# Pokemon



## Sinjo (Nov 23, 2009)

Do the people drawing pokemon or Pokefurs need to *Â©*nintendo?


----------



## Aurali (Nov 23, 2009)

technically.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 23, 2009)

The fact that they are the ones who drew the fanart does not invalidate Nintendo's copyright and ownership of the franchise as a whole (and especially the PokÃ©mon brand name, which is also trademarked).  So, technically, yes.


----------



## Corto (Nov 23, 2009)

Yeah they're still intelectual property of Nintendo.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 23, 2009)

So, should I report people who don't?


----------



## Darkstar-Dracon (Nov 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> So, should I report people who don't?



Next to everybody knows anyway, so it's kinda pointless.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 23, 2009)

Darkstar-Dracon said:


> Next to everybody knows anyway, so it's kinda pointless.


*The By You/For You Policy*
*1) By You:*
You may post any Submission provided that the submission is an original work created by you. Joint works and collaborations must give proper credit to all contributing sources.
*2) For You:*
Fur Affinity allows users to post Submissions created for them provided they have the original artist's permission to repost said work. Credit must be attributed to the original artist with citation that the work was not created by the submitter.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 23, 2009)

meh, don't spam too much sinjo.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> So, should I report people who don't?



If you really care that much then I'd say sure.

I'd also say you care too much.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 23, 2009)

Aurali said:


> meh, don't spam too much sinjo.


spam what?


----------



## Scribbles_Ayashi (Nov 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> So, should I report people who don't?



Bleh, don't bother with that, youll get a lot of people needlessly annoyed. As far as Im aware (Im not a lawyer, so correct me if Im wrong), it falls under the "fair use" category, since it is art. So basically, as long as the person is not selling the art or making money off it, it's really not a big deal. That's like Nintendo going after people who write fanfiction about their characters; they honestly have better things to do with their day then get in a stink fit over fan made stuff, which even then they have little to no legal jurisdiction in.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> spam what?



there has to be thousands of said violations out there. don't clog the tts too much,


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 23, 2009)

Aurali said:


> there has to be thousands of said violations out there. don't clog the tts too much,


The FAF's arteries are clocked with spam.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 23, 2009)

Aurali said:


> there has to be thousands of said violations out there. don't clog the tts too much,


Yea, same with secondlife and other AUP violation pictures.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 23, 2009)

Don't be a narc when it comes to pokemon/digimon/sonic/anime fan characters.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 23, 2009)

You should always say that copyright symbol just to cover yourself legally.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 23, 2009)

IE

"Pokemon (C) Nintendo"


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 23, 2009)

Glaice said:


> Don't be a narc when it comes to pokemon/digimon/sonic/anime fan characters.


I think I'm going to now.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 24, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> I think I'm going to now.



You're gonna piss off a lot of furries doing this, just the way that SL tiger guy does elsewhere.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 24, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> Do the people drawing pokemon or Pokefurs need to *Â©*nintendo?


It's recommended, but the official answer is "No".


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 24, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> So, should I report people who don't?



No.  It's like what Dragoneer said, it's a good idea, but not a condition of submission policy.  Most people who know PokÃ©mon already know that Nintendo's the owner of the franchise, so to them there's no confusion over who owns what.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 24, 2009)

Scribbles_Ayashi said:


> Bleh, don't bother with that, youll get a lot of people needlessly annoyed. As far as Im aware (Im not a lawyer, so correct me if Im wrong), it falls under the "fair use" category, since it is art. So basically, as long as the person is not selling the art or making money off it, it's really not a big deal. That's like Nintendo going after people who write fanfiction about their characters; they honestly have better things to do with their day then get in a stink fit over fan made stuff, which even then they have little to no legal jurisdiction in.



You'd be surprised. The movie industry kept going after Thatguywiththeglasses on Youtube and getting his videos pulled even though he was using the "fair use" law in his "reviews" of classic/crappy movies, forcing him to create his own website.(and he even had been giving credit to the studios at the end of each review)


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 24, 2009)

Fair use in and of itself is not a policy with concrete definitions.  The defendant never has fair-use "by default", it's something that must be actively proven and ultimately only the judge in a court of law gets to officially state whether or not fair use applies to a case.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 24, 2009)

But, what if some one points a Nintendo rep in this direction and some one goes " this person is making money of drawing pokemon"


----------



## Scribbles_Ayashi (Nov 24, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> You'd be surprised. The movie industry kept going after Thatguywiththeglasses on Youtube and getting his videos pulled even though he was using the "fair use" law in his "reviews" of classic/crappy movies, forcing him to create his own website.(and he even had been giving credit to the studios at the end of each review)



Well, some companies have a stick further up their asses then others. I remember when a bunch of Marvel fans (I think it was Marvel) came together and remixed some songs from the Marvel-based movies. Marvel found out about this, and instead of throwing a shit fit over the whole ordeal, they liked their music so much they hired the guys to do song remixes for some of their video games (which again, falls under "fair use", since it's art). And even then, were talking about art, not movie reviews, and Im pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled fair use protection under "anything artistic" (as long as it is not sold without first asking permission of the company it intellectually belongs to). The reason for the guy getting his promos pulled was probably because they did not like what the guy had to say about their films. It's a pretty broad category to make a clear-cut decision, but here's an article that should shed some light on the subject http://www.articlesbase.com/art-and...es/fair-use-a-shield-not-a-sword-1175876.html


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 24, 2009)

Scribbles_Ayashi said:


> Well, some companies have a stick further up their asses then others. I remember when a bunch of Marvel fans (I think it was Marvel) came together and remixed some songs from the Marvel-based movies. Marvel found out about this, and instead of throwing a shit fit over the whole ordeal, they liked their music so much they hired the guys to do song remixes for some of their video games (which again, falls under "fair use", since it's art). And even then, were talking about art, not movie reviews, and Im pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled fair use protection under "anything artistic" (as long as it is not sold without first asking permission of the company it intellectually belongs to). The reason for the guy getting his promos pulled was probably because they did not like what the guy had to say about their films. It's a pretty broad category to make a clear-cut decision, but here's an article that should shed some light on the subject http://www.articlesbase.com/art-and...es/fair-use-a-shield-not-a-sword-1175876.html



Jim Davis did the same thing with "Garfield Minus Garfield". Allowed the guy to continue and even said it gives him (Davis) ideas on how to imrove(?) the strip. Not sure it worked though


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 24, 2009)

The problem is that copyright law is fucked up here in the States, that's what the big ruckus with Youtube (more or less called Jewtube for obvious reasons). If a song in an fan made AMV isn't making any money, what's the big fuckin' deal? Stupid stuck-up greedy motherfuckers.


----------



## Azbulldog (Nov 24, 2009)

Glaice said:


> The problem is that copyright law is fucked up here in the States, that's what the big ruckus with Youtube (more or less called Jewtube for obvious reasons). If a song in an fan made AMV isn't making any money, what's the big fuckin' deal? Stupid stuck-up greedy motherfuckers.


http://jewtube.com/


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 24, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> But, what if some one points a Nintendo rep in this direction and some one goes "this person is making money of drawing pokemon"


If it really is paid work, then it probably doesn't pass the "no harm to market value" criteria for fair use.  Key word being "probably".



> [Marvel] liked their music so much they hired the guys to do song remixes for some of their video games (which again, falls under "fair use", since it's art).


That's not actually fair use, because if Marvel commissioned them to produce more work, the "more work" is not even infringing to begin with, so Fair Use never comes into play.


----------

