I tend to be in the “fuck corporations” camp, but this doesn’t really look like they’re stealing his work. It looks nothing like the original Charlie the Unicorn. The original Charlie was gray, while this creature is white and rainbow. This is just a reference.
As an analogy, Borderlands 2 has a sniper rifle names The Storm, and it has the red flavor text “tut tut, looks like rain”, which is a quote from Winnie the Pooh. I personally wouldn’t call that exploitation. You could try to make an argument, but it’s so minor and indirect that any argument wouldn’t hold any water
I think the combination of calling him Charlie, making him a unicorn-like creature, and going to a place called Candy (Kingdom instead of Mountain) makes it a little more than mere friendly homage for my liking. Probably not enough to give rise to a legal claim of copyright or trademark infringement, but enough to be ethically very shaky.
It’s like if that Borderlands sniper was also an anthropomorphised polar bear from the 100 Acre Tundra.
They mention a character Charlie, unicorns, and a candy place. I don’t know why they are being so careful to avoid accusations of stealing the author’s work, because that’s exactly what they’re doing. People who are familiar with Charlie the unicorn are supposed to recognize it here, and spend their money on Warner Bros merchandise. How could you possibly not see this as theft?
I tend to be in the “fuck corporations” camp, but this doesn’t really look like they’re stealing his work. It looks nothing like the original Charlie the Unicorn. The original Charlie was gray, while this creature is white and rainbow. This is just a reference.
As an analogy, Borderlands 2 has a sniper rifle names The Storm, and it has the red flavor text “tut tut, looks like rain”, which is a quote from Winnie the Pooh. I personally wouldn’t call that exploitation. You could try to make an argument, but it’s so minor and indirect that any argument wouldn’t hold any water
It’s not clear from the screenshot but the advertisement used audio directly from his original video; that was his issue.
See https://www.reddit.com/r/MultiVersus/comments/1hk71b8/comment/m3czdlk/.
I think the combination of calling him Charlie, making him a unicorn-like creature, and going to a place called Candy (Kingdom instead of Mountain) makes it a little more than mere friendly homage for my liking. Probably not enough to give rise to a legal claim of copyright or trademark infringement, but enough to be ethically very shaky.
It’s like if that Borderlands sniper was also an anthropomorphised polar bear from the 100 Acre Tundra.
They mention a character Charlie, unicorns, and a candy place. I don’t know why they are being so careful to avoid accusations of stealing the author’s work, because that’s exactly what they’re doing. People who are familiar with Charlie the unicorn are supposed to recognize it here, and spend their money on Warner Bros merchandise. How could you possibly not see this as theft?
Are pop culture references theft? No.
Did they use that flavor text to advertise the game?