Nintendo Goes After Fan-Made Custom Steam 'Icons' With DMCA Takedowns (arstechnica.com) 41
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Nintendo has issued a number of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requests against SteamGridDB (SGDB), a site that hosts custom fan-made icons and images used to represent games on Steam's front-end interface. Since 2015, SGDB's collection has grown to include hundreds of thousands of images representing tens of thousands of titles. That includes custom imagery for many standard Steam games and emulated game ROMs, which can be added to Steam as "external games."
To be clear, SteamGridDB doesn't host the kind of ROM files that have gotten other sites in legal trouble with Nintendo, or even the emulators used to run those games. "We don't support piracy in any way," an SGDB admin (who asked to remain anonymous) told Ars. "The website is just a free repository where people can share options to customize their game launchers." But in a series of DMCA requests viewed by Ars Technica, dated October 27, Nintendo says some of the imagery on SGDB "displays Nintendo's trademarks and other intellectual property (including characters) which is likely to lead to consumer confusion." Thus, dozens of SGDB images have been replaced with a blank image featuring the text "this asset has been removed in response to a DMCA takedown request" (you can see some of the specific images that were removed in this Internet Archive snapshot from April and compare it to how the listing currently looks).
Thus far, Nintendo's DMCA requests focus on imagery for just five Switch games that are listed on SGDB: Pokemon Scarlet & Violet, Splatoon 3, Super Mario Odyssey, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and Xenoblade Chronicles 3. Other Switch games listed on the site (some featuring the same exact characters) are unaffected, as are images for many older Nintendo titles. [...] Even for the Switch games in question, the DMCA requests focused on images that "straight up used sprites and assets from [Nintendo's] IP," according to the SGDB admin. Nintendo's requests so far seem to have ignored "completely original creations" and "pure fan art" even when that art involves drawings of Nintendo's original characters. It's unclear if those kinds of images would fall under a different legal standard in this case. "If an IP holder asks to take down original creations then I'll figure out the best way to handle that when it happens," the admin said. "The site is basically all just fan art, we're open to publishers reaching out and discussing any issues they may have. [The] best way to find a good course of action is to discuss options."
To be clear, SteamGridDB doesn't host the kind of ROM files that have gotten other sites in legal trouble with Nintendo, or even the emulators used to run those games. "We don't support piracy in any way," an SGDB admin (who asked to remain anonymous) told Ars. "The website is just a free repository where people can share options to customize their game launchers." But in a series of DMCA requests viewed by Ars Technica, dated October 27, Nintendo says some of the imagery on SGDB "displays Nintendo's trademarks and other intellectual property (including characters) which is likely to lead to consumer confusion." Thus, dozens of SGDB images have been replaced with a blank image featuring the text "this asset has been removed in response to a DMCA takedown request" (you can see some of the specific images that were removed in this Internet Archive snapshot from April and compare it to how the listing currently looks).
Thus far, Nintendo's DMCA requests focus on imagery for just five Switch games that are listed on SGDB: Pokemon Scarlet & Violet, Splatoon 3, Super Mario Odyssey, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and Xenoblade Chronicles 3. Other Switch games listed on the site (some featuring the same exact characters) are unaffected, as are images for many older Nintendo titles. [...] Even for the Switch games in question, the DMCA requests focused on images that "straight up used sprites and assets from [Nintendo's] IP," according to the SGDB admin. Nintendo's requests so far seem to have ignored "completely original creations" and "pure fan art" even when that art involves drawings of Nintendo's original characters. It's unclear if those kinds of images would fall under a different legal standard in this case. "If an IP holder asks to take down original creations then I'll figure out the best way to handle that when it happens," the admin said. "The site is basically all just fan art, we're open to publishers reaching out and discussing any issues they may have. [The] best way to find a good course of action is to discuss options."
The best way to resolve with asshole companies (Score:2, Informative)
The best way to resolve issues with asshole companies is to stop giving them your money. But somehow that never happens.
If you are a fan, you could at least reach out to your favourite asshole company and tell them you're miffed by their disrespect.
Re: (Score:3)
Well they are sprite rips. It isn't the first time there's been trouble over those.
