Nintendo Enforces Takedown Of Fan-Made Game Creator Pokémon Essentials

Nintendo uses C&D!

It's super effective!

This is getting ridiculous. Nintendo has to be approaching EA levels of treating fans like crap at this point.

How can NoA make a copyright claim on Pokemon? They don't own the copyright for Pokemon, they just publish the games. And only in America.

I always liked the term 'takedown notice'. Like as if one of these fans one day suddenly gets suplexed by Reggie.

@NIN10DOXD That seems a slight exaggeration? I'm not a big fan of all these takedown notices but Nintendo are just protecting their IP, it's not exactly like EA who locks chunks of their full price games behind microtransactions.

@TeslaChippie From what I understand it's a weirdly complicated situation. Pokémon is owned by The Pokémon Company, which is a mix of three parties: Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures Inc. So all three own a third of the copyright. However Nintendo also owns some portion of Creatures (they used to be based in Nintendo HQ and worked on the Mother games) Meaning Nintendo actually own more of the copyright than a third. Additionally Nintendo also own the trademark to Pokémon.

That's why Pokémon can't go on rival consoles but equally why Nintendo can't use them all freely either.

Either way Nintendo is well within it's right here to be the one issuing the cease and desist.

"Non-profit type releases" can still reduce profit of the IP's owner.

@Yorumi Mario Maker did give the Mario keys to the player better than pretty much any other developer ever.

@TeslaChippie Nintendo is one of the 3 copyright owners. Nintendo, GameFreak and Creatures Inc created the Pokemon Company and all own 33% of the company. (Nintendo also owns part of Creatures since they helped fund it)
They also own the trademarks to all of the Pokemon names

Instead of using this to create a fan made Pokemon game, they could had use it to create a real original game that is inspired by Pokemon.

@CapricornDavid I like to imagine Reggie bursting through the front door of all who dare infringe on copyrights and let off an ATATATATATATA

@Knuckles-Fajita Nintendo, Gamefreak and Creatures Inc all own a equal portion of The Pokemon Company. (Nintendo also owns majpr shares of Creatures meaning they effectively own their 33% since Iwata helped them with funds)

I mean, why are they including the Pokémon assets in the first place? They could make it a proper engine (similar to RPG Maker etc) and if people wanted to create their fan projects, they could find the assets from other sources (or create their own, preferably).

It's a shame because it was an interesting tool with a great community, but you can't really blame Nintendo for what they've done.

I'm sure people will be share it on other sites anyway, so it shouldn't vanish

Nintendo, just let them use your IP for a price, simple as

@KingdomHeartsFan If this website was hosting tools which used game assets that were directly ripped from Pokemon games, and there were also click advertisements on this website, then yes, the owners of the website were attempting to profit off of the popularity of the creator tools. Websites are not free. They are paid for through sales, or through advertisement revenues. Just because the website wasn't trying to sell Nintendo's IP to their visitors doesn't meant they weren't profiting off of that traffic with advertisement click throughs.

Would love to see a Nintendo enforced takedown on this site for such "newsworthy" articles like this one.

I've delved a bit with this toolset myself, it's a really great and surprisingly easy to use for a customized RPG Maker engine.

@CptProtonX *Takedown

@KoopaTheGamer I believe Pokemon Esssentials is made for RPGMaker and each version has different resolutions for tilesets and each tileset has to be a very specifically aligned image based on that resolution. The Pokemon games have different resolutions that clash with RPGmaker. So you'd have to go through every Pokemon tile, blow it up to that RPGMakers tile size and they arrange them all on separate images to use as a tileset.

Pokemon Essentials would be practically unusable if you had to provide your own tiles. But they were wrong to offer gamefreak's tiles. They should have just made their own tilesets and Monster designs as a default and not called it Pokemon essentials.

They had no right to offer Gamefreak's assets for free, letalone using the Pokemon branding to advertise while hosting this stuff on a website that they could make money from ad revenue.

Crap, there are after our RPG Maker projects now.

@Ashunera84 It' s more likely they increase the IPs profits by actively promoting it.
People playing those fan-made games are most likely people that have played all games and are hungry for more content or people who dont own a nintendo system so can't play any of the games. The latter ones will be encouraged to get a 3ds or a switch this way.

Good thing some of us weren't going to use this for building Pre-Order Peril; Sean's Lament!

Still waiting to RPG Maker on Switch.

@KingdomHeartsFan Yes, my point was that they could have provided tools that can be used in a lot of different ways. They could've been used to create Pokémon games or completely unique games that have nothing to do with it. If they hadn't included Pokémon assets, it would've been legit (unless they use code from Pokémon games or something).

@NIN10DOXD Any chance you own any IP that I can infringe the copyright of? Since you seem so cool with it and all.

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40301315_10216964812736213_8040353372827549696_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=41101c2d0798f9ffd7ad66097cc4737e&oe=5C30B9C7

@Yorumi it has zero to do with showing up and more protecting their IP. That simple.

@NIN10DOXD "Treating fans like crap" ....for stealing a Nintendo IP???

@dAvecaster Just goes to show how desperate Sega were for talent?

I'm hoping that this turns out similar to Project AM2R, it gets taken down, then they announce they are going to be using the IP. We could be looking at a Pokemon-Maker.
(Hey, I can dream can't I?)

@Bunkerneath @Bunkerneath WTH? So Sony can come in and create Pokemon for their console for a price? It doesn't work that way. They are a business.

@BladedKnight Just as only the IP holder is entitled to profit off of the IP, only the IP holder is entitled to not profit off of the IP. And it's naive to think they weren't making money off of it. Do you really think they spent all those years spending their own money to keep everything running out of the goodness of their hearts and pure love of the franchise?

@hatch I think it' s hilarious that Nintendo is actively attack their most loyal fanbase who spend MILLIONS on their consoles/games.
think about the competetive melee scene, speedrunners, romhack communities, youtubers.
there is a big reason nintendo lost the console wars ages ago...

With the amount of new Pokemon games (in either videogame or TCG format) set to release in the coming year, this was bound to happen.

If one of the new things they plan on adding to the Pokemon franchise have to do with something connected to one of the characters/levels/powers used in this fan-made stuff, it's a conflict of interest for the property holders/makers.

@dBackLash "@hatch I think it' s hilarious that Nintendo is actively attack their most loyal fanbase who spend MILLIONS on their consoles/games.
think about the competetive melee scene, speedrunners, romhack communities, youtubers.
there is a big reason nintendo lost the console wars ages ago..."

What? How is Nintendo attacking someone? You really lost me once you mentioned romhack communities. Each sentence has nothing to do with the other.

Why are people so angry at Nintendo? They. Are. Stealing. Assets. I love watching friends so much I think I’ll just go steal the box set at target. Since I’m passionate and it will cause me to buy the box set on amazon too it’s ok I guess.

