# 'Scribblenauts' creator Warner Brothers sued for Nyan Cat, Keyboard Cat easter eggs



## Sicklyboy (May 2, 2013)

> The owners of two of the internet's best-known cat memes are striking back at Scribblenauts for using them without permission. Charles Schmidt and Christopher Orlando Torres have sued Warner Brothers for copyright and trademark infringement, based on images of Nyan Cat (created by Torres) and Keyboard Cat (created by Schmidt) that appear in the game. After both cats achieved fame years ago, Torres and Schmidt have parlayed them into an ongoing career under the management of "meme agent" Ben Lashes. Since then, they've had to confront the strange tension that comes from trying to own and license something that grew through sharing and appropriation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Unlike a Nyan Cat scarf or a Keyboard Cat phone cover, Scribblenauts isn't exactly promoting itself with memes. It's a game known for incorporating virtually every item in existence: if you can write it, you're supposed to be able to conjure it. Along with Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat, you'll find Ninja Cat, Longcat, Spaghetti Cat, and a whole list of others. We've come to expect such reference-dense entertainment — open up the recently released Guacamelee and you'll find reimaginings of Grumpy Cat or Strong Bad. But at some point, these references can end up in a legal and ethical morass.


 
 Source 

Okay, I understand that the 'memes' may be copyrighted, but at what point does something that is altered and remixed by hundreds, maybe thousands, of people make it grounds for a lawsuit?  These two memes being here was not a selling point of Scribblenauts (btw, which Scribblenauts is it?), but instead an easter egg.  A little secret meant to tickle the fancy of people who would think to put something so abstract in as an item in the game, certainly not something I've ever seen on any of the Scribblenauts game boxes while I sell them at work.  Are these guys butthurt over some fair use, or is this a serious legal battle that is about to ensue?

Also, I had never in my life heard of Keyboard Cat before this. Sue me.


----------



## Rydian (May 2, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Okay, I understand that the 'memes' may be copyrighted, but at what point does something that is altered and remixed by hundreds, maybe thousands, of people make it grounds for a lawsuit?


When somebody's making money off of it without even asking you first.

That's generally how it works, right?


----------



## Sicklyboy (May 2, 2013)

Rydian said:


> When somebody's making money off of it without even asking you first.
> 
> That's generally how it works, right?


 

That's the thing though.  Can you really say that the game was being sold on the premise that it includes two "pop culture" icons?  That's not an advertised feature of the game at all, and I highly doubt that most, or really any marginally significant portion, of its sales were due to their inclusion, just like people don't (didn't) buy Halo 2 solely because of it's Scarab Gun easter egg.


----------



## Xuphor (May 2, 2013)

> The owners of two of the internet's best-known cat memes





> striking back at Scribblenauts for using them without permission





> under the management of "meme agent" Ben Lashes


I mean seriously? Really? "Meme Agent"? Memes are supposed to be an internet treat to be stupidly laughed at as mild entertainment. Scribblenauts realized this, and included them along with TONS of other memes.

None of the other meme creators or "agents" mind because it's basically free advertising for them (they are non profit anyway).
Scribblenauts in *NO WAY* sold copies because it had nyan cat or keyboard cat. They didn't even advertise they were in the game, they were hidden away with no clue or sign whatsoever. You can go through and 100% the entire freaking game without ever knowing it's in it.

This is like a Charity sueing some homeless guy for taking two shirts instead of one. I mean damn, this is retarded.


----------



## Rydian (May 2, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> That's the thing though.  Can you really say that the game was being sold on the premise that it includes two "pop culture" icons?  That's not an advertised feature of the game at all, and I highly doubt that most, or really any marginally significant portion, of its sales were due to their inclusion, just like people don't (didn't) buy Halo 2 solely because of it's Scarab Gun easter egg.


Whether it was advertised or not officially, it's still in a sold product without permission.



Xuphor said:


> I mean seriously? Really? "Meme Agent"? Memes are supposed to be an internet treat to be stupidly laughed at as mild entertainment.


That may be the way we consider it, but for some people it's _literally_ a business.  Some people make their living off of memes in various forms, whether it be compiling them into a site for advertising revenue and marketing deals related to visitors, licensing the use of one they made to places that want to use it in an official product, etc.


----------



## chyyran (May 2, 2013)

People will sue over anything, though, this is kinda pushing it. Its a meme, I didn't even know memes were copyright-able.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 2, 2013)

This is just dumb. It's an easter egg guys. Do they actually think "you know, we have a lot of supporters for this! Everybody will be on our side!"

The creator of TMNT may as well sue Gearbox for putting the TMNT in Borderlands 2, or Ubisoft for Blood Dragon.


----------



## Gabelvampir (May 2, 2013)

"Meme agent"? Isn't it a bit late for April fools jokes?
Are there seriously people consulting meme creators on how to capitalize on their meme?
Oh Internet, you've once again done your part bringing us closer to nearly useless jobs like Telephone Sanitizer.


----------



## Gahars (May 2, 2013)

Does this mean Gearbox can also be sued for LeMayMaylands 2 Borderlands 2? Please?

While the ground for this suit may be shaky, I can't say I'm entirely against companies dropping this sort of humor crutch. Personal preference, I guess, but I think it's more annoying and obnoxious than anything else. It's little more than lazy pandering.


----------



## raulpica (May 2, 2013)

Keyboard Cat is looking down from Cat-Heaven on his old owner. Memes are meant to be shared and loved by everyone


----------



## Bladexdsl (May 2, 2013)

what is this let's sue everyone month??


----------



## Dork (May 2, 2013)

>memes
>copyright

Golly.


----------



## Recorderdude (May 2, 2013)

And thus, video game companies stopped including easter eggs in their titles, and Mr. Lashes was found dead in a pile of poptarts and keyboards.


----------



## Rydian (May 2, 2013)

Ron said:


> People will sue over anything, though, this is kinda pushing it. Its a meme, I didn't even know memes were copyright-able.


http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork



ShadowSoldier said:


> The creator of TMNT may as well sue Gearbox for putting the TMNT in Borderlands 2, or Ubisoft for Blood Dragon.


References and direct inclusion are two different things.  The TMNT stuff in Borderlands 2 was a parody without using any of the original material or names.



