Ren'Py Rogue-like: Evolution [v1.52a] [Oni]
- Thread starter 7767
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2dcg anal sex animated big tits bukkake corruption creampie exhibitionism female protagonist footjob groping group sex handjob harem interracial lesbian male domination male protagonist masturbation milf oral sex parody pov romance sandbox spanking stripping superpowers titfuck vaginal sex voyeurism
- May 16, 2022
- 277
- 1,097
If they don't know about it, no. Otherwise, with the fist of a thousand angry Nintendo lawyers & spies.
you're asking the wrong dude, i made a joke based on someone else's weird claim
- Mar 8, 2021
- 27
- 7
if they really are sticking to only x men i would love to see mystique and petranot too bad, not too bad
Nintendo stopped Mario is Missing Parody but the dev added many Mario sounds maybe thats why
- Jun 12, 2021
- 71
- 106
Parody is legal but fair use protections aren't automatic and inferred; you have to prove what you're doing is parody under the laws of whatever jurisdiction you're being sued under. In the US, courts consider:
* the purpose and character of the use
* the nature of the original work
* the amount of the original work used
* the effect on the market value of the original work
But the only thing that really matters is if your lawyers can argue better than Disney's that you're trying to make meaningful social commentary and not just money.
As other posters have said the best defense isn't a fair use legal claim, it's going under the radar and hoping the disney panopticon decides you're not worth the effort.
- Feb 10, 2019
- 1,229
- 3,473
Either that, or make your smut so good, that even the corpo rats wanna preserve it for their fapping.
- May 16, 2022
- 277
- 1,097
Depends. If there's commercial intent behind it, such as selling directly or utilizing Patreon? Nope, no way, no commercial intent allowed. The exception is "likeness" - you can use a likeness as parody, so long as you don't directly call it by it's copyrighted name. Which is how South Park gets away with their parodies, and how Marvel got away with putting E.T., Boba Fett, and ALF in their comics in the 80's (below). A company can, and will, go after someone legally if they believe the parody would damage the brand, such as images involving violence and/or pornography, and/or if it would confuse the market/consumer. They don't have to be in the legal right to do so - they just have to have more money to use in the lawsuit than the one(s) they're suing to make them back-off.
(This is how many corporations use the courts - as a bully tactic. Which would change overnight if a law were passed & upheld on the US that if someone should sue someone else and lose, then the plaintiff would have to pay all legal fees of the defense, but I digress.)
Now, just because Disney hasn't sued someone for porn parodies doesn't mean they won't. Back in the 70's Disney sued a group called "Air Pirate Funnies" due to selling comics using Mickey Mouse in both name and appearance. Earlier this year, Disney sued a "Disney Simp" for selling fake theme park merch. In '89 Disney sued a day care for using likenesses of their characters. in 2016 Disney successfully sued and won in Chinese court against a Chinese company using the likeness of "Cars" characters. They're currently (as of the articles I've read) involved in a lawsuit with Redbox, which Redbox is losing.
The main take away of these (and dozens of others) is that Disney will sue, but so far only if those violating the "fair use/parody" exemptions are doing so in a way that hits their bottom dollar - fake merch, fake comics, unlicensed screenings and/or distribution of their movies, etc.
So far Disney has ignored the porn (yay!!). But this doesn't mean that they always will. Especially depending on how the current lawsuits between Disney & South Park go. Remember the "Air Pirate Funnies" I mentioned? The other reason for the lawsuit was for the way these comics mocked & ridiculed Disney as a company. Sound familiar? Sure, South Park has successfully defended such parody lawsuits in the past, and I expect them to do so again. However, I can also see an instance where South Park (or a future defendant) uses the various ignored porn parodies in their defense against Disney, with Disney being forced to go the full "nuclear option" against porn parodies (even if it's just a few dozen DMCA notices that scares everyone into removing Disney-parallel parodies from their sites) just to win these/future lawsuits.
The key takeaway is distribution. Pre-Interbutts, it was difficult to sue against porn parody as, well, who do you sue? Can you even find the original artist? The people doing the printing & selling? It was just too big of a headache & expense to go after such a niche market. Today? Porn of Disney is pretty much everywhere online, and people aren't afraid to attach their name/alias on it. But that also means that it would just take a quick DMCA notice to, say, Google to scare everyone else. The question for the courts, if anyone is even interested in defending Disney porn in courts, is if Disney even can sue for porn parodies after all these decades of ignoring them.
Uhg...too early in the afternoon for all this typing...I need more whiskey...
Uncanny X-Men #244:
It took a few decades, but a lot of these aliens are now owned by the same company that owns Marvel! Oh, and I also included an early example (I think from the late 60's?) of what Disney has ignored:
Challenging the IP of a character in court can be a double edge sword. If the the defendant wins it diminishes the value of the IP and can possibly lead to to dismissal of the IP rights in extreme situations. So sometimes it better to let the intrusion exist because it has no real effect on the main stream business us of the IP
- Jun 12, 2021
- 71
- 106
This is true... but not defending your IP rights *also* weakens your IP rights. And for the most part defendents are going to go with Fair Use, not "they don't own the rights."
This reminds me of when Universal sued Nintendo over Donkey Kong's similarity to King Kong - and during the trial Nintendo's lawyers discovered that Universal didn't actually own King Kong at all.
- Jun 12, 2021
- 71
- 106
(I'm not a lawyer but I've been looking into IP, fan fiction, parody, and fair use because I'm working on my own Marvel game at the moment. It's nothing like RL:E - entirely text, in Twine, not a sim, and closer to 616's silver age - but I've come to the conclusion that I can't safely monetize the game in any way, so if I set up a Patreon for my work that particular game won't be featured there.)
- Apr 26, 2020
- 1,198
- 3,822
No it *can* weaken the IP rights if the infringement is intruding into the mainstream marketplace but porn parody of characters isn't likely weakening the IP. *note I'm solely discussing characters and their facsimile and not names or something that search engines might start placing before the mainstream content (ex the injustice unlimited to something unlimited name change)
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2019
- 245
- 513
Seems some great minds think alike? Or maybe the artist was inspired by this game.
- Apr 14, 2020
- 1,379
- 4,742
Its weird seeing Kitty with big tits.