...Pokemon/GameFreak are doing this, not Nintendo...

When will it end? This only truly got started when Nintendo found out there was something called the internet.

@dBackLash That probably only accounts for a couple thousand people when you combine all those groups. In Pokemon's case most of the franchises money doesn't even come from people from those communities.

What’s wrong with you people!! How can you justify people taking and offering for free what a company worked hard on? Yeah the company just wants money but the people that worked on it worked hard. Nintendo is perfectly entitled to do what they want with their IP

I noticed something someone said in the comments on one of the articles pertaining to the ROM site takedowns. Not only were many of the sites giving away games for free, they were using many character IPs to represent their sites and downloads. There’s a difference between being a fan of Nintendo games and ripping their characters off to represent your own product. If you’re a budding game designer try to make something original, it may be impossible to get noticed if you don’t have Mario or Pikachu as star of your game but it’ll payoff more in the long run.

@SimplyCinnamon53 Do you want a legit answer? There's lots wrong with some of us
I dunno, some folks just like being upset about things.

@BladedKnight they had no right to take it down! They don’t have the names Nate and Sully tradmarked. Those people didn’t steal anything that Sony had done, it was more of inspired. Now say you steal the voices of the game and put it in a fan film, Sony has every right to take it down

@dBackLash do you have data to support this or are you just guessing? Not sure "free promotion" of a game that "only those who have played them all" actually play does anything useful for them.

I doubt Nintendo would crack down on this it if it didn't make sense financially.

@BladedKnight You have no basis for using the uncharted fan film to say it’s ok to infringe on a company’s trademarks since the fan film didn’t do that, hence why Sony didn’t care. If they did infringe on trademarks Sony would of had it taken down.

@SimplyCinnamon53 I think some people take liberties with what a being a fan really means. Since in these circumstances usually stretched into meaning whatever you do with the IP is out of passion for it and not self-interest. (even when often you'll find in the end it is. e.g. which was the case with Pokemon Uraniums Patreon age).

@BladedKnight You're misunderstanding their point. The Uncharted fanmovie was ok becase it didn't use Sony or Naughtydogs assets and that's why it wasn't taken down.

If you made a free Uncharted Movie that used 3d models and environments ripped from the games more likely than not it would be taken down if Sony and/or naughtydog found out about it.

@BladedKnight Fan Films (or material that is free for that matter) are not given a pass under copyright law. Potentially if Sony did sue the fan film they could win unless if it was some type of parody, critique, reporting ect.

@Yorumi This. Maybe if Game Freak’s games were... you know, actually ambitious, there’d be less interest in making fan games in the first place. But nope, we can’t have actual quality in our Pokémon games.

Just like with AM2R it is on the internet forever, Nintendo may just be jealous that fans can sometimes make better games.

I hope they never take down Pokémon Showdown.

@BladedKnight I'm saying that fan projects are in the legal mercy of their creators. They can either give their permission to the project, ignore it, or sue the creator. Fan games do not inherently 'have a legal right to exist" unless if it falls under the banner of Fair Use (parody, reporting, critique) Does it mean Nintendo is morally right? No Legally right and Morally right are two different things. But, Nintendo definitely has a legal right to sue.

@Yorumi Fanfiction doesn't use literal pieces of the fiction its based on. If you had a Harry Potter Fanfiction that has certain chapters just lifted word for word from the books and offfered for free online. Regardless of how passionate you are, you're still stepping on the toes of the official release.(distributing parts of the official product that you have no right to)

These fanmade Pokemon games and Pokemon Essentials offer the sprites from Gamefreak's games.

I wish Nintendo was nicer to their creative fan communities. This is just sad.

11 years of ideas that will probably show up in upcoming games.

This was an RPG Maker asset pack distributing tons of copyrighted material. Utilizing a protected trademark name as well.

Of course Nintendo can't allow that.

@BladedKnight
This is a very different situation from a Halo film.
When you have watched an in-engine recorded machinima from Halo, you're not afterwards in posession of actual Halo graphical assets and combat algorithms ripped straight from the game.

Nintendo fans produce more fan material than any other video game IP holder's user demographic, and the vast majority of it is not something Nintendo takes issue with.

But widely and massively distributing their actual game content for free? They HAVE to crack down on that.

@BladedKnight
Not to butt in here and cause a scene, but this is not a question of respect.

Fans can make fan things all day long as long as they are not in direct copyright or trademark violation. And Pokémon Essentials checked both boxes, and eventually had to go.

I always wondered why Nintendo never took this down. Maybe they didn't care back then but now they do. That new Pokemon is coming up then.

I wonder...Pokemon Maker? That from the peeps at Nintendo would be like the greatest thing ever. I guess it would be Pokemon Project.

@BladedKnight
But this is not what we were talking about.
Microsoft greenlighting a Halo fan game doesn't mean Nintendo are on the opposite end of some spectrum.

I have personally had a Nintendo fan game taken down (by GameJolt, on polite request from Nintendo) where I thought the reasoning was a little thin, but this is a far cry from being a "witch hunt".

And making a fan game with actual copyrighted assets ripped from a Pokémon game, and making a Halo fan game with "similar assets" to the original ones are quite different situations.

All the legal experts are out and the Nintendo protecting its profit brigade.

11 years and they haven’t cared.

These few months have been a PR disaster.

@Stocksy
For who?

While Nintendo is in legal right to do this why bother? It's not like the small community of fans using this are selling their fangames or anything. If anything it just shows that Nintendo is as soulless as Sony and Microsoft.

People fail to understand that Nintendo has to do this to keep the copyright to their IPs since Japanese law is different compared to the laws overseas

@CCore28
This isn't a stupid move, though.
And doesn't need defending in the first place, as there is nothing anyone can do about it.

@Tsu They were making money off of the IP regardless by using a website to advertise it. All of their ads were paying for that website and anything else they wanted to use the money for. Not to mention they were using copyrighted assets, characters and concepts. They should have named the tool something else and used fanmade mons

@KingdomHeartsFan pirates or not, profit or none, they (we!) don't own the copyright.

Is it the same as someone making fan art of an existing IP? Yes and no. The fan art is your work (that infringes on existing IP). The sprites are the actual ones taken from the game. Which is unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

In the situation of fan art, the copyright owner can choose to issue a C&D to the fan artist just the same.

Why does this NOT happen a lot in comics conventions? There is something called an implied license, in that the main company is not actively suing fan artists for the sake of growing the community. (e.g. Marvel not suing people who make fan art) But when they do send out a C&D, it must be followed.

Would Nintendo benefit from fostering a fan community? Definitely. Are they at fault by pursuing legal actions? Definitely not.

