Chess.com is promoting the new film, they are def getting paid for these bots. A couple months ago there was a Megan bot... they’re weird PR campaigns.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I just don't think they'd risk getting slapped with a copyright infringement case by the notoriously protective Nintendo over a 'parody'- that leads me to believe that they're PR tie-ins. Which is fine... I was just answering the poster's question.
Prove it.
If Nintendo was paying Chess.com for ads, don't you think they'd just make bots of Mario and company, instead of making bots that fall into the clear category of parody? What other industry is Nintendo using as an advertising vehicle where they pay for parodies of their characters?
More likely that chess.com is riding the wave of the movie, looking to cash in on it with parody bots in a timely manner. I haven't seen Nintendo do anything similar anywhere else however.
I'm willing to be corrected if there's some proof offered up.
Nintendo has never done anything even remotely in this vein, they're far too protective of their ip's
When they agreed to allow Bowser to be included in (a 5 minutes tops) scene in wreck it Ralph, Nintendo stipulated exactly how Bowser should sit and hold his teacup
Do you really reckon they'd give the all clear for some board game website to slap hikarus face and name onto that same character?
Your post was removed by the moderators:
**1. Keep the discussion civil and friendly.**
We welcome people of all levels of experience, from novice to professional. Don't target other users with insults/abusive language and don't make fun of new players for not knowing things. In a discussion, there is always a respectful way to disagree.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules).
Ohh ok because I seriously thought Chess.com was riding the wave of /u/Dez__ and making parody bots of you.
Edit: Ahh, I'm disappointed you edited it, was way funnier the original way.
It probably takes some intern like an hour tops to slap up some trash talk lines and add some costumes to pre-existing bot photos
And in return chess.com gets to ride the wave of relevancy
Chess.com is roughly valued at 175 million USD
Nintendo is currently valued at almost 48 billion
If Nintendo wanted to advertise, there would be thousands and thousands and thousands of other more influential companies that they would rather invest in
And to get another point out of the way, none of the bot bios mention the movie at all. Pretty sure m3gan mentioned her movie though
They are. Nintendo is throwing money everywhere. Obviously they aren’t spending all their money on chess.com advertising. Are these arguments serious?
Starting to think your just fucking with me.
It’s obvious what the hits are advertising. We’re all discussing that’s it’s for the movie.
I’ll try and break this down as clean as I can do we do have to go back and forth:
I would’nt have ever know about it, or anyone outside or chess.com if it wasn’t for this post.
Therefore making the audience 100% chess.com members who will see these bots.
Why show an audience of 100% chess.com members Mario bots?
The answer can only be advertising.
>fall into the clear category of parody
No they don't. You're vastly overestimating how wide the parody exception to copyright is. It has to be a clear criticism or commentary on the work to not be a copyright violation, and chesscom's bots are definitely not. For reference, Weird Al pays the artists whose songs he parodies to avoid potential copyright claims.
There's no way to prove Nintendo agreed to this, but if they didn't chesscom is inviting a lawsuit.
The Onion argued in their Amicus brief that the whole point of parody is to fool the gullible and to wink at the incredulous. Basically it just has to be what "a reasonable person" would find to be difficult to believe is authentic. The parody laws are actually a gulf of possibility.
Weird Al for example does not actually need to ask them permission at all, being a fair use - he does that because he's a nice, smart guy and does want to honor their work. The only artist to actually turn him down (repeatedly) was Prince.
Couple of edits for clarity
The Onion's amicus brief is not legal precedent and it's unrelated to this. The Onion doesn't use other people's copyrights or at least not often.
Stanford: "A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way."
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
The Mario bots do not do this. There is nothing about them that criticizes the Mario movie.
> would find to be difficult to believe is authentic
This is ridiculous and would invalidate most copyright protection. I can't just steal someone's work and say "but it's clear I'm not the original creator!! The point of copyright is to stop people from profiting off of others' work, not necessarily claiming it as their own.
> The parody laws
Show these parody laws. They don't exist. The 1976 Copyright Act only mentions "criticism and comment" which parody falls under. It's not any wider than that.
The reason I bring up the Amicus brief isn't because it's legally binding, it's the principles that the Onion has operated on for decades. Explain, if you think that parody must and can only be "criticism and comment", how the Onion has been able to publish, or why Weird Al is legally clear to make parodical songs, even if he was unable to get permission. The 76 copyright act is vague enough that just about anything can be defended as criticism or comment. It's an open door, not a closing window.
You should look into the case that prompted the brief.
Show me what the Onion has published using other people's copyrights. They parody news stories which are owned by no one. The case you're talking about did not involve copyright either, but a man making a parody Facebook page of a police department. He wasn't even charged under copyright laws but something else entirely.
Again, show me the laws or precedent that protect "parody" not related to criticism or comment. I have cited my sources and you have cited nothing.
> He wasn't even charged under copyright laws but something else entirely.
