@Krokodyl Absolutely the case. Disney can have it taken down for violating their character copyrights, in theory. They could get in contact, and ask to buy the rights to use that model to produce merchandise from it. But to just take it and sell it? They are stealing from that artist.
By international copyright law, Nintendo cannot legally take a translated script that was never commissioned or authorised and just... use it. That is copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if it's a derivative of their work, they do not own that translation, nor are they entitled to it.
This is what I mean, though - people think there's some magic exception for fan translations, presumably because they desperately wish that Nintendo et al would just take a fan translation and make it available officially. That's not how any of this works. Your creations are your creations, and protected by copyright.
If I draw Spider-Man, Marvel does not have a right to sell that artwork just because I drew a Spider-Man. If I write a story about Sonic, Sega does not have a right to sell that story just because I wrote a Sonic. If I make a Mario game, Nintendo does not have a right to sell that game just because I made a Mario. They all have the option to negotiate with me to sell those things if they like them, but they do not own my work just because they own the IP.
This whole saga has really shone a light on the fact that people have absolutely no idea how copyright and Intellectual Property works.
As preface, I am a trained commercial artist. Part of my education was knowing these rights, and navigating what rights I hold over my work when creating something with IP owned by another.
Now, a lot of this is conditional - contracts can set terms differently. I could be contracted to create work for an employer that they own outright, and I hold no ownership over the work produced for that contract. If you, as a translator, were contracted by the IP holder to create for them a new translation to be used or licensed out at will, that's one thing. If you are a third party who purchases a licence to use the IP, and as part of the product you want to want to sell, you create a new translation, that translation belongs to you. If the IP holder wants to buy or license that themselves, they can, but it is your property.
I have created a translation ROMhack myself, with crucial work from multiple other people. That script is nothing particularly special, but I own it. If Nintendo wanted to use that script, they cannot simply take it and use it commercially. They don't have the rights to. I do not have the IP rights to the game, so I cannot go out there and sell copies of the game. This is why we distribute patches - because we own the part we made, and we can do with that what we will.
You own what you make by default, and if someone else owns part of what your creation needs to exist, you have to come to a mutual agreement for either side to release it commercially. Anything else is theft, and a direct breach of the most basic facets of copyright law.
I don't know whether they've outsourced it to a guy who's ripping everyone off including them, but it doesn't really matter - they clearly don't even bother giving the result a cursory look-over. Within moments of starting up their release of "Cyber Citizen Shockman" you are greeted with the hero declaring himself "Cyborg Townsman Shockman!!" I'm not convinced their hotshot "translator" even speaks English - that game's text is Machine Translation level bad. It appears to be a mixture of stealing the work of others, and doing a poor job with machine translation so it uses different words here and there.
It's unforgivably bad, and I can't say I'm inclined to buy any more of their releases. Which is a shame, since the quality of the packaging, the cartridge, everything is really nice! Not much good if the game inside it is rubbish, though.
Correction: The F-Zero overdump contains exactly HALF of the Spaceworld 97 demo - all of the game code and model data is missing from that dump. The fact that Stamper has the entire build is HUGE - we assumed that it was all lost forever due to being overwritten by F-Zero, but this means it DOES STILL EXIST!
@mike_intv 100% this. I consider it in a sense like "French Pastry" or "Irish Stew" - it's a style of a thing with many variations; this style originated and was defined in one place, but has been exported around the world and inspired people everywhere to make similar things. FFXVI is a Japanese RPG, but not a JRPG; Sea of Stars is not a Japanese RPG, but it is a JRPG.
Language exists to describe things in meaningful ways, and so we must use it in ways that convey useful information. "This RPG is from Japan" USED to imply a lot about the style of game it was, but that no longer applies so much, so we must let the term mean what was always IMPLIED by its place of origin instead of just the literal interpretation of the words.
Slight correction: The article claims it was cancelled in Australia and New Zealand, but "released later" - this never happened. There exists no English language PAL release of the game; all PAL copies from the few places it did release support English on the disc, but the only version with an English box/manual is the American NTSC release.
There's a particularly hilarious irony to a piece all about the reporting of unchecked misinformation itself containing an incorrect claim... =P
Comments 7
Re: Ratalaika Dismisses Claim That Retro-Bit Had Permission To Use Its Translations
@Krokodyl Absolutely the case.
Disney can have it taken down for violating their character copyrights, in theory. They could get in contact, and ask to buy the rights to use that model to produce merchandise from it.
But to just take it and sell it? They are stealing from that artist.
Re: Ratalaika Dismisses Claim That Retro-Bit Had Permission To Use Its Translations
@KingMike No, there is not.