@Tsu
If their assets are continuously given away for free with their knowledge, they will eventually face difficulties in defending in a courtroom why these assets ought to cost money in the first place.

It's the same reason they have to crack down on ROM distribution, even when nobody is profiting from it.

It's like when Microsoft "took down" Halo Online, or when Atlus "took down" Persona 5 on RPCS3, they didn't, all they're doing is preventing the owners from hosting the files on their site or mentioning it on their site. But as always, there will still be multiple other ways to obtain the files online, just as there is with roms.

Gotta catch em all.

@CptProtonX lol it was essential. And on that note of their douchebaggery I will play Nexomon and have more fun. Surprised people didn't get tired of getting badges, though I liked Pokemon ranger: guardian signs as a text heavy change of pace to draw circles like John Madden.

@Knuckles-Fajita That's not entirely true. TPC mainly handles marketing and licensing. Pokemon itself is owned by both TPC and Nintendo in ways. Nintendo owns the trademark for the logo for example, they own all the names of the characters too. TPC on the other hand has ownership over the designs of the characters. One could ask whether that actually makes a difference considering Nintendo also owns a third of TPC, along with GameFreak and Creatures, but they also have shares in GameFreak, and they own a big, if not the biggest, part of Creatures. TPC is effectively a daughter company of Nintendo that is allowed to act own its own, but which is technically mostly owned by Nintendo. It's not as black-and-white as people want it to be, but I don't see why Nintendo wouldn't step in in this case. Not surprised if it was TPC though. It doesn't really matter for them I think.

The simple fact is that Pokemon Essentials used copyrighted assets. Thus, Nintendo/TPC has every legal right to issue a takedown notice. Yes, some fan games may be arguably better than some newer mainline entries (though this is up to opinion), but when one has no right to those ripped assets to begin with....

@Uzukage lol I'm waiting for the justification of that poor switch subscription and no virtual console remakes like HeartGold/FireRed. Not paying $10 for an old original when remakes can be gotten easier online.

I was wondering how long this would take to reach 100 comments. I'm unimpressed.

@MrVariant I really don't care if they charge money for it. It will help them update their servers etc when their subscribers pay $20 (not 10)

Just because you don't want to pay for it won't stop others from doing so

@Pod Nintendo. Whilst there are the usual Nintendo defenders and I love Nintendo- why after all these years makes these moves now? It’s hurting their image in the gaming circles for sure - even if they have every right to do it.

Why the hell is EVERYONE getting ANGRY at NINTENDO for PROTECTING SOMETHING THEY OWN!

MAKING A GAME THAT LOOKS SOMEWHAT EXACTLY LIKE A NORMAL NINTENDO GAME AND STEALS NINTENDO'S CHARACTERS / TRADEMARKS IS NOT OKAY. IN. NO. WAY.

If they wanted to spend 11 years on making a game, they should have spent some time on creating a NEW idea / IP and then release it on whichever platform they wanted to. They could even ask NINTENDO to help them achieve this.

Nintendo did the ONLY thing that would legally protect their IP and games. Because if they'd allowed this project to remain they would create a precedent that other pirates could use against them.

@Yorumi I've read about 70% of the comments here, and I've read about 80% of the comments of similar topics over the last few year.

And it's always the same.
"Company { insert name of company } is EVIL for stopping a { usually free } fan game / story / movie / etc from existing."

And this is ALWAYS legally incorrect.

If, for instance, you bake a cake. And your neighbor enters your house makes a picture of your cake and starts to recreate it with every single detail and say that they thought of baking your cake. How would you feel?

Now I for one, want some cake right now.
And so does Nintendo.

@CCore28 I agree the cake analogy sucks. That's my point actually.

I hate when Nintendo is doing it

Can't have fans making their own fun Pokemon games for others to enjoy. God forbid if they're good enough, GameFreak will actually have to put effort into a Pokemon game like they did last time in 2012.

@Stocksy
While I generally disagree that it is a "PR disaster" for Nintendo to upset a few fan game makers that are sufficiently incapable with programming as to use RPG Maker, and suffeciently incapable with art creation as to use assets ripped straight from the source of inspiration, let's talk instead about the "why now?" question.

There may be a number of reasons why they make the move now.

This first one is somewhat implausible: That they haven't previously known about it. This here second one is somewhat unlikely too: That the asset pack had only recently reached a critical threshhold of distribution and public awareness as to be deemed dangerous to their IP rights.

A third idea, that I might find I subscribe to, relates to the second reason mentioned. Nintendo are about to release a major Pokémon product that aims to bring in a big crowd of previous GO-only players to the "proper" Pokémon games (let's not mince words on how proper the Let's Go games are).
If these new players go online and catch on to the news that Nintendo assets are freely distributed, that is the idea they will get of the brand. That it's up for grabs for anyone, and not strictly Nintendo's property. Like the people starting Kickstarter campaigns for making a Pokémon MMO without holding the rights or thinking it'd be an issue to get them. The new kids might think it was fine for the Chinese to sell them bizarrely edited Pokémon games on Android.

Nintendo's doing a sweep beforehand, and preferably a few months in advance of the release, so that not even the most upset people on Nintendo Life will be talking about it anymore when the games arrive.

This happened in preparation for the Switch and Mario Odyssey as well.

@shoeses
They totally can make their own games though. They just can't use Nintendo's assets. Or brand their games "Pokémon".

There has been a metric ton of award winning Metroid-likes coming out these past five years. They just weren't called "Metroid." Though some people wanted to make it sound like Nintendo felt threatened when they shot down the one game that did borrow a little to heavily.

Can Nintendo just set up a program for people who want to make fan-made games featuring their I.P.s and work something out? I feel like that would be a better use of their resources rather than dialing their legal team to issue take down notices.

They are within their right but is it really the best thing to do? Sonic Mania and Street Fighter X Mega-Man were developed by people who made fan-games and Sega and Capcom gladly published their games.

Edit: Well, I guess Nintendo might get overwhelmed by the number of people who want to make these games and with all the elements plot and gameplay wise they would introduce in their games but there is probably some way to deal with that.

@TeslaChippie Nintendo own the Pokemon brand.

I love the people defending this. How far will it go before you realize that it's ridiculous.

Technically this site uses IP from Nintendo, lots of usernames here use IP from Nintendo and your avatars use IP from Nintendo and other sources. I don't see any of you demanding someone change their banner FROM Mario.

I don't see anyone pointing out that this very site profits off of IP that doesn't belong to it. Why? Because you all know how ridiculous it is to claim this. There is no profit being lost here. This isn't piracy.

This is attacking fans and it is sad that a company that only exists because those people pay for it is behaving this way.