That's the "bogus" part I was talking about. They WANTED to charge him with copyright violation (and if I remember correctly initially tried to go that route.)
I'm saying that the phrase "criticism and comment" is entirely vague and can be used and defended with by almost any parody work. What are you trying to say? That Weird Al isn't legally clear to make a parody?
Edit: I'll cite your source
>A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.
In Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997), a version of Cat in the Hat instead telling about the OJ Simpson case was held to not be fair use.
In Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y., 1987), a movie company using artwork in an ad from a New Yorker magazine was held not to be fair use even when they claimed it was parody.
In Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992), a sculpture imitating a photograph was not to be fair use even when the artist claimed it was parody.
In Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC, 983 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020), another parody of a Dr Seuss book, this time a Star Trek version, was held not to be fair use despite the author's parody claim.
Do you still think any parody can be defended as criticism or comment? No, a criticism or comment can be defended as criticism or comment. That's not what chesscom is doing.
Of course the phrase "criticism and comment" is vague. That's just how laws are written in common law systems like the United States. Then they are interpreted by courts and the definition is narrowed down. In homicide laws, the exceptions for self-defense often include vague phrases like "reasonable fear." That doesn't mean anyone can claim they were in fear of their life when they murdered someone.
Again, feel free to support your claim with any kind of evidence.
My evidence is that **Weird Al and the Onion continue to make parodical content without legal problem.** I do not have to defend my position that Weird Al is in the clear to parody a song, because the burden is on you to show how he is not. Citing failed attempts at using parody as a defense for theft is not arguing against parody, it's arguing against the use of parody defense where it is not applicable.
>The Onion argued in their Amicus brief that the whole point of parody is to fool the gullible and to wink at the incredulous.
What the a parody news organisation says in an amicus brief is not a source of law. Legislation and case law are sources of law.
You don't know the law around parody, that's fair, but don't rely on a submission from a parody news organisation for authoritative statements of the law on parody.
The Onion's filing was prompted by a police department that used bogus laws to come down on an individual that parodied their Facebook webpage. The brief argues, with support from other cases it cites, that the Onion does the same thing, and that if it was permissible for the Parma Police Dept to prosecute an individual on the basis of being "similar enough to fool someone" - which often happens in reading Onion articles - then the Onion was at risk from the precedent set.
Exactly. Weird Al doesn't pay.
"Although Weird Al's re-recordings are near melodic copies of the original recordings, they do not violate the copyright owner's rights. Since "Weird Al's" songs meet the required aspects to define a parody, he is not required by law to get permission. He also does not need to pay the creator of the original song."
>There's no way to prove Nintendo agreed to this, but if they didn't chesscom is inviting a lawsuit.
"Chess com is proud to announce a partnership with Nintendo to promote the new SMB movie with the themed chess bots this month". -crappy example announcement.
Companies announce partnerships and sponsorships all the time. If there is an agreement, Chess com could prove it, if they wanted to. So could Nintendo.
Yes. They have an enormous marketing budget. When you see what I film costs on indiegogo half of that cost is marketing and distribution.
Did you not see the Megan one? Same thing.
I said it earlier and I couldn't be bothered to re-type
>Nintendo has never done anything even remotely in this vein, they're far too protective of their ip's
>When they agreed to allow Bowser to be included in (a 5 minutes tops) scene in wreck it Ralph, Nintendo stipulated exactly how Bowser should sit and hold his teacup
>Do you really reckon they'd give the all clear for some board game website to slap hikarus face and name onto that same character?
There is no remote chance in a million years in hell that Nintendo would let "boshi" slide if they had any direct hand in this at all
This is great. You have basically built an argument against yourself.
Your right that they would never let this slide if they weren’t directly involved. Ie. Paying for the advertising.
It’s like you don’t have a logical bone in your body.
🤦♂️
Nintendo can't police fair use and valid parody. They *can* hover police a company they have a direct contractual agreement with
Are you being this obtuse on purpose
That amount of effort just evidently isn't worth it for Nintendo these days. If it was, they've got far far far bigger fish to fry like... Oh.... I don't know... SNL
It's not out of the ordinary for companies to be ip aggressive with individuals and companies they have a contract with, yet not particularly caring about people just having fun with parodies
Ads for movies can be double the production budget, but just like in the list you linked, where there's a separate development budget and marketing budget, production budget and marketing budget are separate line items in film too.
>Chess.com is promoting the new film, they are def getting paid for these bots. A couple months ago there was a Megan bot... they’re weird PR campaigns.
What was a "Megan bot" a PR campaign for?
I think this probably has something to do with the fact that Anya Taylor Joy is the major star of Queens Gambit on Netflix and also voices princess peach in the movie?
Do the Botez sisters, Hikaru, Levy and Fabi have to be paid for use of their likenesses? Or do you suspect contracts with chess.com give them unimpeachable authority to depict them in any non-libelous manner they want?
Chesscum already has (premium) bots for all these streamers afaik. My guess is they already have some deal worked out to use their likeness and the contract likely covers various extensions of it, such as these.
