@Ogbert "I'm saying people are being hypocritical because they know Grant Kirkhope's name so they're getting up in arms about him not being included but not caring at all about others."
That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be saying, "Oh, I think Nintendo should credit Kirkhope, but ONLY him. There's no need to credit [any of those other artists]". But I don't see anyone saying that. I think most people would say they should credit Kirkhope and everyone else whose contributions helped make the finished product. Crediting someone is polite and shows humility, it's an acknowledgement that your work builds on that of others. So, very much not Nintendo's style.
But people aren't required to devote equal time to campaigning for each individual excluded artist, by name, lest they be guilty of hypocrisy. If Kirkhope's tweet started this conversation, then that's already helped raise awareness of all those other artists who're being similarly excluded. And if Nintendo were to change the policy only for Kirkman, THEY would be the hypocrites, which is why they should correct this across the board. If that adds 300 names to a game's credits... so what? Again, credits cost nothing.
"Here's the fact: Grant Kirkhope didn't work on this game. He made that rap a long time ago for a different game for which he was credited at the time. Nintendo now own that rap, and do not need his permission to use it again, nor do they need to credit him if they don't feel it necessary."
They don't HAVE TO credit him, legally. Agreed. But that doesn't mean they don't "need to", at least if they don't want the fans distracted by conversations like this. But it's really about whether they "want to", and what it says that they don't.
As for Kirkhope not working on the game, well that's a matter of perspective, isn't it? If they're using lyrics, and possibly more, of his original composition, how is that not a contribution to the new game? Whoever performed the new version had to have words to rap, or they couldn't have recorded anything. The lyrics didn't just materialize out of thin air. And if "Nintendo owns them" is a reason not to credit the writer, them why even credit him originally? It was just as true that Nintendo owned them then.
@larryisaman Sadly, though, Nintendo not wanting to credit him probably is at least partly about not wanting to have to pay him. Or, at least, their lawyers not wanting to make any acknowledgements that could weaken their case if Grant or anyone else were to sue for compensation. (Personally I think they should both credit AND pay him, but we know they're legendary tightwads.)
Comments 4
Re: The DK Rap Is Back In Donkey Kong Bananza, But Nobody Told Its Composer
@Ogbert "I'm saying people are being hypocritical because they know Grant Kirkhope's name so they're getting up in arms about him not being included but not caring at all about others."
That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be saying, "Oh, I think Nintendo should credit Kirkhope, but ONLY him. There's no need to credit [any of those other artists]". But I don't see anyone saying that. I think most people would say they should credit Kirkhope and everyone else whose contributions helped make the finished product. Crediting someone is polite and shows humility, it's an acknowledgement that your work builds on that of others. So, very much not Nintendo's style.
But people aren't required to devote equal time to campaigning for each individual excluded artist, by name, lest they be guilty of hypocrisy. If Kirkhope's tweet started this conversation, then that's already helped raise awareness of all those other artists who're being similarly excluded. And if Nintendo were to change the policy only for Kirkman, THEY would be the hypocrites, which is why they should correct this across the board. If that adds 300 names to a game's credits... so what? Again, credits cost nothing.
"Here's the fact: Grant Kirkhope didn't work on this game. He made that rap a long time ago for a different game for which he was credited at the time. Nintendo now own that rap, and do not need his permission to use it again, nor do they need to credit him if they don't feel it necessary."
They don't HAVE TO credit him, legally. Agreed. But that doesn't mean they don't "need to", at least if they don't want the fans distracted by conversations like this. But it's really about whether they "want to", and what it says that they don't.
As for Kirkhope not working on the game, well that's a matter of perspective, isn't it? If they're using lyrics, and possibly more, of his original composition, how is that not a contribution to the new game? Whoever performed the new version had to have words to rap, or they couldn't have recorded anything. The lyrics didn't just materialize out of thin air. And if "Nintendo owns them" is a reason not to credit the writer, them why even credit him originally? It was just as true that Nintendo owned them then.
Re: The DK Rap Is Back In Donkey Kong Bananza, But Nobody Told Its Composer
@larryisaman Sadly, though, Nintendo not wanting to credit him probably is at least partly about not wanting to have to pay him. Or, at least, their lawyers not wanting to make any acknowledgements that could weaken their case if Grant or anyone else were to sue for compensation. (Personally I think they should both credit AND pay him, but we know they're legendary tightwads.)
Re: The DK Rap Is Back In Donkey Kong Bananza, But Nobody Told Its Composer
You only live once... but you only die twice.
Re: Nike Has Gone Bananas With These Donkey Kong Country-Inspired Trainers
"brown swede" mudguards? It's cool that they're from Sweden, but I wonder what they're made of?
Probably suede. I bet it's suede.