That’s mostly true of trademark rights, which do need to be actively enforced to some degree to maintain, but only to the extent that it prevents trademarks from becoming genericized. The extent to which Nintendo enforces its trademarks is arguably above and beyond the requirements for preventing genericization of a trademark. Independent fan-art intended for free distribution, for example, isn’t going to make Mario a public domain character.
Copyrights have no such requirement for enforcement, and companies can exercise as much discretion as they choose in enforcing copyright, including none at all (the concept of abandonware sort of falls in this category where things become de facto public domain by virtue of no one caring enough to enforce the copyright). Further, lots of companies have proactive policies that cover things like fan-made content, review content, streaming, etc. in order to establish what will be enforced and what won’t. Nintendo’s policy is to stop any unauthorized use or manipulation of any Nintendo IP, even if that use might meet legal standards, and they often overreach in their enforcement.
So yeah, they do have an obligation to enforce their trademarks in order to maintain them, but not necessarily to the degree that they do. They have no obligation to enforce copyright. In practice, it makes sense to put barriers in place to make it difficult for people to easily pirate or try to make money from your IP, but Nintendo’s approach is pretty much unique. As I said, I’m not sure if it benefits them, or if it’s just how they’ve always done things. I think there’s an interesting argument to be made that their brand strength and quality is allowing them to get away with being so litigious, rather than their litigiousness being a major factor in their success. If other game companies were as hostile as Nintendo, they would likely do more harm to their brand than would be worthwhile for whatever benefit they’d get on the other end, otherwise they’d all be doing what Nintendo is doing.
intellectual property is also weird as if you don’t defend it (see: serve cease and desists etc) they are liable to lose the rights to them.
the level at which a company does this is entirely up to them though it seems
That’s mostly true of trademark rights, which do need to be actively enforced to some degree to maintain, but only to the extent that it prevents trademarks from becoming genericized. The extent to which Nintendo enforces its trademarks is arguably above and beyond the requirements for preventing genericization of a trademark. Independent fan-art intended for free distribution, for example, isn’t going to make Mario a public domain character.
Copyrights have no such requirement for enforcement, and companies can exercise as much discretion as they choose in enforcing copyright, including none at all (the concept of abandonware sort of falls in this category where things become de facto public domain by virtue of no one caring enough to enforce the copyright). Further, lots of companies have proactive policies that cover things like fan-made content, review content, streaming, etc. in order to establish what will be enforced and what won’t. Nintendo’s policy is to stop any unauthorized use or manipulation of any Nintendo IP, even if that use might meet legal standards, and they often overreach in their enforcement.
So yeah, they do have an obligation to enforce their trademarks in order to maintain them, but not necessarily to the degree that they do. They have no obligation to enforce copyright. In practice, it makes sense to put barriers in place to make it difficult for people to easily pirate or try to make money from your IP, but Nintendo’s approach is pretty much unique. As I said, I’m not sure if it benefits them, or if it’s just how they’ve always done things. I think there’s an interesting argument to be made that their brand strength and quality is allowing them to get away with being so litigious, rather than their litigiousness being a major factor in their success. If other game companies were as hostile as Nintendo, they would likely do more harm to their brand than would be worthwhile for whatever benefit they’d get on the other end, otherwise they’d all be doing what Nintendo is doing.
Isn’t this only the case for trademarks?
yes