Re: The best way to resolve with asshole companies (Score:5, Informative)
Oh how entitled you must be. Nintendo has every right to defend their copyright here, to quote the summary:
"The DMCA requests focused on images that "straight up used sprites and assets from [Nintendo's] IP""
This isn't Nintendo being assholes. In fact, it's quite the opposite; Nintendo hasn't gone after fan art and original creations, even knowing they are there for use by people pirating their ROMs.
It's clear in this case that Nintendo's DMCA request was not an effort to discourage or annoy the users who are playing ROMs, they are strictly defending their IP.
I'll keep giving them my money because, quite frankly, i enjoy their products and generally speaking $70 for a game like BOTW is well worth it considering the endless hours we all got out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note to moderators: it's been said many times before, but it bears repeating - there is NO "minus 1 - Disagree" moderation option here. If you're doing that, please stop.
Posting Anon as I have mod points and will be using them on this thread.
Note to /. users: you need to actually pull up the moderation history if you want to make a comment like this. Al_Lapalme's Karma must be such that posts from their account do not start at 2 for those following the standard "Karma Boost Bonus," and instead start at 1. There are often times that a user's Karma is so far in the toilet that a perfectly reasonable and well thought out post is still starting at -1.
At the time of this postin
Re: The best way to resolve with asshole companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Nintendo has every right to enforce their IP, and those of us who don't respect the ever-inflated duration of copyright have every right to think they're assholes.
Both things... (Score:2)
Nintendo has every right to enforce their IP, and those of us who don't respect the ever-inflated duration of copyright have every right to think they're assholes.
But the new paradigm is to pick one thing to hate, either or, not try to understand the complexities of actual Human interaction to comprehend that sometimes, it can be both things. Damn.
Re: (Score:3)
It's clear in this case that Nintendo's DMCA request was not an effort to discourage or annoy the users who are playing ROMs, they are strictly defending their IP.
Well, it's actually both. They are defending their IP, but they are particularly selecting a target that is part of the ecosystem of 'nicely' playing ROMs.
Unauthorized reproductions of Nintendo imagery are all over the place, the fact that this niche raises to the level of attention is due to the relevance to the ROM ecosystem.
They are entitled to do so, but the relationship with the ROM scene is more than coincidental.
Re: (Score:2)
They are defending their IP, but they are particularly selecting a target that is part of the ecosystem of 'nicely' playing ROMs.
Nintendo does not believe any such thing exists.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant 'nice' as in user experience, not 'nice' as in 'kind to Nintendo'.
Generally when a scene gets to ignore IP, they create pretty kick-ass user experience far better than what the copyright holders provide. Whether it's due to limitations (unable to have the 'right' license for the right content to do a nice thing) or because of choice (force user into using a proprietary single-supplier closed environment rather than allow interoperability with other games or media)
Re: (Score:2)
Why only these 5? Why not all of them?
Where was the original size art? This is pretty much them abusing the DCMA cause they can.
Re: (Score:2)
So why haven't taken down anything on wikipedia or similar sites?
Because Wikipedia is fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's for advertising, not for criticism or explanation. It's frankly obviously not fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Their site doesn't appear to have any advertising. Fair use also includes documenting and personal copies. If I own a physical copy of a game, I can scan the box art to a picture file myself and that's definitely fair use. If someone else shares their copy so I don't have to scan it, that's still fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's being used by users to advertise themselves. Fair use is real and exists in this country (it's not everywhere) but it's not a blank check to use someone else's IP for your own purposes, even noncommercial ones. You can in theory include an entire work if your goal is to critique the work, and it's somehow necessary. But if you're just using Samus as your avatar or something, that's illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're just using Samus as your avatar or something, that's illegal.
That means the person that downloaded it for that use is the infringer. If you download the same icon to use it to launch that very game on a private computer, it's definitely fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
If you download the same icon to use it to launch that very game on a private computer, it's definitely fair use.
No, that's another example of infringing use. It's one for which I doubt you would ever get in trouble, but it's still illegal for you to receive the content, and also to use the content, unless you live somewhere that format-shifting is legal and you also own the source material. Copyright infringement for noncommercial use is still illegal, even when it's private.
Re: (Score:2)
This is literally intended for people to have launcher icons to get to games they OWN. Which means that yes - this is format shifting. The fact that someone who downloaded a ROM illegally can still see the site isn't really an argument against the intent.