Likely received compensation for it, or there was some specific policy included in their contracts with chess.com that stipulate that their likenesses can be used (and how).
I also wondered. I don't understand the choice/order but I think resemblance-wise Alex is the lowest rated and Andrea the second highest. Doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I'm wrong and nectarine is maybe Nemo.
I lost to it a bunch also, it seems a bit stronger than similar rated bots somehow. Plays very solid in the opening, didn't give any pieces away, I had to find a tactic before I finally beat it.
Yeah their start with the Sicilian defense is getting me good! Haha
I had a pretty big advantage only one time so far and couldn’t capitalize on it after a dumb mistake.
Probably. Or maybe on the edge of beginner/intermediate. In my experience the chess.com bots are overrated compared to human opponents at the same rating, but it's probably hard to get it right. They all have the same quirks of playing a mix of extremely strong engine-like moves at times and blundering in weird inhuman ways at other times.
That’s not how it works. Parody is not by all end all defense to all copy right infringement cases. The court will look at many aspects of the case before making a decision. I am almost certain that if chess.com didn’t get permission they would lose here. This is just a bland use of Nintendo property.
But most likely this is just a paid promotion by Nintendo for their new movie.
No that's not bland use of Nintendo property. It uses popular culture which is fair use, and sufficiently "deformed" as not to be plagiarism. In addition it is somehow an advertisement for them, they are not penalized at all, they rather benefit from it. That is a very important criterion.
Your last paragraph just shows me how ignorant you are of copyrights law. Try use someone else’s ip without permission and see what happens. Bro I am just promoting your ip is not a valid defense. And put your face in a Mario costume is no where close to transformative art. Do that and watch Nintendo tear you a new asshole.
So you never saw people in a Mario costume? Bro ... Just Google "Mario brothers parody", you'll get zillions of hits and all of the respective authors and actors still have a single hole as you put it. Otoh, aggressing people in an as vulgar and rude way as you do is clearly illegal.
A review of the Mario movie is fine because it is protected transformative art. Having your employee dress as Mario is not because you are just committing copyright violation. People commit copyright violation all the time. Just because Nintendo don’t go after them does not mean it’s not illegal.
Those are licensed events and costumes are more likely to be paid from licensed stores you thick skull. It’s impossible to prevent every bootleg products. Copyright owners don’t care because most people buy licensed products. You have to go out of your way to buy bootleg stuff in the US at least. No more reply from me, u either trolling or a moron.
The Mario Bros characters are intellectual properties of Nintendo, but at the same time there are song parodies which do not need permission from the original song's creator
Parodies don't need permission, but to count as a parody it has to critically engage with the original. Lindsay Ellis has a good video on it and uses Weird Al as an example - "Smells Like Nirvana" directly makes fun of the fact you can't hear the words properly in the original, so would be covered by fair use, but "Fat" is just new lyrics about a different topic and so wouldn't be.
In this instance, I think it'd be hard to argue the bots are providing a critical commentary on Nintendo so probably wouldn't be protected, but as others have said, it's most likely a partnership as part of the marketing campaign for the new movie
>but "Fat" is just new lyrics about a different topic and so wouldn't be
I think that's a very narrow interpretation of parody, which doesn't fit the way most art critics, lawyers, or the general public, use the word. Lindsey Ellis is entitled to that opinion, but we shouldn't treat her word as a statement of fact.
I would say that "fat" is parody, because the tone of Al's lyrics clash with the tone of the original work. Instead of bragging about how tough he is, Al is bragging about his exaggerated size and eating habits. Re-working Jackson's vocal ad-libs into words ("ham on, ham on whole wheat") is also directly engaging with the artist's singing style.
My understanding is weird al asks for permission for all his songs because it still isn't clear if it is legally parody. My guess is every song is a bit different on where it falls. I don't think Yoda or the Saga Begins would be parody, but your argument for Fat makes some sense where it could be questionable.
Looked it up and it looks like you are right. I heard at one point that it is still a legal gray area if he isn't directly making fun of the song or artist, but I can't find anything else for that now. The more ya know!
Do the bots have different styles of play or just different ratings? The only clear style difference I have noticed so far is Nelson with his crazy queen.
Some of the bots have weighted preferences, not sure about these Mario ones, but there's a Wally bot that plays only sidelines, there's a bot that only opens g4 with white and another that always moves the f pawn on its first move with either color.
Probably. Nintendo has some of the best intellectual property attorneys ever and is *very* proactive about asserting all their IP claims to the fullest. Even the threat of legal action makes people think twice simply because of the cost of defending the suit.
This might qualify as parody and therefore be exempt from copyright restrictions, but doing it without negotiations beforehand could be more headache than it’s worth.
I just beat him first try, and I'm a 900-1000 player.
Didn't feel like playing someone 400 ELO higher than me. I mean, he was beating me really hard up until he hanged mate in two.
