Does Intelligent Systems own Fire Emblem?

[Harvey]

I know that asking this is probably stupid. But I can't help and wonder if Nintendo fully owns the IP or not considering that every FE shows it as Nintendo/Intelligent Systems are the authors of the softwares.

 

[NinjaMonkey]

IS are second-party developers, meaning they are owned by someone else i.e. Nintendo. Thus, Nintendo owns Fire Emblem.

[Jave]

IntSys is actually not owned by Nintendo at all. They're a close affiliate, but Nintendo doesn't own them, unlike say, Retro Studios or Monolith Soft.

As for who owns the games, not sure. Nintendo has the publishing rights to all the games they published that IntSys made, but if IntSys were to part ways with Nintendo I don't know who would get to keep the rights to the series, although my guess would be Nintendo.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I don't know the answer for sure, but I suspect it might be a Pokemon-style situation where both Nintendo and the developer (in this case, Intelligent Systems) have an ownership stake in the intellectual property, thus tying them together if they want to keep making Fire Emblems.

[Roflolxp54]

I dunno the answer either. I would suspect that IS owns Fire Emblem for the most part, especially since Nintendo doesn't really have much of a direct hand in actually developing them most of the time (take this with a grain of salt, though). If IS were to ever split from Nintendo, we could be seeing another Rare situation with Banjo and Kazooie (Banjo and Kazooie was developed by Rare and published by Nintendo; Microsoft ended up acquiring the rights to Banjo and Kazooie along when it acquired Rare).

On the other hand, though probably not the most fair of comparisons, journalists working for a newspaper/magazine company typically don't own the stories they write -- the stories they write belong to the company, not the journalist. It comes down to contracts, policies, etc. We can sort of see this with Shouzou Kaga's attempt at making Emblem Saga for the Playstation after leaving IS with Kaga receiving legal pressure from Nintendo which led to the game being known as Tear Ring Saga.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Roflolxp54

[Jotari]

Check the credits.

"Nintendo and INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS are  the authors of this software for the purpose of copyright. All rights reserved.

(C)2019/INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS

Co-developed by KOEI TECHMO GAMES CO., LTD"

So co-ownership it seems. Of course that just applies to Three Houses, but I doubt Nintendo would have gone this far with a series without ensuring they had control over its production. Especially with the whole Tear Ring Saga episode. Everything I've seen about that says Nintendo were the ones that took Kaga to court, not Intelligent Systems.

(and I guess when it comes to credits NIntendo's too cool for all caps).

6 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I don't know the answer for sure, but I suspect it might be a Pokemon-style situation where both Nintendo and the developer (in this case, Intelligent Systems) have an ownership stake in the intellectual property, thus tying them together if they want to keep making Fire Emblems.

Pokemon's actually a bit more complicated than that. It's not just Publisher+Developer, but also several other companies that seemingly exist purely to divide the copy right. Namely The Pokemon Company and Creatures. Contrary to what one might expect, Pokemon Coliseum was a directly compatible title in the main stream Pokemon games that wasn't developed by Game Freak (though they do still get a licensing credit).

Edited June 15, 2020 by Jotari

[Dandy Druid]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

"Nintendo and INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS are  the authors of this software for the purpose of copyright. All rights reserved.

(C)2019/INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS

Co-developed by KOEI TECHMO GAMES CO., LTD"

So co-ownership it seems. Of course that just applies to Three Houses, but I doubt Nintendo would have gone this far with a series without ensuring they had control over its production. Especially with the whole Tear Ring Saga episode. Everything I've seen about that says Nintendo were the ones that took Kaga to court, not Intelligent Systems.

(and I guess when it comes to credits NIntendo's too cool for all caps).

Sounds like co-ownership to me as well. If Nintendo and IS have a messy breakup, the right to Fire Emblem will depend on how skilled the lawyers they've hired are. I can see arguments for both, really. Nintendo could argue that Fire Emblem's reputation and fanbase stems from its position as Nintendo's top tactical rpg franchise and that fans see it as a Nintendo game. Meanwhile Intelligent Systems can argue that while Nintendo is just the publisher who has had some input on the final product of the game, they are the ones most emotionally tied to the series and that they're larger stakeholders in Fire Emblem's success. There's more arguments to be made than just these, but those are some examples.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I imagine that, if you have to pitch each game to Nintendo in order to get the greenlight, it's naturally owned by Nintendo. Nintendo also threatened to cancel the series depending on Awakening's sales. What meaning would such a threat have if they were only a publisher?

