Modders and Devs show evidence that Palworld copies Pokémon

[Nimrota]

No, this is something else. The devs of this game appear to have outright ripped models from Pokemon games and changed them slightly, without Nintendo's consent. That's illegal. They can be sued for this.

It would've taken some time for any people at Nintendo to find this out since the game only went on sale a few days ago anyhow.



Is that a mod or in the game outright? Because if the latter, even more grounds for litigation. Those characters are IP which were copyrighted and protected under the law.

Between this and a supposed $675 million budget, this game (or even the dev studio) sounds like a modern day cocaine-fueled get-rich-quick scheme that'll end in disaster.

Sorry, how is that illegal? It's illegal to use models as a reference? If so, Vampire Survivors traces (aka uses) assets of other games such as Castlevania and Bayonetta, so presumably Vampire Survivors is copyright infringement. They're not, per reports, 1:1. Most people are trusting some random people on Twitter alleging the models are the same and taking it at face value. "Changed them slightly" actually does matter because if it's substantially different it impacts on infringement.

The second half of your comment hints you're not really up to even talking about this. You really think they have Ash and Pikachu in the game? You didn't realise the budget is in Yen, not USD? $675m is more than Starfield and Spiderman 2 combined.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Sorry, how is that illegal? It's illegal to use models as a reference? If so, Vampire Survivors traces (aka uses) assets of other games such as Castlevania and Bayonetta, so presumably Vampire Survivors is copyright infringement. They're not, per reports, 1:1. Most people are trusting some random people on Twitter alleging the models are the same and taking it at face value. "Changed them slightly" actually does matter because if it's substantially different it impacts on infringement.

The second half of your comment hints you're not really up to even talking about this. You really think they have Ash and Pikachu in the game? You didn't realise the budget is in Yen, not USD? $675m is more than Starfield and Spiderman 2 combined.

On the budget, you're right: I misread the translation. Meant to say $6.75 million, not $675 million.

As for the copyright infringement stuff...yes, it's illegal to rip models out of a commercial game, edit them slightly, then dump them into your game to sale without getting legal consent from who owns the rights to the models you used. That's, AFAIK, the allegations being held against Palworld, with models almost so 1:1 to 3D Pokemon models that chances are likely the devs took those Pokemon models and did small enough changes to try passing them off as different creations.

You CANNOT use the original models directly in ANY way in commercial work unless you got direct consent from the creators of those models and/or whoever owns the rights to them. In this case, that would be Nintendo and The Pokemon Company. And the Twitter user in question found many other models with similar striking similarities between models in Palworld and models from the Pokemon games. With some more digging they'll probably discover the model meshes are almost virtually the same in construction, too, in addition to looking mostly similar on the surface.

What you're trying to argue is that the game is transformative art, but that doesn't apply to games in cases like this. That's something more in regards to streamers and content creators using copyrighted material in their own productions, the 'transformative' part being the commentary. By your logic, I can take a finished movie, chop up a few scenes, call it substantially different and legally distribute & sell it as my own original film.

I'd get sued so fast, Usain Bolt would blush.

 

[flaccidsnake]

Don't be a sample snitch

 

[Kx11]

What if Phil Spencer used his connections with Nintendo and protected Palworld? it could happen


If not, Don Mattrick should pick up the phone on Nintendo and yell at them for no reason.

 

[ultimateFF]

What if Phil Spencer used his connections with Nintendo and protected Palworld? it could happen


If not, Don Mattrick should pick up the phone on Nintendo and yell at them for no reason.

Dude couldn't even protect xbotz from getting wrecked by Playstation and you want him to save palworld from even more ruthless company like Nintendo, give me a break pls

 

[Infinity]

Dude couldn't even save xbotz from getting wrecked by Playstation and you want him to save palworld from even more ruthless company like Nintendo, give me a break pls

Nintendo doesn't even have a case.

 

[ultimateFF]

Nintendo doesn't even have a case.

Said by some botz who are invested in some copycat games with stolen assets like this one .

 

[Infinity]

Said by some botz who are invested in some copycat games with stolen assets like this one .

Nope they have no case. They can try to sue and get beat in court and nintendo loses millions in the process. That would be sweet.

 

[ultimateFF]

Nope they have no case. They can try to sue and get beat in court and nintendo loses millions in the process. That would be sweet.

"get beat in court and nintendo loses millions in the process"

some questionable indie company with history of making copycat games with stolen assets VS known, huge ruthless company that won multiple lawsuits even in not their homeland like US. And that company even bigger in Japan too.

Please use some logics before posting, oh wait you're a botz .

 

[Nimrota]

On the budget, you're right: I misread the translation. Meant to say $6.75 million, not $675 million.

As for the copyright infringement stuff...yes, it's illegal to rip models out of a commercial game, edit them slightly, then dump them into your game to sale without getting legal consent from who owns the rights to the models you used. That's, AFAIK, the allegations being held against Palworld, with models almost so 1:1 to 3D Pokemon models that chances are likely the devs took those Pokemon models and did small enough changes to try passing them off as different creations.

You CANNOT use the original models directly in ANY way in commercial work unless you got direct consent from the creators of those models and/or whoever owns the rights to them. In this case, that would be Nintendo and The Pokemon Company. And the Twitter user in question found many other models with similar striking similarities between models in Palworld and models from the Pokemon games. With some more digging they'll probably discover the model meshes are almost virtually the same in construction, too, in addition to looking mostly similar on the surface.