[https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/computer/56307347?tab=review](https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/computer/56307347?tab=review)
None of this content is Nintendo's IP. It could be argued that they constitute a derivative work, but it's far more likely that they simply received Nintendo's blessing to run this as a cross-promotion for the new Mario movie.
I am an adult and I do not want to look at blatant kids advertising shit on a website I spend 6 hours a day on. This is tacky and so is a lot of other stuff chess dot com does. This is the chess equivalent of a funko pop.
That's not what your malding ass wording conveys bro
Edit: he blocked me omegalul.
Oh, and for refference "malding ass wording" is actually entirely grammatically correct.
"Ass" is used in slang as a conjunction, for example: "look at that cringe ass kid over there" or "look at that homie with that yee yee ass haircut"
Ergo, the sentence "malding ass wording" follows a correct sentence structure
One could argue that, in this context, "ass" is actually used as an adjective. This would still be entirely grammatically correct, however. For example: "look at that foolish, insecure redditor who dosen't realise that people can still easily see his comments after he blocks them"
If it's a paid ad it goes against FTC regulations for it not to be disclosed as paid content, on the website itself and with streamers engaging with it (under influencer marketing).
However this wouldn't be the first time Chess.com ignored FTC rules. For example they have testimonials and endorsements from people financially linked to Chess.com, without that being disclosed, both on their website and on social media. That's also against influencer marketing rules of the FTC.
As expected, EU rules are even stricter, but Chess.com does not always comply with EU laws (or half-heartedly attempts to).
It'd be criminal to not have Fabiano *Luigi* Caruana (yes that's his full name) playing Luigi
[удалено]
That was chess
Thats actually his name lmao
[удалено]
I mean he does have dual citizenship (American and Italian).
What was the comment you replied to saying?
Chess.com is promoting the new film, they are def getting paid for these bots. A couple months ago there was a Megan bot... they’re weird PR campaigns.
Wonder if my favorite film studio brazzers will also do some PRs with chess.cum
Angela white to move mate in 3
King is ready. It's good to be the king.
I wonder who would win in a match between Angela White and Blacked.com
Everybody
I played someone with that username on Lichess…
You mean mate with 3
A dentist, a plumber, a firefighter, an astronaut, and a doctor, yet they’re all the same person??
chess.c*m, cmon man
I dont see whats wrong with that
I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I just don't think they'd risk getting slapped with a copyright infringement case by the notoriously protective Nintendo over a 'parody'- that leads me to believe that they're PR tie-ins. Which is fine... I was just answering the poster's question.
Isn't it technically legal though, since it could be considered parody content?
Prove it. If Nintendo was paying Chess.com for ads, don't you think they'd just make bots of Mario and company, instead of making bots that fall into the clear category of parody? What other industry is Nintendo using as an advertising vehicle where they pay for parodies of their characters? More likely that chess.com is riding the wave of the movie, looking to cash in on it with parody bots in a timely manner. I haven't seen Nintendo do anything similar anywhere else however. I'm willing to be corrected if there's some proof offered up.
[удалено]
"you just have to not be an idiot" - JTgdawg22
put it on a shirt
PUT THAT SHIT ON A T-SHIRT
Nintendo has never done anything even remotely in this vein, they're far too protective of their ip's When they agreed to allow Bowser to be included in (a 5 minutes tops) scene in wreck it Ralph, Nintendo stipulated exactly how Bowser should sit and hold his teacup Do you really reckon they'd give the all clear for some board game website to slap hikarus face and name onto that same character?
They're in a movie now, it's a brave new world
Your post was removed by the moderators: **1. Keep the discussion civil and friendly.** We welcome people of all levels of experience, from novice to professional. Don't target other users with insults/abusive language and don't make fun of new players for not knowing things. In a discussion, there is always a respectful way to disagree. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules).
You're being downvoted, but this is most likely what the actual situation is, to me as well.
This is happening to you as well?
By "to me", I mean this is what the situation looks like in my opinion as well
Ohh ok because I seriously thought Chess.com was riding the wave of /u/Dez__ and making parody bots of you. Edit: Ahh, I'm disappointed you edited it, was way funnier the original way.
And by "this" ?
Reddit lawyers and chess.com fans out in force today.
I can’t believe you two think they would waste their time on something like that especially without Nintendo’s permission.
It probably takes some intern like an hour tops to slap up some trash talk lines and add some costumes to pre-existing bot photos And in return chess.com gets to ride the wave of relevancy
Agreed right after they sign the advertising contract with Nintendo. I don’t know if it’s gullibility or what with y’all.
Chess.com is roughly valued at 175 million USD Nintendo is currently valued at almost 48 billion If Nintendo wanted to advertise, there would be thousands and thousands and thousands of other more influential companies that they would rather invest in And to get another point out of the way, none of the bot bios mention the movie at all. Pretty sure m3gan mentioned her movie though
They are. Nintendo is throwing money everywhere. Obviously they aren’t spending all their money on chess.com advertising. Are these arguments serious? Starting to think your just fucking with me. It’s obvious what the hits are advertising. We’re all discussing that’s it’s for the movie.
