PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Imagine removes misleading Nintendo statement
January 23rd 2001, 04:57 CET by Andy

Imagine Media has removed misleading comments made by a senior editor about its legal scrap with Nintendo.

Nintendo filed suit against Imagine, the US subsidiary of the global Future Network, on the 13th of last month, alleging that an unofficial Pokémon training guide made unlawful use of trademarks and copyrighted material.

Last week, Imagine began a publicity battle on the Daily Radar site, encouraging readers to complain to Nintendo about what was presented as a form of censorship, but editor Michael Wolf made a number of false statements about the case.

"In brief," he explained, "the complaint claims, on Nintendo's behalf, that Imagine Media does not have the right to publish screenshots from Nintendo's games in the course of our coverage, or to use its trademarks, such as the Pokemon name, in that coverage."

He continued: "Traditionally, use of screenshots like that in the Trainer's Guide has fallen within what is known as the 'fair use' doctrine, meaning we are allowed to use such images in the course of our coverage. But Nintendo has suddenly turned our regular coverage of its products into grounds for litigation."

The court papers filed by Nintendo make no mention of any Imagine web sites or magazines other than the Pokémon guide, and say nothing about "fair use" coverage such as reviews or news items, so Michael Wolf's summary of the case was grossly misleading.

This evening, Daily Radar executive producer Frank O'Connor replaced Wolf's statement with a much shorter piece that hardly comments on the case at all, saying only that the site has "until further notice, decided to suspend its coverage of Nintendo games and systems".
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Imagine removes misleading Nintendo statement

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "newtrip"
2001-01-23 05:05:30
newtrip@hotmail.com
FIRST POST

awwww... comeon Andy.  You're already done ripping 3DR???   =P

lol.

I know you REALLY wanted just one more article about 3DR...
#2 by "WarrenMarshall"
2001-01-23 05:06:32
warren@epicgames.com
Andy (#0):
This evening, Daily Radar executive producer Frank O'Connor replaced Wolf's statement with a <A href="http://www.dailyradar.com/nintendo/index.shtml">much shorter piece</A> that hardly comments on the case at all, saying only that the site has "until further notice, decided to suspend its coverage of Nintendo games and systems".

So they're taking their ball and going home.  Fuck 'em.

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#3 by "None1a"
2001-01-23 05:15:21
none1a@home.com
<b>Andy</b> (#0):
<quote>This evening, Daily Radar executive producer Frank O'Connor replaced Wolf's statement with a <A href="http://www.dailyradar.com/nintendo/index.shtml">much shorter piece</A> that hardly comments on the case at all, saying only that the site has "until further notice, decided to suspend its coverage of Nintendo games and systems".</quote>

Not talking about the case is common, and is probably the reason they remove the comments in the first place. Their not really being assholes they just need to try to keep silent about it or risk running into problems once in front of a judge.

I don't quite see why they stoped all coverage rather then just guides, but they could have been advised that any trademarks owned by Nintendo could end up as evidance of ongoing violations. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#4 by "Hambone"
2001-01-23 05:20:19
Cosmando@homestead.com
Hey Andy, remember that time you published an article on the Register using GB’s bullshitting with the rest of us as if it were company policy? And then the Register had to change the article and write a follow-up detailing how your story was a lie? Remember? I do, it was kinda funny, you know, like watching an alcoholic drink himself unconscious.
#5 by "Narcopolo"
2001-01-23 05:34:28
ncalton@yahoo.com
Andy, you quite seriously have no business accusing anyone of making false statements at the moment without addressing the charges that others have leveled at you.  If you call yourself a journalist you will answer them, otherwise you are preaching to an empty choir.
#6 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-23 05:37:59
painkiller@planetfortress.com
<b>WarrenMarshall</b> (#2):
<quote>So they're taking their ball and going home. Fuck 'em.
</quote>

heh, if I ran a site like that, and Nintendo decided to sue me, I'd remove all coverage of their games as well, permanently. They certainly don't need me covering their games and giving them free publicity that turns into games sales and funds their lawsuit against me ;)

That being said, I don't really give a rat's ass what Nintendo does, since their consoles don't tend to be targeted towards me. Then again, I certainly wouldn't mind a really good Metroid or Zelda game, but I'm not all that sure that anything they'd produce today would have the same appeal that the originals did when I was still a kid ;) Then again, I also played Ultima and Final Fantasy for the first time on the NES (yeah, I missed out on the Ultima games when I was doing my Apple 2 gaming because my dad lost the anti-piracy stuff somewhere).

