this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
416 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
85495 readers
3881 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which pals used Pokemon trademarked material?
That yellow Gengar with a machine gun on all their advertising for starters.
It's like when you go to Aldi and see their knock-off products. Although Tunnock's don't have a copyright on stripes, diamond shapes, red, gold, chocolate, wafers, or caramel, there's no accident that their own brand can be mistaken for the real thing if you're not paying attention.
And sure, it may well hold up in court, but it's still going to be expensive finding that out.
A large number of pokemon are based on animals/mythical creatures. A large number of pals are based on animals/mythical creatures.
They both have a very similar artistic style. But you can't copyright a style. At some point using a similar style on similar animals will get you similar looking results.
Allowing companies to copyright styles would be a very bad thing.
Sure, nobody owns the artstyle. Nobody owns the idea of collecting animals. Not suggesting they do.
But you get enough things the same, lawyers will start sniffing around.
Tem Tem is pretty much Pokemon, far closer in gameplay than Palworld tbh, but they sensibly made it look different, didn't try to ride the coattails of a lawyer-happy multi-billion dollar corporation, so avoided all this drama and nonsense. Digimon and Yo-kai Watch, again, very games. Different enough marketing that they didn't get sued.
Sony don't own metal dinosaurs or post apocalyptic scenarios (although they make so many of the latter they might as well), but when Tencent did this:
... just what do you expect their lawyers to do? Not get paid?
The HZD example is way different. Company wanted to make a Horizon game, had the go-ahead, presented a demo, deal was terminated, then they made a knock-off anyway.
Palworld is clearly both a parody and in a completely different genre.
There's actually plenty of material to compare to, with a swath of Pal designs that are clearly original, in a similar style with similar inspirations. Then there are models with almost precisely the same silhouette and proportions as iconic Pokemon, which are frankly just worse designs for it, since the altered colors and markings clash with the original concept and result in a generally forgettable whole. They clearly had the skill and motivation to innovate more within their niche, but instead the game is half-full of what feel like hastily painted over placeholders.
Actually in many countries there's a thing called "parasitism" which is not legal.
E.g.:
Source: https://www.grelieravocat.com/en/expertise/unfair-competition-economic-parasitism