6th Gen In Other News, Japan Gets all the Cool Stuff

Damaged_Dweeb1273 said:
Read my message on 2nd Page.
Click to expand...
I get that it's a promotion for a movie that will never be released in theatres outside of Japan, and in general the world isn't as engrossed in Pokemon as we are, but distribution via movie ticket isn't the only way to go. If Nintendo is capable of handing out game demos via serial code how is this so impossible? Even if the movie won't be shown in a theatre it'll still be broadcast on Cartoon Network and the like. They could still distribute codes for it. That wasn't possible several years ago but is now, so what gives?
 
Well... Cartoon Network only plays the DVD, and for the DVD to be made, it has to be English dubbed, and a movie shown in a cinema is always only made a DVD a couple of week to months after. Also Cartoon Network has to pay fee/tax for every time it shows a movie as a premier, this goes for any movies too on any channel. And also for a movie to be premiered on any channel, it is like an unspoken/unwritten rule that they would only allow so weeks/months after the DVD release to also make sure that the premier on a channel does not affect demography sales.

And even though the number of people is comparatively small in ratio to those that do not pre-order the ticket just for the Pokemon in Japan, they may also see it as being ripped off...
But I do agree that they should re-release the events much like so the coming copycat Japanese event of the Shiny Charizard for Germany, maybe weeks/months after the original from Japan.
But then I also believe the idea from one of the people here saying that it's maybe Japan punishing other countries for excessive use of hacking and whatnot.
 
Damaged_Dweeb1273 said:
…And for the eBay pokemon sellers, I wasn't talking about plushie or t-shirt sellers. I was talking about the real pokemon*IN-GAME POKEMON* sellers out there, Besides anyone selling merchandise with Pokemon anywhere in there name shouldn't even be done at all.*ahem... Trademark anyone?* Well unless they are actually legitimately sold by the company. Even advertising or showing logos of any sort is not allowed but still happens. You might know this from the way logos of some sort are blurred during broadcast, or even if watching reality shows, labels are ripped off. So really, if a person tries to sell something linked to Pokemon, proper procedures is that they are supposed to contact them first and whatnot and get a deal. Yes, they may not have been the one who designed a plushie *for example* but the influence of them as being pokemon is what makes people buy them and get their money from that. So Nintendo/GameFreak is really entitled to a fraction of the money gained from those in-game-pokemon sold in eBay,

…
Click to expand...

Um, have you ever heard of derivative works? I'm pretty sure that creating them is considered fair use in a lot of cases.
 
Last edited:
RandomDSdevel said:
Um, have you ever heard of derivative works I'm pretty sure that creating them is considered fair use in a lot of cases.
Click to expand...

Yes... I luckily have... But that will really only work if MERCHANDISE sold BEAR ORIGINALITY of their own AND NOT COMPLETELY IDENTICAL to the ORIGINAL WORKS. Your argument is a bust since for example, sellers in eBay selling unlegalised merchandise by people that is unconnected to GameFreak/Nintendo, merchandises bearing identical resemblance to the original works, even if a posture is something never before seen it's still not a derivative work and will never or should be claimed as one.

For a person to legally in all laws be able to supply a derivative work, in this example, Pokemon, they have to make aesthetical changes from the original work, only then could it be claimed as a secondary 'unrelated' derivative work. For example, a merchandise seller in eBay selling Rayquaza themed bags, shirts, etc. can only be accounted as derivative if its not anything GameFreak/Nintendo had ever assigned it to be. So a two-headed Rayquaza t-shirt will suffice more in all manners of the law, or at least by making the colour palette neither green/black.

An example of proper derivative websites is DeviantArt. People who make real money other than points from linking, etc. art have their own originality imbued in their work, especially when adapting works with Trademark. They commonly do so by adapting themes to them, gothic, real-life, gore, etc. they will add in teeth, fur/hair, or a few individualistic minor details to their work that encompasses the chosen theme, making it bear some least originality from the source.

And to those making art bearing near/complete resemblance to the original works is not out there making money but are just seeking credit for their skills. A fan service by fellow fans. Well, if they are... They should be penalised or something...

To sum things up... I will only always be rooting for a two-headed Rayquaza anytime in eBay/Amazon, etc.

Just because police will not always barge in the door of someone doing illegal things, it doesn't give them any right to keep doing it. That's just like having an ignorant notion that there should be a police for everyone, as an effective law-abiding persecuting guardian *angel*. Applying magniloquent big technical words doesn't automatically win an argument if your unsure how/when/where to apply it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top