-PainKilleR-[CE]<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#7 by "Desiato"
2001-01-23 05:38:01
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com
Gosh, had to update my site...

<a href="http://www.spew2.com/">Spew2 -- Andy's true form...</a>

Have fun!


Desiato...
#8 by "Whisp"
2001-01-23 05:42:42
whisp@vt.edu
What exactly is "grossly misleading" about the original statement?  Just because Daily Radar believes that their guides fall under fair use, doesn't mean they are lying if you disagree with them.  Plus, it's only a small step from restricting one type of use to others.  They might believe that the same arguments that apply to their strategy guides could apply to their website coverage, making it the next target of Nintendo if they do something the company doesn't like, even though this particular case doesn't directly target the web coverage.  It's all about precedent, a decision against Imagine in this particular case, might (in their opinion) soon lead to its extension elsewhere.  You have to think like a lawyer here.  

-Whisp<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#9 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-23 05:49:51
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
If I could just disagree with one statement in their letter:

That is simply not the case -- this is the clearest way we can think of to deal with the complex nature of the litigation while maintaining our editorial integrity.

I'd think the way you maintain your editorial integrity is by not letting a lawsuit that is unrelated to your core editorial work affect your obligation to your readers. Suspend published hint guides but do not suspend reviews and previews, and don't rub your readers' noses in it (they started altering the story with comments about what articles people were missing out on reading because of the lawsuit).
#10 by "Quicken"
2001-01-23 05:57:22
geoffrey@access.com.au
Ha ha ha ha... oh boy. Daily radar and editorial integrity. That's a laugh! Ha ha! Remember how they smashed that PS2 and thought it was a funny article to put up? Bunch of jerks. About time they changed that statement on their page. Said they can't comment on the lawsuit and then went on to ramble crap out it doing thier best to insite a consumer backlash against Nintendo. They failed and just for that I hope Nintendo kicks their arse. Not that I like Nintendo much
#11 by "WarrenMarshall"
2001-01-23 06:05:40
warren@epicgames.com
PainKilleR (#6):
heh, if I ran a site like that, and Nintendo decided to sue me, I'd remove all coverage of their games as well, permanently.

Yeah, I mean, it isn't like they make any money by covering Nintendo's games.  :)  It's a reciprocal relationship ...

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#12 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-23 06:09:14
painkiller@planetfortress.com
<b>WarrenMarshall</b> (#11):
<quote>Yeah, I mean, it isn't like they make any money by covering Nintendo's games. :) It's a reciprocal relationship ...
</quote>

Well, given the way ad revenue's going, I doubt they do make any money from it ;p

-PainKilleR-[CE]<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#13 by "EvilivE"
2001-01-23 06:33:48
satanas@worldmailer.com
Hambone wrote:
Hey Andy, remember that time you published an article on the Register using GB’s bullshitting with the rest of us as if it were company policy? And then the Register had to change the article and write a follow-up detailing how your story was a lie? Remember? I do, it was kinda funny, you know, like watching an alcoholic drink himself unconscious.


Hmm, I remember something like that.  It was just so long ago that my memory is getting a bit fuzzy.  I have slept since then you know.
#14 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2001-01-23 07:14:05
pianist@canada.com
14th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#15 by "webrunner"
2001-01-23 17:56:00
046105s@acadiau.ca
I saw a print ad for Daily Radar a while ago.  It said, in giant letters, that it was the best gaming website on the internet, or somesuch thing... so I looked at it.  I Thought there were laws agianst using words like "best!" unless it's absoultely true.. that's why companies use "Number 1" because ithey don't say Number 1 on what list.. but "best!' is a general, and very subjective thing, and certianly one that very few people would associate with daily radar.

Frankly, I never trusted them since I read their review of The World is Not Enough.  Their own words: "this is not a good movie" - and they gave it a 'hit' which is the same score they gave, for example, Giants...
#16 by "DevPac2"
2001-01-23 18:09:49
devpac2@hotmail.com
http://www.joystick101.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2001/1/21/18413/1624

Interesting piece, with the bit at the bottom being strangely relevant to something else i can't quite put my finger on at the mo' :)

Dev
#17 by "None1a"
2001-01-23 19:26:18
none1a@home.com
<b>webrunner</b> (#15):
<quote>I Thought there were laws agianst using words like "best!" unless it's absoultely true.. that's why companies use "Number 1" because ithey don't say Number 1 on what list.. but "best!' is a general, and very subjective thing, and certianly one that very few people would associate with daily radar.</quote>

