An artist who made a Pokémon sprite retweeted a Pal from Palworld and implied it could have been a copy of their own design. However, upon more information coming out, it turns out the Pal was made an entire year before the artist’s own sprite. The artist decided to keep their tweet up, which makes Palworld seem like they copied the artist.
The intial thought is to side with the artist, and even I did at first. However, implying that something is stolen or taken from your design is a big deal. It actually has to match it enough that you could say it is unequivocally a stolen representation. This is especially strange because even though the artist admits that the Pal was created a year before the artist made their sprite, they have kept the tweet that makes it seems like Palworld copied them.
If anything, legally, I would say they look similar, but the artist should have been careful because their tweet steps into the realm of Libel. Libel is when you say a false statement in print or online that defames or hurts the reputation of something or someone else. The comments and tweet feel like a claim is being made against the developer that would hurt their reputation.
“I know, apparently, tho, this time it was not the case, someone showed me a promo video from 2 years ago and that palmon was in there already. And mine was created in the past year.”
@Saetaphocha1 (The artist)
Honestly, after admitting that Palworld had the idea first, the other tweet should be deleted. This way, no more undo damage gets to the Palworld game when their Pal was the original. Let’s say that the Pal came later, which is what the original tweet implies; this does not represent a stolen design that would not hold up in any court. If anything, the artist shouldn’t have implied this at all.
Yes, this has a similar design and even stripes, however, those are all it has. It does not share the same color, fingers, or even the top and bottom of the head. You can’t trademark any floating creature with long arms that happens to have stripes because there are other differences.
Furthermore, what defines a Pokémon is its powers. The artist has multiple powers listed for its Pokémon. None of those are used by the Pal featured in Palworld. This Pal is strong enough to bend steel; that’s why it has large arms. The Pokémon seems to have large arms just because, but Palworld gave a lore-based reason.
Also, the Pokémon sprite is listed as a Dragon type, which is the biggest issue with the implication. This Pal is obviously not a dragon, so it’s really hard to claim this would have been stolen. If anything, it shows that the artist didn’t copy the Pal either. Overall, it’s good that this has been resolved, but those who look at the tweet should know that the artist was mistaken and the Palworld developers did not copy them.
Comments