@Elvie
That program sort of exists. It consists of calling Nintendo, setting a meeting, and showing them your prototype that uses their IP, to propose working together.

For fan games you put in public circulation on the internet, you still can get away with a certain amount of things using Nintendo IP. You just need to be slightly more clever than outright stealing their assets and protected brands.

@saintayu
Do you want the full version of why it's somewhat more complicated than you make it sound like?

@Zuljaras I thought that would be brought up would mention after I used the word ''program''.

@Pod

It is that simple. No one was using this to make money. Just because you want to claim some moral or legal standing doesn't make this any more complicated for me.

Laws change, and so do morals. Going after piracy is one thing but going after fans is never right. Pokémon was losing no money because of that. In fact, it could be argued that it would help keep people interested in the games longer.

And that's it. I don't care if they have the legal high ground as laws don't exist in a vacuum separate from behavior. Plenty of perfectly legal things have blown up in companies faces before.

I'm aware of where the law stands but up to now I wasn't aware of how far Nintendo was going to go to harass its own fan base.

@Syrek24 actually there have been lots of studies done in the last few years that actually suggest that people who pirate videogames spend more money on games then people that dont pirate...

And I really don' t think you understand anything about these communities. We are talking about people spending months or even years building their own pokemon games and then putting it online for free for other fans to enjoy.
They arent getting money for it, they aren' t getting any fame outside of that community.
There is zero reason to spend so much time on building tour own pokemon games unless you are really passionate about pokemon.

@saintayu
Nobody is being harassed.

I am so disappointed of Nintendo! I could have downloaded this On my Mac (I'd install Windows if it's not available for MacOS) but with this? I am so disappointed!

@Pod So what makes the distinction between a legal fan-game featuring these properties and a fan-game that is intrudes upon protected assets and brands? I guess I mean like examples and specifications.

@Pod I would say that threatening with CADs and lawsuits can be a form of harassment.

Especially when these people aren't making money and probably can't afford to have legal consul.

If I was Nintendo I would the same thing. I want MY work to belong to ME. I want to only be me that gets money from what I created.

@Elvie
Fair question.
The first distinction is obvious; The act itself of intruding upon protected assets and brands. When you put out a fan game using the Pokémon logo proudly, that's intruding on a registered trademark. Unless you can reason why you should be allowed to do this, you shouldn't.
When you put out a fan game that uses artwork taken directly from the source data of a previously released Pokémon game, you're in direct violation of copyright laws.

Now, if you were to draw something yourself that LOOKED like something from Pokémon, without being destinguishable as one of their brand characters, and had a name that referenced commonly known concepts from the pokémon universe, you're in a completely different situation already.

If you were then to refrain from using the extracted battle algorithms from an existing pokémon game, but create something on your own that was reminiscent, then you're also in the clear on that front.

Aside from not stealing, it also helps if there's a fair amount of distance put between your end product and the source material in general functional aspects. Some thought and creativity of your own. Nintendo rarely cracks down on fan art. Because they're not making their money on selling individual drawings of Link. They make their money on selling games, so they are extra special "mean" to people that would blindly copy an experience they have designed and give it away for free.

A good fan project is a creative fan project. That said, Nintendo's been taking down games for relatively small similarities to their games. So my suggestion to fans will always be to make their own universe and story. Their game could be very similar to Pokémon then, without that being a problem, and they could even charge money for it down the line, should it eventually amount to something bigger.

My final notes on this is that Nintendo doesn't give a toss what you sit around and do at home. You can do as many crazy ROM-hacks as you feel like. They're not trying to stop people from learning, experimenting, or being creative.

@saintayu
Well I would say it isn't a form of harrassment. Calling them and being angry and unreasonable about it on the phone for three weeks straight would be a form of harrassment.

Sending them a copyright notice that their asset pack is infringing on Nintendo's rights, and that they should probably remove it is close to being the nicest way you could possibly do it.

They could also have called and arranged for a business meeting at a teahouse, and sent out a rep to look sad about having to tell them that they need to take down the asset pack. That'd be nicer, sure. But I hope you get the picture here.

@Pod so it's my turn now? OK so it's more like you were dating someone for 10 years and you never bothered to break up with them and one day you served them with legal documents instead of talking to them first?

I'm not saying that that is what happened here but I am saying that Nintendo has just suddenly decided to do this and other companies, Saga comes to mind, actually support their fandoms making games.

So yeah I hope you get the point which is that yes Nintendo had every right to do but that doesn't make it a good decision or anything like common sense.

@PanurgeJr you apparently dont understand fan sites.

I could care less about Pokemon, but this is kind of sad.

@saintayu
Fan games are one thing. I know SEGA are more supportive. They're cool in that regards, even if they're uncool (or way past cool even) in so many others.

This specific case is not about fan games. It's about the destribution of a pack of Nintendo's original game artwork, clearly branded "Pokémon," for use with a very popular game engine that will soon be arriving on Switch.

This is a basic copyright claim case of putting the foot down when the kid with the scissors is getting close to the stairs. With RPG Maker and Pokémon Let's Go soon arriving on Switch, Nintendo can no longer allow their original assets to be freely distributed among creators, and subsequently be spammed en-messe via RPG Maker's forums, that the Switch version will be able to access.

People can draw their own art, use what is provided in RPG Maker, or use bunches of other stuff that isn't taken without permission.

"and others believing that Nintendo has every right to protect its property in all situations"

Pretty sure they have every LEGAL right to. That ought to suffice to close the topic even if we don't give a damn for their multiple other rights to.

@NIN10DOXD a most appropriate treatment, considering what all of us fans are to begin but C&Ds have nothing to do with. Take it from someone who knows what real crap treatment of fans looks like - that's the only way I treat them myself, after all.

@Yorumi "A game like pokemon just doesn't work. People don't really care, so to a large degree you can't really make your own unique project like pokemon."

That sounds like an odd statement, considering everything that Pokemon and its core "collecting and raising a crowd of battle units" concept, while not even exactly new back in the day, has inspired after arguably helping flesh out and popularize said concept. To this day, spinoffs like World of Final Fantasy and numerous mobile RPGs happen and find their audiences.

@nhSnork just because something is legal doesn't make it right. That argument cracks me up because loads of things have been legal up to and including genocide and people still act like something being legal is some sort of defense.

@Pod they have been doing the same thing to fangames. It's even mentioned in the article right there. I'm speaking in a general sense and not just of this specific case.

Also I seriously doubt it has anything to do with Pokémon considering that's been out for ages and if they are really just attacking fans because rpg maker is coming to Switch then that just means they can no longer make better pokemon games then fans which is sad in my pov.

Of course since it's Nintendo they probably downloaded it first and will resale it as is with the RPG maker Switch.

I used to love this company but anymore it seems they've become as bad as some of the others.

