Palworld vs Pokemon: A Copyright Infringement or Fair Use Debate?

The recent release of Palworld, a game that shares striking similarities with the popular Pokemon franchise, has sparked a heated debate among gamers and copyright lawyers. The controversy revolves around the question of whether Palworld’s creators, Pocketpair, have infringed upon Nintendo’s intellectual property rights or if their game falls under the fair use doctrine. In this article, we will explore the nuances of copyright law, the similarities and differences between Palworld and Pokemon, and the potential legal implications for both parties.

First, it is essential to understand the basics of copyright law. According to the United States Copyright Office, copyright protection covers original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as computer programs, pornographic works, maps, and architectural works. However, ideas, facts, and discoveries are not protected by copyright law. Instead, they are considered part of the public domain.

In the context of video games, copyright protection extends to the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. For instance, a game about catching and battling monsters is not copyrightable, but the specific way that game is expressed, such as the characters, story beats, and names, may be protected.

Now, let’s examine the similarities and differences between Palworld and Pokemon. Both games involve catching and battling creatures, and some of Palworld’s creatures bear a striking resemblance to Pokemon. However, it is essential to note that the idea of catching and battling creatures is not copyrightable. Instead, the focus should be on the specific expression of that idea.

Peter Lewin, a video game lawyer at Wiggin, explains that the main issue is the Pal designs and 3D models. “The main focus seems to be on the Pal designs and 3D models, rather than the game concept as a whole,” Lewin says. “So, one company can’t stop another from making a game about catching and battling monsters. However, if a company copies important aspects of how exactly another company expresses that game concept, that’s where issues can arise.”

Sam Castree, a copyright lawyer and avid Pokemon player, agrees. “Protectable expression might include things like artwork, well-developed characters or settings, and fleshed-out lore,” Castree says. “So, it’s not enough to have a fire-elemental dragon in the game. That dragon would need to closely mimic Charizard’s design, or be described with an amalgamation of the various Pokédex entries, or something like that.”

However, not all similarities between Palworld and Pokemon are actionable. For instance, having a hedgehog-like monster or a deer-like monster in a game does not infringe on Shaymin or Xerneas. A plant-themed monkey is not a rip-off of Pansage merely because it is a plant-themed monkey. The abstract idea of a grass monkey is uncopyrightable, and the designs themselves look nothing alike.

That being said, some of Palworld’s creatures do bear a striking resemblance to specific Pokemon. For instance, one Pal looks identical to Eevee’s head on a fluffy, cloud-like body. Another Pal resembles Leafeon, and yet another looks like Lucario. These instances could potentially be used as evidence of copyright infringement.

If Nintendo decides to take legal action against Pocketpair, the outcome would depend on several factors. The first question would be whether the original work is protected by copyright. Given that Nintendo owns the Pokemon franchise and its related intellectual property, it is safe to assume that the relevant works are copyrighted.

The next question would be whether Pocketpair has copied a substantial part of the original work. The similarities between some of Palworld’s creatures and specific Pokemon could be used as evidence of copying. However, it would be up to a court to determine whether those similarities are substantial enough to constitute copyright infringement.

Finally, there are potential defenses that Pocketpair could raise. For instance, they could argue that their use of the similar creatures falls under the fair use doctrine. Fair use allows the use of copyrighted material for certain purposes, such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. However, to qualify for fair use, the use must be transformative, meaning it must add something new or different to the original work.

In the context of Palworld and Pokemon, it would be challenging to argue that the use of similar creatures is transformative. While Palworld does add some new elements to the catching and battling genre, the similarities between some of its creatures and specific Pokemon are too close to be considered transformative.

Another potential defense that Pocketpair could raise is that of laches. Laches is a legal doctrine that bars a plaintiff from enforcing their rights if they have unreasonably delayed bringing the action. Given that Palworld has been on the market for several days, and Nintendo has only recently issued a statement indicating that it intends to take action, Pocketpair could argue that Nintendo has unreasonably delayed bringing the action and should be barred from doing so.

In conclusion, the debate over whether Palworld infringes upon Pokemon’s intellectual property rights or falls under the fair use doctrine is a complex one. While some of Palworld’s creatures bear a striking resemblance to specific Pokemon, it is essential to remember that the idea of catching and battling creatures is not copyrightable. Instead, the focus should be on the specific expression of that idea. If Nintendo decides to take legal action against Pocketpair, the outcome would depend on several factors, including whether the original work is protected by copyright, whether Pocketpair has copied a substantial part of the original work, and whether there are any available defenses. Ultimately, the outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the video game industry as a whole.