Gabelvampir said:


> "Meme agent"? Isn't it a bit late for April fools jokes?
> Are there seriously people consulting meme creators on how to capitalize on their meme?
> Oh Internet, you've once again done your part bringing us closer to nearly useless jobs like Telephone Sanitizer.


Somebody's never dealt with copyright/IP law, I see?  That crap's complicated.


----------



## Gabelvampir (May 2, 2013)

Rydian said:


> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
> 
> References and direct inclusion are two different things. The TMNT stuff in Borderlands 2 was a parody without using any of the original material or names.
> 
> Somebody's never dealt with copyright/IP law, I see? That crap's complicated.


 
Yeah I know, anything can happen when lawyers are involved. One of these days it will be proven in court that gravity does not exist.
What I meant is, how specialized and meaningless is a job like "Meme agent". Think back 15 years, what would you say to somebody came to you and offered helping you in making money from that one great toilet wall joke everybody at school laughed about? Memes are just silly nuggets of humor, created totally by seredipidy and with success seemingly random. Some of them surely required work, but I don't think I've seen any Meme where I'd say the creator should be able to protect it. If they can find a normal/sane way to make money off a successful Meme, good for them. But suing people over including a reproduction of it as an easter egg? Come on.


----------



## mechadylan (May 2, 2013)

Will the Pop Tart people be entitled to a cut of the settlement?... or do they need to file their own lawsuit?... and against whom?!?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 2, 2013)

Gabelvampir said:


> Yeah I know, anything can happen when lawyers are involved. One of these days it will be proven in court that gravity does not exist.
> What I meant is, how specialized and meaningless is a job like "Meme agent". Think back 15 years, what would you say to somebody came to you and offered helping you in making money from that one great toilet wall joke everybody at school laughed about? Memes are just silly nuggets of humor, created totally by seredipidy and with success seemingly random. Some of them surely required work, but I don't think I've seen any Meme where I'd say the creator should be able to protect it. If they can find a normal/sane way to make money off a successful Meme, good for them. But suing people over including a reproduction of it as an easter egg? Come on.



See also basically every sketch show ever?


----------



## Rydian (May 2, 2013)

Gabelvampir said:


> but I don't think I've seen any Meme where I'd say the creator should be able to protect it.


"I don't think much of it, so they shouldn't be able to protect their IP"?

You know, I don't think much of the show LOST, so should they be unable to take people to court for distributing bootleg DVDs?



Gabelvampir said:


> If they can find a normal/sane way to make money off a successful Meme, good for them. But suing people over including a reproduction of it as an easter egg? Come on.


http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 2, 2013)

just give them two cents for every sold copy. the cats only make a fraction of the game content so that should be fair


----------



## Gabelvampir (May 2, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> See also basically every sketch show ever?


Writers for sketch shows normally have to come up with more then one sketch in their lives to get paid more than once.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2013)

Gabelvampir said:


> Writers for sketch shows normally have to come up with more then one sketch in their lives to get paid more than once.



Save for the rights they get for the DVD release, or might not if they are working for a given corporation, or might do for the stage show recreation but not the DVD, or might do if the show enters syndication, or might do if the show gets broadcast internationally, or might do if the show gets broadcast online.
Thus we end up in a world where IP law is complex.


----------



## ComeTurismO (May 3, 2013)

What the hell is this world coming to?


----------



## Subtle Demise (May 3, 2013)

what stupid fucking morons. I kind of want to start selling physical copies of these retarded memes and see them try and sue me.


Rydian said:


> "I don't think much of it, so they shouldn't be able to protect their IP"?
> 
> You know, I don't think much of the show LOST, so should they be unable to take people to court for distributing bootleg DVDs?
> 
> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/


Ah yes wonderful, archaic copyright law.


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

Subtle Demise said:


> what stupid fucking morons. I kind of want to start selling physical copies of these retarded memes and see them try and sue me.
> 
> Ah yes wonderful, archaic copyright law.


Not saying I agree with current copyright law (I don't, as people here know)... but they certainly do have a basis to sue under both the rules and the idea behind it.


----------



## Xuphor (May 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Not saying I agree with current copyright law (I don't, as people here know)... but they certainly do have a basis to sue under both the rules and the idea behind it.


 
Well then, if we're keeping up with such archaic laws, then Alabama should arrest everyone who takes more than 5 minutes to vote.

EDIT: Wrong link, fixed that.


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

Xuphor said:


> Well then, if we're keeping up with such archaic laws, then Alabama should arrest everyone who takes more than 5 minutes to vote.


And what about going to jail for murder?  I mean it's one of the oldest laws out there, so let's not follow it because it's old.

</snark>


----------



## Xuphor (May 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> And what about going to jail for murder? I mean it's one of the oldest laws out there, so let's not follow it because it's old.
> 
> </snark>


 
Meh, how about arresting everyone that owns a red or black flag in West Virginia?

Seriously though, some of these laws needs to be updated.... and IIRC, Copyright laws are being looked at in the USA for revisioning.


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

That they are.  The idea behind them, though (that whoever makes something should by default be the only one with a right to legally profit by selling the work) is the same, and it is a valid idea, and it does apply in this situation.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 3, 2013)

Xuphor said:


> Well then, if we're keeping up with such archaic laws, then Alabama should arrest everyone who takes more than 5 minutes to vote.
> 
> EDIT: Wrong link, fixed that.


The reason weird laws like those still exist is because getting rid of them is an expensive and timely process.  It's easier and cheaper to not enforce them.


----------



## Xuphor (May 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> That they are. The idea behind them, though (that whoever makes something should by default be the only one with a right to legally profit by selling the work) is the same, and it is a valid idea, and it does apply in this situation.


Yes, but I hope they implement some sort of limitation to people that are clearly just sueing someone else because they are greedy fucking assholes, and no other reason. You know as well as I do that the people doing to sueing in this case don't give two shits about the memes in reality, they just see a major cash opportunity, and take it. If they truly cared about their memes, then why did they wait this damn long to sue?

If some sort of limitation like that isn't implemented, heck, I could find a shady lawyer, copyright the way I sit at my computer as a "back relaxing and healthy way of sitting", then sue every person I find on YouTube that uses ad revenues that sits in my position.