What you're trying to argue is that the game is transformative art, but that doesn't apply to games in cases like this. That's something more in regards to streamers and content creators using copyrighted material in their own productions, the 'transformative' part being the commentary. By your logic, I can take a finished movie, chop up a few scenes, call it substantially different and legally distribute & sell it as my own original film.

I'd get sued so fast, Usain Bolt would blush.

Look I'm not saying that using models in such a way isn't infringement, I'm just saying that the arguments people are using here do not make sense because there are two distinct issues being argued as one. People are arguing that it's infringement because the Pals look like Pokemon (copyright infringement based on design), the second and later one which comes after the first is intellectual property violation by using the models. They're wholly different arguments. The first is about the visual elemtns of design, e.g. That the electric bear looks like an electric Pokemon, which is Independant of models. The second argument is illegally using models, which has nothing to do with the visual design. People are using the evidence for the second argument to prove the first. Because it's "visually apparent" Palworld ripped off Pokemon even if the visually apparent Pals are not actually infringing on the copyright of Pokemon. People, broadly, are conflating the issue which is why I am trying to point out the issue here.

Is the game infringing because of stolen assets, or because it's like Pokemon? The threshold for proving this differs completely, hence it needs to be clear. But again, "almost 1:1" isn't 1:1. I'm not trying to argue it's transformative I argued it's substantially different. "Almost" copying something isn't the same as actually copying something from a legal standpoint. Again, it's about trying to be clear of the allegations. I don't think it even needs to be mentioned that they're almost 1:1 because if the use of the assets is already infringement its irrelevant the degree of the infringement, hence these details don't matter and shouldn't be argued.

There are counter arguments to both these in terms of behaviour and expected lawsuits. The first is that numerous other designs are similar to Pokemon, and they have not been sued and are not regarded as copyright infringement, hence its likely the visual design of pals will be regarded the same. Have a look at Esmerelda from Yokai Watch and compare to Muk from Pokemon.

The second, more serious and better evidenced claim is using the models. But again, Vampire Survivors did this with Castlevania art. Nobody is/was calling for Vampire Survivors to be sued for using intellectual property in developing its own assets. This is more in response to people attacking the game because they like Pokemon and want to find something to blame, which is bad faith. Some consistency on this front is appreciated.

Your movie analogy isn't correct. I think it would be fairer to say I'm arguing you could take a still from a movie, trace some elements such as perspective, and then utilise them in my own shot. The reason it's not just taking something and placing it in your own is because none of the Pals infringe upon the character designs of Pokemon. What the issue is closer to for what you're arguing is something like Palworld secs extracted the camera settings from a movie and used them as a base to make their own shots, which sure, if copyright law says is illegal and Nintendo wants to sue I'm supportive of.

 

[Nimrota]

"get beat in court and nintendo loses millions in the process"

some questionable indie company with history of making copycat games with stolen assets VS known, huge ruthless company that won multiple lawsuits even in not their homeland like US. And that company even bigger in Japan too.

Please use some logics before posting, oh wait you're a botz .

It's not illegal to make copycat games though. This is what I keep saying. Pushing this is stupid because they're not going to be sued for making a game like Pokemon.

 

[ultimateFF]

It's not illegal to make copycat games though. This is what I keep saying. Pushing this is stupid because they're not going to be sued for making a game like Pokemon.

"copycat games with stolen assets"

If the accusation of palworld devs stealing Pokemon assets and modifying them is true, this won't go well on them . Even then, Nintendo is known as petty as hell company and they can sue them for less reasons than that .

 

[Nimrota]

"copycat games with stolen assets"

If the accusation of palworld devs stealing Pokemon assets and modifying them is true, this won't go well on them . Even then, Nintendo is known as petty as hell company and they can sue them for less reasons than that .

Stealing assets has nothing to do with making a copy cat game though. Stolen assets can be used in non-copy cat games. So which one is the issue, that the game is similar from Pokemon or that they use stolen assets?

Nintendo better sue them then.

 

[ultimateFF]

So which one is the issue, that the game is similar from Pokemon or that they use stolen assets?

Both of them, worsen by the facts that palworld devs didn't even try to hide that they're aping Pokemon artstyle and similiarity too much LOL.

 

[Infinity]

Stealing assets has nothing to do with making a copy cat game though. Stolen assets can be used in non-copy cat games. So which one is the issue, that the game is similar from Pokemon or that they use stolen assets?

Nintendo better sue them then.

Nintendo has no case. Their is no evidence of stolen assets. Dont let that kid fool u.

 

[Infinity]

Both of them, worsen by the facts that palworld devs didn't even try to hide that they're aping Pokemon artstyle and similiarity too much LOL.

Nintendo has no case. Let them waste their time and money just like the ftc case against MS

 

[ultimateFF]

Nintendo has no case. Their is no evidence of stolen assets. Dont let that kid fool u.

Maybe try to read the goddamn thread first before you posting, you spammer botz . Wait, don't tell me botz can't read .

 

[Nimrota]

Nintendo has no case. Their is no evidence of stolen assets. Dont let that kid fool u.

I agree we cannot say for certain whether the stolen assets claim is true because it's, I believe, one random twitter user and there hasn't been any further verification of the claims. However, if there are stolen assets they certainly would have a case. Whether they win it or not is debatable depending on circumstances since copyright law is pretty complex, but certainly there is a case.

 

[Infinity]

Maybe try to read the goddamn thread first before you posting, you spammer botz . Wait, don't tell me botz can't read .

Let Nintendo waste their time and money pursuing a useless court case. Run along now.

 

[ultimateFF]

just like the ftc case against MS

That is m$, meanwhile this is about palworld dev, Japanese indie company called pocket-pair. Different companies oh god, reading comprehension be damned .