“Fast & Furious...a franchise he joined at the peak of it success and has abandoned (And one where he’s never front and center.)

Solution: Include an optional 2D Pokémon game *within* the main Sword and Shield game that still allows you to transfer all of your Pokémon from previous games and use them. (Like, one that you can have your character play at some location in the game or something.) And if they don’t want to take too much extra time…

There’s nothing wrong with making them more accessible. Nobody’s forcing anyone to use the option.

Sure, but if the reason for them doing it is either because of people calling for its censorship or the fear of people calling for its censorship, it’s effectively the same thing.

It probably doesn’t count as a “summer” anime because it premiered in April.

What’s also weird is that Arthur has both Lance Armstrong and a guy named “Vance Legstrong.” The latter was a minor character in one episode before they ever got the actual Lance Armstrong to guest star on the show.

“were Nintendo to get slack and start letting every little product and service use their characters without permission, then (or at least the legal theory goes) it gets harder to defend the company’s ownership of them should they need to take a bigger product or service to court.”

Yes. It’s called FlapMMO, and still technically exists, though you’d be lucky if there were maybe one or two other people on it at any given time anymore.

The eyes thing made me a lot more interested in the movie than I would have been otherwise. I love the uniqueness of it, and it looks great.

It’s one of my favorite anime shows, and one of only a few I’d give a 10/10 rating to.

Glad to see Netflix is getting season 2 of the live-action Kakegurui, too. That hasn’t been available anywhere.

I hate having to agree with McConnell, but it’s extremely easy to see what he’s getting at here. Saying anyone alive is liable is tantamount to holding people who did nothing wrong liable for things their ancestors did, and that’s an idea that would violate basic legal principles. If someone’s great-grandparent stole…

It won Best Animated Short at the Oscars...

They should have just made it so that he was the one who invented the auto-save feature after finally deciding he’d had enough with people resetting the game. Like, have him tell you about it at the beginning of the game and maybe also have his face pop up the corner every so often with a speech bubble showing him…

I wonder what YouTube videos will be considered important lost media in the future...

They worked with Disney on promotional material because Disney decided to approach them ahead of time, but given the timeframe, eBay was most likely a part of the movie already regardless. (And the fact that the movie inaccurately depicts the way their bidding system works also seems to imply that eBay didn’t actually…

If it just featured the game itself (as opposed to being some kind of adaptation) and it was clear that it didn’t have any actual relationship with Activision, then yes, it would probably be fine. I suppose they could still sue you, but anyone can sue anyone for anything. It doesn’t mean they have a case.

Direct quote from a producer of Ralph Breaks the Internet:

“She described how every movie and tv production has to get permissions for every brand shown to appear”

They absolutely both count as expressive works. There’s no question about that whatsoever. The difference in scale could make a difference for a fair use analysis, but that’s it.