Sounds rediculous, but it's about as rediculous as this meme case. It's completely stupid, clearly just a money grab, but still technically would be a valid case.

EDIT: Removed major redundancy.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (May 3, 2013)

they make shitload of money from stupid cat meme. okay.

SOMEONE else attempts to make money from stupid cat meme. BIG F##KING PROBLEM


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

Xuphor said:


> You know as well as I do that the people doing to sueing in this case don't give two shits about the memes in reality, they just see a major cash opportunity, and take it.


I know you'd LIKE it to be that way in order to justify your hate, but that's not how it is.

I mean you read yourself that these guys actually hired somebody to help them promote and junk beforehand, and they've done other things before, like buying nyan.cat so that they control the site if somebody of somebody else who put it up without permission.



Xuphor said:


> If they truly cared about their memes, then why did they wait this damn long to sue?


Likely they didn't know about it for a while, like most people.


----------



## The Milkman (May 3, 2013)

>Make meme thats been dead for a long ass time
>Other guys attempt to bring some life back into it by making it an easter egg
>Sue

Cat memes arent even funny...


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> >Make meme thats been dead for a long ass time


"long-ass time"?


> Conversation with tehjahn at 4/13/2011 1:08:55 AM on rydianmorrison (aim)
> (1:08:56 AM) rydianmorrison: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6474824/flying-rainbow-pop-tart-cat
> (1:09:50 AM) tehjahn: .... I love it. o3o


And the youtube video was uploaded just a few days before I sent the link out to people.

So two years.  And Scribblenauts did not just come out last week.

... ???


----------



## Xuphor (May 3, 2013)

Rydian's defending this so much, I swear he was promised to receive a cut of the money if they win or something....


----------



## RodrigoDavy (May 3, 2013)

I don't see what's the problem here. The owner of Nyan Cat do allow it to be used for non-commercial motifs. Scribblenauts is a commercial product and doesn't fall in this category. This is not about if the game is famous or not because of Nyan Cat, it's about that if you want to use copyrighted material in your product you must sign a contract first.
The same way the Scribblenauts owner can't use Warner Bros. characters, the opposite is also true.


----------



## air2004 (May 3, 2013)

I want to sue , sue'rs


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

Xuphor said:


> Rydian's defending this so much, I swear he was promised to receive a cut of the money if they win or something....


If somebody made a game and included Mickey Mouse without permission from Disney and then published the game on multiple platforms, and Disney later found out and sued them...  I'm willing to bet people's responses would probably be "they're dumbasses for thinking they can get away with it" or something, right?

But nope, if the subject in question is something you don't personally like, _fuck their legal rights_.


----------



## The Milkman (May 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> "long-ass time"?
> And the youtube video was uploaded just a few days before I sent the link out to people.
> 
> So two years.  And Scribblenauts did not just come out last week.
> ...



In meme time that's old as hell. These things are made and die like crazy, the good ones make 6 or 7 months, maybe a year if they are the more "legendary" ones. Other then that they either break down to the point they are used out of context or wrong (it happens way too often here on the Temp >_>), or people in general are just tired of it, there are some like reactions which usually last forever like "Umad bro?" (which is also used wrong) and a few others. Nyan Cat wasn't even all that good, other then the nice sprite work I have no idea how it gained the ground it did. 

Memes are made to be a fun little thing that spreads around for a bit, then die off peacefully, not milked to make a living off of. If anything, all this lawsuit proves is that these kinds of things should be left to the annons where they go through their cycle with minimal resistance.


----------



## BenRK (May 3, 2013)

/thread


----------



## mechadylan (May 3, 2013)

Sadly, this lawsuit is about money and nothing else; I don't think anyone else will disagree with that.  Of course it's wrong to use a copyrighted character without permission; but where's the "cease and desist" order to halt production?  Where's the product recall?  Where's the criminal suit outlining the crime that "used to" precede civil law suits?  In the end, the meme party will not be indemnified by the WB as there was no loss by the IP violation.  What WILL happen is that the NyanCat people will be entitled to a percentage of the sales that occurred after this went public (no matter how small the spike in sales.)  All this hooplah kinda makes sense when you think about it like this, dontcha think?


----------



## UltraHurricane (May 3, 2013)

in all fairness, the original creator did copyright Nyan Cat before it became viral, it's kinda absurd to think people no longer own their creations just because it's on the internet

and having it become a meme is no different, everyone is free to share and repost it everywhere, it's when they sell it (either on it's own or in Scribblenauts) without the creator's consent, that's where the real legal problem lies. And if he's being greedy about it, who cares? it's* his* creation, if he feels that he's being cheated out of compensation, so be it


----------



## 2ndApex (May 3, 2013)

Didn't this guy make money off of a shitty "Official" iOS Nyan Cat game too?


----------



## BenRK (May 3, 2013)

You guys do know that in one ride in at least Universal Studios Hollywood there is a Micky Mouse cap floating in the water, right? It was on that Jurassic Park ride I believe...

I don't see any lawsuits over that.


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (May 3, 2013)

Remixed without profit is normally ok but including them in some form in a paid product yea I would sue too


----------



## mechadylan (May 3, 2013)

BenRK said:


> You guys do know that in one ride in at least Universal Studios Hollywood there is a Micky Mouse cap floating in the water, right? It was on that Jurassic Park ride I believe...
> 
> I don't see any lawsuits over that.


>implying Disney wants Universal's money


----------



## BenRK (May 3, 2013)

I'm just saying you have to pay to get in to the park proper. Just asking for assholes to get some sense or at the very least have the entire world play by the same rules. So if they're suing for an easter egg, so should Universal.


----------



## Carnivean (May 3, 2013)

This is ridiculous, it's clearly an easter egg and wasn't used in any way to try and directly generate profit. It's not like they were selling t-shirts with the characters on or some shit. It'll be a sad precedent set if this is successful.


----------



## mechadylan (May 3, 2013)

In a perfect world, NyanCat would settle for an "As Seen On Scribblenauts" moniker and call the whole thing a wash.


----------



## ferofax (May 3, 2013)

PATCH IT OUT.

Their inclusion was a tribute. To get slapped in face for a tribute, a cameo, "Well fuck you too" I say.