No best is ok because it's subjective. They are stating an opinion not fact, I could create an ad for plantcrap that says Andy is the nicest person in the world and it'd be just fine because it's an opinion (not that I'd do that, or that id even create an ad for planetcrap). <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#18 by "Ergo"
2001-01-23 20:25:43
stu@dsl-only.net
<b>#17</b> "None1a" wrote...
<quote>No best is ok because it's subjective</quote>

Not exactly. Pizza Hut got into legal trouble when they called their pizza the "best." They were forced to change it to "the best pizza under one roof", which limits the meaning of "best" in this case.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#19 by "None1a"
2001-01-23 20:46:03
none1a@home.com
<b>Ergo</b> (#18):
<quote>Not exactly. Pizza Hut got into legal trouble when they called their pizza the "best." They were forced to change it to "the best pizza under one roof", which limits the meaning of "best" in this case.</quote>

I belive that one has more to do with Papa John's slogen then just the word best. Best would be a statment of opinion not fact, if you can be busted for stating opinion their goes all advertising.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#20 by "Ergo"
2001-01-23 21:42:20
stu@dsl-only.net
<b>#19</b> "None1a" wrote...
<quote><quote>Not exactly. Pizza Hut got into legal trouble when they called their pizza the "best." They were forced to change it to "the best pizza under one roof", which limits the meaning of "best" in this case.</quote>

</quote>

More than just Papa John's went after them--specifically, for using the word "best". A friend of mine was an attorney involved in the case.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#21 by "fyrewolf"
2001-01-23 23:39:13
csweitzer@intellution.com
Perhaps there was another lawsuit, but the one between Pizza Hut and Papa John's was because Papa John's had a slogan "Better ingredients.  Better pizza."  They also made references to Pizza Hut in connection with those slogans.  Pizza Hut sued and won a settlement, but that was overturned by a federal appeals court.  That decision is probably still being appealed.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/20/pizzafight.ap/index.html

There's no reason you can't call your product the "best".  After all, would Best Buy exist if that were illegal?
#22 by "fyrewolf"
2001-01-24 00:11:46
csweitzer@intellution.com
What exactly is "grossly misleading" about the original statement? Just because Daily Radar believes that their guides fall under fair use, doesn't mean they are lying if you disagree with them.


What was grossly misleading was that Daily Radar made it seem like Nintendo was suing them over using screenshots in reviews or news items, which is actually exactly what Andy said:

"The court papers filed by Nintendo make no mention of any Imagine web sites or magazines other than the Pokémon guide, and say nothing about "fair use" coverage such as reviews or news items, so Michael Wolf's summary of the case was grossly misleading."

Regardless of your opinion of Andy, his article is pretty much on the mark here.  What probably happened was that someone at Imagine noticed what DR was doing, and came down hard on them.  I read the original two editorals, and they were misleading.  DR even said they wouldn't use images sent to them from Nintendo because they were afraid of Nintendo suing them over use of those images.
#23 by "dsmart"
2001-01-24 00:38:43
dsmart@3000ad.com
<b>Narcopolo</b> (#5):
<quote>If you call yourself a journalist you will answer them</quote>

I don't think he's ever thought of himself as a journalist. I sure 'ope not.
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#24 by "Mark_Asher"
2001-01-25 06:30:30
marka@cdmnet.com
"What was grossly misleading was that Daily Radar made it seem like Nintendo was suing them over using screenshots in reviews or news items, which is actually exactly what Andy said:"

Yeah, when I read their statement they made it sound like they were afraid of getting sued for running screenshots in reviews. They certainly knew that wasn't the case, so that was a bit dishonest of them.

It was a pretty desperate move. They know they're holding a losing hand and they were trying to raise enough of a stink to get Nintendo to reconsider the lawsuit.
#25 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2001-01-31 08:37:25
pianist@canada.com
25TH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#26 by "spackbace"
2001-02-03 18:17:25
brian@cc.gatech.edu
l
a
s
t

p
o
s
t
#27 by "toadwarrior"
2001-02-04 02:54:07
toadw@uplink.net
nope<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#28 by "Gabe"
2001-07-26 05:23:30
gakruger@hotmail.com
test
#29 by "Anonymous"
2005-01-03 09:34:09
Thinking...
#30 by Jibble
2005-01-03 14:09:54
Give it up already.

Well it beats going to the video store to rent the latest hardcore releases twice a week. - G-Man
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Imagine removes misleading Nintendo statement

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]