[Dandy Druid]

6 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

I imagine that, if you have to pitch each game to Nintendo in order to get the greenlight, it's naturally owned by Nintendo. Nintendo also threatened to cancel the series depending on Awakening's sales. What meaning would such a threat have if they were only a publisher?

Nintendo probably has funded IS in the past (specifically for FE), so they can definitely take some financial stability away. I do know that IS has played a role in the development of the Switch's software (not sure how much), which IS has probably been paid well for. They could definitely take them out of software development next cycle as a way to "punish" them if they were able to retain the FE IP name and publish FE on the PSVita or something lol. They also make the Paper Mario games IIRC, and it would be much easier for Nintendo to take that IP away in a legal battle from them since Mario is such an iconic Nintendo (and gaming) name.

EDIT: TL;DR- IS may be considered a second party but Nintendo has dug their claws so much into their inner workings they might as well own IS, imo.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Dandy Druid
wanted to add more.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Dandy Druid said:

Sounds like co-ownership to me as well. If Nintendo and IS have a messy breakup, the right to Fire Emblem will depend on how skilled the lawyers they've hired are. I can see arguments for both, really. Nintendo could argue that Fire Emblem's reputation and fanbase stems from its position as Nintendo's top tactical rpg franchise and that fans see it as a Nintendo game. Meanwhile Intelligent Systems can argue that while Nintendo is just the publisher who has had some input on the final product of the game, they are the ones most emotionally tied to the series and that they're larger stakeholders in Fire Emblem's success. There's more arguments to be made than just these, but those are some examples.

Is the Nintendo logo anywhere to be found on Cipher products? If so then I don't think IS has a leg to stand on. Plus the aforementioned whole it was Nintendo doing the suing in regards to Tear Ring Saga, not IS.

[lenticular]

I'd assume that it's probably a complicated mess, and that no single corporation (or person, or any other entity) owns the entirety of Fire Emblem. There will be a whole host of different copyrights of different works, together with a ton of different trademarks, and possibly other aspects of intellectual property like patents or trade secrets. Different elements can be and probably are owned by different companies. Not only are Nintendo and IS involved, but there are also the creators of various spin-offs (not only video games, but also the card game, manga, etc.) all of whom probably have some rights pertaining to the specific works they created.

There have definitely been other game series in the past where multiple companies ended up making successor games after legal disputes. There was Championship Manager, where I think the developers got to keep the game engine and database and turned it into Football Manager, but the publishers got to continue using the Championship Manager brand (which subsequently floundered). Or there's Civilization, where there were two competing sequels to Civ II -- Call to Power was published by Activision and Civ III was published by Infogrames. Or then there's Dizzy, which was a British game series of the late 80s and early 90s that probably few if anyone else has heard of, which ended up dying a death after the publishers and developers fell out because one of them held all the copyrights and the other held all the trademarks.

My guess would be that Nintendo has the trademark on the name "Fire Emblem" but that IS have at least partial ownership on the copyright of individual characters, stories and settings from the game. So I would assume that in the hypothetical event of an acrimonious split, Nintendo would be able to make games under the Fire Emblem name, but they might not be able to use Marth or Fódlan or whatever else, and they almost certainly wouldn't be able to re-use any code or assets from previous games.

This is all just speculation, though. Probably nobody other than lawyers and management at Nintendo and IS know the exact details of who owns what.

[Jotari]

58 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I'd assume that it's probably a complicated mess, and that no single corporation (or person, or any other entity) owns the entirety of Fire Emblem. There will be a whole host of different copyrights of different works, together with a ton of different trademarks, and possibly other aspects of intellectual property like patents or trade secrets. Different elements can be and probably are owned by different companies. Not only are Nintendo and IS involved, but there are also the creators of various spin-offs (not only video games, but also the card game, manga, etc.) all of whom probably have some rights pertaining to the specific works they created.

There have definitely been other game series in the past where multiple companies ended up making successor games after legal disputes. There was Championship Manager, where I think the developers got to keep the game engine and database and turned it into Football Manager, but the publishers got to continue using the Championship Manager brand (which subsequently floundered). Or there's Civilization, where there were two competing sequels to Civ II -- Call to Power was published by Activision and Civ III was published by Infogrames. Or then there's Dizzy, which was a British game series of the late 80s and early 90s that probably few if anyone else has heard of, which ended up dying a death after the publishers and developers fell out because one of them held all the copyrights and the other held all the trademarks.

My guess would be that Nintendo has the trademark on the name "Fire Emblem" but that IS have at least partial ownership on the copyright of individual characters, stories and settings from the game. So I would assume that in the hypothetical event of an acrimonious split, Nintendo would be able to make games under the Fire Emblem name, but they might not be able to use Marth or Fódlan or whatever else, and they almost certainly wouldn't be able to re-use any code or assets from previous games.