----------



## caribou007 (May 3, 2013)

Most comments I see appear to be negative against the creators of these memes. I have to take a different viewpoint; Warner bros is a money making machine like almost any other company. Basically, it doesn't pay whenever possible, and it gets money whenever possible. To all parties, this is probably just a situation where it's going to pay, and conversely, the owners of the memes are going to get payed. I think it's basically just a financial transaction in one of it's various forms in the business. Ethics and morals aren't even an issue for warner bros, and maybe not for the meme owners either.


----------



## UnoAphex (May 3, 2013)

Wow that is pretty butt-hurt, Besides it is a little late to get mad about it since it has been in the last two scribblenauts games. Why not get offended then? Why start now? Seems like a quick grab for some kind of cash to me.


----------



## ferofax (May 3, 2013)

caribou007 said:


> Most comments I see appear to be negative against the creators of these memes. I have to take a different viewpoint; Warner bros is a money making machine like almost any other company. Basically, it doesn't pay whenever possible, and it gets money whenever possible. To all parties, this is probably just a situation where it's going to pay, and conversely, the owners of the memes are going to get payed. I think it's basically just a financial transaction in one of it's various forms in the business. Ethics and morals aren't even an issue for warner bros, and maybe not for the meme owners either.


So it's an IOU notice of sorts, except with lawyers? Either way, I still say patch it out. They can have their claims on the currently released, but none on the patched ones.

And patch everything else that can lead to more of this.


----------



## Sop (May 3, 2013)

The definition of retard.

NO U CANT STEAL MY FUNNY MAY MAYS

Even though the games they in are awesome.


----------



## nukeboy95 (May 3, 2013)




----------



## Ericthegreat (May 3, 2013)

Anyone else would be sued for using a WB character, so I say they deserve compensation.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> in all fairness, the original creator did copyright Nyan Cat before it became viral, it's kinda absurd to think people no longer own their creations just because it's on the internet



Barring some interesting moves that the UK are attempting to pull off right now copyright is automatic for all works. You apply for patents, trademarks, service marks and some aspects of things like registered designs but copyright and design right (though it gets called something different depending upon where you are) are automatic, though you can register further (it is failure to do this that led to some interesting things like some films being out of copyright though that also takes some other things -- http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm)


----------



## shadow theory (May 3, 2013)

My final in copyright law is in two weeks! Let's see what I remember:
Technically in the U.S. copyright is granted when an idea is fixated in some tangible form. So you don't need to apply for copyright to get a copyright, but you do need to register a copyright to sue for certain kinds of damages. (Europe is interesting because they recognize "moral rights" in some countries which include the ability of an author to eventually say "Yeah, take my name off that, it hurts my rep", or in some cases to be immune from some forms of criticism).

It doesn't need to be used as a tool for direct marketing, the fair use exception doesn't cover commercial works as this certainly is. It's clearly a derivative use of the work which you need permission from the copyright holder of.

Perhaps if the game had created "ByaaaDog" that was summoned by writing in "stupid viral internet meme" they may have been able to argue parody. (claiming that the dog commented on the nature of viral internet memes)

I would not be surprised if the Scribblenauts team didn't know Nyancat was copyrighted (or didn't look into it's origins) and assumed like many internet memes that it's ownership was vague at best. It could very well be that the Nyancat creators didn't know about its inclusion in Scribblenauts until recently.


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

An addendum of sorts to the above...


> Both memes have registered copyrights, with trademark applications pending


(From the source nobody else read.)


----------



## BORTZ (May 3, 2013)

It must be petty law suit season.


----------



## koimayeul (May 3, 2013)

Just, two fat greedy asses.


----------



## Veho (May 3, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> Just, two fat greedy asses.


So, if you don't let other people exploit your work for their profit, you're a fat greedy ass?


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

I don't think you understand, Veho.  Their work is something a lot of people here are tired of seeing, which obviously means that their social and legal rights are void, despite them filing the necessary paperwork in multiple cases!


----------



## koimayeul (May 3, 2013)

Veho said:


> So, if you don't let other people exploit your work for their profit, you're a fat greedy ass?


 
While the original idea is the creation of one person, the real work is done by people sharing the funny stuff, it growing in popularity makes it a potential meme. So yes, making profit out of other people work, here the internet folks all around the world sharing funny stuff is greedy, definitely. Claiming it to lawsuit is total ass. They should just be proud it is an easter egg in professional, commercial work worthy of this title.


----------



## Gahars (May 3, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> While the original idea is the creation of one person, the real work is done by people sharing the funny stuff, it growing in popularity makes it a potential meme. So yes, making profit out of other people work, here the internet folks all around the world sharing funny stuff is greedy, definitely. Claiming it to lawsuit is total ass. They should just be proud it is an easter egg in professional, commercial work worthy of this title.


 
People liking things invalidates copyright claims?

Huh. The more you know.


----------



## koimayeul (May 3, 2013)

Gahars said:


> People liking things invalidates copyright claims?
> 
> Huh. The more you know.


 
The copyright on meme is a first time, granted it could not exist without the work of popularity growing within internet communities.
So they want to be credited for it in the game? This is fair. To get money? Not fair unless it is spread all over the net to reward real "workers" making meme unknown to popular.


----------



## Gahars (May 3, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> The copyright on meme is a first time, granted it could not exist without the work of popularity growing within internet communities.
> So they want to be credited for it in the game? This is fair. To get money? No fair or it is spread all over the net to reward real "workers" making meme unknown to popular.


 
Yeah, it doesn't work like that... at all.

To put it simply, when people spread a meme over the internet (like say, sending a link to a video or posting a picture), they aren't profiting from that. Here, Warner Bros. used their property without permission and are profiting from it. That's wrong, and as a huge company, they should know better, and now they have to face the consequences.

(Besides, the copyright holders are obligated to sue. If you don't defend your copyright, you basically forfeit it, so...)

Your argument is akin to saying "Copyrights on popular songs don't real because they wouldn't be popular songs if people didn't listen to them, so therefore they belong to the people." Nope, sorry, that's not how it goes.


----------



## koimayeul (May 3, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Yeah, it doesn't work like that... at all.
> 
> To put it simply, when people spread a meme over the internet (like say, sending a link to a video or posting a picture), they aren't profiting from that. Here, Warner Bros. used their property without permission and are profiting from it. That's wrong, and as a huge company, they should know better, and now they have to face the consequences.
> 
> ...