Also if Nintendo is making good Pokémon games as I said that they have nothing to fear from inferior small group projects and they wouldn't take money from them.

@Yorumi

I get what you are saying here.
But I don't really see any of the things you mention as crushing fans. Nintendo has a LOT of fans. And many of them make great creative projects that Nintendo even point to on their social network channels on occasions. Carved pumpkins, weddings cakes, interior decoration, all sorts of things.
They love all of it. Except the redistribution of their copyrighted material, and false representation of their brands.

For sure if Nintendo let people make Pokémon games, and call them Pokémon, and use their assets, it would take away sales. If you were allowed to give something called Pokémon away on iOS just because you didn't earn any money, people would think they didn't have to buy Nintendo's own devices. Not only that, it would harm the integrity of the brand if people made bad games.

If I gave away an infinite amount of bottles of my urine with Worcester sauce added for coloring, and branded it Coca-Cola, you better believe I'd be told to stop it, nomatter how big a fan I was.

If only they showed this much effort towards things that matter, like their online service and VC Catalog....

@saintayu
Man, you need to take a chill pill.
There are no "attacks" on anyone.

If you're trying to reference Nintendo taking down AM2R as a reason for them being scared of underperforming in comparison to fangames, and pointing to Nintendo utilizing a ROM with the ripper's tag on it as an accusation that they would steal the work of fans, then I don't know what to tell you.

Fans can't just take something of Nintendo's and give it away for free, and then go "BUT I'M SUCH A BIG FAN!" when being told to stop. Be more creative.

@saintayu as a Belarusian, I need not be enlightened on something like legalized wrongdoing. XD But like I said above, Nintendo doing this is right in many other ways; the legal facet is just a welcome extra guarantee that our fanship-induced rage against it shall remain largely and properly toothless.

@saintayu
"that just means they can no longer make better pokemon games then fans which is sad in my pov."

That's just nonsense. If these people could make better Pokemon games than gamefreak. Then they would not need to use Gamefreak's assets to do so and this news article would not exist.

@Pod I am chill. I haven't said anything that isn't true and I am not the only one who feels this way either. Not even the only in this comment thread.

Calling me unchill doesn't somehow make your opinion the only correct one.

@Dr_Lugae that's the point isn't it? So claiming that because pokemon let's go is coming out on the Switch as a reason for Nintendo to suddenly pull this after a decade is foolish and you would agree right?

@saintayu
You're talking about people being harrassed and attacked. That didn't sound particularly chill. My bad.
I'm not here to combat you.

In response to your point about Let's Go not being relevant because the asset pack is old, please consider that Let's Go plays into the other aspects mentioned, among them being RPG Makers arrival on Switch, and that engine's growing popularity in general. This has overlapping implications because Let's Go is suspected to draw in a huge amount of new players to the core Pokémon experience.
The 6-8 age range have been fed Pokémon GO for years, and Nintendo needs to be strict with how they come to see the brand going forwards. "Pokémon" needs to be something they see on quality products made by Nintendo & Friends. It's the squeaky-clean Mickey Mouse way of doing it.

While a lot of this is my (somewhat educated) conjecture, dismissing it altogether would mean you subscribe to the idea that Nintendo is doing it for no reason at all, other than to be bullies.

A few years back, a similar sweep of Mario related material happened in the preparation for Odyssey. Make of that what you will. You might think Nintendo are being mean, and you're fully entitled to that opinion. Actively looking to discredit any reasoning they might have for acting the way they do, is counterproductive to understanding what is happening, however.

Now, I really never meant to upset you.
You have some very valid concerns. Please have a good evening.

@saintayu No one should have to compete against people illegally using their own content. Even for attention.

I think the asset use is reason enough in itself. It wouldn't matter whether a pokemon game was or wasn't coming out this year.

@BladedKnight But most companies do sue when their trademarked assets are used in fan works that are being distributed beyond their creators' immediate circle. There are a number of cases of this. Look up Prelude to Axanar for an example of a Star Trek fan film that got stomped hard by Paramount. Margaret Mitchell's estate has successfully sued people who wrote unauthorized sequels to Gone with the Wind, and JD Salinger sued a person who wrote a sequel to Catcher in the Rye. JK Rowling shut down a fan-written encyclopedia of the Harry Potter universe (an encyclopedia that, according to rumor, was so good Rowling herself allegedly used it as a reference). People have the right to protect their IPs from copycats, both legally and morally. You can't assume that just because you are a superfan you have the right to do whatever you want with another person's creation.

I love Pokemon and Pokemon fan games. But Nintendo has every right to control their own IP. I wish they'd be more open to fan projects, but I understand why they aren't.

This is the problem: "included full sprites, music, tilesets and more from the real games which"

You can't just take other people's stuff like that for your own stuff without permission. Most companies ignore it at the small scale, like copying a CD to give to your friend. But when you copy that CD 1.5 million times and give it away, changing the order of the songs and maybe adding a few, it's still gonna hurt the original artist.

Something I am getting so sick and tired of people conflating in here.

Law and Morality. Those two are very separate things. Just because a law is what it is does not make it moral. It is Nintendo's legal right to control their IP the way they do, but that doesn't make their actions morally right.

Using the actual assets from the games was indeed stupid.

-and before anyone says that stuff like this actually hurts Nintendo... Show some proof. You're proclaiming something and refusing to back it up. Which I am guessing is because you straight up can't, cause you know you can't.

Quashing fan-creations, even if they use your actual assets, will only generate ill-will, and anyone who honestly believes like Syrek42 does, you're a bunch of loons. Just like that Razer fool.

@MegaVel91 Do you think it is morally right to rip assets from a game and repackage them as something completely new? I'm fine with fan mods using the original games, that is fine. Nintendo has made it clear that this sort of thing isn't something they want. They don't people to make Pokémon games that are reusing assets. These assets are copyrighted, and aren't even considered fair use being used in this way.

Edit: Also does this wiki have ads? If it does then Nintendo did the right thing in taking it down.

@Pod But at that point it's not a fan game, it's just a blatant rip-off. And yes, there is a difference between fan games & rip-off games.

My opinion is the same as it has always been. Fan games are fine, but when you flat out rip assets from their games, and put Pokemon in the name, you're asking for it.

They're obligated to defend their intellectual property, because not doing so could cause issues later when defending it against more serious infringement.

There's a relatively easy way to avoid the stress; use your own assets and/or, at the very least, don't put real pokemon in your game or title. You can even advertise it as a game inspired by pokemon and maybe even legally SELL it. Legitimate indie developers do this all the time. Some fan games even grow to be their own thing.

Okay I'm deleting that comment now. I've had enough.

@Smash_kirby
Nope, the WRONG thing.