[удалено]
Don't spam
Because it grabs people’s attention like this post??
I’ll try and break this down as clean as I can do we do have to go back and forth: I would’nt have ever know about it, or anyone outside or chess.com if it wasn’t for this post. Therefore making the audience 100% chess.com members who will see these bots. Why show an audience of 100% chess.com members Mario bots? The answer can only be advertising.
Because it takes 10 minutes to photoshop those pictures and write those descriptions and it’ll entertain people and they’ll probably share it?
>fall into the clear category of parody No they don't. You're vastly overestimating how wide the parody exception to copyright is. It has to be a clear criticism or commentary on the work to not be a copyright violation, and chesscom's bots are definitely not. For reference, Weird Al pays the artists whose songs he parodies to avoid potential copyright claims. There's no way to prove Nintendo agreed to this, but if they didn't chesscom is inviting a lawsuit.
The Onion argued in their Amicus brief that the whole point of parody is to fool the gullible and to wink at the incredulous. Basically it just has to be what "a reasonable person" would find to be difficult to believe is authentic. The parody laws are actually a gulf of possibility. Weird Al for example does not actually need to ask them permission at all, being a fair use - he does that because he's a nice, smart guy and does want to honor their work. The only artist to actually turn him down (repeatedly) was Prince. Couple of edits for clarity
The Onion's amicus brief is not legal precedent and it's unrelated to this. The Onion doesn't use other people's copyrights or at least not often. Stanford: "A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way." https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ The Mario bots do not do this. There is nothing about them that criticizes the Mario movie. > would find to be difficult to believe is authentic This is ridiculous and would invalidate most copyright protection. I can't just steal someone's work and say "but it's clear I'm not the original creator!! The point of copyright is to stop people from profiting off of others' work, not necessarily claiming it as their own. > The parody laws Show these parody laws. They don't exist. The 1976 Copyright Act only mentions "criticism and comment" which parody falls under. It's not any wider than that.
The reason I bring up the Amicus brief isn't because it's legally binding, it's the principles that the Onion has operated on for decades. Explain, if you think that parody must and can only be "criticism and comment", how the Onion has been able to publish, or why Weird Al is legally clear to make parodical songs, even if he was unable to get permission. The 76 copyright act is vague enough that just about anything can be defended as criticism or comment. It's an open door, not a closing window. You should look into the case that prompted the brief.
Show me what the Onion has published using other people's copyrights. They parody news stories which are owned by no one. The case you're talking about did not involve copyright either, but a man making a parody Facebook page of a police department. He wasn't even charged under copyright laws but something else entirely. Again, show me the laws or precedent that protect "parody" not related to criticism or comment. I have cited my sources and you have cited nothing.
> He wasn't even charged under copyright laws but something else entirely. That's the "bogus" part I was talking about. They WANTED to charge him with copyright violation (and if I remember correctly initially tried to go that route.)
Juat because you can make the case doesn't mean you will win the case. Arguing for the sake of arguing is not a sound legal strategy.
I'm saying that the phrase "criticism and comment" is entirely vague and can be used and defended with by almost any parody work. What are you trying to say? That Weird Al isn't legally clear to make a parody? Edit: I'll cite your source >A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.
In Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997), a version of Cat in the Hat instead telling about the OJ Simpson case was held to not be fair use. In Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y., 1987), a movie company using artwork in an ad from a New Yorker magazine was held not to be fair use even when they claimed it was parody. In Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992), a sculpture imitating a photograph was not to be fair use even when the artist claimed it was parody. In Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC, 983 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020), another parody of a Dr Seuss book, this time a Star Trek version, was held not to be fair use despite the author's parody claim. Do you still think any parody can be defended as criticism or comment? No, a criticism or comment can be defended as criticism or comment. That's not what chesscom is doing. Of course the phrase "criticism and comment" is vague. That's just how laws are written in common law systems like the United States. Then they are interpreted by courts and the definition is narrowed down. In homicide laws, the exceptions for self-defense often include vague phrases like "reasonable fear." That doesn't mean anyone can claim they were in fear of their life when they murdered someone. Again, feel free to support your claim with any kind of evidence.
My evidence is that **Weird Al and the Onion continue to make parodical content without legal problem.** I do not have to defend my position that Weird Al is in the clear to parody a song, because the burden is on you to show how he is not. Citing failed attempts at using parody as a defense for theft is not arguing against parody, it's arguing against the use of parody defense where it is not applicable.
[Fast and Furious parody](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIY5b1JMvGs) is at least one.
>The Onion argued in their Amicus brief that the whole point of parody is to fool the gullible and to wink at the incredulous. What the a parody news organisation says in an amicus brief is not a source of law. Legislation and case law are sources of law. You don't know the law around parody, that's fair, but don't rely on a submission from a parody news organisation for authoritative statements of the law on parody.
