Restaurant Promotion Plagiarizes Pokémon Cards

In April, the Japan Heritage Utilisation Promotion Council of Obama City and Wakasa Town released a series of seven cards entitled Michokukuni Wakasa History Fudocard. Each card represented a local dish that is famous in the region.

The idea was fairly straightforward. The organization printed 520 of each card and distributed them to local restaurants. Restaurants would then give them to patrons, enabling customers to “collect” all seven by sampling the dishes.

However, the plan ended up being cut short.

After being available only for a short period, as Chris Scullion at VGC reports, the council recalled them after users noticed they bore a strong resemblance to various Pokémon cards.

Two cards were of particular interest. The cards for Wakasa eel and heshiko (pickled mackerel) were accused of plagiarizing Snivy (header image) and Reshiram (seen below), respectively. Two other cards were accused of strongly resembling Oddish and Suicune.

A representative for Obama City acknowledged that the cards look similar. They blamed the issue on a local company that created the cards. When asked about it, the company admitted using Pokémon as a reference but denied plagiarism.

The council has withdrawn the cards from restaurants but has no plan to recall those already given out. As such, Scullion hypothesizes they could become valuable collector items in the future.

However, this raises a series of questions. Is this plagiarism? If it is, how serious is the plagiarism? Could The Pokémon Company or others take legal action?

Understanding the Plagiarism

The similarities between the works are interesting. Looking at the Wakasa Eel/Snivy comparison for a minute, the similarities are immediately very striking. Both have the same pose, similar head shape/structure and similar flipper/fin placement.

However, as one looks closer, differences emerge. Snivy is a lizard, while the eel is an eel. The tails are also very different and the backgrounds are also different.

But then, looking still closer, you see similar coloration of the eye and areas around them; the flare on the neck is similar, and the mouths are very similar in placement and style.

In short, this doesn’t appear to be an artist tracing the Pokémon card. Rather, they likely aped it very closely, making the two very similar in the process.

I think this explains why the company admitted to using Pokémon as a reference. There is simply no denying it. Even if the cards were never traced, the styles, poses and general aesthetic all match. These are definitely based on Pokémon cards.

Even I, someone who never played Pokémon card games or video games (beyond Pokémon Go), immediately recognized their Oddish imitation. If it’s so close that even an extremely casual fan can pick up on the similarity, there’s a problem.

While the company and the artist are ultimately to blame for the plagiarism, what responsibility does the council have?

Blaming the Council

On one hand, giving the council a great deal of slack is easy. This is not their primary job. They are not Wizards of the Coast who make their living selling artwork but seem to face plagiarism scandal after plagiarism scandal.

This is not their area of expertise, and they likely had no way of knowing that the works were plagiarized.

But then comes a simple question: Why were they trying to imitate Pokémon cards in the first place?

Even though I have never played Pokémon in card format, I immediately recognized the art style as similar to Pokémon cards. It’s a well-known art style, and, almost certainly, the attempt to mimic it was intentional.

While it is possible to mimic a style without committing plagiarism, the council had to know they were playing with fire here. The Pokémon Company is aggressive at protecting its rights, including from games that mimic its style.

Even if the cards hadn’t pulled elements directly from Pokémon characters, they would still feel like Pokémon cards. That was likely very intentional.

That raises the question: What did the council specifically ask the contractor to do? Did they encourage them to make Pokémon-like cards? Was that the company’s decision? If it was the latter’s decision, why did the council approve them despite the similar feel?

The council had an opportunity to take things in a new and novel direction. There are countless art styles out there, so choosing a Pokémon-adjacent one for these cards was always going to be risky.

Even if the cards were closer than intended, it’s pretty clear that they were already trying to toe the line.

Bottom Line

The cards pretty clearly cross the line. They go from vaguely imitating Pokémon’s style to looking recognizably like specific characters. The fact that even I, at best, a very casual fan, noticed it speaks volumes.

However, there’s not likely to be any legal action over this. The council was simply trying to promote local cuisine. The cards were given away for free and were recalled once the similarities were noticed. There’s just no reason for a long and complicated legal fight.

Still, I think the council should take the time to evaluate why and how this happened. They clearly made some missteps when creating the project and contracting it out. The goal should have been to create something unique that truly represents the region, not to imitate Pokémon style in a new series of cards.

Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for all involved. Right now, it doesn’t appear that much damage was done. It’s just a bizarre story that is more interesting than important.

However, there’s no guarantee that everyone will be so lucky if it happens again. Next time, the headlines could be from the courtroom.