
Update [Fri 24th Jan, 2025 10:00 GMT]: Pixels and Polygons, the company behind Beat 'Em Up Volume 1: The Unofficial History of Final Fight, has announced on social media it has had to cancel the Kickstarter campaign for the book.
According to Pixels and Polygons founder Darren Hupke, the decision was made after receiving “a message concerning the use of intellectual property within the book”. Hupke did not specifically name who exactly sent him this message but has stated the situation has forced him to end the campaign prematurely and cancel the current funding to avoid putting himself “in any legal situations”.
As he goes on to state, no money has been taken from backers and nothing will happen with the current pledges. He also expressed an interest in reviving the book in the future, but he currently has no idea “how long" that will be "or even if” he will be able to do something like that.
Hupke writes, "I will try and open some communications with this party and will have to explore some copyright laws on how I can either retool or rework the project to comply with everything necessary for a legal release. I know there are Fair Use laws, but I am not looking to create a legal battle I cannot afford. With less than three days remaining on the campaign, I cannot take any chances that it will continue without a clear and safe resolution”
Speaking about this news, Hupke says that he is not "personally angry" and understands the outcome. Instead, he is just really disappointed the book might not be possible as it was a passion project from a lifelong fan of the series. You can follow Pixels and Polygons and Darren Hupke on BlueSky for more updates on the situation as it develops.
Original Article [Tue 14th Jan, 2025 12:30 GMT]: A new book is currently being crowdfunded on Kickstarter that aims to chart the history of Capcom's iconic Final Fight series.
Beat 'Em Up Volume 1: The Unofficial History of Final Fight is the work of the writer Darren Hupke, who was previously behind the 32 Bit Library series — a set of curated retrospectives of the PS1 library.
It is described as a "book made by a fan [...] for fans" and plans to chart the history of the series from the original 1989 arcade game all the way up until the final entry in the series (the PS2 and Xbox title Final Fight: Streetwise), across 10 chapters and 250+ pages.
In these chapters, Hupke intends to dig into the development history of each game, sharing plot summaries, character biographies, level maps, classic reviews, regional differences, and more, with the goal being to take players "back to the best parts of these classic experiences."
According to the Kickstarter, there will also be a couple of guest contributors too, including Rex Nabours (who has submitted some words for the Final Fight Revenge chapter) and Audi Sorlie (who is contributing articles about the franchise's music and sound design).
Already, the project has hit its $2000 target, having raised $5095 from 95 backers. But you still have 10 days left to secure your own copy if you've yet to back the book.
The cheapest option available is a $5 digital edition, but there are also physical editions ranging from a $40 softcover to a limited edition hardcover copy priced at $75 that includes a bunch of additional extras like a sticker, bookmark, art print, and an enamel pin.
You can find out more about the project here.
[source kickstarter.com, via bsky.app]
Comments 6
"Hupke did not specifically name who exactly sent him this message"
So it was Nintendo, then?
More seriously, is a book like this actually infringing on anyone's property? There are plenty of books about games, TV shows, etc., which mention the trademarked names and even show the occasional screenshot, and these have existed for decades without issue. But several of these books have just recently been stifled, censored, and/or threatened with legal action.
Is this kind of book a grey area without much legal precedent (or even technically illegal, but rarely seriously pursued by the rights holders until now), or are companies just throwing their weight around with no real backing or justification besides "I have more money and better lawyers than you"?
These books/creations just raise profile/popularity of the title/game in general, would be interesting to know specifics...
@smoreon
Hopefully, he's verified that whoever sent him the letter actually is the party that owns the rights (because griefer trolls will troll). But to answer your question, generally, it should be possible to write a book about a series of games because fair use is a thing. The key is ensuring you stay on the right side of fair use and that requires paying an IP lawyer with fair use experience to review everything. That's expensive and, at the end of the day, your lawyer's belief that you're not infringing won't stop a rights holder from suing you.
It may not even be that the rights holder is intentionally being mean. A lot of companies have lawyers on retainer and those lawyers run regular automated searches on trademarks their client owns. If they get any hits, by default they advise their client that the client should pay them to send a letter to notify the other party that they own the trademark and have the right to enforce it. Sending a bunch of these letters helps the law firm use up the client's retainer (basically an advance deposit). The firm will also warn the client that not defending their trademarks can potentially lead to weakening or nullifying the trademark. While technically correct, it probably wouldn't apply in a lot of situations but billable hours are billable hours and template letters are easy money.
Ultimately, if you're collecting money for anything that incorporates more than a tiny smidge some big company's trademarked IP, you're going to have legal exposure if they choose to sue. You may win in court but it'll cost well over $100K and take a few years (at best). Many people wonder "Why wouldn't a company just ask for a percentage royalty and make a little money if it sells well?" Sadly, there are a bunch of reasons that mostly fall under the heading of "Why big companies can't afford to do little things." If they grant a license to a hobby project, they can be named as a co-defendant if the project infringes some other company's rights. That means they need to review all the content and approve it, costing lawyer money and taking product manager time. Reviewing and approving it would also create even more potential liability, so it's a never-ending circle. There's also the ever-present concerns about the hobby project not living up to the brand's quality standards. Basically, the way the law works combined with what it costs any big business to just "do something" means it's either "All in " or "All out", and any form of "All in" takes a lot of time and money - so it has to be able to make a lot of money - or it's just not worth doing.
And this is why nice people usually can't make fun little side projects around a big company's IP and just charge enough to cover their costs plus some coffee money.
@markran Thanks for the detailed response!
It's frustrating how the current system is stacked so heavily in favour of both the "big guy" as well as... let's say the "aggressor" in general, as- like you touched on- it's not necessarily the actual rights holder, but potentially an overzealous legal team or even an outright troll. If they so much as growl, it's often deemed safest to just give in, even if they really don't have much of a case on their hands.
And yeah, it's a fair point to distinguish between the actual rights holder and their lawyers who advocate for them (and who are incentivized to be aggressive). Though when a company like Nintendo (just as the most infamous example) is so widely known to have consistently overzealous lawyers, they should be able to rein them in a bit to save their reputation- and a bit of money as well!
About the fair use angle, I wonder if the focus on a single franchise weakens that a bit. Not that this explains every recent case of legal threats against these books, but a Final Fight book might be riskier than, say, a general look at '80s arcade games, or 2D beat-em-ups.
@smoreon
> a Final Fight book might be riskier than, say, a general look at '80s arcade games, or 2D beat-em-ups.
The risk always depends most on how aggressive and/or unreasonable a rights holder chooses to be. A hyper-aggressive litigant with literally zero grounds to sue can still require tens of thousands of dollars and many months to get dismissed if they choose to be maximally obstructive. A legit company in the business of monetizing their IP hopefully won't be quite that bad - but they may not be too far behind given their business focus.
However, a book specifically on their trademark does have the possibility of additional complication from arguably "trading on the name brand" vs just mentioning the brand. If the "Final Fight" logo and game artwork is featured prominently on the cover, it makes it easy for them to claim "the book used our trademark to sell itself".
Of course, the doesn't mean the fair use safe harbor doesn't apply but it does make it more complicated and that increases risk. That's why some books go out of their way not to use trademarked names, logos or artwork on the cover. Like a book that could have been called "Inside Disney" instead being called "Inside the House of Mouse" or similar.
Considering the amount of books written on specific games I'm not sure why he's being singled out. I don't think whoever is stopping him has a leg to stand on.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...