Palworld v. Pokemon: An Artistic Tribute or Legal Trouble
The Palworld game has been in the spotlight since its release on January 19th, primarily due to the similarity of its characters to those in the Pokemon. The success achieved by Palworld has drawn attention, and the company behind it, Pocket Pair, now finds itself facing potential legal issues with Pokemon Company and Nintendo. So there are several questions: Are the game characters truly similar? Can Pokemon Company or Nintendo file a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement?
To answer these questions, let’s compare the characters that players find similar.
On the left, we see a character from Pokemon, and on the right, a character from Palworld. Both characters have white feathers on a brown body. However, the grey wool details, noticeable in the Pokemon character and easily discernible at first glance, are absent in the Palworld character.
Another debate regarding the character is as follows: on the left, the distinctive features of the Palworld character include its turquoise body, the white wool/feathers surrounding its body, and the yellow horn. On the right, the Pokemon character has a similar-colored body, white feathers around its neck, and a yellow horn. Do these similarities constitute an copyright infringement?
To determine this, it is essential to know which intellectual property rights protect game characters. Characters may be protected by copyright as works of art. In this context, creativity and originality are crucial elements. To discuss copyright infringement, the similarity should be in the substantial elements of the characters. Not every similarity amounts to copyright infringement; it must be non-coincidental. Foreign courts generally apply a substantial similarity test. In our case, the test would be applied to determine if Pokemon characters are creative and original, whether the similarity occurs in distinctive features, whether the natural parts of the characters are similar, whether Palworld creators ever saw the Pokemon characters before, and if an average player would find them similar.
Applying the similarity test to Palworld and Pokemon, in my opinion, the first character’s similarity in having four legs might not constitute copyright infringement due to natural reasons. The white wool details might not be subject to copyright because they are natural elements. However, the unusual brown body color could constitutes copyright infringement. Finally, Palworld character doesn’t have the grey wool details as Pokemon character.
In the second character, the turquoise body color and yellow horns seem to be the creative and original parts of the characters. These similarities don’t arise from natural reasons. Despite the differences in the ears, feet, and white wool, these differences may not be considered substantial. Moreover, since the Pokemon character itself has many original details, a person who saw the Palworld character may likely recall Pokemon character.
Regarding the other crucial steps of the similarity test, we can make common observations for all four characters.
Claiming that Palworld creators were not familiar with Pokemon characters would be as awkward as denying gravity. Pokemon is a widely known popular game, making it almost impossible for someone in the gaming industry to be unaware of it. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Palworld creators accidentally produced characters with such striking similarities. This circumstance could be a strong argument for copyright infringement.
The last criteria is whether an average player perceives similarities between the characters. Players are the target audience for games, making it crucial to understand whether the similarity exists from a player’s perspective. We know that Palworld players refer to Palworld as “Pokemon with guns” due to the similarity between Palworld and Pokemon. This indicates the acceptance of the similarity in the gaming community.
In conclusion, even though we discuss the similarity test, it will ultimately be examined by courts and experts. However, based on the arguments above, Nintendo and Pokemon Company might get a victory at this legal battle.
References:
Clary D. Assay An Empirical Study of Copyright’s Substantial Similarity Test, Erişim için: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1584&context=ucilr
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/does-palworld-break-pokemons-copyright-we-asked-a-lawyer#:~:text=According%20to%20Mizobe%2C%20Palworld%20has,it%20by%20any%20other%20company. (Görseller bu linkten alıntılanmıştır.)
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/palworld-utterly-misses-the-point-of-being-a-good-pokemon-like
https://www.thegamer.com/palworld-reveal-pals-legally-distinct-pokemon/
