the pigs are getting several concussions out of that

What even happened to the fellow who made this?

I keep thinking they disappeared off the face of the Earth, but sometimes stuff I have never seen before shows up, like this one.

donnybrook said:
What even happened to the fellow who made this?

I keep thinking they disappeared off the face of the Earth, but sometimes stuff I have never seen before shows up, like this one.

last i heard was that Nintendo basically threatened them with a lawsuit.

tubeku said:
last i heard was that Nintendo basically threatened them with a lawsuit.

Wow, is Nintendo seriously suing people because they make porn with their characters?

my-stuff-account said:
Wow, is Nintendo seriously suing people because they make porn with their characters?

I think it was because the models looked so similar to the ones in the games. I have heard from a lot of artist's that they are refusing to do anything associated with Nintendo do to false DMCA flags on them.

tubeku said:
I think it was because the models looked so similar to the ones in the games. I have heard from a lot of artist's that they are refusing to do anything associated with Nintendo do to false DMCA flags on them.

I feel like, legally, porn parodies should probably be that area where you can't press charges until they try to sell merchandise....

I'd honestly chip in to lobby that.

(EDIT)
Wait, hold up, wouldn't going after pornographic material for misrepresentation, appropriation, or otherwise of a company that has nothing to do with that brand of "entertainment" fall against the laws of the FTC?

I feel like there's a really tricky way to kick Nintendo in the legal balls on this one.

For example, Nintendo is a company prioritized on advertising to children and teens, them trying to protect their "image" by legally attacking pornography, or models used for said pornography, would explicitly imply them to be represented in this format to their target audience via this method, in other words, they're explicitly stating that they are protecting their profits and rights by removing pornography from the web, directly implying that they profit off of that method in some way DESPITE advertising to children.

It might not even be a stretch to say they're against both the FTC AND the FCC in this case.

zorthax said:
I feel like, legally, porn parodies should probably be that area where you can't press charges until they try to sell merchandise....

I'd honestly chip in to lobby that.

(EDIT)
Wait, hold up, wouldn't going after pornographic material for misrepresentation, appropriation, or otherwise of a company that has nothing to do with that brand of "entertainment" fall against the laws of the FTC?

I feel like there's a really tricky way to kick Nintendo in the legal balls on this one.

For example, Nintendo is a company prioritized on advertising to children and teens, them trying to protect their "image" by legally attacking pornography, or models used for said pornography, would explicitly imply them to be represented in this format to their target audience via this method, in other words, they're explicitly stating that they are protecting their profits and rights by removing pornography from the web, directly implying that they profit off of that method in some way DESPITE advertising to children.

It might not even be a stretch to say they're against both the FTC AND the FCC in this case.

I think its because the models they use look like an exact copy of the ones found in the game, except genital added. A good lawyer could probably argue that case. Idk I'm not in that field and could be completely wrong and I'm welcome to being proven as such.

But my other point is that I have personally seen a lot of artist that I support on patreon say they refuse to do any Nintendo characters because they are getting a lot of false strikes against them for the Nintendo character.

And what sucks is that I can't seem to find anything on where they went. Just 1 article on reddit that doesn't explain anything.

tubeku said:
I think its because the models they use look like an exact copy of the ones found in the game, except genital added. A good lawyer could probably argue that case. Idk I'm not in that field and could be completely wrong and I'm welcome to being proven as such.

But my other point is that I have personally seen a lot of artist that I support on patreon say they refuse to do any Nintendo characters because they are getting a lot of false strikes against them for the Nintendo character.

And what sucks is that I can't seem to find anything on where they went. Just 1 article on reddit that doesn't explain anything.

Good lawyers are expensive, I need funding to throw at a legal firm to take this case, and due to its controversial subject, it will probably need a decent amount of funding. Maybe I could start a legal kickstarter or something.

zorthax said:
there's the implication here that since Mipha was canonically killed by a blight Ganon during combat, those Bokoblins are possibly literally fucking her corpse, and considering how little she's moving outside of the bokoblin's motions....

Granted, in context, this is already rape, so its not that much worse actually....

Neither of these things is going to stop me from giving it a bonus point and sticking around mind you, I love dark shit, but just saying for the record, that's what it looks like.

+1

That’s hot

Idk how true it is but I remember hearing a rumor that Sable is/was actually an employee at Nintendo because of the fact these animations came out not long after the game first came out, when it would've been more or less impossible to get the models and assets that quickly, but Nintendo found out and cracked down on them.

Again, just what I heard, not sure how true it is