Talk about desperately trying to distract from the elephant in the room...

@Rob3008 The problem is Nintendo has been caught over and over again manipulating stock to increase demand, selling roms downloaded off of emulation sites, flagging YouTube reviews and walkthroughs, etc.

@Uzukage you completely misread what I said: the old Pokemon games are $10 when i could get remakes for around the same price, which Nintendo will not make available digitally, while shutting down roms which is financial suicide in my opinion. Why would I stop people like you from supporting bad ideas? I have better games to play than resort to censorship and money may be no object to you.

Can't really blame Nintendo at all. It appears that a lot people either don't understand copyright, or think it's some small thing. It doesn't matter how big you a fan you are of something or how much you disagree with the law itself.

Put yourself in Nintendo's shoes..Say you and a group of friends made a game with your own assets, art etc. Would you like it if another indie developer swiped your assets and used them in their own game? Or made a fan game using your property and taking credit for it?

@Uzukage did you play Nexomon? I had a lotta fun honestly, and enjoy the plot over repetitive gym/gang (team for the kids) busting. It won't be taken down for copyright infringement. Point is, I'm not going to pay Nintendo to rip me off.

Why would I pay for virtual consoles for super Mario Bros 1-3 and world when super Mario all stars + world has them all and costs less at $15 on eBay? Super Mario run was done well, but if it sucked, I would've just said to play Suzy cube instead.

At least they did a better job with game diversity as opposed to the neo geo mini which might as well be called king of fighters mini with 7 king of fighters games on international and 10 on Japan. I bought their official humble bundle for far less as well and got more diverse games.

I'm just upset when people want to say I support piracy on affordable platforms. Movies these days are $5-$8 with memberships/matinee, and rentable online for the most part; I don't even know how the bootleggers still profit. Same with comixology unlimited $6 and all the comics sales.

I'm glad Nintendo picked up on the sale bandwagon last year, and has Nintendo selects for people who know nothing about games to get quality 3ds/Wii U games for their grand/children, at an affordable $20. When will that occur on the switch?

@KryptoniteKrunch
+1, Exactly!!

Well, Some people understand that by supporting a company we already have the right to "make" their products as we want, regardless of whether they are on the good way or not; but it is not like that, sadly we must accept that it is not like that.

To begin, and speaking of Nintendo, we must understand that Nintendo pays millions and millions just to maintain the rights of its IPs, even if they do not use it, they must pay a huge amount of money.
this last really sounds ironic when we have seen that many of these franchises have not been used for years and have not generated even a penny, and even so, Nintendo spend for those franchises to maintain and use at some time without problems.

So at this point is why Nintendo is very overprotective with their franchises, and of course, is not the only, all companies should take care of their products unless they are free, for the public and that means no control over the products of those free franchises, does anyone really want a free product to the public and without any control?

""Nintendo is bad with the fans, that's why it does not support the Fan games!!"" Well, we can see this in 2 perspectives (fans and company), but there is one more, the legal one; and is that, if Nintendo is bad for not supporting the "fanbase" (as some here say very exaggeratedly), do you think there is no "fanbase" that can do serious damage to Nintendo, including making him lose the rights of a franchise?; ok, well, some exxaggerated, but true.
Nintendo can not afford to hurt its franchise by losing control, and it is something that is very difficult today.

Yes, I have seen great works in some fan games, as well as fan arts and fan fics that I really adore them, but, we have to accept that everything is based on some franchise, in this case, from Nintendo and we have to accept that if they do not want, well..., the best thing is to accept it and try to dialogue with them, the dialogue is something that we should try, not be annoying, angry or that we are to the negative, very probably dialoguing we can allow more opening for the aforementioned, but you just have to try and wait.

But, oh well, This is my opinion and I still want to add more, but I think I already gave my point of view, but well, continue with this "discussion"

@Smash_kirby You're asking a loaded question to try to debase my argument. Since you apparently missed it entirely in my comment.

I already said that they used ripped assets was stupid. That was a dumb choice.

That does not however change the fact that Nintendo has done some egregious and morally questionable takedowns in the past few years.

Again. Law =/= Moral.

Using extreme examples, Segregation and Slavery. They were legal in the past, but anyone with a brain cell in their head knows they sure as hell weren't moral. They are the epitome of the fact that the law is not equatable to morality.

Yet a lot of people around here act like it is, without even questioning whether Nintendo taking down this creative tool was even actually necessary, especially after it's been on the internet for 11 years uninterrupted until now.

It just seems more like Nintendo trying scare tactics more than anything else by being hyper-aggressive about it's IP.

@Trajan You're right, I don't understand fan sites. Fan sites believe they're entitled to copyright infringement, and I don't understand how they can believe that. I don't understand them at all.

@MegaVel91 LOL calling protecting copyright immoral. Even if you don't view copyright infringement as theft, under no circumstances can it be called moral.

@MegaVel91 Also, the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming copyright infringement doesn't harm the rights holder. It is precisely the presumption that it does that forms the basis of copyright. Nobody reminding you of that fact is under any burden to prove anything.

@PanurgeJr no

@MegaVel91 The website that was hosting info and linking the resources was ad-funded. They were making money off of property they didn't own. What is immoral is to claim that Nintendo shouldn't be stopping people from making bad Pokémon games with official assets. When you do that people can associate it with Nintendo. There were ads for Pokémon MMOs and Pokémon Online in rotating ads on game sites. They were using official content from Nintendo to advertise a fake game.

My only issues with Pokémon Uranium was the fact they used Pokémon that were in official games.

@PanurgeJr At what point did I call protecting copyright immoral? I didn't, nor did I ever say or imply copyright infringement was moral either. Good job trying to throw a strawman. You failed.

They ripped the assets. That was dumb. End of story.

That doesn't change the fact that law =/= morality. Nintendo is within their legal right to protect their IP. What's questionable is the morality by which they're doing this, for what reason.

This particular tool was left alone for 11 years and Nintendo did nothing about it until now, why exactly?

-and yes, the burden of proof is on you who claim it harms them. Cause from the perspective of anyone besides people like yourself, apparently, the harms of tool such was this are completely imagined and not based in any kind of reality.

How exactly are Nintendo and co. losing sales to this tool that has been on the internet for 11 long years without incident? Is the impact really large enough to warrant such hyper-aggressive enforcement? The sales numbers of the Pokemon games suggest that isn't the case, which still sell well into the millions with every installment on the mainline side.

So yes, the burden of proof is on people like you who claim the harm exists just because the infringement is happening. Cause reality doesn't agree with your assertions at this point.

@Smash_kirby Calling them bad is pretty presumptuous, but I see your point.

@shoeses
There is a difference? Is the difference that Nintendo are supposed to accept it and think it's cute and flattering when fangames are creatively bankrupt copies of their products, because somehow it makes it better when they also break the law?

