Has Anyone Ever Got Sued over Parodys?

[Dukez]

You are still the one infringing their copy right so of course you can be sued.

The important thing to know is that any company can send you a cease and desist on your parody game so you just don't mention the actual thing you are parodying on your Patreon and just hope they ignore you like they do for 99% of games

How can they own a copyright on a game when they are using assets from something they don't own though? I'm talking someone creating a Renpy game using screenshots made from an Illusion game. Illusion owns the copyright, someone's made a game out of their creation via screenshots (which are still copyright owned by Illusion) and then you parody that renpy game.

I could understand a case from Illusion doing it, but not the person who made a Renpy made unaffliated with Illusion. Perhaps at best on the writing but then they would be opening themselves up to the fact that they are also infringing upon copyright themselves. Plus in this case of it being a parody on top... I just don't see it in this particular instance.

 

[Deleted member 5302499]

Sooo from what I got, if they ever become aware of the parody they will (likely) send a C&D warning first, and if ignore it you get called. Well I made this threat to see if anyone ever got actually sued, but that doesn't seem to be the case, only warnings (Even though there Nintendo and Disney IP's here). Thanks for the info guys, I will take it in consideration

 

[Belphegor007]

How can they own a copyright on a game when they are using assets from something they don't own though? I'm talking someone creating a Renpy game using screenshots made from an Illusion game. Illusion owns the copyright, someone's made a game out of their creation via screenshots (which are still copyright owned by Illusion) and then you parody that renpy game.

I could understand a case from Illusion doing it, but not the person who made a Renpy made unaffliated with Illusion. Perhaps at best on the writing but then they would be opening themselves up to the fact that they are also infringing upon copyright themselves. Plus in this case of it being a parody on top... I just don't see it in this particular instance.

You are still generating the infringing content because by your logic if I pirate photo shop and use that to make my images then I can't get in trouble because I never had the license to use photo shop.

 

[Dukez]

You are still generating the infringing content because by your logic if I pirate photo shop and use that to make my images then I can't get in trouble because I never had the license to use photo shop.

I think you're missing the middle man part I'm referring to here though so I'll lay it out more clearly.

Person A (Illusion): Creates Software with 3d models, studio, etc. All screenshots made through use of their software is a copyright of Illusion.
Person B: Creates a renpy story game using screenshots taken from Illusion's software. They do NOT own copyright on these images.
Person C: Creates a parody of the game Person B made.

Person C shouldn't be able to get copyright claimed by Person B because they are publishing content they don't own the copyright too. This was my point. Am I wrong?

Photoshop is a bad example too, because what you create is yours (for arguments sake let's say you own the license) but even if you "own" Illusion software you do not own the screenshots you create with Illusion's software, it is still owned by Illusion.

 

[Belphegor007]

I think you're missing the middle man part I'm referring to here though so I'll lay it out more clearly.

Person A (Illusion): Creates Software with 3d models, studio, etc. All screenshots made through use of their software is a copyright of Illusion.
Person B: Creates a renpy story game using screenshots taken from Illusion's software. They do NOT own copyright on these images.
Person C: Creates a parody of the game Person B made.

Person C shouldn't be able to get copyright claimed by Person B because they are publishing content they don't own the copyright too. This was my point. Am I wrong?

Photoshop is a bad example too, because what you create is yours (for arguments sake let's say you own the license) but even if you "own" Illusion software you do not own the screenshots you create with Illusion's software, it is still owned by Illusion.

The entire conversation was originally about MHA not an original IP made by someone using Illusion soft for illustrations