Talk:Fatal Frame (universe)

On Nintendo co-owning Fatal Frame (they might actually not)
I've been doing some research into the ownership of some the more obscure properties in Smash and I came across some discussions that've got me questioning the exact nature of the relationship between the Fatal Frame franchise, Nintendo and Koei Tecmo. The idea that Nintendo co-owns the property alongside Koei Tecmo might actually be a popular misconception started by a possible research failure by the writer of this article, from which several later reports on the subject took their information. The relationship might actually be more similar to what we've seen with the Bayonetta series, where Nintendo has ownership of specific games within the franchise due to their direct involvement in their development, but not the franchise itself. Apparently, the trademark information displayed on the back of the game box for Project Zero 2: Wii Edition, as seen here contradicts the popular belief. Though the game's copyright is attributed to both companies, the trademarking is attributed solely to Koei Tecmo. Nintendo apparently does fully own the trademark for the Spirit Camera name specifically, but I haven't found any sort of visual proof of this. Nevertheless, I don't believe it amounts to much. I think the 2013 PSN re-release of Fatal Frame II, well after the "acquisition" was reported to have occured, lends further credence to the idea that Nintendo's grip on the franchise isn't quite as strong as many think.

Before I go around fixing up all the instances of the supposed misconception on (and off) the wiki, I wanted to bring this up publicly in case someone more legally knowledgeable than myself had an objection. NuFace (talk) 00:25, July 13, 2019 (EDT)


 * That's very interesting. Now I'm wondering if Yuri is technically more of a third-party character in the same vein as Bayonetta, considering that she's grouped with the first-party Assist Trophies when selecting them in Training Mode in Ultimate. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 00:59, July 13, 2019 (EDT)


 * You'd be correct in stating that Nintendo has ownership of specific games in the franchise because they were involved in their development. Specifically, they were involved in developing Spirit Camera and Maiden of Black Water, as cited on Wikipedia; this means that they do own Maya and Yuri, at least partially. However, they do not own Crimson Butterfly or by extension, Project Zero 2: Wii Edition, since they weren't involved outside of publishing it. In other words, Mio and Mayu are third-parties in the same way as, for example, Zael and Calista from The Last Story. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's correct to say Nintendo has partial ownership of the franchise; not the whole, just specific games. ~ Serena Strawberry  (talk) 01:11, July 13, 2019 (EDT)


 * Wait, Zael and Calista are third-party? I checked the back boxart and disc of the game and it says that The Last Story is a trademark of Nintendo, and the copyright says that Nintendo does atleast co-own the IP. Please educate me on this. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 01:22, July 13, 2019 (EDT)
 * It's another instance where they have partial claim because they published it, but no real ownership because they were only involved in publishing. I guess that's more second-party? ~ Serena Strawberry  (talk) 01:42, July 13, 2019 (EDT)
 * From my knowledge, publishing new, original properties by third party developers can lead to direct ownership of the property by the publishing company, but I don't think it happens in every case. It might be based on how the involved companies hash out the deal between them, but it's the relationship that PlatinumGames for example has with the companies they work with. Their original properties are owned by the larger companies who publish them, such as Bayonetta with SEGA or the Wonderful 101 with Nintendo, despite those companies not necessarily being involved in development beyond funding. NuFace (talk) 01:52, July 13, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it can be complicated sometimes... I'll admit there are parts I'm still shaky on. Either way, I updated the main article to reflect the points you've made; feel free to adjust it if I'm misinterpreting. ~ Serena Strawberry  (talk) 01:53, July 13, 2019 (EDT)
 * Thanks. There's another mention on the minor companies page that needs fixing and then I think that's every instance on this wiki. I'll get to it soon enough if you don't first. There's some other smaller franchises like Glory of Heracles that I think also warrant some ownership investigation and discussion but I'm not sure this page would be an appropriate place.

NuFace (talk) 02:07, July 13, 2019 (EDT)