Will Nintendo go after Goldfinger 64 and Super Trump 64 next?

Fan made games do not harm or steal anything from a company.

@MegaVel91 the internet is a lot less free now than it was 11 years ago.

@Yorumi
I'm with you on Nintendo probably being able to offer some fun game creation tools without much effort or hurt. They've done a couple things like that. Wario Ware DIY was something I enjoyed immensely.

In this discussion, we're mostly dealing with Nintendo not wanting anyone, whether they claim to be fans or not, going around and misrepresenting their brands or distributing their art assets.

It doesn't really make a difference that the 2D Pokémon games are old. Disney wouldn't allow fans to upload re-cut versions of Snow White or Pinocchio with a few drawings of their own added every five minutes either. Even if they don't make their films that way anymore.

Can I prod your statement that Nintendo "will come after you" if you do what they do, in regards to sharing stuff? Has Nintendo ever come after anyone for retweeting something they posted? Have they ever come after anyone for posting a photo from their childhood where they are posing with Donkey Kong?

They come after people they perceive to be stealing their assets or damaging their intellectual property. I've always had a lot of fun with level creators, from Settlers to Heroes of Might and Magic to Starcraft, and I understand why people are sad that Nintendo typically never give players these kinds of tools, but that does not justify fans (or bootleggers) in just taking what they want themselves. Not even from the standpoint that fan games are a form of flattery and creative outlet that ought to be respected.

They are. But only to a certain extent.

The last thing you mention is that it wouldn't hurt Nintendo to let people share videos on their games. I disagree. If people could watch let's plays of Earthbound in its entirety on Youtube, I find it very likely it would hurt Virtual Console sales. I know a lot of people talking about having "watched" a game on Youtube instead of playing it. Perhaps even while they were playing something else. Does this behavior in reality foster more sales than it takes away? In some instances it's very likely. But that's entirely besides the point of whether Nintendo has a fair case in saying that they won't allow it, and that such videos should be removed.

Conversely, James Rolfe's AVGN video on Earthbound features over 20 minutes of footage from Earthbound, and Nintendo is not asking him to take it down. Because it's not the actual game experience on display. And because James knows how to comply with Fair Use agreements.

I adore spectacular fan creations, but a proper fan respects the rights and wishes of the entity they make a claim to be fans of, and they educate themselves on how they can legally make what they want.

@MegaVel91 I think people just conflate Pokemon AND/OR Nintendo selling well(Pokemon being the biggest Franchise in all of media ahead of Hello Kitty) with nothing impacting them. You
can still be #1 and not do as well as you deserve to be doing.

In Pokemon's case take Pokemon Jade and Diamond the bootleg games. They came out in
the Peak of Pokémon and offered an alternative, although Pokemon still was in height of its popularity performance these bootlegs will have dampened the figures a little,. When really the only
series that should be allowed to do that is legally competing ones (Digimon, Monster Rancher, Telefang, Robopon) and I think anyone could understand cracking down on bootlegs even when the
franchise was selling 20 - 30 million per game.

These fangames are the same as bootlegs. As they offer an illegal alternative to actually even owning a Nintendo platform to play the Pokemon games. In Pokemon Uranium's case they actually had a patreon page specifically for the game until it was taken down, they didn't get much but they essentially requested payment and received for Gamefreak's assets.

Funny that this happens while SAGE is in full swing (Sonic Amatures Game Expo) where passionate Sonic fans share their work.

It is funny how all those free 2D-Sonic hacks and fangames didn't harm Manias success at all.

It might be shocking to some but fan creations aren't bad for your IP at all.

Essentials is a version of RPGMaker XP. You can change any and all graphics and music so you aren't using any of Nintendo or Gamefreak's assets. Most people don't though. When will people learn that you cannot take something that belongs to someone and use it for your own ends.

@Lord_X When was the last successful Sonic game from SEGA?

@Lord_X
This might also be shocking to you, but not all IP has the same properties and restrictions, not all games are sold to the same audiences under the same circumstances, and I find it unlikely that you should have access to any of the numbers that your final assessment really ought to be based on, for it to have much merit.

Pokémon games are played for many many more hours than a Sonic game. And Pokémon games earn A LOT more money than Sonic games do. A brief stint of a Sonic fangame is unlikely to take time away from a player that would like to also play what SEGA themselves are putting out. But likewise, I don't have the numbers, and I'm not privy to Nintendo's internal reasoning.

At the end, this article is not about Nintendo removing Pokémon fan games. It's about Nintendo stopping the distribution of their copyrighted assets.

@Lord_X
Checking out SAGE 2018 though, I must say this looks like a really fun gathering! And it does happen to sport quite a few Nintendo fan games as well.

I can't believe that people are still arguing that Nintendo loses money from this. It doesn't.

Also bootlegs are sold and therefore are making profit and are completely different than free fan games. Also as someone who has played Pokémon bootlegs they are not nearly as good as the original game.

If you want to argue it's illegal fine but just do that and don't invent reasons for them to do this that make no sense at all. Or keep doing so so we can all laugh at the idea.

@Dr_Lugae That just seems more like an "enough is never enough" mentality.

Also putting fan games on the same level as bootlegs is insulting and outright foolish. You're basically saying these fangames are looking to fool audiences in order to make a profit. That by and large is untrue and while Pokemon Uranium did try to profit off of it and Nintendo's official assets, it's the exception, and not the norm.

@Spectra
This really is a case of "Please do not have fun our way!" though.

@Pod I'm wondering how do games like Super Mario Flash get away with this. Is it because they are built from scratch or is it because Nintendo doesn't think of it as any kibd of threat on their brands?

@Yorumi
When "being a fan" becomes a source of income, where you mooch off the popularity of someone else's creation, people are not just having some fun. Nintendo aren't asking people to give up the rights to their videos, but to give up the ad revenue that YouTube would otherwise give them. Which I think is fair.
Whether or not let's plays harm sales is not something we have numbers on, but it isn't compliant with fair use, and that some studios tolerate people earning money off this kind of shtick doesn't mean Nintendo ought to.

Nintendo has to complay with fair use agreements by law, but if they ask YouTube, GamJolt, or other big hosting sites to remove something they don't like, these sites do it without asking questions because they don't want trouble. Nintendo will push the pushovers as far as they go, but people do host an enormous amount of fan games and videos on their own sites without Nintendo really being able to do much about it.

In this specific case with Pokémon Essentials they would and could do something about it. And I personally think they should, too.

But, for instance, the game @Elvie is mentioning. It's the kind of game that straight up uses Mario All-Stars assets, and Nintendo would probably have it removed if they could. But it really ain't easy when the creator can easily move the game to new server every time they get a notice from Nintendo. Many people that host fan games but don't have ads on their site simply ignore Nintendo's prods because they know it'd take an eternity and not be worth it to prosecute.