This is all just speculation, though. Probably nobody other than lawyers and management at Nintendo and IS know the exact details of who owns what.

I'm not sure IS even has exclusive rights to the characters.

I said earlier that if Nintendo's name is on Cipher that's probably a death nail to any individual ownership IS has. And sure enough, Nintendo is there on the pack (I actually bothered to look it up this time). Cipher isn't a video game, Nintendo has no reason at all to be involved and I doubt IS needs Nintendo's money to produce something like Cipher, so to me the fact that Nintendo is still on the box means that IS literally can't use these characters without credit (and money) being shared with Nintendo. I expect Nintendo, being the large coorperation that they are, legally has IS wrapped around their little finger to the extent that splitting away is virtually impossible for them.

[Dandy Druid]

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

I'm not sure IS even has exclusive rights to the characters.

I said earlier that if Nintendo's name is on Cipher that's probably a death nail to any individual ownership IS has. And sure enough, Nintendo is there on the pack (I actually bothered to look it up this time). Cipher isn't a video game, Nintendo has no reason at all to be involved and I doubt IS needs Nintendo's money to produce something like Cipher, so to me the fact that Nintendo is still on the box means that IS literally can't use these characters without credit (and money) being shared with Nintendo. I expect Nintendo, being the large coorperation that they are, legally has IS wrapped around their little finger to the extent that splitting away is virtually impossible for them.

Looked up the ebay listings as well- Nintendo is credited as the "Brand" of the product, meaning they're not only the publisher, but an essential part of Fire Emblem's identity. IS is a second party developer in name alone it seems like, since Nintendo literally has a nail in all of their operational activities. Seeing as how Three Houses' engine was made mostly by Koei's team (IIRC Three Houses was mainly made by Koei in terms of tech, with IS and Nintendo probably stating what needed to be done. I think that shows that Fire Emblem doesn't necessarily need to be made by IS, and that the series itself can go on if Nintendo were to take it over and outsources some of the labor to a different gaming company). 

Of course, this isn't a bad deal for IS. They have stability and their products will be pushed heavily by Nintendo (in comparison to other franchises. Look at the upcoming Brigandine game, another tactical RPG, and how little Nintendo is pushing it because HappyNet is under Nintendo's thumb). However, Nintendo will most likely win in a legal battle against IS. They already won against Kaga.

[know_naim]

9 hours ago, Dandy Druid said:

They have stability and their products will be pushed heavily by Nintendo (in comparison to other franchises. Look at the upcoming Brigandine game, another tactical RPG, and how little Nintendo is pushing it because HappyNet is under Nintendo's thumb).

Brigandine isn't even published by Nintendo, so I don't think this comparision makes sense.
Just look at Bravely Default II or any other frequent Square and Capcom exclusive that N is publishing in the west.  

IS and Nintendo are very closely tied, as Intelligent System does not only develop games but also dev tools and middleware since waaay back. Corporate ownership aside, because it maybe makes sense fiscally to keep them separate, I view IS = Nintendo. 

Regarding Fire Emblem, since so many elements of the series are outsourced I would assume that the situation regarding rights ownership is quite complex. The intellectual property is Nintedo's for sure but what about the various pieces of music, art, VA, story and so on? Hiring mangakas,  pop singers etc. must have created a tangled legal web that's hard to decipher by just looking at copyrights, credits and such. 

Digressing from the topic a bit, I find it interesting how Nintendo is handling promotion of its first and second party games. As in not focusing on the team developing the titles but branding everything broadly as "Nintendo". Like with Retro Studios, clearly a dev other publishers would put on the pedestal and plaster "a Retro Studios production" all over PR but Big N chose to not even include Retro's intro in their recent Donkey Kong Country port for Switch. Add to that their usual coyness about revealing who made what exactly (say, Arms was developed by the people behind Mario Kart) and you get the picture why even veteran Nintendo-die-hards are often clueless to what to expect next and who owns what. 

I really miss the Iwata Asks interview series. That gave so much insight into the inner workings of Nintendo! Everybody should give those a read: http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/3ds/fire-emblem/0/0

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, know_naim said:

Brigandine isn't even published by Nintendo, so I don't think this comparision makes sense.
Just look at Bravely Default II or any other frequent Square and Capcom exclusive that N is publishing in the west.  

IS and Nintendo are very closely tied, as Intelligent System does not only develop games but also dev tools and middleware since waaay back. Corporate ownership aside, because it maybe makes sense fiscally to keep them separate, I view IS = Nintendo. 

