- Jan 19, 2020
- 46
- 80
The Hermione art is placeholder for now. Im planning on redesigning her with a more petite figure and no bangs.
-
We're currently working on the search system, until that's complete the search will be disabled. In the mean time, you can use the quick search on the forum home page, or the search from the latest updates page.
- May 16, 2017
- 1,715
- 1,381
Simply making it porn does not make it parody.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 76
- 28
Absolutely. As you can probably notice, since you quoted both my posts saying this, that's not what I said.
- Jul 22, 2017
- 648
- 2,462
TBH
Alrighty. I'm sorry for being so harsh with it, but tbh-- and I suppose this may be a compliment in some ways-- I honestly thought you were just a lazy native English speaker, because your grammar was great. It was just the little things that someone who's comfortable with their native language usually does. Also I haven't the foggiest what's up with the quoting system, soooo...
NGL, I agree with Edge in that the hair is 100% pure Witch Trainer. I mean that's hyperbolic, but... I can really see that. Otherwise, I don't really see it. The story is a bigger ripoff of Witch Trainer than the AI is, tbh. (Not saying that as a negative, even.)Oh please get out of here! You're being ridiculous. Hermione in this game isn't a copy of the one in Akabur's Witch Trainer (or in the Silver Mod) at all. You can tell they're different. Does Innocent Witches or With Hermione any ring bell to you? There are multiple games that features Hermione. Yeah there's definitely a copyright infringement here.
Hermione Trainer:
Witch Trainer:
- Jan 19, 2020
- 46
- 80
2 in the pink and another 2 in the pink and one in the stink, but 1 more in the pink and 3 in the stink.
- Jul 10, 2018
- 924
- 2,435
As you seem to reference, it isn't the author because, at least with big successes, the studios have bought all the rights they can possibly think of. (i.e. the Author doesn't come after you because it is no longer theirs, legally, at all). Where it is from an actual book author, the only exception might of course be the rights to future books, because those were almost always already in the hands of the original publisher, at least for the next few books.
Where you are possibly mistaken is in the belief that it is just about greed. No, the problem is the way that copyrights and other intellectual property laws function. If you allow any breech of the rights, you will lose those rights, forever. The intellectual property can fall into 'common use', for example, meaning it can no longer be upheld as the property of any single party, and negating all royalty deals, since nobody anywhere has to pay anymore. Failure to robustly find, and aggressively defend your rights negates those rights. The studio or publisher, by law, MUST act to persecute any known transgression, or anything anyone who might want to take your rights away (to make their own use without paying you a dime) could feasibly argue in court represented abandonment of your rights, again, making it 'public domain'.
In the case of a studio or company having bought the rights from an author (usually with additional clauses about the author having to provide some additional support, as in appearances, statements, or promotions, etc.) they will not be entitled to any kind of refund or discount if, after purchasing those rights, they lose them through failure to act, or allowing the rights to become public domain.
Calling it a parody doesn't necessarily mean it will meet the legal definition of one. There's many, many cases of 'parody' works being challenged in court and the studio winning. Remember, the small amount of money an average 'parody maker' can make from a parody is absolutely nothing compared to all possible future revenue on the intellectual property rights (often millions, frequently billions), and so the studio or corporation can easily force up the legal costs to make it more expensive to even go to court than your parody was ever worth. Even if you win in court (which is a tiny proportion of cases), they'll immediately appeal, causing the whole costs to increase again, and they can keep this process going for years and years. As such it is extremely rare overall for a 'parody' defense to work out if there's even the least room for question.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 76
- 28
The court can only decide that it isn't a parody. That it is has already been pre established on the fact that it has been allowed to exist.
- Oct 28, 2017
- 1,384
- 1,579
- Jul 10, 2018
- 924
- 2,435
'Definition' is a word that literally comes from specifying the boundaries - i.e. that a court can say where something is not a parody is a legal definition of what is parody. They don't make such calls arbitrarily, but rather work from a huge amount of legal definitions, and prior case rulings too.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked with a huge amount of legal teams, and often in sectors that have particular legal requirements. Copyright is literally a daily matter for me, and has been for over 30 years at this point. Mostly under UK and US standards of IP law, but also some experience with EU and Asia too.
You may not have noticed, what with it being all understated and hard to spot, but this site has a lot of devs, artists, and hopefuls, as well as those generally interested. Over 90% of the games we talk about are in development. As such, knowing what the legal requirements that all such devs, artists, and even users might want (or need) to know at some point is of general interest. After all, in this very discussion thread, about this specific game, someone erroneously stated that no matter what, this game would be considered a parody and an exception to copyright. That's direct advice to the dev of this game, and it was erroneous, at least as stated. Intellectual Property laws vary from place to place, but are always fairly complex, and never as simple as just something claiming to be a parody automatically being safe.
That doesn't mean the dev can't still take the risk. I certainly haven't said he must stop. I simply think it is better to take an informed risk, rather than a blind one. However, because of the way IP has to be defended, should the owners of the IP become aware of this game they absolutely have to act, and take all steps necessary, or risk losing all 'Harry Potter' related licenses, royalties, and rights.
- Oct 21, 2017
- 74
- 76
Please don't do it. She looks good now.Also this is porn game so hourglass figure > petite figure. Many are copying Akabur's model of Hermione because of simple reason : People like Akabur's Hermione. She is cute and sexy at the same time. Don't try to fix something that works fine.
- Apr 17, 2018
- 337
- 1,039
All i wished if for another Hermione trainer....
but IA?
fuck....welp,beggers cant be choosers,gimme.
but IA?
fuck....welp,beggers cant be choosers,gimme.
A real shame if this Hermione gets re-designed all because 3 people are crying that she looks ever so slightly similar to another Hermione in another game when it's the same character so obviously the character is going to look similar. If you're one of the people complaining, kindly ignore this thread and move on. She looks great here, and may I say even better than the one he apparently "copied" from. Dev please don't listen to the very loud minority. Please keep her figure too. Petite is meh. Keep her more curvy figure.
- Jan 19, 2020
- 46
- 80
Its honestly more about me not finding her to be as appealing. I want her to look a bit simpler, in line with Snape. The redesign wont happen anytime soon and I'm planning to create a poll for patrons with many different designs. It will include some variety in body shape. So it will be up to the people who support the development to decide how Hermione will look.
- Jul 10, 2018
- 924
- 2,435
What someone who has negotiated, bought, and now OWNS the rights chooses to do with those rights they OWN is completely unrelated to a discussion of how NOT having the rights, or a license to use the rights of the owner without affecting their ownership, will usually pan out. In tha case of GoT, the author sold certain rights to the studio, allowing TV and Film adaptations, and of course allowing ownership of 'derivative works' incurred in exercising the TV and movie rights - i.e. They OWN the specific likeness of a character from their adaptation - anything that looks like their version of Jon Snow, or Daenerys, or their Dragons, etc. is their original (but derivative) work and copyright. However, the use of rights is a separate conversation, not directly related to this game and thread. Take it to private messages, or a general topic forum, if you have questions.