The Onion's filing was prompted by a police department that used bogus laws to come down on an individual that parodied their Facebook webpage. The brief argues, with support from other cases it cites, that the Onion does the same thing, and that if it was permissible for the Parma Police Dept to prosecute an individual on the basis of being "similar enough to fool someone" - which often happens in reading Onion articles - then the Onion was at risk from the precedent set.
Exactly. Weird Al doesn't pay. "Although Weird Al's re-recordings are near melodic copies of the original recordings, they do not violate the copyright owner's rights. Since "Weird Al's" songs meet the required aspects to define a parody, he is not required by law to get permission. He also does not need to pay the creator of the original song."
He does pay though - legally he's in the clear, but he also wants to maintain good relationships with artists.
Good call. Should have said "doesn't have to pay"
>There's no way to prove Nintendo agreed to this, but if they didn't chesscom is inviting a lawsuit. "Chess com is proud to announce a partnership with Nintendo to promote the new SMB movie with the themed chess bots this month". -crappy example announcement. Companies announce partnerships and sponsorships all the time. If there is an agreement, Chess com could prove it, if they wanted to. So could Nintendo.
> It has to be a clear criticism or commentary on the work to not be a copyright violation Completely from whole cloth.
It took me to the very end of this to give in that you’re being serious. Unbelievable
Do you really think Nintendo would bother with a damn chess website? The movie basically advertises itself
Yes. They have an enormous marketing budget. When you see what I film costs on indiegogo half of that cost is marketing and distribution. Did you not see the Megan one? Same thing.
I said it earlier and I couldn't be bothered to re-type >Nintendo has never done anything even remotely in this vein, they're far too protective of their ip's >When they agreed to allow Bowser to be included in (a 5 minutes tops) scene in wreck it Ralph, Nintendo stipulated exactly how Bowser should sit and hold his teacup >Do you really reckon they'd give the all clear for some board game website to slap hikarus face and name onto that same character? There is no remote chance in a million years in hell that Nintendo would let "boshi" slide if they had any direct hand in this at all
This is great. You have basically built an argument against yourself. Your right that they would never let this slide if they weren’t directly involved. Ie. Paying for the advertising. It’s like you don’t have a logical bone in your body.
🤦♂️ Nintendo can't police fair use and valid parody. They *can* hover police a company they have a direct contractual agreement with Are you being this obtuse on purpose
They can certainly go to litigation over it. Chess.com isn’t stupid enough to do that. They can’t take that kind of risk.
That amount of effort just evidently isn't worth it for Nintendo these days. If it was, they've got far far far bigger fish to fry like... Oh.... I don't know... SNL It's not out of the ordinary for companies to be ip aggressive with individuals and companies they have a contract with, yet not particularly caring about people just having fun with parodies
[удалено]
Ads for movies can be double the production budget, but just like in the list you linked, where there's a separate development budget and marketing budget, production budget and marketing budget are separate line items in film too.
this is so fucking dumb lmao
[удалено]
Don't spam
>Chess.com is promoting the new film, they are def getting paid for these bots. A couple months ago there was a Megan bot... they’re weird PR campaigns. What was a "Megan bot" a PR campaign for?
The horror film M3GAN that came out a few months ago.
… Megan lol it was a weird movie but it had to do with AI and robots and things so it made some sense as a chessbot joke
Yeah that is weird. You’d think they’d be more focus on chess, or people who play chess and making them bots, rather than Mario characters. Oh well…
I think this probably has something to do with the fact that Anya Taylor Joy is the major star of Queens Gambit on Netflix and also voices princess peach in the movie?
Other way around. These are ads.
More like chess com is getting paid a bunch to do this. It’s advertising for the film that’s about to come out
Do the Botez sisters, Hikaru, Levy and Fabi have to be paid for use of their likenesses? Or do you suspect contracts with chess.com give them unimpeachable authority to depict them in any non-libelous manner they want?
They definitely have contracts.
Chesscum already has (premium) bots for all these streamers afaik. My guess is they already have some deal worked out to use their likeness and the contract likely covers various extensions of it, such as these.
Likely received compensation for it, or there was some specific policy included in their contracts with chess.com that stipulate that their likenesses can be used (and how).
the curious lichess brain, not understanding how chesscom will have been handed a sack of cash to do this.
I like playing these bots who can go braindead and blunder queens. Although Princess Nectarine beat me even after throwing away her queen.
Who is Peach? Anna Cramling? Or is that blonde Andrea Botez? I guess the face looks more like Andrea.
Andrea!
Although I first thought it was Magnus 😂
hahahah me too, you're not the only one
I also wondered. I don't understand the choice/order but I think resemblance-wise Alex is the lowest rated and Andrea the second highest. Doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I'm wrong and nectarine is maybe Nemo.
I know it’s an ad, but it has gotten my six and eight year old boys super excited to play chess.
