413
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
413 points (97.9% liked)
Games
17040 readers
1212 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I tend to be in the "fuck corporations" camp, but this doesn't really look like they're stealing his work. It looks nothing like the original Charlie the Unicorn. The original Charlie was gray, while this creature is white and rainbow. This is just a reference.
As an analogy, Borderlands 2 has a sniper rifle names The Storm, and it has the red flavor text "tut tut, looks like rain", which is a quote from Winnie the Pooh. I personally wouldn't call that exploitation. You could try to make an argument, but it's so minor and indirect that any argument wouldn't hold any water
They mention a character Charlie, unicorns, and a candy place. I don't know why they are being so careful to avoid accusations of stealing the author's work, because that's exactly what they're doing. People who are familiar with Charlie the unicorn are supposed to recognize it here, and spend their money on Warner Bros merchandise. How could you possibly not see this as theft?
Are pop culture references theft? No.
Plagiarism is theft, idiot.
Mere references aren't plagiarism, idiot.
They're ... selling his content without his permission
Oh my god are you stupid? Can you read??? Someone help this poor fool! He's engaging in debate and has no ability to keep up!
Trolling should be more subtle
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's trolling. Trolling implies that I wanted your response. I don't.
Actually, not necessarily. Plagiarism is not interchangeable with copyright infringement. Plagiarism is specifically academic misconduct.
Those videos that upload an entire movie to YouTube and put "no copyright infringement intended" in the description are not committing plagiarism, because they are being honest about how the content they are using is not their own. But they are committing copyright infringement.
Likewise, you can do plagiarism while not doing copyright infringement, if you take something that is public domain and use it in your research paper without explaining where you got it. It's public domain, so there's nothing legally wrong there. But it's academically dishonest.