Why hasn’t “Palworld,” a game that borrows from multiple gameplay styles, been sued for copyright infringement?
“Palworld” incorporates various gameplay styles, including survival from “Ark: Survival Evolved,” monster hunting from “Monster Hunter,” acquiring partners like “Pokémon,” building like “Minecraft,” and the exploitation of life as a game.
Furthermore, the design of the game character “Palu” in 3D models clearly bears resemblance to Pokémon. Some are a fusion of two Pokémon, while others are almost identical.
Therefore, when the game was first released, some believed that “Palworld,” which copies multiple gameplay styles, would surely be sued by major game developers. However, this is clearly a misunderstanding of copyright law, as gameplay is a “concept” and is not within the scope of protection under the Copyright Act.
So why is it safer to copy various games?
When does it constitute copyright infringement between different games? It must be when the “content” of the game itself is “substantially similar,” such as images, music, art, scripts, and computer programs that constitute elements of the game.
Therefore, when the gameplay of “Palworld” is deemed to have copied various games, the entire game of “Palworld” actually does not constitute “substantial similarity” because it only resembles specific games in certain parts. So stop saying that this patchwork game constitutes copyright infringement, as it is actually safe.
But does each individual Palu in “Palworld” constitute infringement? This is worth discussing. First, these Palu monsters can be divided into three categories.
The first type is the original Palu monsters of Palworld, such as the mischievous cat in Pokedex 002, which does not constitute infringement at all.
Mischievous cat, an original Palu monster of Palworld.
Then there is the second type, which is the highly similar Pokedex 093 Cloud Deer, which is very similar to Pokémon’s Stantler, both in terms of color scheme, monster appearance, and accessories. I believe Nintendo’s legal department should take legal action against this Palu.
Cloud Deer.
And finally, the most controversial third type is the AI fusion type, such as the Pokedex 082 Sea Dragon, which is clearly a fusion of Pokémon’s Dragonite and Suicune. It can be seen that it has the distinct head shape and white stripes around it from Suicune, along with the standard gem from Dragonite’s tail.
Sea Dragon, a clear fusion of Pokémon’s Dragonite and Suicune.
Looking back, we can say that the modified works differ greatly from the original works and incorporate new ideas from the creators, so there is room for “fair use.”
In the age of AI, should the threshold for “fair use” be raised?
However, in the current flood of AI-generated fusion images, such works can be easily created with a click of a button by AI. In the past, artists had to spend time and energy to create more differences. Now, they can simply adjust the parameters of the AI drawing interface. In this context, should the threshold for “fair use” be raised?
In fact, I think Nintendo’s legal department should file copyright infringement lawsuits against these fusion-type Palu. This would be meaningful for determining the standards of “fair use.”
In the past, when discussing fair use, only points such as “the purpose of the allegedly infringing work, the nature of the allegedly infringing work itself, the similarity between the works (qualitative and quantitative analysis), and the market impact” were considered. But now, the difficulty of generating should also be considered.
If the allegedly infringing work is simply a simple one-click image fusion (like Pokedex 082 Sea Dragon), then the application of “fair use” should be limited.
AI generation significantly reduces the difficulty of modification, especially in an era where individuals can perform AI calculations on their personal computers. There will definitely be more AI-modified popular IPs in the future.
From the fact that “Palworld” achieved high-quality and highly completed art design in a short period of time, to the presence of specific Palu with a fusion of specific Pokémon characters, it can be reasonably inferred that AI has greatly reduced the development cost of “Palworld.” The future development of works modified using AI will be highly linked to the practical standards of “fair use.”
The views expressed in this article present diverse opinions and do not represent the stance of “WEB3+.”
Proofreading Editor: Gao Jingyuan
