Activision Sues No Doubt
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
-sigh- Well, I enjoyed reading that legal document.. That was probably the highlight of this story.
And good god.. Its like we're all back in bloody highschool. "But I didn't want him to use the pictures of me for that purpose" Then why'd you let him take the damn pictures?
STOP WHINING.
And good god.. Its like we're all back in bloody highschool. "But I didn't want him to use the pictures of me for that purpose" Then why'd you let him take the damn pictures?
STOP WHINING.
Aren't you a bundle of happyness and good humor. Do you need help getting back under your bridge?Phyroxis said:
Talk about a two sided whiny baby dispute.
I should sue them both for making such a crappy franchise.
I should sue them both for making such a crappy franchise.
Now I just skimmed this thing, but it seems to me that I'm far more likely to side with No Doubt on this. Activision was publicly caught in a breach of contract, and instead of owning up, they used an army of lawyers to cloud the issue and tie the whole thing up in litigation.
Also, if it wasn't already, its official.
Activision is the new EA.
Actually, EA hasn't been EA in awhile. They haven't been the company that deserves swastikas painted on their logo or ate puppies or whatever. Its nice to know there are still creativity-deficient, bottom-line driven, shameless sequel-spewing, venomous little maggots out there. Not that everybody at Activision fits that bill I suppose, probably just the people in charge.
**Added** Oh and yeah, its two wholly unimportant things top ***** about, but that doesn't mean Activision isn't responsible for owning up to their agreements. I don't care if every other line of the damn fine print talked about using Gwen Stefani's ugly face for toilet paper commercials in Japan. No Doubt went in under a very specific assumption, and I suspect Activision supported that. I bet some suit stood there with a smile on his face, told them one thing, shook hands and handed them a contract that said something else.
Also, if it wasn't already, its official.
Activision is the new EA.
Actually, EA hasn't been EA in awhile. They haven't been the company that deserves swastikas painted on their logo or ate puppies or whatever. Its nice to know there are still creativity-deficient, bottom-line driven, shameless sequel-spewing, venomous little maggots out there. Not that everybody at Activision fits that bill I suppose, probably just the people in charge.
**Added** Oh and yeah, its two wholly unimportant things top ***** about, but that doesn't mean Activision isn't responsible for owning up to their agreements. I don't care if every other line of the damn fine print talked about using Gwen Stefani's ugly face for toilet paper commercials in Japan. No Doubt went in under a very specific assumption, and I suspect Activision supported that. I bet some suit stood there with a smile on his face, told them one thing, shook hands and handed them a contract that said something else.
Just another example of how effed up the music industry is. Artists screw their fans, music industry screws over their artists, while under the guise of "protecting" them, and now Activision screws over the artists. Big surprise. I don't care for Guitar Hero, Band Hero, Rock Band, Cello Champion, Super Flutist, whatever. It's a cheap way to attempt to immerse yourself into being a rockstar. Wanna be a rockstar? Make your own little ditty and then sue your friend after they sing it for infringement. That's how. [/cynicism]
No doubt.obisean said:
i don't want to take activision's side with their many many lawsuits this year...but this no doubt is ridiculous. they are fully justified to fight this beyond stupid suit. this is a frivolous lawsuit to start with (no doubt it gonna get hit with a nice fat sanction), i'm pretty sure the lawyers of activision, with their seasoned expertise, managed to draft the contract to say that the avatars can be used in any way they so feel like it. the added counterclaim for failure to market is gonna be another kick to no doubt
Agreed. As much as I want someone to take the smug out of Bobby Kotick, he's in the right here. If No Doubt didn't perform their contractual obligations, and, in fact, apparently didn't read the contract (or at least think the implications through), they have no right to throw this sort of fit.TsunamiWombat said:
It doesn't matter whether or not No Doubt wants it at this point, they signed a contract that allowed their likeness to be used in this game, without any sort of restriction on which songs they would appear in. In other words, they made an agreement, for which money changed hands, and now don't want to fulfill their end of it and whine while Activision uses their contractual rights. Believe me, I don't want Activision to be right, I want Kotick to die in a fire. But that doesn't change the facts.Christemo said:
I like how rock stars complain about stuff like this after signing away their lives to these huge labels. Shouldn't this be expected by now? I thought this was fairly standard.
Here is a thought. Stop giving big record labels a monopoly over music and sign on with small indie labels or else make/release you own music. It has worked for VAST, since they are still making music, even though virtually no one has heard of them. Sure you'll have to sacrifice your ego since you won't be playing huge stadiums, but you can then maintain more rights over your music and image.
Here is a thought. Stop giving big record labels a monopoly over music and sign on with small indie labels or else make/release you own music. It has worked for VAST, since they are still making music, even though virtually no one has heard of them. Sure you'll have to sacrifice your ego since you won't be playing huge stadiums, but you can then maintain more rights over your music and image.
Hmmm, well we'll see what happens. Personally I feel that "No Doubt" is being touchy, strangely I thought Gwen Stefani had more of a sense of humor than that implies. 
That said when it comes to contracts, especially over creative media like this, I believe the spirit of a contract is oftentimes differant than it's "letter" even if that is difficult to enforce in court. When it comes to movies and music, a lot is agreed to with a handshake that isn't covered in the contracts.
In looking at situations like this, and what happened to bands like "Grand Funk Railroad" back in the day (totally differant situation, but again over contracts), I'm not sure if they can win in court, but at the same time if I was in "No Doubt" and came to an agreement with Activision like they imply I'd be making D@mn sure everyone else in the industry knew what they pulled.
But even so, the situation strikes me as being vaguely ridiculous.
That said when it comes to contracts, especially over creative media like this, I believe the spirit of a contract is oftentimes differant than it's "letter" even if that is difficult to enforce in court. When it comes to movies and music, a lot is agreed to with a handshake that isn't covered in the contracts.
In looking at situations like this, and what happened to bands like "Grand Funk Railroad" back in the day (totally differant situation, but again over contracts), I'm not sure if they can win in court, but at the same time if I was in "No Doubt" and came to an agreement with Activision like they imply I'd be making D@mn sure everyone else in the industry knew what they pulled.
But even so, the situation strikes me as being vaguely ridiculous.