Regarding Fire Emblem, since so many elements of the series are outsourced I would assume that the situation regarding rights ownership is quite complex. The intellectual property is Nintedo's for sure but what about the various pieces of music, art, VA, story and so on? Hiring mangakas,  pop singers etc. must have created a tangled legal web that's hard to decipher by just looking at copyrights, credits and such. 

Digressing from the topic a bit, I find it interesting how Nintendo is handling promotion of its first and second party games. As in not focusing on the team developing the titles but branding everything broadly as "Nintendo". Like with Retro Studios, clearly a dev other publishers would put on the pedestal and plaster "a Retro Studios production" all over PR but Big N chose to not even include Retro's intro in their recent Donkey Kong Country port for Switch. Add to that their usual coyness about revealing who made what exactly (say, Arms was developed by the people behind Mario Kart) and you get the picture why even veteran Nintendo-die-hards are often clueless to what to expect next and who owns what. 

I really miss the Iwata Asks interview series. That gave so much insight into the inner workings of Nintendo! Everybody should give those a read: http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/3ds/fire-emblem/0/0

Iwata was truly a beautiful man giving us such wonderful interviews. T.T Now I'm sad.

[Dandy Druid]

41 minutes ago, know_naim said:

Brigandine isn't even published by Nintendo, so I don't think this comparision makes sense.
Just look at Bravely Default II or any other frequent Square and Capcom exclusive that N is publishing in the west.  

IS and Nintendo are very closely tied, as Intelligent System does not only develop games but also dev tools and middleware since waaay back. Corporate ownership aside, because it maybe makes sense fiscally to keep them separate, I view IS = Nintendo. 

I was trying to say that having Nintendo as your publisher can be both a good thing and a bad thing. I was using Brigandine as an example of a game from the same genre that doesn't have Nintendo as a publisher, but still coming out on the Switch. I was trying to compare the level of marketing and "air time" on Directs, but didn't really elaborate on it too much.

I'm sorry I didn't articulate my point clearly. I'm sorry if it still doesn't make too much sense. I do agree that the comparison is a bit weird and weak.

[know_naim]

Sure, I got you @Dandy Druid, Apart from being console exclusive, thus hampering graphical advancements I just can't fanthom being published by Nintendo as a bad thing. 

XCOM/UFO would be the only viable comparision in scope and reach imo and that's a western franchise overlapping with FE only in some gameplay aspects. Most tactical RPGs, Brigandine included, are pretty niche, so I expect them to have little to none exposure marketing wise.  I would even go so far as to say that having Brigadine localized and published physically (by LRG) in the west is a big deal. 

As the market changed I don't think we will ever have to worry again about Nintendo not translating another Fire Emblem game but some new IP by IS, who knows? It happens, like with the Nintendo Detective Club remake that will probably be left untranslated. 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by know_naim
typos

[Harvey]

On 6/15/2020 at 1:18 PM, Dandy Druid said:

EDIT: TL;DR- IS may be considered a second party but Nintendo has dug their claws so much into their inner workings they might as well own IS, imo.

I get what you're saying here but you're making it sound like Nintendo is the bad guy here... 😕 Afterall, IS is based on Nintendo staff which was the R&D1 and EAD...or was it the other way around?

7 hours ago, know_naim said:

I really miss the Iwata Asks interview series. That gave so much insight into the inner workings of Nintendo! Everybody should give those a read: http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/3ds/fire-emblem/0/0

We all miss a legend 😞

 

[Fabulously Olivier]

Plot twist. IS are the Illuminati and own everything, including Nintendo. That's why we have 8 characters in Smash.

[Dandy Druid]

On 6/16/2020 at 5:27 AM, know_naim said:

Sure, I got you @Dandy Druid, Apart from being console exclusive, thus hampering graphical advancements I just can't fanthom being published by Nintendo as a bad thing. 

XCOM/UFO would be the only viable comparision in scope and reach imo and that's a western franchise overlapping with FE only in some gameplay aspects. Most tactical RPGs, Brigandine included, are pretty niche, so I expect them to have little to none exposure marketing wise.  I would even go so far as to say that having Brigadine localized and published physically (by LRG) in the west is a big deal. 

As the market changed I don't think we will ever have to worry again about Nintendo not translating another Fire Emblem game but some new IP by IS, who knows? It happens, like with the Nintendo Detective Club remake that will probably be left untranslated. 

 

Oh it's definitely not a bad thing. The only problem I can see arising is creative differences and vision for the franchise, which is why I assume Kaga left.

@Harvey I wasn't trying to make Nintendo seem like the bad guy. I was only highlighting the fact they have immense power.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Dandy Druid
wanted to add more.