 
If it was a major feature and selling point like one of the Slender games, such as a whole Nyan cat iphone app, OK but obviously not in the current case. How many customers purchased Scribblenauts Unlimited for Keyboard and Nyan Cat? Anyone..? Was it announced? It's easter egg..
This is greed for money from the two copyrighters, unless they care for being credited only. They want to be credited? Fair enough indeed, a patch is easy done. They want it removed? A patch is easy done the same. Game never sold on this meme, i am about 99% positive with this affirmation, so no money for them. Fair case!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2013)

Honestly? I don't really know what to think of this.

On one hand, I agree that it's bad practice to blatantly use something that's not your copyrighted property in your IP's. On the other, neither of those things were proper game mechanics - the game doesn't focus on them, they're Pop Culture Easter Eggs and I love those.

Fallout had a T.A.R.D.I.S in the middle of the desert and I don't think the owners of the Doctor Who brand sued anyone - it was included for the heck of it, as something funny, something the player can relate to. It was breaking the 4th Wall, it was funny, and that's great.







Same with the Federation's shuttle or the Taser from Star Trek:






I don't think we should all fall for the copyright craze, we shouldn't go the Apple's way of doing things and chill. They want a cut of the profits? Great, I suppose, but I hope this doesn't start a negative trend of avoiding Pop Culture references.


----------



## caribou007 (May 3, 2013)

The game did sell with these memes.  According to the Reddit hivemind, WB used the images of the memes in an advertisement for the game.

And, WB sued the people who had been lovingly working on a very promising modification for The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, "Middle Earth", which was a tribute to LotR, to which WB holds the movie copyrights.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2013)

caribou007 said:


> The game did sell with these memes. According to the Reddit hivemind, WB used the images of the memes in an advertisement for the game.


Ahh, I see - I was not aware of that. In that case, it's pretty naughty, yes.


----------



## caribou007 (May 3, 2013)

I'm trying to decide if copy pasting Nyan Cat can be considered an artistically derivative element, since Scribblenauts is about combining random things together. Is it satirical? I think that it could pass as so.

However, the Fallout examples only made reference to one object from Star Trek and Doctor Who, respectively. You couldn't claim that they took the entire concept of either story and copy pasted it into Fallout. However, Scribblenauts takes the entire Nyan Cat image, and copy pastes it in.

The name "Nyan Cat" is trademarked, and that's what you have to type to get the Nyan Cat image, which is copywritten.

By typing just "Nyan", trademark infringement would be avoided, and instead of copy pasting the entire Nyan Cat image, a reference could have been made to an element that is associated with Nyan Cat, like rainbow colours. Or something. You'd have to put some thought into it.  Thus, the term _artistically derivative._


----------



## Gahars (May 3, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> If it was a major feature and selling point like one of the Slender games, such as a whole Nyan cat iphone app, OK but obviously not in the current case. How many customers purchased Scribblenauts Unlimited for Keyboard and Nyan Cat? Anyone..? Was it announced? It's easter egg..
> This is greed for money from the two copyrighters, unless they care for being credited only. They want to be credited? Fair enough indeed, a patch is easy done. They want it removed? A patch is easy done the same. Game never sold on this meme, i am about 99% positive with this affirmation, so no money for them. Fair case!


 
So violating copyright only matters if you use it as a selling point? Uh... I'm going to have to go with "Nope" on that one.


----------



## koimayeul (May 3, 2013)

Gahars said:


> So violating copyright only matters if you use it as a selling point? Uh... I'm going to have to go with "Nope" on that one.


 
I'm not making laws but afaik without profit involved, they are not causing any real loss. I am quite sure "cat meme" are not "sold" anyway. Yes, they should give credit somewhere in the game for all they include as content i agree, and money if it was advertised for sales profit.

The wrong side of this is, think of a random youtuber using popular songs in their videos and there are countless out there, if all copyright claims are going the lawsuit road, what a world? A disclaimer about it to give credit where it belong should be good enough to go when it's not a commercial project.



caribou007 said:


> The game did sell with these memes. According to the Reddit hivemind, WB used the images of the memes in an advertisement for the game.
> 
> And, WB sued the people who had been lovingly working on a very promising modification for The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, "Middle Earth", which was a tribute to LotR, to which WB holds the movie copyrights.


 
Now, THIS is a real turnaround ala Phoenix Wright, if they did / do promote it as a selling point alright. ^^


----------



## mechadylan (May 3, 2013)

Whoa! They used Nyan Cat on the Scribblenauts Unlimited E3 trailer?!? WB, what are you thinking?


----------



## Grawly (May 3, 2013)

Yo Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat are copyrighted intellectual property and being used without the permission or credit of the original authors. The point here is that this is software being sold for profit and this is legal grounds for a lawsuit.
Personally I think this thing is dumb as heck but they do have legitimate cases against Warner and are entitled to compensation for their work. 
They're shitty Internet memes but they're not public domain.


----------



## Rydian (May 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Fallout had a T.A.R.D.I.S in the middle of the desert


No, they had a British police box in the middle of the desert.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> No, they had a British police box in the middle of the desert.


Which just happened to go _whoosh whoosh whoosh_, blinked and disappeared when you approached it - coincidence. 

_(yes, I know you kid )_


----------



## RedCoreZero (May 4, 2013)

...Seriously?


----------



## Maxternal (May 4, 2013)

Spoiler: Posting this is risky business now ... click at your own peril -->










Don't sue me plz.


----------



## Dork (May 4, 2013)

Maxternal said:


> Spoiler: Posting this is risky business now.


 
Reported to the authorities.


----------



## MarkDarkness (May 4, 2013)

Hell... these bastards will just manage to make it so that future Scribblenauts will be barred from having cool little easter eggs because of their stupid, completely unfunny meme that simply means shit. Warner will certainly be on the developer's tails about anything and everything. Nice.


----------



## Rydian (May 4, 2013)

ITT: I don't think it's funny, so fuck their totally-legal-and-filed copyrights.


----------



## Veho (May 4, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> While the original idea is the creation of one person, the real work is done by people sharing the funny stuff, it growing in popularity makes it a potential meme. So yes, making profit out of other people work, here the internet folks all around the world sharing funny stuff is greedy, definitely.


