Japanese Game Website Owner Arrested For Screenshot Scans

Thanks to 1UP for its news story reporting that the owner of popular Japanese videogame website Gameonline has been arrested for copyright violation regarding unauthorized screenshot scans, since "several hundred [screenshots available on the site] were allegedly found to have been taken from magazines and overseas game sites without the permission of the game publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law." The story continues by explaining: "Gameonline, one of the most popular game sites in Japan until its sudden closure last month, was a for-profit site that made its money exclusively via advertising. The site's owner had received permission from several Japanese publishers to post screenshots from their games, but other companies, including SNK Playmore, Capcom, Square Enix, and Namco, allegedly found media from their games posted on the site without their permission, leading to today's arrest."

Re:Seems pretty straightforward

[Molina the Bofh]

Why would they want to hide their screenshots ?

Unless their game really sucks and the only nice picture is the one in the box.

Re:Seems pretty straightforward

[Tezkah]

The site's owner had received permission from several Japanese publishers to post screenshots from their games, but other companies, including SNK Playmore, Capcom, Square Enix, and Namco, allegedly found media from their games posted on the site without their permission, leading to today's arrest.

I dunno, the graphics are some of the best parts of Squenix's games :P

Capcom I could see getting upset, using sprites from 1994 for games a decade later.

I dont why they wouldn't want the hype, but its their product, and they can do with it what they want. Just like Linux people would be upset if someone violated the GPL, even in good spirit (although they, most likely, wouldn't have the violater arrested, but these are companies who probably have a team of lawyers just to protect their "intellectual property")

Re:Seems pretty straightforward

[Maiko]

I suppose it could also be read that since he scanned images from magazines and other sites, it would therefore be stealing potential readers from them for his site's own gain. These magazines could have had exclusivity agreements with the publishers, guaranteeing the content would only be available from one source for a period of time before anyone else is allowed to shout the same stuff from the rooftops.
As for the screenshots, there are services available such as Gamespress.com that allow game sites and magazines to get hold of screens submitted by the publisher for the media to use. Sure, the screenshots may show the game's best features and nothing to the opposite, but at least the PR companies aren't as likely to demand an instant removal of them.

Just my misinformed one cent and candybar wrapper...

Re:Of course...

[Seumas]

It isn't just that he was posting screenshots of videogames. He was also posting images and screenshots that, while of games, were (sometimes) copyrighted material. I suppose you could think of it like someone being arrested for passing off one of those Getty/Associated Press photographs as your own.

Granted, it's unpleasant to think that you can beat your wife and children and not raise anyone's attention and even shoplift without much more than a quick trip to be booked and released with a fine, yet arrested for showing an image on your website that originally game from some videogame magazine.

But of course, corporations don't run our governments, politicians, police forces and legislation. Why, that would be a silly claim... Just silly... *cough*

Lack of Quality by Association and Possible Errors

[MiceHead]

There are reasons why a game publisher might not want a website to post its screenshots with others, but I wonder if there might just be an error in the linked article.

In independent games, the question of quality-by-association comes up when a company approaches a developer with a request to include its game in a CD compilation. One side of the argument is that the presence of a title on a shovelware [google.com] compilation can detract from its perceived quality -- your game might appear among a hundred Sokoban clones, or in an extreme case, you might see children's software [pcmag.com] next to more adult software [gamespot.com]. So, it is conceivable [imdb.com] that publishers might have considered association with this website (archived here [archive.org]) a bad thing.

But I don't buy it. Entire conferences [e3expo.com] are devoted to publicity, and as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. (To wit, I'd talk up my postman about my software if I thought it'd help. He's a nice guy; we talk about other things.) The only tidbit that screams copyright violation as I understand it is this: Of this collection, several hundred were allegedly found to have been taken from magazines and overseas game sites...

However, I do not understand the end of that sentence: ...without the permission of the game publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.

To my knowledge, it is not illegal in the States to take and post a screenshot of a movie or game to the Web; my understanding Japanese intellectual property laws is limited, but given the number of Japanese film/gaming sites that do this, I don't believe that game publishers have any say over what screenshots are presented. I think 1Up may have meant this, instead:

without the permission of the website's publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.
_________________________
I long for the day when Google stops asking me, "Did you mean: inigo rage [google.com]"

Not really surprised by this.

[Samir Gupta]

Square/ENIX in particular are incredibly anal about people taking screenshots. At the most recent E3, they were constantly patrolling their booth, descending like hawks on anyone who did so much as take out a camera, and curtly and rudely (in a most un-Japanese way) saying "no" to them.

Of course, other companies sometimes had no photography rules, but they were all for games shown behind closed doors -- every game displayed openly in booths were being openly filmed/photographed with the encouragement of the developers. Square was the only ones who prohibited photography of all their games.

Hello Square! If you don't want people taking pictures of your game, don't show it openly!