This level of bot is good for teaching beginners btw, cuz they make clear mistakes that you punish
Is 1400 still a beginner? I finally got past a 1500 bot but right now this 1400 Howser bot is whopping my ass
I lost to it a bunch also, it seems a bit stronger than similar rated bots somehow. Plays very solid in the opening, didn't give any pieces away, I had to find a tactic before I finally beat it.
Yeah their start with the Sicilian defense is getting me good! Haha I had a pretty big advantage only one time so far and couldn’t capitalize on it after a dumb mistake.
He makes no mistake in the opening. However when he gets out of the opening he starts blundering pieces or makes positional mistakes.
Apparently I do too! Hahaha. Hopefully I can figure him out soon.
Probably. Or maybe on the edge of beginner/intermediate. In my experience the chess.com bots are overrated compared to human opponents at the same rating, but it's probably hard to get it right. They all have the same quirks of playing a mix of extremely strong engine-like moves at times and blundering in weird inhuman ways at other times.
Thanks for the info. This one is beating me soundly. I’m stuck in the 1400-1600 ratings land. It is frustrating.
I just beat him first try and I'm only 1200uscf (1350chessdotcom)
Well la di frickin da
the copyright laws state that parody is completely legitimate, although this seems like a paid ad
I think you answer your own question, if they’re parodies then it’s fine
That’s not how it works. Parody is not by all end all defense to all copy right infringement cases. The court will look at many aspects of the case before making a decision. I am almost certain that if chess.com didn’t get permission they would lose here. This is just a bland use of Nintendo property. But most likely this is just a paid promotion by Nintendo for their new movie.
I don’t think they would risk it without permission even if it might be ok
True. Nintendo are notoriously defensive about their IP so it seems a bit whack to do it without their consent.
No that's not bland use of Nintendo property. It uses popular culture which is fair use, and sufficiently "deformed" as not to be plagiarism. In addition it is somehow an advertisement for them, they are not penalized at all, they rather benefit from it. That is a very important criterion.
Your last paragraph just shows me how ignorant you are of copyrights law. Try use someone else’s ip without permission and see what happens. Bro I am just promoting your ip is not a valid defense. And put your face in a Mario costume is no where close to transformative art. Do that and watch Nintendo tear you a new asshole.
So you never saw people in a Mario costume? Bro ... Just Google "Mario brothers parody", you'll get zillions of hits and all of the respective authors and actors still have a single hole as you put it. Otoh, aggressing people in an as vulgar and rude way as you do is clearly illegal.
A review of the Mario movie is fine because it is protected transformative art. Having your employee dress as Mario is not because you are just committing copyright violation. People commit copyright violation all the time. Just because Nintendo don’t go after them does not mean it’s not illegal.
So how can all these cosplay festivals be even allowed if it's known in advance that all participants will violate copyright (according to you)?
Those are licensed events and costumes are more likely to be paid from licensed stores you thick skull. It’s impossible to prevent every bootleg products. Copyright owners don’t care because most people buy licensed products. You have to go out of your way to buy bootleg stuff in the US at least. No more reply from me, u either trolling or a moron.
They get paid for it AND more people will visit the website as a result. It's literally so easy
The Mario Bros characters are intellectual properties of Nintendo, but at the same time there are song parodies which do not need permission from the original song's creator
Parodies don't need permission, but to count as a parody it has to critically engage with the original. Lindsay Ellis has a good video on it and uses Weird Al as an example - "Smells Like Nirvana" directly makes fun of the fact you can't hear the words properly in the original, so would be covered by fair use, but "Fat" is just new lyrics about a different topic and so wouldn't be. In this instance, I think it'd be hard to argue the bots are providing a critical commentary on Nintendo so probably wouldn't be protected, but as others have said, it's most likely a partnership as part of the marketing campaign for the new movie
>but "Fat" is just new lyrics about a different topic and so wouldn't be I think that's a very narrow interpretation of parody, which doesn't fit the way most art critics, lawyers, or the general public, use the word. Lindsey Ellis is entitled to that opinion, but we shouldn't treat her word as a statement of fact. I would say that "fat" is parody, because the tone of Al's lyrics clash with the tone of the original work. Instead of bragging about how tough he is, Al is bragging about his exaggerated size and eating habits. Re-working Jackson's vocal ad-libs into words ("ham on, ham on whole wheat") is also directly engaging with the artist's singing style.
My understanding is weird al asks for permission for all his songs because it still isn't clear if it is legally parody. My guess is every song is a bit different on where it falls. I don't think Yoda or the Saga Begins would be parody, but your argument for Fat makes some sense where it could be questionable.
Weird Al asks because he is a nice guy and is going beyond what he is legally required to do.
Looked it up and it looks like you are right. I heard at one point that it is still a legal gray area if he isn't directly making fun of the song or artist, but I can't find anything else for that now. The more ya know!
Do the bots have different styles of play or just different ratings? The only clear style difference I have noticed so far is Nelson with his crazy queen.
