It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
markrichardb: Apparently the party had been held yearly since 2011, advertised using official Pokemon imagery, and charged for tickets (that likely weren't even coming close to recouping his loses). Unfortunately given current copyright laws, a cease and desist would seem appropriate.

But The Pokemon Company went much further than that. According to this guy, no warning was given. They jumped right to suing their own fan for a love of Pokemon and will only settle the case if he provides thousands of dollars in legal fees.

To amend a Game of Thrones quote: ‘A company who sues those devoted to them is not a company that inspires devotion.’ Many titanic corporations want to reap the benefits of rabid fandom, with none of the consequences. They don’t want you to throw a party, paint the colourful characters for a children’s nursery wall, or create fan art expressing your love. They want you to silently slip them your credit card and enjoy your purchase quietly and internally. Shhh. Quieter than that.
Unfortunately? The only thing about this that's unfortunate is that they didn't send a C&D before demanding a settlement. I'm not the biggest fan of the IP industry, but it takes a certain amount of guts to use somebody's trademark in this way.
*Comes in to make some Japanese and pokemon jokes*

*Sees everyone engaged in heated debate over copyright and commerce laws*

*quietly grabs another drink and heads for exit door*
avatar
rtcvb32: So if it was blank wall themed, then it's okay to charge 2 dollars? The ticket/surcharge seems more applicable to helping the business run and as he mentioned buy prizes for giving away. I really don't see the problem unless he was selling merchandise claiming it was pokemon while it wasn't. And i doubt he had rides either in the cafe, so everyone is just sitting...
avatar
SirPrimalform: Alright, put it this way: He was passing his café off as Pokémon merchandise. He had been doing this for years too.

And yes, blank wall themed would be fine. As would characters of his own design, something public domain or even something he'd licensed. This isn't some kid printing out a Pokémon birthday card they made in publisher and then having a SWAT team bust down the door, this is an adult repeatedly using copyrighted characters to advertise his business and to attract people to an event for which he charged money. He's an idiot.

Are they being heavy handed? It certainly sounds like it. Are they wrong to stop him? Not at all, it just should have been a cease and desist. For all we know, he got one and ignored it.
The issue is trademark infringement, but other than that you're mostly correct.
avatar
Emob78: *Comes in to make some Japanese and pokemon jokes*

*Sees everyone engaged in heated debate over copyright and commerce laws*

*quietly grabs another drink and heads for exit door*
You should grab some popcorn and watch as the thread burns.
Post edited October 09, 2015 by hedwards
avatar
SirPrimalform: Alright, put it this way: He was passing his café off as Pokémon merchandise. He had been doing this for years too.

And yes, blank wall themed would be fine. As would characters of his own design, something public domain or even something he'd licensed. This isn't some kid printing out a Pokémon birthday card they made in publisher and then having a SWAT team bust down the door, this is an adult repeatedly using copyrighted characters to advertise his business and to attract people to an event for which he charged money. He's an idiot.

Are they being heavy handed? It certainly sounds like it. Are they wrong to stop him? Not at all, it just should have been a cease and desist. For all we know, he got one and ignored it.
avatar
hedwards: The issue is trademark infringement, but other than that you're mostly correct.
avatar
Emob78: *Comes in to make some Japanese and pokemon jokes*

*Sees everyone engaged in heated debate over copyright and commerce laws*

*quietly grabs another drink and heads for exit door*
avatar
hedwards: You should grab some popcorn and watch as the thread burns.
Indeed. I think I need to change my avatar sig from beer and pizza to whiskey and popcorn. The latter two are far more necessary for this forum.
avatar
hedwards: The issue is trademark infringement, but other than that you're mostly correct.
Surely trademark infringement would be use of the trademarked name 'Pokemon'. Using the character designs on posters and things is still copyright infringement isn't it? I'll admit that I'm not sure now, but that's what I had thought.
If I was right, I guess he was doing both.
Post edited October 09, 2015 by SirPrimalform
avatar
markrichardb: Apparently the party had been held yearly since 2011, advertised using official Pokemon imagery, and charged for tickets (that likely weren't even coming close to recouping his loses). Unfortunately given current copyright laws, a cease and desist would seem appropriate.

But The Pokemon Company went much further than that. According to this guy, no warning was given. They jumped right to suing their own fan for a love of Pokemon and will only settle the case if he provides thousands of dollars in legal fees.

To amend a Game of Thrones quote: ‘A company who sues those devoted to them is not a company that inspires devotion.’ Many titanic corporations want to reap the benefits of rabid fandom, with none of the consequences. They don’t want you to throw a party, paint the colourful characters for a children’s nursery wall, or create fan art expressing your love. They want you to silently slip them your credit card and enjoy your purchase quietly and internally. Shhh. Quieter than that.
avatar
hedwards: Unfortunately? The only thing about this that's unfortunate is that they didn't send a C&D before demanding a settlement. I'm not the biggest fan of the IP industry, but it takes a certain amount of guts to use somebody's trademark in this way.
Sure, unfortunately. And I say that almost as much for the IP holder as the fan. In my ideal world, which I invite you to visit any time you’re feeling down, why would an IP holder want to shut down a party and stifle their own fan’s enthusiasm for their products? That doesn't help them; quite the opposite. They have to do it because that’s the way copyright law is written.

