Activision Files For Dismissal of "Frivolous" Noriega Call of Duty Lawsuit

[roseofbattle]

Activision Files For Dismissal of "Frivolous" Noriega Call of Duty Lawsuit

Call of Duty publisher Activision states former dictator Manuel Noriega's lawsuit sets a precedent for vetoing their appearances in art.

Activision, publisher of Call of Duty, has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit former Panama dictator Manuel Noriega filed, alleging Activision used his likeness without his consent. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136187-Former-Panama-Dictator-Sues-Activision-Over-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-II]

Noriega filed the suit in July. He was the military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989. He was convicted in 1992 on charges of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering.

Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and U.S. attorney, now a partner of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, is a part of the counsel for Activision. He is defending Activision's depiction of Noriega in Call of Duty as "a protected right to free speech."

"What's astonishing is that Manuel Noriega, a notorious dictator who is in prison for the heinous crimes he committed, is upset about being portrayed as a criminal and enemy of the state in the game Call of Duty. Quite simply, it's absurd," Giuliani said in a prepared statement. "I'm not interested in giving handouts to a convicted murderer and drug smuggler like Manuel Noriega who is demanding money from Activision and its popular Call of Duty franchise for simply exercising its right to free speech. Noriega's attack on the rights of Call of Duty comes as no surprise considering he's a lawless tyrant who trampled over the rights of his own people."

The motion for dismissal seeks to end Moriega's complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law. [http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/2/6/2/1/s425.16] Strategic lawsuits against public participation seek to censor or intimidate the public with the cost of a legal defense. The California state provision protects freedom of speech from those lawsuits.

An Activision press release states if Noriega's lawsuit were successful, it would "give numerous historical and political figures - and their heirs - a veto right over their appearances in works of art, having a chilling effect on movies such as Forrest Gump and Zero Dark Thirty, TV shows such as Saturday Night Live and Boardwalk Empire, and beloved books such as Primary Colors and The Paris Wife, just to name a few."

Source: Activision [http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=871930]


Permalink

 

[Ralphfromdk]

Never thought I would be saying this, but.... for once I'm on the side of Activision.

And now there are pigs flying around outside my window... Just f'ing great.

 

[webkilla]

Never thought I would be saying this, but.... for once I'm on the side of Activision.

And now there are pigs flying around outside my window... Just f'ing great.

Ya, I know... its a weird feeling


If anything, then I get why Noriega is filing the suit. I also get why it seems to easy for Activision to just ignore and dismiss it...

Though I'm honestly not sure if that makes it right.

Defamation is still a real thing. Of course, Nori was convicted of these things. Though, I think ideally you should still ask permission to use someone's likeness like this, even if you're still presenting a criminal as a criminal.

 

[MattTHM]

So am I allowed Bobby Kotick in a game, provided I don't have him do anything grossly out of character?

Haven't played the game, is it a re-enactment of an event, or have they used him as the basis for a character in it?

The defence seems to be based on him being a bad person. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of Ad Hominem.



Edit: not to suggest that I'm secretly making a game or anything. Triple A-developer Deathmatch is not a real thing.

 

[Li Mu]

I'm planning on making a game where a character named Rooby Juliany (who happens to look like Rudy Giuliani) is a child molesting meth-head. Do you think that Rudy Giuliani will defend the right to free speech then?

 

[Micah Weil]

And now there are pigs flying around outside my window... Just f'ing great.

Don't think of it as a bad thing...think of it as flying bacon that you just have to catch!

 

[Doom972]

Never thought I would be saying this, but.... for once I'm on the side of Activision.

And now there are pigs flying around outside my window... Just f'ing great.

Think about it more like not being on the side of Manuel Noriega. As bad as Activision are, they aren't nearly as bad as this guy.

 

[hermes]

I am not going to defend someone like Noriega, but Activision's defense is rather tenuous. Yes, depiction of historical figures is protected by free speech, but the moral grounds of the person in question should not be part of its defense.

As others have said, if Giuliani was portrait in a less than flattering light, he would not be so fast at brandishing the "free speech" flag...

 

[Evonisia]

So am I allowed Bobby Kotick in a game, provided I don't have him do anything grossly out of character?

Haven't played the game, is it a re-enactment of an event, or have they used him as the basis for a character in it?

The defence seems to be based on him being a bad person. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of Ad Hominem.



Edit: not to suggest that I'm secretly making a game or anything. Triple A-developer Deathmatch is not a real thing.

They don't re-enact anything, it's set before Noriega received punishment for anything. Basically his crimes in the game are:
*Betraying US soldiers (and the CIA) so that Menendez can live on (though this was done without said CIA soldiers knowing).
*Kills two of his own men.
*Betrays US soldiers again by letting Menendez kidnap some of their operatives.

 

[Mezahmay]

Hooray! More lawsuits giving legal precedent to video games as art with the protected rights of free speech! It's a shame that this is over CoD and it means indirectly rooting for Activision, but I guess I'll just have to learn to take the good with the bad.