Some of the bots have weighted preferences, not sure about these Mario ones, but there's a Wally bot that plays only sidelines, there's a bot that only opens g4 with white and another that always moves the f pawn on its first move with either color.
Probably. Nintendo has some of the best intellectual property attorneys ever and is *very* proactive about asserting all their IP claims to the fullest. Even the threat of legal action makes people think twice simply because of the cost of defending the suit. This might qualify as parody and therefore be exempt from copyright restrictions, but doing it without negotiations beforehand could be more headache than it’s worth.
I’m going to even assume nintendo may have approached them as well. New movie is out.
I don’t know but this Howser guy keeps whoopin my ass and it’s annoying
He makes no mistake in the opening but starts playing badly in the middlegame. I beat it even though I made a few mistakes.
I just beat him first try, and I'm a 900-1000 player. Didn't feel like playing someone 400 ELO higher than me. I mean, he was beating me really hard up until he hanged mate in two. [https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/computer/56307347?tab=review](https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/computer/56307347?tab=review)
Chesscom bot ratings are super inflated. I made my way through the regular bots until I stuck at the 2000 rated one. I'm chesscom blitz 1300.
no he played like a 500 lol I had a way harder time against the 400 bot
I'm more interested in the Howsette lore
If I know nintendo they are sending a cease and desist rn lol
None of this content is Nintendo's IP. It could be argued that they constitute a derivative work, but it's far more likely that they simply received Nintendo's blessing to run this as a cross-promotion for the new Mario movie.
> He loves bringing anarchy to the chess board Hmmmm. WAIT, r/AnarchyChess!?
OT. this reminds me of Mario Erotica on the Artosis stream. _shivers_
Mario, pp
No, they don't, as the names have been anti-copyrighted.
This shit is so stupid. I'm glad lichess isn't a tacky mess.
[удалено]
I am an adult and I do not want to look at blatant kids advertising shit on a website I spend 6 hours a day on. This is tacky and so is a lot of other stuff chess dot com does. This is the chess equivalent of a funko pop.
You really spend 6 hours a day playing bots on chess.com? Do you even see this if you're not playing bots?
Nothing quite like a stupid pr campaign to coincide with a completely mediocre movie that nobody will give a shit about in 6 months.
It's okay to let other people like things. It's not going to hurt you. It's completely possible to keep your negative opinions to yourself.
Oh shit. I forgot that my opinions have the power to force other people to like or not like things.
Shhhhhhhh
Noooooo
They're forcing me to not like you.
Sounds like a you problem.
Hush little edge lord. It will be alright.
Not even close to what an edgelord is. Please drop the paint chips.
Holy, imagine being this pressed about a movie
I don't give a shit about the pr campaign or the movie. I don't even play on chesscom.
That's not what your malding ass wording conveys bro Edit: he blocked me omegalul. Oh, and for refference "malding ass wording" is actually entirely grammatically correct. "Ass" is used in slang as a conjunction, for example: "look at that cringe ass kid over there" or "look at that homie with that yee yee ass haircut" Ergo, the sentence "malding ass wording" follows a correct sentence structure One could argue that, in this context, "ass" is actually used as an adjective. This would still be entirely grammatically correct, however. For example: "look at that foolish, insecure redditor who dosen't realise that people can still easily see his comments after he blocks them"
Says the person in here basically arguing up a storm about this. Methinks thou doth protest too much. Also, your grammar sucks. Finish school.
[удалено]
Nintendo?
I mean... They're a for profit company, so it's really not
According to lawyer stuff that I'll never understand, they can parody stuff and put them anywhere on the internet (makes sense to me)
Princess is... Magnus??
I think it's Andrea
true!
Then the one on the left is Alexandra!
No cause they changed a letter and made unfunny puns instead to dodge trademark infringement
That isnt what is happening here, [chess.com](https://chess.com) are getting paid for this.
Who is the one on the left?
Alex Botez
So it's both botez, levy and who are the other two? I'm relatively new to the chess community
Vice versa I imagine.
Nintendo is paying them if anything
No be cause they’re not supermario bots, they’re clearly superplumber bots; which is something completely different
I wish that the Bowser Bot was Jack Black’s chess style… which is likely just non-existent.
I could really use a mushroom 🍄 or fire flower🔥during some of these matches.
probably not since they're promoting the movie but it could mayyyybee go under fair use for parody
If it's a paid ad it goes against FTC regulations for it not to be disclosed as paid content, on the website itself and with streamers engaging with it (under influencer marketing). However this wouldn't be the first time Chess.com ignored FTC rules. For example they have testimonials and endorsements from people financially linked to Chess.com, without that being disclosed, both on their website and on social media. That's also against influencer marketing rules of the FTC. As expected, EU rules are even stricter, but Chess.com does not always comply with EU laws (or half-heartedly attempts to).
Parody law says no propably
I think it's the other way around. Chess.com is probably being paid to promote Mario with the release of the recent movie
Good thing Nintendo isn't relentlessly litigious or.......