Ehhh I absolutely would blame Valve here. They don’t have to endorse the project to turn their eyes and allow it to proceed.
Valve’s main obligation here, as I see it (IANAL), is their trademark. With copyright, it’s up to the rightsholder whether or not they want to prosecute things. With trademarks, they have an obligation to prosecute things they come across or else they might lose that trademark.
There was no pressure on Valve here, except for that trademark thing. Even then, with what they’ve said, they weren’t looking to protect their trademark. They were just looking to avoid the minimal risk that Nintendo actually sued the developers of Portal 64, and Nintendo might include Valve in such a lawsuit. It’s not like Portal 64 was being released on Valve’s Steam platform, like the Dolphin emulator was.
Valve’s lawyers are being excessively conservative and risk averse here. As a result, the community that Valve relies on is suffering harm. That makes these lawyers fucking assholes, in my view. They didn’t have to do anything, they weren’t prompted to do anything, they did it off their own back to show that they were doing something.
If Nintendo had shut them down, that would be a different thing. However, that would almost certainly only have been a cease and desist letter, sent to the developers, with no involvement with Valve. Valve’s lawyers have completely jumped the gun here and done something that actually harms Valve’s public image, for no tangible benefit.
When it comes to their trademarks Valve can’t take a fully hands-off approach without negative consequences. Either they explicitly endorse the use of the Portal name and other branding, in which case they’re encouraging and aiding the project and could potentially be caught up in any lawsuit from Nintendo, or they say nothing and allow the trademark to lapse from non-enforcement, or they prohibit the project from using the Portal branding and enforce that prohibition with a lawsuit if needed. Unfortunately for the project, only one of these options retains their trademark and doesn’t set them up for a fight with Nintendo.
Sure, and like I say trademark is the one obligation they have. However, there has been no indication that protecting a trademark was the driving factor. The driving factor seems to be entirely that it involves Nintendo.
Furthermore, there would be no fight with Nintendo here. Nintendo have no real grounds to sue Valve, even if Valve ignored it. Rather, it almost plays out as if Valve hope to host Nintendo software on their platform - which doesn’t seem likely to ever happen.
I’m curious about the downvote. What did I say that was objectionable? Valve haven’t sent a cease and desist because of an infringement against themselves, they’ve sent a cease and desist on behalf of Nintendo, apparently without prompt from Nintendo. That’s bullshit.
Edit: Lmfao lazy lurkers downvoting without engaging… Put your balls on the table and say something.
They are not defending Nintendo’s IP, they are worried about having their IP associated with proprietary Nintendo libraries. They also didn’t send a cease and desist but reached out to him directly and asked him to take it down.
They also didn’t send a cease and desist but reached out to him directly and asked him to take it down.
You’re right, and I should have double checked and worded it better. However, for all intents and purposes, politely asking him to take it down is the same as a cease and desist.
they are worried about having their IP associated with proprietary Nintendo libraries.
That is indeed apparent, however I still don’t get it. What do they hope to gain from currying favour from Nintendo? They don’t sell Nintendo games on Steam, and doing so is a pipe dream (lol sleepy Mario).
The result is the same but there’s a huge difference between getting legally threatened by a big company and being asked nicely.
Not really. Asking nicely can easily be a veiled threat.
The knowledge of having zero chance to be sued by Nintendo.
But that’s an excessively risk averse position to take. It doesn’t even really fit for Valve, although it’s common with lawyers. Hence why I don’t think Valve has the right lawyers for their ethos.
If someone was making a valve game with spiderman in it, the same thing would happen. They’re only going to ignore it if the other owner has a pattern of being OK with it, and even then they might want written permission.
Ehhh I absolutely would blame Valve here. They don’t have to endorse the project to turn their eyes and allow it to proceed.
Valve’s main obligation here, as I see it (IANAL), is their trademark. With copyright, it’s up to the rightsholder whether or not they want to prosecute things. With trademarks, they have an obligation to prosecute things they come across or else they might lose that trademark.
There was no pressure on Valve here, except for that trademark thing. Even then, with what they’ve said, they weren’t looking to protect their trademark. They were just looking to avoid the minimal risk that Nintendo actually sued the developers of Portal 64, and Nintendo might include Valve in such a lawsuit. It’s not like Portal 64 was being released on Valve’s Steam platform, like the Dolphin emulator was.
Valve’s lawyers are being excessively conservative and risk averse here. As a result, the community that Valve relies on is suffering harm. That makes these lawyers fucking assholes, in my view. They didn’t have to do anything, they weren’t prompted to do anything, they did it off their own back to show that they were doing something.
If Nintendo had shut them down, that would be a different thing. However, that would almost certainly only have been a cease and desist letter, sent to the developers, with no involvement with Valve. Valve’s lawyers have completely jumped the gun here and done something that actually harms Valve’s public image, for no tangible benefit.
Valve should sack these lawyers, they’re cunts.
When it comes to their trademarks Valve can’t take a fully hands-off approach without negative consequences. Either they explicitly endorse the use of the Portal name and other branding, in which case they’re encouraging and aiding the project and could potentially be caught up in any lawsuit from Nintendo, or they say nothing and allow the trademark to lapse from non-enforcement, or they prohibit the project from using the Portal branding and enforce that prohibition with a lawsuit if needed. Unfortunately for the project, only one of these options retains their trademark and doesn’t set them up for a fight with Nintendo.
Sure, and like I say trademark is the one obligation they have. However, there has been no indication that protecting a trademark was the driving factor. The driving factor seems to be entirely that it involves Nintendo.
Furthermore, there would be no fight with Nintendo here. Nintendo have no real grounds to sue Valve, even if Valve ignored it. Rather, it almost plays out as if Valve hope to host Nintendo software on their platform - which doesn’t seem likely to ever happen.
I’m curious about the downvote. What did I say that was objectionable? Valve haven’t sent a cease and desist because of an infringement against themselves, they’ve sent a cease and desist on behalf of Nintendo, apparently without prompt from Nintendo. That’s bullshit.
Edit: Lmfao lazy lurkers downvoting without engaging… Put your balls on the table and say something.
It’s not complicated.
If you want to be able to publish something, you don’t use someone else’s IP.
Yeah sure, but why is Valve defending Nintendo’s IP? That’s my issue here.
They are not defending Nintendo’s IP, they are worried about having their IP associated with proprietary Nintendo libraries. They also didn’t send a cease and desist but reached out to him directly and asked him to take it down.
You’re right, and I should have double checked and worded it better. However, for all intents and purposes, politely asking him to take it down is the same as a cease and desist.
That is indeed apparent, however I still don’t get it. What do they hope to gain from currying favour from Nintendo? They don’t sell Nintendo games on Steam, and doing so is a pipe dream (lol sleepy Mario).
The result is the same but there’s a huge difference between getting legally threatened by a big company and being asked nicely.
The knowledge of having zero chance to be sued by Nintendo.
Not really. Asking nicely can easily be a veiled threat.
But that’s an excessively risk averse position to take. It doesn’t even really fit for Valve, although it’s common with lawyers. Hence why I don’t think Valve has the right lawyers for their ethos.
They’re defending their IP.
They’re really wildly permissive with their IP, but combining it with other people’s you also don’t own is very obviously over the line.
I’m pretty confident if someone combined Valve’s IP with anyone else’s this would not have happened.
This is laughable.
If someone was making a valve game with spiderman in it, the same thing would happen. They’re only going to ignore it if the other owner has a pattern of being OK with it, and even then they might want written permission.
… Have you ever played Garry’s Mod?
Edit: Lol, I wrote that before I looked it up: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1384628469