Ah, so the credit for a piece of work belongs to the people that reblog it, not the author him/herself? And if the author wants recognition or compensation when someone else profits off his work, he's a "lazy ass" and "greedy" because he wants to "make profit" off of all the poor, exploited internet users that reblogged his work? 



koimayeul said:


> The copyright on meme is a first time, granted it could not exist without the work of popularity growing within internet communities.


The copyright on a video or an animated short is not a "first time". But apparently when something becomes widespread it gets dubbed a "meme" and instantly becomes public domain.    



> So they want to be credited for it in the game? This is fair. To get money? Not fair unless it is spread all over the net to reward real "workers" making meme unknown to popular.


Let's recap, shall we? The author of a piece of work isn't entitled to any form of recognition, because all he/she did was make it, the people forwarding it around did the "real work" and it is them who deserve to be recognized, and if any profit arises at some end, paid. Because paying only the author would be "unfair".  

So let's say a company wants to include Gangnam Style into their game. Basically you are saying they don't need to pay Psy any royalties, because all he did was make the song, " the real work is done by people sharing the funny stuff". And if he complains about not being asked, he's a lazy ass. And that's a perfectly okay way of seeing it because the song is annoying.   




MarkDarkness said:


> Hell... these bastards will just manage to make it so that future Scribblenauts will be barred from having cool little easter eggs because of their stupid, completely unfunny meme that simply means shit. Warner will certainly be on the developer's tails about anything and everything. Nice.


I know, right? It's terrible how creators don't like their work being used in commercial products without their permission, the entitled bastards. Now future Scribblenauts will have to, *GASP*, _ask first_ before using someone else's work. Disgusting.


----------



## terminal_illness (May 4, 2013)

I think memes shouldn't be copywritten. I also think creators of said memes should be flattered that they are even considered to be part of a game that supposedly allows you to create "whatever you want". To be even considered as part of the real universe. lol


----------



## Joe88 (May 4, 2013)

I wonder if google got permission to use it as an easter egg in ics?


----------



## koimayeul (May 4, 2013)

Veho said:


> snip


 
I just notice you skip my last comment purposely to burden me with argumentative stuff, like i embody WB or something to prove your point.. Commercial software such as Scribblenauts Unlimited can't exist if its has to pay for each and every item in the game, get real.. Pay for the use of countless words to pop up on screen.. Yes, WB should ask and give proper credit, or a disclaimer for using copyrighted content, fix it with a patch if it isn't done yet, and pay authors on advertised IP's promoting their product with artwork and trailers if it wasn't done. Though if it wasn't advertised but easter egg as i first read and care less to check further being no lawyer, a patch to fix it crediting authors or adding a disclaimer, or remove the content from the game suiting original author's will should be well enough, otherwise i call it greed. That's all i say.


----------



## Gahars (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> I think memes shouldn't be copywritten. I also think creators of said memes should be flattered that they are even considered to be part of a game that supposedly allows you to create "whatever you want". To be even considered as part of the real universe. lol


 
A meme can be anything that becomes popular online. Should the copyright on Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" be void because people like it? Should NBC void their rights to Seinfeld because everybody likes the Costanza face? Should the creators of Nyan Cat give up what they took time and effort to create it because everyone shared the link for a month?

Also, the "They should just be grateful!" line of thinking is so laughable it warps around to being just a little bit sad. I mean... seriously? Seriously?


----------



## terminal_illness (May 4, 2013)

Gahars said:


> A meme can be anything that becomes popular online. Should the copyright on Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" be void because people like it? Should NBC void their rights to Seinfeld because everybody likes the Costanza face? Should the creators of Nyan Cat give up what they took time and effort to create it because everyone shared the link for a month?
> 
> Also, the "They should just be grateful!" line of thinking is so laughable it warps around to being just a little bit sad. I mean... seriously? Seriously?


 
That's my opinion. You have yours. I wouldn't say "give up" but instead "not whine", after all it's at the least more publicity for their respected material. Maybe a kid sees nyan cat on scribblenauts, tells all his friends and youtube views go up, and more revenue is acquired from youtube to the owner.... there are many ways to look at it...


----------



## Veho (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> I think memes shouldn't be copywritten.


I think games shouldn't be copyrighted. 



terminal_illness said:


> i wouldnt say "give up" but instead "not bitch" after all, its at the least more publicity for their respected material.


That's basically my justification for piracy.


----------



## Gahars (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> That's my opinion. You have yours.


 
And?

That's not a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to justifying your viewpoints.



terminal_illness said:


> I wouldn't say "give up" but instead "not whine", after all it's at the least more publicity for their respected material. Maybe a kid sees nyan cat on scribblenauts, tells all his friends and youtube views go up, and more revenue is acquired from youtube to the owner.... there are many ways to look at it...


 

Breaking the law is breaking the law no matter how much publicity the original creators garner. Making excuses for WB here is beyond ridiculous; they should absolutely know better. Asking the creators to feel grateful for being ripped off is just adding insult to injury.


----------



## terminal_illness (May 4, 2013)

Gahars said:


> And?
> 
> That's not a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to justifying your viewpoints.
> 
> ...


 
Out of jail? I agree that what was done was against the law. However I don't see any insult OR injury here. In fact like the comment I said earlier, I'd say they benefited much more from the publicity of WB including them and from this silly lawsuit.


----------



## Gahars (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> I agree that what was done was against the law.


 


terminal_illness said:


> however I don't see any insult OR injury here.


 






So we shouldn't hold people and companies accountable to the law?

Okay, buddy.


----------



## tbgtbg (May 4, 2013)

I would think there's a fair use argument here since they're (I assume) using these as parody.

Meanwhile, jerkwads suing over everything is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## terminal_illness (May 4, 2013)

Gahars said:


> So we shouldn't hold people and companies accountable to the law?
> 
> Okay, buddy.


 

Yeah that's right. That's exactly what I said....






just because I *think* the law is stupid doesn't mean it doesn't exist...  and just because I said I don't *think* there was any injury per se, does not mean the authorities don't.

just because a law was broken doesn't necessarily mean there was ANY injury.


----------



## koimayeul (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> terminal_illness said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah that's right. That's exactly what I said....
> ...


