It was a valid point - Nintendo could sue the twelve year old for putting Mario fanart on their fridge, but they’d struggle to show damages, so even if they were only doing it to prove a point about how litiguous and evil they could be, it would be enough of a waste of money that they wouldn’t bother.
It’s a common misconception that distribution is required for infringement. Fanart that’s never shared still copies the likeness of a copyrighted character, and copying copyrighted stuff (outside a few very specific exceptions, e.g. fair use for parody, critique or education, making a single backup in case the copy you bought is damaged etc.) isn’t legal. As there are obviously no damages, no one ever gets in toruble for it, but that doesn’t mean it’s legal.
If you do another quick search, you’ll probably also find Mario fanart that a 12yo put on their fridge.I’m not sure where I was going with that.That doesn’t mean Nintendo doesn’t sue the shit out of ROM sites that get popular enough.
It was a valid point - Nintendo could sue the twelve year old for putting Mario fanart on their fridge, but they’d struggle to show damages, so even if they were only doing it to prove a point about how litiguous and evil they could be, it would be enough of a waste of money that they wouldn’t bother.
A 12 year old putting Mario fanart on their fridge is not copyright infringement. They didn’t distribute it. It’s their house.
It’s a common misconception that distribution is required for infringement. Fanart that’s never shared still copies the likeness of a copyrighted character, and copying copyrighted stuff (outside a few very specific exceptions, e.g. fair use for parody, critique or education, making a single backup in case the copy you bought is damaged etc.) isn’t legal. As there are obviously no damages, no one ever gets in toruble for it, but that doesn’t mean it’s legal.