On a brighter note, people are fully allowed to have some fun as long as they're not distributing their fun to the entire world indiscriminately, when said fun borders on bootlegging and contains stolen assets. Toying with stuff at home, or even meeting up at a fan game festivals and showing your projects to eachother is not something Nintendo has ever shown intentions of putting a stop to.

@MegaVel91 THANK YOU! finally someone in this site that isn't just a company boot licker acting like just because it's "in the law" Nintendo can act like a mad tyran putting down everything in the internet and never be criticized for it, and the most pathetic is seeing people actually acting like some 11 year old fangame is potentially "hurting" Pokemon sales lmao.

Seeing so many people cheering over any company making internet less free is depressing...

Does anyone think that companies shutting down fan-games is remotely comparable to something like authors taking down fan-fiction?

@Pod Going to point out that your "a proper fan" statement is just nothing more than the "No True Scotsman" argument in disguise. You don't need to jump through all those hoops to be a "proper fan" of something. There's no such thing.

@Pod Wow, you're a special kind of unlikable, you know that? Regardless, the key difference is that a fan game is made out of love for the franchise, and a rip-off is made specifically for money. Nintendo & their fanboys like you must be pretty god-damn petty if you're getting triggered over free fan-made games using old sprites they don't care about anymore.

In fact, by your logic, Nintendo should threaten to sue websites like DeviantArt for having illegal fan art of their characters, because the artists are using them without Nintendo's legal permission. Then again, you probably agree with that don't you?

@MegaVel91
Dude, I'm sorry if it comes out like I'm saying some people don't have a right to call themselves fans of Nintendo. That's not what I wanted to get at here.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't find it very fan-like to purposefully do something you're being asked not to by the people you're making a claim to be a fan of.
If you then afterwards also act as a victim, or make others look like victims without their asking (as here with Pokémon Essentials, where they are politely asking people to not cause a ruckus about this), then you're really not displaying much affinity.

If you think this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, then I can't fault you on that, but this is my opinion. I'm not claiming to be any particular kind of Nintendo fan, and I have a lot of issues with stuff Nintendo does. I think they're unambitious in the services they provide through their hardware, I think they're cheap with their manufacturing, I think they're cruel with their pricing and repair policies, and I too personally think they're being unreasonable when they ask GameJolt to remove an HTML5 prototype because the title contains a pun on one of their properties, and the 5x5 pixel sprites resemble their designs to a recognizable degree.

However, I'm not going to act like I think openly distributed fan games that flat out utilize unlicensed assets and brand themselves with trademarked logos are a kind of creative outlet that we should stand up for.
It's uneducated behavior, nomatter how enthusiastic and well-meaning. These people can still work on their games on their own time, and talk to their game creation buddies about it, after a take-down. But if they want to widely distribute them again, they are going to have to be a little more creative.

And most of them luckily realize this, and post that they appreciate the learning experiences they have had with making their games.

@Yorumi
Oh I'm with you there. Nintendo are too strict.

So strict it discourages some fans from looking up to them as creators in the first place.

What I'd like to see from Nintendo is that their legal team didn't just let webhosts and social sites do their dirty work. Often they just provide a host with an aggregate list of links to the offensive videos/games/pictures/assets, and press them to make sure it isn't distributed, lest they themselves as a server provider face prosecution. This means the creator on the floor, who receives notice from their host, can get any kind of bizarre, overly dramatic wording in their inbox.

If Nintendo took time to write the creators individually (or at least give the semblance of this), and be a little nice with them, explaining the situation, we might still see people be upset about their policies, but maybe be less upset about their ruthless execution of them.

Makers of fan content do also need to be aware that their host sites very rarely give a toss about looking out for their rights as creators. If Nintendo says "get rid of it," the host will typically get rid of it. Whether there really is legal basis or not. They won't gamble on legalities to help individual users.
Nintendo is squeezing the lemon too hard quite often, but someone you might think is your friend is commonly forced into being their accomplice in this.

@shoeses
I like you too, man.

I think it's a smitten presumptious to claim that Nintendo "don't care about" their old assets anymore. They 100% do. They're so in love with the idea of profiting off their backlog, they have re-marketed the original Super Mario Bros. for NES as a premium price product more than six times.
Think of this practice what you may. I think they might have overextended a bit. Personally I like that the Switch doesn't have a Virtual Console. The new developers get some breathing room on the digital store front.

Back to Nintendo's legal claims though. It's good you bring it up, as what I'm talking about does not include fan art. There's a canyon deep divide between IP rights and asset rights. How deep of a canyon depends on country, but I don't know of any place in the world that treats them the same. Fan art in general is cool. With the law, and with Nintendo. And with me. I draw Nitendo fan art myself on occasion.

What I -do- think Nintendo ought to start having a glance at is Patreon artists who draw paid commissions of copyrighted characters, and then after being paid by the initial client decide to also receive donations for providing high resolution files online, as well as offering made-to-order prints through services like Society 6 or RedBubble.

This kind of profiteering falls a fair couple feet outside of typical Fair Use guidelines, and is in the kind of legal grey zone where it's hard to crack down on, but easy to see that someone is basing their livelyhood on other people's creation, withouth paying a lick of royalties.

That's my two cents on that.

ok, I have always been partial to Nintendo systems, not just for the games, but for what Nintendo tries to bring to the table with the systems (not going into it), but Nintendo has a bad habit sometimes of not bringing (game wise) what the players want, when they want it, Prime 4 a good example, they KNEW it would be demanded from the begining and should've began making it the day they got the idea for "Project NX", instead of telling people they are just now making it (last year) but you may not see it until 2019,

I encourage fan-made continuations of games over clones usually, I have found way too many that ended up being better than the original, how I see it is, if they are not charging money, and giving proper credit for those who originally made the real game, it's not piracy, Nintendo (or other companies) should actually look at some of these peoples and their ideas and hire and/or make the game with credit to added content to the indie maker, don't knock these people down, USE THEM, give them the opportunity to be an asset to the company

@jhewitt3476

Much agreed. Showing "Prime 4" and then nothing for a year and a half is a joke.

This particular article is not about any talented fan creators being knocked down.

It's about a pack of stolen assets that was being distributed by a third party getting removed from the RPG Maker distribution channels.

@Pod prime 4 was announced to be under development. Then Nintendo decided they had to start all over with another developer because it wasn't up to standard. That was a couple months ago.

@Uzukage
Sure, I'm aware.
I'm happy the game is now being handled by skilled people, but I had also secretly hoped to see something entirely new come out from Retro Studios. Which might not happen now. :-/