 
Because this is the Internet. There is no such thing as a dialog or discussion, only verbal fights. You win an argument on having the last word. You have to explain yourself to others, and justify your viewpoints. I kid you not!


----------



## terminal_illness (May 4, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> Because this is the Internet. There is no such thing as a dialog or discussion, only verbal fights. You win an argument on having the last word. You have to explain yourself to others, and justify your viewpoints. I kid you not!


 
lol so true. back on topic. I fired up my scribblenauts. nyan cat doesn't even look 100% the same, its adapted in scribblenauts drawing style.


----------



## Gahars (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> *snip*


 
lemon key face.jpg



tbgtbg said:


> I would think there's a fair use argument here since they're (I assume) using these as parody.


 
Not really, no. 



koimayeul said:


> You have to explain yourself to others, and justify your viewpoints. I kid you not!


 
It's almost as if that's expected in any debate, online or off. Weird...


----------



## purplesludge (May 4, 2013)

Would you feel the same if this had been Batman or Mickey Mouse?
If corporations want laws to protect their ip they have to obey those laws and obtain permission and pay the price to use ip that isn't theirs.


----------



## koimayeul (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> lol so true. back on topic. I fired up my scribblenauts. nyan cat doesn't even look 100% the same, its adapted in scribblenauts drawing style.


Yeah, I don't get the purpose in making others feeling stupid like some perverted judge to their trial. In a real encounter face to face it would not happen and it doesn't. Think of a random stranger at the supermarket arguing you for your opinion? Nope. Internet, anonymous, well.. It's alright to be wrong or being proved wrong, just not in an accusatory and disrespectful manner. We're all growing with experience and opinions are subjected to change, just like mine on the matter changed as I acknowledged there may be advertisement involved in trailers with said copyrights.. The right way is to adapt with objective facts as they are discovered, the wrong to hang on subjective opinions. Current lawsuit case, I think I expressed all I wanted to say already.. 



Gahars said:


> lemon key face.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Precisely my good Gahars, a debate is to confront arguments when a dialog or discussion is to build up opinions sharing knowledge. Imagine yourself with your wife or kids or bros sitting at your dinner table, debates anytime one open their mouth for speaking about weather or actuality.. I would retire in an underground grotto, lol. 

Our forums should be more a friendly place like a dinner table with our online community and less a trial to prove points against one another.. Really.


----------



## terminal_illness (May 4, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> Yeah, I don't get the purpose in making others feeling stupid like some perverted judge to their trial. In a real encounter face to face it would not happen and it doesn't. Think of a random stranger at the supermarket arguing you for your opinion? Nope. Internet, anonymous, well.. It's alright to be wrong or being proved wrong, just not in an accusatory and disrespectful manner. We're all growing with experience and opinions are subjected to change, just like mine on the matter changed as I acknowledged there may be advertisement involved in trailers with said copyrights.. The right way is to adapt with objective facts as they are discovered, the wrong to hang on subjective opinions. Current lawsuit case, I think I expressed all I wanted to say already..



Agreed. sometimes people need to do that in order to cement the public's opinion of them. Especially if they are new. Doesn't change my opinion.







Again back on topic. I tried a few other memes in scribblenauts. They all seem to be slightly different then their original counterparts.


----------



## koimayeul (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> Agreed. sometimes people need to do that in order to cement the public's opinion of them. Especially if they are new. Doesn't change my opinion.
> 
> 
> Again back on topic. I tried a few other memes in scribblenauts. They all seem to be slightly different then their original counterparts.


 
Hmmm I have the game on Steam but not installed, from the video in the source it is indeed the nyan cat with its music.


----------



## terminal_illness (May 4, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> Hmmm i have the game on Steam but not installed, from the video in the source it is indeed the nyan cat with its music.


 
Looks a little different though, like I said it's in Scribblenauts drawing style. I'd consider that an adaptation though we are arguing semantics now. lol


----------



## koimayeul (May 4, 2013)

terminal_illness said:


> Looks a little different though, like I said it's in Scribblenauts drawing style. I'd consider that an adaptation though we are arguing semantics now. lol


Well original authors do hold their case, they have not been asked about the use of their copyright as content for the game. I called it greed to try and get a share of game sales as my first reaction but if advertisement was done featuring them with trailers, WB do make profit illegally. Be them as easter eggs, a credit list or disclaimer should be fair enough, IMHO. Fair for WB to pay for the lawsuit costs though the two cats authors problem could have been dealt internally with WB, lawsuit is usually the last resort not the first thing to do unless for cashing in, greed as I reacted at first.


----------



## Veho (May 4, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> I just notice you skip my last comment purposely to burden me with argumentative stuff, like I embody WB or something to prove your point..


I wrote my reply before you posted that last post. I did read it, but it didn't seem like you were changing your stance on the "plaintiffs being lazy asses" thing, only that you acknowledged the complaint had some merit, so I decided to post anyway. I misunderstood your post. I'm sorry. 

Here's a kitten in a yogurt cup:


----------



## koimayeul (May 4, 2013)

Veho said:


> I wrote my reply before you posted that last post. I did read it, but it didn't seem like you were changing your stance on the "plaintiffs being lazy asses" thing, only that you acknowledged the complaint had some merit, so I decided to post anyway. I misunderstood your post. I'm sorry.
> 
> Here's a kitten in a yogurt cup:


 
Lol well, i came out with a bad mood and cursing words at first, "fat greedy asses" is not exactly nice even if I softened it reasoning further and the two cats owners are not reading and couldn't care less.. More think before you post for me, sorry to them and to you Veho bro. Thanks for the kitten! But they would eat my hamster..


----------



## Heran Bago (May 4, 2013)

I think devs should have to use a legal license for including Memes in their games. This would deter people from using memes as a form of low effort comedy in games.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2013)

koimayeul said:


> Because this is the Internet. There is no such thing as a dialog or discussion, only verbal fights. You win an argument on having the last word. *You have to explain yourself to others, and justify your viewpoints.* I kid you not!


Wow! That sounds an awful lot like... any discussion at all, be it Online or in RL?


----------



## koimayeul (May 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Wow! That sounds an awful lot like... any discussion at all, be it Online or in RL?


Nooo it should be smooth and friendship is magic, always!