Re: (Score:2)
The intent is irrelevant to whether it's copyright infringement. The middleman is infringing, and format shifting is also illegal in most of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh how entitled you must be. Nintendo has every right to defend their copyright here
They're actually defending their trademark not copyright.
It is required to defend your trademarks or you lose them. This isn't an asshole company. It's any company on the planet that might lose its trademarks due to allowing them to be used by outside actors.
It would be nice if folks on Slashdot understood IP law.
TL;DR: If it involves trademark, give it a pass.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA takedowns can't be used for trademark disputes. They're making a copyright claim about the specific imagery. They are not required to do anything. They don't lose copyright protection by allowing fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to resolve issues with asshole companies is to stop giving them your money.
Why would I? They don't act like an arsehole towards me (even if your post was correct). I don't understand why you think people should inherently defend someone else's cause.
sega let's people do fan projects BIG N no way! (Score:2)
sega let's people do fan projects BIG N no way!
Customer Confusion? (Score:2)
'Customer confusion' is an argument for trademark prosecution. It's been decades since I read DMCA in full - did it incorporate trademark law into a copyright act? If not there may be an abuse case. Granted Nintendo is rich enough to use the law and avoid having it used against them, so sociopathic incentives are aligned in their favor.
Re: (Score:2)
Even presuming for a moment there was a minor technical mismatch in the terminology used, it's hard to imagine this to be 'abuse of DMCA'.
Abuse would be take on of content they have no copyright over or the target is fair use. In this scenario, it's unfortunately hard to argue either situation applies.
Re: (Score:3)
The only 'argument' required is 'our copyrighted material used without permission'. Did you even read TFS? While the click-bait headline is written to make you think they are going after 'fan art', the reality is very different.
From TFS: Even for the Switch games in question, the DMCA requests focused on images that "straight up used sprites and assets from [Nintendo's] IP," according to the SGDB admin. Nintendo's requests so far seem to have ignored "completely original creations" and "pure fan art" even
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using direct images of the box cover artwork for your own personal game library, that's fair use. Whether you scan the images from the box yourself or help others by sharing your copy. Especially if the files are hosted on a site without advertising.
So what? (Score:2)
the DMCA requests focused on images that "straight up used sprites and assets from [Nintendo's] IP,
I am not allowed a low quality copy of the box?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not allowed a low quality copy of the box?
No.
(To be fair, that suit was over manuals... but Blockbuster couldn't even distribute copies of the manual with the physical cart.)
sigh (Score:2)
Note to self, use preview [wikipedia.org], it helps
Zero Punctuation summed up Nintendo's attitude (Score:2)
"You know that thing the fans do out of love for our product? That's ours now. And we're gonna turn the screws until all that love turns into money because goodwill is nice and all, but it's not gonna wax the Lamborghini."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, people keep saying that, and they are always wrong. Nintendo's fans will keep giving them money forever and ever amen, and even if they didn't, they would keep getting new fans resulting from childhood indoctrination caused by parents buying Nintendo stuff, because they are less scary than other consoles with their happy little cartoon characters.
Ugh.... (Score:1)
Nintendo Power (Score:2)
Itsa me! (Score:2)
Ima a stereotype!
(And-da an intellectual property infringement lawsuit)
I hope Nintendo sues my parents for the fan art I sent in. I was a minor so I'm not responsible for what I did back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try reading the actual article (or even summary) instead of the click-bait headline. This has nothing to do with 'fan art'.
From the summary: the DMCA requests focused on images that "straight up used sprites and assets from [Nintendo's] IP," according to the SGDB admin. Nintendo's requests so far seem to have ignored "completely original creations" and "pure fan art" even when that art involves drawings of Nintendo's original characters
Re: (Score:1)
Thus far, Nintendo's DMCA requests focus on imagery for just five Switch games that are listed on SGDB: Pokémon Scarlet & Violet, Splatoon 3, Super Mario Odyssey, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and Xenoblade Chronicles 3. Other Switch games listed on the site (some featuring the same exact characters) are unaffected, as are images for many older Nintendo titles.
The SGDB admin told Ars they had "no solid idea" why Nintendo's requests have been so targeted. "I don't know what goes on in their legal department."
Seems like they're just being Nintendo. But thanks for the snark. Also note that the icons in question were indeed created by fans.