@lexleo I don’t know how many times people have to tell you the same thing: Any card that isn’t produced by Pokemon/Nintendo is counterfeit. This isn’t an opinion.
If you want to pedantically argue the degree or effect, feel free to keep bringing the fun to the party. The fact that a law isn’t enforced doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist. I can probably run all the stop signs on my way to hockey later, that doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist.
Not sure what the mention of ban is referring to, but I will nip that in the bud as well. No one is getting banned for owning or buying a custom/counterfeit card. Will people criticize this, absolutely. If someone was running an operation such as this, yes they will immediately be banned.
Where it gets a bit more muddled is when it comes to “custom” painted cards. We could have an actual conversation about that as it isn’t quite as clear. I feel an intelligent debate could occur where both sides could produce valid arguments to each position. What we have been discussing though is not a debate of any kind. The bulk of “custom” cards on eBay are illegal. This whole conversation is simply the majority of people such as myself, @smpratte, and @reinasierpe producing cold hard facts as to why it is illegal, and a very small minority either refusing/unable to believe/comprehend the truth or just trolling for the hell of it.
As to the “custom painted” cards I believe that would fall under fair use. (another term to google) In my opinion the artist is taking a TPCi produced item and adding to it their artistic flair. They are not selling the original card or art, but their enhancement to the original art. If someone were to simply paint a picture of Pikachu and sell that it again becomes more muddled. But if it is done in a protected fashion (commentary, parody, criticism) then it can be legal.
Scott, I’d expect better from you than to toss out a principle that is not only a matter of your opinion, but plainly incorrect:
First, your principle simply misunderstands the definition of the word “counterfeit:” www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterfeit . A card that is “obviously very different from” an authentic card is (a) not an imitation and (b) not made with the intent to deceive. If you’re using some special definition of counterfeit, please feel free to disclose the authority you’re relying on for that definition.
Second, your principle is too broad and appears to ignore entirely legal protection for free expression. “Any card that isn’t produced by Nintendo” would include this card, which is not a counterfeit by any stretch of the word: pm1.narvii.com/6250/04b9b2d3c1aeacf8687c880ae6d94562ec8006e8_hq.jpg
Again, like Reina Sierpe, you’d do well to explain (1) why fashioning one’s own interpretation of a Pokemon into the form of a card is use of copyrighted material at all, as opposed to a transformative work; and (2) why, even if such cards use copyrighted material, they are not permissible by virtue of fair use. (Some key concepts, which you’ve entirely omitted from your post, are bolded for your reference.)
If you’re making a claim about “law” or what is “illegal,” that explanation is not dialectically optional.
@lexleo they are using the same names, the same creature designs, the same card layout and style. The only reason any person would be remotely inclined to buy any of these items is due to the connection they have to the I.P. that they are using in the designs. The trademarked characters are the draw to the pieces, not any new or added information. They would not have any draw to anyone if not for the valuable I.P. they are ripping off to try and tap into that money train.
They change a few colors. They change some attack names (sometimes). Nobody could win any argument trying to call this fair use. I imagine you must be somehow profiting off of this activity in some way or another. I don’t know what is worse. The ignorance of the law by most of the people running these shameful “businesses” or someone like yourself who is actually convinced you are acting within the letter of the law.
Just wanted to throw this out there but any unlicensed use of a character is copyright infringement. Even drawing a fan image of pikachu and posting it online is a form of infringement.
Distribution of content even approximating a Pokémon is technically illegal. Exceptions areally made for fair use including criticism, parody or transformative works. Something like an extended art may be considered transformative but that’s more of a matter of option. But in the end the only opinion that would matter is that of a court room.
Love your first sentence here (no sarcasm). As long as you’re transparent about your attitude that you don’t need an argument to justify your belief (lol), I’m good on that issue.
Also love your last paragraph (again, no sarcasm). You’ve finally gotten to the heart of the matter and identified the missing piece here: legal analysis.
I can take a stab at that analysis, if you wish. But please note that the burden (thank God!) is on someone who claims that x is illegal to show that x is illegal, not the way people here seem would rather flip it.
So long as your first sentence is moderated by your observation that using a character in a transformative manner can be permissible, I largely agree with this helpful post. Thank you!
I don’t agree with him, but this is just stupid. Different people have different opinions. Dismissing everything you don’t agree with as “annoying AF” is exactly the reason why too many people nowadays are just floating around in their own bubble of ideas and opinions, often surrounding themselves solely with people who agree on the same opinion/ideals and never having their opinion challenged, thus believing they are in the absolute right. Opinions are subjective.
Thank you for your opinion on mightymax’s opinion about lexleo’s opinion.
Your white knight statement assumes mightymax is making his statement out of “disagreement”. He could be saying it out of frustration for the way lexleo argues, which is to say that he doesn’t argue, but condescendingly faux philosophizes US law.
Let me just entirely dismiss your point by calling it a white knight statement because I don’t have a counter-argument and just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
Also, thanks for your opinion on my opinion on mighty’s opinion on lexleo’s opinion. (Irony is a toughie, huh?)
Not really. I made a distinction/observation that your initial claim overlooked in its assumption. That’s literally the opposite of dismissing your point. I could finish with something passive aggressive like “nice try” but my ego isn’t frail, so I won’t.
The legal issues surrounding the production and sale of items using the intellectual property of a company that doesn’t belong to you has been explained, and regardless of the way anyone feels about the ethics/morals of these activities, it is irrefutable that it is an illegal acticity.
As E4 does not promote illegal activities, and this thread is just awful, I will lock it.
(Irony is a toughie, huh?)
