokémon, especially with children as Pokémon's primary audience. Nintendo has successfully won several cases in similar scenarios by invoking brand tarnishment.
- itsdrewmiller 1y agoCan you link to the most similar of those cases? I would assume that most parody would risk tarnishing a brand.
- zparky 1y agoI couldn't find any case of this, from this wikipedia category[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_litigation
- dfxm12 1y agoYou're right, but Nintendo has a reputation for taking legal action against "clearly" fair use, including fan made stuff posted on social media. This combined with WB having Trump's Dark Knight video pulled is probably why people bring it up...
- DengistKhan 1y agoI haven't watched the video, but if it's "funny video featuring Pokémon" and not "Direct parody of Pokémon", then fair use/parody might be a losing defense. I assume in this case it's not a direct parody of Pokémon, but instead a promotional video or propaganda video that features Pokémon with humorous intent.