----------



## FAST6191 (May 4, 2013)

Things I learned this topic 

More than a few on GBAtemp do not have a good grasp of intellectual property code Actually I met that several times before and even wrote a basic guide to the matter so I can not really say that.

terminal_illness appears incapable of understanding the concept of the metaphor or a turn of phrase, but is capable of creating high grade logical paradoxes or "Hollywood is attempting to use a computer" level logical inconsistencies. Ever considered a career in screenwriting?

If I change a few things it does not count as a derivative work and all is good with the world. Admittedly this can kind of apply in patents and registered designs but copyright is quite clear on the matter.

Positing a fairly radical opinion on a message board is fine but being queried upon it potentially makes the one doing the querying a bad person.

Apparently being called on your opinion or previous statement never happens in real life. This makes sense as staggering home from the pub does seem to enter something needing quantum physics to make sense of it (how else would it take 3 hours to walk the apparent two kilometers back to the house) and the pub is a place where things are endlessly debated. It might also be the case with family meals or having friends over for meals as well for time skips seem to occur there as well. Studies are pending on visiting friends or board game nights but looking promising for another area.

To pose a hypothetical. My lazy self is an amateur photographer and by happenstance me and my £200 camera (or more likely now camera in a mobile phone if I had one) are in the right place and the right time to be the only one to catch something really nice. Point and shoot has long been the order of the day so does my miniscule amount of effort, probably considerably less time, effort and skill than taking the time to draw and animate a flash character even on a 4 second loop, not warrant the protection of copyright?


----------



## ferofax (May 5, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Which just happened to go _whoosh whoosh whoosh_, blinked and disappeared when you approached it - coincidence.
> 
> _(yes, I know you kid )_


Dude keeps leaving the breaks on, smh.


----------



## MarkDarkness (May 5, 2013)

Veho said:


> I know, right? It's terrible how creators don't like their work being used in commercial products without their permission, the entitled bastards. Now future Scribblenauts will have to, *GASP*, _ask first_ before using someone else's work. Disgusting.


Funny. I see what you did there.

Oh, wait. What I just said is a meme. Damn, now either me or GBAtemp need to pay royalties to the _rightful creator who just doesn't like his "product"_ being used without permission on the internet. Suck for all us, I guess.

The Nyan Cat people have a slight problem attached to their out of bounds lawsuit called "substantiality", and that's a very tough thing to defend in this case, seeing as the extent of their work is a 3-frame animation loop. Also, to consider the "effect upon work's value" and how much exactly has Scribblenauts degraded the completely intangible value of this 3-frame loop, well, it's just a goddamn hassle that is impossible to assess. On top of that, it's a parody, or a homage, or a series of other niché categories of use that wouldn't hold up in court if it's defended well.

They cannot possibly expect to provide an argument with enough weight to really give this case momentum. And if somehow the burden of proof falls entirely on the shoulders of Warner Brothers, then fuck, they will just beat these guys and their "product" to the ground.

They are not creators, not inventors, not innovators, they just want to bleed this one asset they managed to create out of its public sharing, consumption, atleration (or remix if you want to go CC on this), etc.

And they are screwing over Scribblenauts as a product that's innovative.

tl;dr, right? Oh damn, another meme! Now the royalties will come knocking again!


----------



## Rydian (May 5, 2013)

MarkDarkness said:


> Funny. I see what you did there.
> 
> Oh, wait. What I just said is a meme. Damn, now either me or GBAtemp need to pay royalties to the _rightful creator who just doesn't like his "product"_ being used without permission on the internet. Suck for all us, I guess.


Except that's not a registered copyright, and your post is not a commercial work.

gg on not actually reading the thread though, keep it up!  Or not, I'd actually prefer not.


----------



## Veho (May 5, 2013)

MarkDarkness said:


> Funny. I see what you did there.
> 
> Oh, wait. What I just said is a meme. Damn, now either me or GBAtemp need to pay royalties to the _rightful creator who just doesn't like his "product"_ being used without permission on the internet. Suck for all us, I guess.


I see you're hazy on this whole "copyright", "meme" and "commercial use" thing, and the whole difference between "meme" and "design". Or do you honestly believe that once a thing becomes a meme, it automatically stops being anything else? I refer you to this post, it illustrates the point.  



> The Nyan Cat people have a slight problem attached to their out of bounds lawsuit called "substantiality", and that's a very tough thing to defend in this case, seeing as the extent of their work is a 3-frame animation loop.


 The extent of their work is an original, _copyrighted_, named character with a visual design. The fact the original work it appears in is a 3-frame animation loop bears no significance. The original Super Mario is a 5-frame sprite. 



> Also, to consider the "effect upon work's value" and how much exactly has Scribblenauts degraded the completely intangible value of this 3-frame loop, well, it's just a goddamn hassle that is impossible to assess.


 Fortunately it isn't impossible to see the copyright infringement in a commercial product. Everything else is just haggling. 



> On top of that, it's a parody, or a homage, or a series of other niché categories of use that wouldn't hold up in court if it's defended well.


Ah, weaselwords. They might work, too, if the use was a parody or a homage, and not just lifting the design plus name wholesale and using it in the game as is. 



> They cannot possibly expect to provide an argument with enough weight to really give this case momentum. And if somehow the burden of proof falls entirely on the shoulders of Warner Brothers, then fuck, they will just beat these guys and their "product" to the ground.


While it is true many court cases are won or lost not by establishing facts and interpreting the law, but by measuring which side can gather more funds and lawyers, this shouldn't be accepted legal practice. Saying "well, WB can afford enough lawyers and stalling to squish their opposition" does not put them in the right. 

As for presenting an argument with enough weight: 









> They are not creators, not inventors, not innovators, they just want to bleed this one asset they managed to create out of its public sharing, consumption, atleration (or remix if you want to go CC on this), etc.


 So validity of a copyright is established based on whether you like the work or not.   



> And they are screwing over Scribblenauts as a product that's innovative.


Indeed. I doubt poor Scribblenauts will ever recover from this heavy blow. 



> tl;dr, right? Oh damn, another meme! Now the royalties will come knocking again!


Nice argumentum ad absurdum there, bro, it highlights your ignorance of the subject matter well. And again, "copyright", "meme", and "commercial use". Read up.


----------

