Forum - View topic

NEWS: The Pokémon Company Demands US$4,000 From Party Planner to Settle Lawsuit

Judging by the way the article is worded he spent $450 on the DJ and gift cards alone plus more on the other stuff. So according to him he did not make a profit.

meruru wrote:

Normally I'm against copyright infringement, but I think it's pretty lame to sue your fans because they threw some themed party at a loss, and they already complied with the c&d as soon as they received it.

The difference is that he was making a business out of it, even if he said he did it at a "loss" somehow he was able to kept doing it.

he's been hosting the parties for four years and The Pokémon Company has notified him multiple times to end them when they acknowledged him of copyright infringement using their IP on his poster and Facebook ads without notice and trying to make a profit out of it. Plus, Ramar Jones is the co-owner of Ruckus Productions, a movie company, so he should have already known how laws concerning IP protection work.

So not just a serial offender, but also someone who should have known better about copyright. It probably also wasn't such a smart idea to take a game targeted at children and associate it with adult beverages. So it's really all on Mr. Jones.

Even if one were to run a party at a loss while using copyrighted IP for promotion of a commercial event, charging for admission, and selling copyrighted goods and/or goods that are associated with copyrighted IP, he/she would still be vulnerable to being sued since a company would view it as an attempt of profiting off of their IP.

To be fair Nintendo and every company in their circle are extremely greedy and protective. They could have ended this after the party was cancelled but are suing instead. That proves my point. They don't care about fans and their love of their stuff they care about money and pride. It's a company but still suing after the fact is wrong.

I understand that. The point I was trying to make was that no profit was made.

Wrong, the article clearly said he made $500 in ticket sales, which is a major no-no in Copyright laws.

You are not allowed to accept any kind of income or compensation when dealing with the copyright of another person or company. That's why you can draw fan art or cosplay, but when you start making money off that fan art or making costumes for cosplay without expressed permission of that company, you violate the copyright laws.

So I'm afraid this guy is going to lose this case.

Nintendo tends to go after this sort of stuff fairly often. In those cases, they send a C&D. If the offender complies with it, that's the end of the story.

TPCi doesn't. They go further. Even after that, they demand a money compensation that is outrageous in both its quantity (considering who it's directed to) and deadline.
This isn't defending, it goes way beyond with abuse, intimidation and "trying to set an example" with a figurative public execution.

Plus, Ramar Jones is the co-owner of Ruckus Productions, a movie company, so he should have already known how laws concerning IP protection work.

Talking about the costs of tournaments there are entery fees reguardless of the type generally it's 5 bucks for a FNM tournament to as much as nearly 30 for a draft or prerelease. I think the pro tournies for Magic tend to go for a couple hundred a pop and that's with an Invite from WotC.

You are not allowed to accept any kind of income or compensation when dealing with the copyright of another person or company. That's why you can draw fan art or cosplay, but when you start making money off that fan art or making costumes for cosplay without expressed permission of that company, you violate the copyright laws.

So I'm afraid this guy is going to lose this case.

Pokemon can be considered a public domain IP, since it is a well known contraction of the original Nintendo Copyright of Pocket Monsters. While TPCi may own the international copyright to the brand of Pokemon, the fact that the public automatically associates certain characters (Pikachu) to this brand means that it has passed beyond the realm of private copyright into public domain.
This is somewhat similar to the recent ruling on "Happy Birthday to You" in that the associated products are of such ubiquitous association that one cannot be separated from the other.

SWAnimefan wrote:

Wrong, the article clearly said he made $500 in ticket sales, which is a major no-no in Copyright laws. You are not allowed to accept any kind of income or compensation when dealing with the copyright of another person or company. That's why you can draw fan art or cosplay, but when you start making money off that fan art or making costumes for cosplay without expressed permission of that company, you violate the copyright laws. So I'm afraid this guy is going to lose this case.

I think by profit he means coming out with more money than he started. According to him, he is throwing this party at a loss. The tickets are supposedly to cover some of the party costs. I think that is what Somer is getting at.

Edit: *was throwing the party at a loss.

leep wrote:

Pokemon can be considered a public domain IP, since it is a well known contraction of the original Nintendo Copyright of Pocket Monsters. While TPCi may own the international copyright to the brand of Pokemon, the fact that the public automatically associates certain characters (Pikachu) to this brand means that it has passed beyond the realm of private copyright into public domain. This is somewhat similar to the recent ruling on "Happy Birthday to You" in that the associated products are of such ubiquitous association that one cannot be separated from the other.

"Happy Birthday to You" is not technically in the public domain. During the case, it was revealed that the original sheet music, which Warner/Chappell has the rights to, only pertains to one specific version of the song, and only when played on the piano. You could play it on a guitar and it'll be legal, and you could change a chord here and there and play it on the piano and it'll be legal. It's not a case of public recognizability. Otherwise, Mickey Mouse and Ziploc bags would be public domain.

What you're thinking of is "trademark erosion," which happens when the trademark holder of a word or phrase fails to defend him- or herself in court when outside parties use that word or phrase enough that it falls into the public domain. And in each case, a judge has to declare it public domain.

As unfortunate as it sounds, this case is necessary for TCPi to keep a lock on its own copyrights and trademarks. If they let it slide, it's possible that they'd inadvertently open the floodgates, tons of other people will use the Pokémon name and Pikachu's image, and they'll become genericized. Unlike some other game companies, TCPi relies exclusively on one single IP, and hence it's one they absolutely cannot afford to lose for any reason.