By international copyright law, Nintendo cannot legally take a translated script that was never commissioned or authorised and just... use it.
That is copyright infringement.
It doesn't matter if it's a derivative of their work, they do not own that translation, nor are they entitled to it.
This is what I mean, though - people think there's some magic exception for fan translations, presumably because they desperately wish that Nintendo et al would just take a fan translation and make it available officially.
That's not how any of this works.
Your creations are your creations, and protected by copyright.
If I draw Spider-Man, Marvel does not have a right to sell that artwork just because I drew a Spider-Man.
If I write a story about Sonic, Sega does not have a right to sell that story just because I wrote a Sonic.
If I make a Mario game, Nintendo does not have a right to sell that game just because I made a Mario.
They all have the option to negotiate with me to sell those things if they like them, but they do not own my work just because they own the IP.
Re: Ratalaika Dismisses Claim That Retro-Bit Had Permission To Use Its Translations
This whole saga has really shone a light on the fact that people have absolutely no idea how copyright and Intellectual Property works.
As preface, I am a trained commercial artist. Part of my education was knowing these rights, and navigating what rights I hold over my work when creating something with IP owned by another.
Now, a lot of this is conditional - contracts can set terms differently. I could be contracted to create work for an employer that they own outright, and I hold no ownership over the work produced for that contract.
If you, as a translator, were contracted by the IP holder to create for them a new translation to be used or licensed out at will, that's one thing. If you are a third party who purchases a licence to use the IP, and as part of the product you want to want to sell, you create a new translation, that translation belongs to you. If the IP holder wants to buy or license that themselves, they can, but it is your property.
I have created a translation ROMhack myself, with crucial work from multiple other people.
That script is nothing particularly special, but I own it. If Nintendo wanted to use that script, they cannot simply take it and use it commercially. They don't have the rights to.
I do not have the IP rights to the game, so I cannot go out there and sell copies of the game. This is why we distribute patches - because we own the part we made, and we can do with that what we will.
You own what you make by default, and if someone else owns part of what your creation needs to exist, you have to come to a mutual agreement for either side to release it commercially.
Anything else is theft, and a direct breach of the most basic facets of copyright law.
Re: Retro-Bit Accused Of Plagiarising Existing Fan-Translations
I don't know whether they've outsourced it to a guy who's ripping everyone off including them, but it doesn't really matter - they clearly don't even bother giving the result a cursory look-over.
Within moments of starting up their release of "Cyber Citizen Shockman" you are greeted with the hero declaring himself "Cyborg Townsman Shockman!!"
I'm not convinced their hotshot "translator" even speaks English - that game's text is Machine Translation level bad.
It appears to be a mixture of stealing the work of others, and doing a poor job with machine translation so it uses different words here and there.
It's unforgivably bad, and I can't say I'm inclined to buy any more of their releases. Which is a shame, since the quality of the packaging, the cartridge, everything is really nice! Not much good if the game inside it is rubbish, though.
Re: Rare Co-Founder Celebrates TOTK Release By Posting Photo Of Rare Zelda 64 Prototype
Correction: The F-Zero overdump contains exactly HALF of the Spaceworld 97 demo - all of the game code and model data is missing from that dump.
The fact that Stamper has the entire build is HUGE - we assumed that it was all lost forever due to being overwritten by F-Zero, but this means it DOES STILL EXIST!
Re: Poll: Should Japanese-Made Role-Playing Games Still Be Called JRPGs?
@mike_intv 100% this.
I consider it in a sense like "French Pastry" or "Irish Stew" - it's a style of a thing with many variations; this style originated and was defined in one place, but has been exported around the world and inspired people everywhere to make similar things.
FFXVI is a Japanese RPG, but not a JRPG; Sea of Stars is not a Japanese RPG, but it is a JRPG.
Language exists to describe things in meaningful ways, and so we must use it in ways that convey useful information.
"This RPG is from Japan" USED to imply a lot about the style of game it was, but that no longer applies so much, so we must let the term mean what was always IMPLIED by its place of origin instead of just the literal interpretation of the words.
Re: How A Plagiarised Review Turned 'Rule Of Rose' Into A PS2 "Video Game Nasty"
Slight correction: The article claims it was cancelled in Australia and New Zealand, but "released later" - this never happened.
There exists no English language PAL release of the game; all PAL copies from the few places it did release support English on the disc, but the only version with an English box/manual is the American NTSC release.
There's a particularly hilarious irony to a piece all about the reporting of unchecked misinformation itself containing an incorrect claim... =P