why isnt it possible to make totally free product (without getting

>>389644952
It's about ownership, not money. The point is that corporations desire to commodify culture itself, until they legally own even things like phrases and color combinations. They want control, and ownership is control.

>>389644952
>Why can't I use someone else's property without permission!?

>>389645236
Should I have to pay Abraham Guitar everytime I play a song with a guitar in it?

>>389645158
well yeah, it seems obvious, but does law really allows them to lawsuit someone? i mean, using license to create FREE product seems like "fair use".

>>389645236
why would i need their permission if i am not making any profit? if i make, i dont know, "pokemon: redish-brownish-with-an-accent-of-dark-green edition" i will only enlist nintendo as a true lincese holder and add that this product is fan-made or something.

>>389645420
The guitar was invented hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

The shit you're talking about probably only came out a few years ago.

I know you're bait posting but come on no one would ever create anything if they instantly lost control of it.

>>389645626
>why would i need their permission if i am not making any profit? if i make, i dont know, "pokemon: redish-brownish-with-an-accent-of-dark-green edition" i will only enlist nintendo as a true lincese holder and add that this product is fan-made or something.

You're hurting their brand by making a shitty game.

It's like as if I pissed in a cup and called it Starbucks Yellow Edition and put the Starbucks logo on it.

File: 14906276716360.png (252KB, 484x605px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 484x605px

>>389644952
The same reason why they don't allow to bring water in the airport. Exclusivity allows them to sell their own for ridiculous prices, and even tho most people are completely normal, and will never bring any explosives in the water bottle, it still has a tiny chance of happening, so they are cutting the root of the problem entirely.

Just because most people won't be profiting from the license, if they allow it legally, that will set a precedent where thousands of enthusiasts will start shitting content and it will be impossible to track everyone who do try to profit from it.

>>389644952
It would come down to trademark rather than copyright. You're essentially competing against them with their own brand, and unfairly on top of that since you're charging nothing. Beyond just the simple matter of creating customer confusion, where people might mistake your work for something official.

Why dont they just rip the gameplay but call it something else without the protag or any one bearing resemblance. That way its even their own game. If the gameplay is good it surely doesnt need some characters from somethiing else to justify more of it.

>>389645946
That's how most of the things in the world are made, genius. But without the bells and whistles it's not the same. If you take a Rolls-Royce and replace the interior with the one from an old Ford pickup, nobody will ever want that. People like a particular brand exactly because of certain traits.

>>389645946
Because they spent millions of dollars building that engine. Why would they let you use it for free?

>>389645859
>>389645725
ok, op here, maybe i should form my question differently.

is there really a legal regulation that allows them this behavior? this "defending their trademark or wahtever" attitude with threating people with cases? i mean isnt "fair use" implmented to some extent that allows people to use even their trademarks?

i mean ive heard about the case in which woman was making collages out of newspapers and shit and despite newspaper butthurt she was even able to trade her works, because it was altered and shit, it went something like this (this story may be false, though)

>>389645626
>why would i need their permission if i am not making any profit?
because that's how copyright laws work. unless it's covered by fair use laws, you're taking someones ideas and creations, making something based off of them, and potential using their credibility and popularity to gain attention you wouldn't otherwise have, irrelevant of if you're making money from it or not.
you're also potentially harming their reputation if you make a shitty product.

>>389646385
>is there really a legal regulation that allows them this behavior?
c&d

>>389646385
You are not allowed to use any copyrighted material, aka names, logos etc. If you change it and rename everything, making a spiritual successor, they won't do anything. Otherwise you are just stealing their work.

>>389646385
yes, there is legal regulation. you have an idea for a brand, you apply through a trademark attorney to get a trademark on that brand, and then if seen fit to be a trademark by the governing body, you are granted the trademark on that brand for a certain period of years, 10 in the case of australia, before you have to pay a renewal fee. they don't just hand trademarks out willy-nilly.
there are also examination fees, opposition fees, late fees, opposition periods, etc etc. it's a complicated system with complicated laws, and you saying "but i'm not making money it from it, so I can use it how I want" is bullshit. go fuck yourself for even thinking that.
also, don't get confused between trademarks and copyrighted material, as there's a big difference.

>>389646782
>"but i'm not making money it from it, so I can use it how I want" is bullshit. go fuck yourself for even thinking that.

why? i understand that companies want to control everything and they are afraid about the brand recognition etc and this regulation exist to """""protect""""" them, but try to convince me into agreeing with you, because im not really convinced

File: 1414153509979.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

>>389647451
> i am so lonely that i want people to argue with me and prove me something that interests only myself

k

>>389644952
>what is their right to sue or intimidate with lawsuit an individual who doesnt make profit from "borrowing" the license?
they have an agreement with the big boys with big sticks. that's theyre right.

>>389647451
because it's not your intellectual property, simple as that. you didn't think of it, you didn't spend time and effort creating it, you don't get to use it.
and it's not just for companies, it's for individuals as well. that's the thing. trademarks protect everyone's intellectual property. so does copyright.

>>389647598
>look at this retard who wants to discuss things, what a fucking retard
eh...

>>389647612
>it's not just for companies, it's for individuals as well
i agree. i dont think individuals should be treated differently.
>because it's not your intellectual property, simple as that
as long as i dont make any profit, why would or even SHOULD anyone bother? i am hurting their brand, ok, but why should law forbid me from expressing my feelings, or whatever, even in such way?

>>389647920
ok they would bother, because of hurting their brand, but still. second question still valid

>>389647920
why? because it's immoral as far as I'm concerned, and i'm not alone on that thought. you're stealing the copyright or trademarked material of someone or a company without their consent or even knowledge, until it's too late. that's theft. if you can't understand that, you're probably retarded.
if you do it in a way that's covered by fair use, then there's nothing they can legally do. that's how PETA gets away with their shithouse games i'm pretty sure.

I get the points being raised, but I always wondered how romhacks generally slide past these sort of things. Specically the case of stuff like Mario or Metroid's where they never got ported to PC when modding communities are to be accepted more with the IP owners whether standalones or WADs.
>>389648370
What's the boundaries for fair use in that case, I mean that Black and Blue game was trying to shit on their brand, using names and notable if not iconic characters there. Would Flash games slide past that too no matter what happens too (if there were cases of takedowns please tell me, I'm probably unaware then).
I understand why AM2R and the Crono Trigger recreation would get taken down, but I'm curious on how far.

>>389648815
fair use generally covers shit like parodies, in the case of black and blue, and use for news articles, in the case of reporting that a video game causes violence or something similarly retarded.
the laws behind it are fairly complex and change from country to country. in australia for example, we have a "fair dealing" system, which you're protected by if your use can be covered by one of the following areas: parody or satire; study or research; criticism or review; reporting the news.

>>389648815
Fair Use is actually fairly vague, and designed to only be confirmed on a case-by-case basis via trial. Generally speaking, using something for parody, critique, or for educational purposes is fair use. But it's never a given, and only a judge can actually decide if it was fair use or not after you've been taken to court.

>>389644952
Because your shitty fangames will dilute the value of the brand, aka their property.