And once in a while that’s the impression I get in these cases. A fan steps over the line, the IP holder has to set them straight with a cuff around the ear and a muss of the hair. Then there are cases like this that jump right to a full blown lawsuit, where I can only picture a guy who looks suspiciously like J Jonah Jameson lighting a cigar with an abused Pikachu.
avatar
hedwards: The issue is trademark infringement, but other than that you're mostly correct.
avatar
SirPrimalform: Surely trademark infringement would be use of the trademarked name 'Pokemon'. Using the character designs on posters and things is still copyright infringement isn't it? I'll admit that I'm not sure now, but that's what I had thought.
If I was right, I guess he was doing both.
I remember around the time Pokémon Black and White came out that people were looking for trademarked names and found some. So whilst Nintendo/their subs may not trademark all Pokémon they do for at least a good chunk.

Also my opinion. He is a fool.
Whilst I do think that suing a person over something as small as a "party" is stupid, it should have been cease and desist (I have a feeling he may have ignored that though). The thing is, he did use images, charge for admittance and was not just "renting" a venue.
Maybe he should have thought about just hiking up the food a bit, but nothing named after any Pokémon. People also have to remember that Nintendo and their subs are looking for any means and reason to flex their rather well endowed legal department. They are one of the many Japanese companies who refuse to act like the West, be that a good or a bad thing.

(A little OT)
This is a little similar to when the Olympics came to the UK and everything from local pubs to churches got trading standards at their door to tell them to stop promoting the Olympics. All because it might cause confusion as they were not a paid affiliate of the Olympics. Basically you can pay in tax for the games to take place, but you cannot enjoy a little bit of the fun, while the tax dodging companies can.
http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Olympic-window-display-gets-ll-sue-threat/story-16238118-detail/story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151093/Florist-told-sued-Coca-Cola-unless-takes-Olympic-rings-window-display.html
avatar
Emob78: *Comes in to make some Japanese and pokemon jokes*

*Sees everyone engaged in heated debate over copyright and commerce laws*

*quietly grabs another drink and heads for exit door*
Hey, come back here and ligten up the mood!
avatar
hedwards: The issue is trademark infringement, but other than that you're mostly correct.
avatar
SirPrimalform: Surely trademark infringement would be use of the trademarked name 'Pokemon'. Using the character designs on posters and things is still copyright infringement isn't it? I'll admit that I'm not sure now, but that's what I had thought.
If I was right, I guess he was doing both.
Not really. Whether they're officially licensed posters or not, the offense would be trademark infringement. The only way it would be copyright infringement would be if the posters were unlicensed copies of an official poster. Which is possible, but not to be assumed.
avatar
SirPrimalform: Again, advertising it as a Pokemon or Disney party and charging money is the stupid bit and is what attracts the 'eye of sauron'.
This somehow reminds me of the microsoft's EULA or limitations they had originally put on Halo games (last year or so, i think it was revised), namely you couldn't call it a Halo game or have it's title. At which point you'd ask seriously 'then what do we call it? Because if we're playing halo, what do we call it for someone who's looking for the halo let's play footage' Dilemma. (In Microsoft's case, it's likely so they could DMCA all Halo footage they didn't own or put strikes out in case they wanted to put new trailers in the highest search ranking, not too unlike what Sega did with Shining Force and killed dozens of youtube channels)

If you can't call it pokemon but it's pokemon themed... what do you call it? X&Y? Red & Blue? Pokeballs? At that point it's just the company's name wanting to be absent. I suppose the theme could be 'from the game where you catch wild animals into magical balls to fight in areas' could work, but it's dancing around the name and hopefully people will go 'oooohhhh yeahhh' and go with it, or they get attacked even if the name wasn't used.
I think it's a bad idea for a business owner to use copyright material for profit. Even so, a cease and desist was in order. It's not in a rulebook, but I think that's a cruicial step. The point shouldn't be to sue to get back money from damage done, (was there really?), the point is to protect your IP by letting people know it's not okay to use it that way.

Even if my personal opinion was that an up-front lawsuit was dandy, I would still recommend against it. That just makes you look trigger-happy. It makes you harder to trust. Are your fans going to feel more or less comfortable, knowing you shoot first and ask questions later?

Now if it was a private party, all bets are off. Leave your mitts off of them. You're just gonna look crazy!
avatar
hedwards: Not really. Whether they're officially licensed posters or not, the offense would be trademark infringement. The only way it would be copyright infringement would be if the posters were unlicensed copies of an official poster. Which is possible, but not to be assumed.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was a little fuzzy on what fell under what.
avatar
hedwards: Not really. Whether they're officially licensed posters or not, the offense would be trademark infringement. The only way it would be copyright infringement would be if the posters were unlicensed copies of an official poster. Which is possible, but not to be assumed.
avatar
SirPrimalform: Thanks for pointing that out. I was a little fuzzy on what fell under what.
No worries, I think the conclusion is the same either way. It's really only relevant for people dealing in IP.

I can't blame you for the fuzz there, it's kind of an odd line. If they redrew somebody elses design as part of the posters, that would likely be both copyright infringement and trademark infringement.