Bank Robber's Descendent Sues EA Over Godfather

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Bank Robber's Descendent Sues EA Over Godfather



A descendant of notorious 30s' bank robber John Dillinger has sued EA over what he claims is the unauthorized use of Dillinger's name as a weapon in the publisher's Godfather games.

John Herbert Dillinger [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger] was one of the gangsters who captured the collective consciousness of America during the early 1930s, and it's not hard to see why: Not only did Dillinger and his gang hold up at least two dozen banks, they robbed police stations - not once, but four times! Let me repeat that sentence for you: Dillinger's gang robbed four police stations. As in, the people with guns who were trying to catch them. And they got away with it, too! Dude must have had cojones the size of a Volkswagen.

Though Dillinger was gunned down by police in 1934 after two successful jailbreaks, his legacy lives on - and can be seen in EA's two Godfather games, where the infamous criminal has some weapons that bear his name. The "Dillinger Tommy Gun" is in the original Godfather, while Godfather II has the "Modern Dillinger." A fitting tribute, no? Not according to the man who claims to hold the rights to Dillinger's estate: The owner of Indiana-based reports GamePolitics [http://www.johndillinger.com/].

[blockquote]On July 22, 2009 Dillinger LLC, through its litigation counsel, contacted EA to accuse it of violating Dillinger's right of publicity and infringing upon its trademarks. Dillinger threatened EA with litigation unless it agreed to pay Dillinger millions of dollars for the game elements...

Following Dillinger's recent conduct, EA is faced with the choice of either abandoning its rights to develop, publish and sell the works at issue or risk liability for damages.[/blockquote]

Nor is this the first time the man has claimed rights to the likeness and name of his ancestor - in 2007, he invoked the rights [http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/crime/182726] and claimed that an Arizona hotel needed permission from him to run its annual Dillinger Days event, an event which celebrates the gangster's capture at the hotel many decades ago with reenactments and the like. While Dillinger LLC does seem to have the right to do such things under an Indiana law that "protects a person's personality for 100 years after his or her death" that works much like a trademark, it's unclear whether or not that law applies to Arizona - or, in this case, to California.

EA has filed suit in San Francisco to defend its use of the name, requesting a U.S. District Court judge to grant them the A-OK to use the name.

One wonders if the people behind Amazing Heists: Dillinger [http://www.gamezebo.com/games/amazing-heists-dillinger/review] will be next, or if they'll just fly under the radar here.

Permalink
 

ChromeAlchemist

New member
Aug 21, 2008
5,865
0
0
Oh come now! This is just ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

I guess if your pockets are a little light after that third golden Yacht, you either get busy suin' or get busy poorin'.

Wait...what?
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Doesn't the fact that he's using the law to protect a known law-breakers rights, that he's unaware of, bother the courts?

I mean, why doesn't he just sue the newspapers that reported Dillinger's arrest for misuse of copyright either?

And you have to wonder why he didn't sue David Warner in T.R.O.N. for the same reason?

Or Johnny Depp in Public Enemies?
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Surely it's only copyrighted or whatever if they name a character based upon the person?

They could say they used the name Dillinger for any number of reasons for a gun, it could be the CEO's best friends name or whatever.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Doesn't the fact that he's using the law to protect a known law-breakers rights, that he's unaware of, bother the courts?

I mean, why doesn't he just sue the newspapers that reported Dillinger's arrest for misuse of copyright either?

And you have to wonder why he didn't sue David Warner in T.R.O.N. for the same reason?

Or Johnny Depp in Public Enemies?
Because the David Warner character isn't referencing the criminal, and you seem to be assuming that the folks who made the movie didn't get permission.

Let's say you have a very famous relative, and some yokel down the block who never so much as spoke to your relative starts trying to make money off of that fact. You're telling me you wouldn't take a certain degree of umbrage?
 

Robert632

New member
May 11, 2009
3,870
0
0
this... is one of the few stories about suing people that makes some sort of sense.i can't believe i said that.
 

MR.Spartacus

New member
Jul 7, 2009
673
0
0
Beatrix said:
I hope he wins and gets millions of dollars.
Me too even though the whole thing seems asinine my(probably unjustified) hatred of EA means that I'll get a good laugh.
 

scotth266

Wait when did I get a sub
Jan 10, 2009
5,202
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
Let's say you have a very famous relative, and some yokel down the block who never so much as spoke to your relative starts trying to make money off of that fact. You're telling me you wouldn't take a certain degree of umbrage?
This is slightly different. In your case, the person being referenced is still alive, or at the very least the person is trying to make money off of your family member's name.

Here, the guy being referenced has been dead 70 years, and the Dillinger name was used as a reference or a sign of respect, rather than trying to make a profit. It's not like EA went around, trumpeting: "THIS GAME HAS A GUN NAMED AFTER THIS DUDE DILLINGER, BUY IT NOW!" If they had, this would look legitimate.
 

oneniesteledain

New member
Aug 5, 2009
206
0
0
scotth266 said:
Susan Arendt said:
Let's say you have a very famous relative, and some yokel down the block who never so much as spoke to your relative starts trying to make money off of that fact. You're telling me you wouldn't take a certain degree of umbrage?
This is slightly different. In your case, the person being referenced is still alive, or at the very least the person is trying to make money off of your family member's name.

Here, the guy being referenced has been dead 70 years, and the Dillinger name was used as a reference or a sign of respect, rather than trying to make a profit. It's not like EA went around, trumpeting: "THIS GAME HAS A GUN NAMED AFTER THIS DUDE DILLINGER, BUY IT NOW!" If they had, this would look legitimate.
That's a good point. The game has sold just as many copies as it would have with or without that weapon in it.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
oneniesteledain said:
scotth266 said:
Susan Arendt said:
Let's say you have a very famous relative, and some yokel down the block who never so much as spoke to your relative starts trying to make money off of that fact. You're telling me you wouldn't take a certain degree of umbrage?
This is slightly different. In your case, the person being referenced is still alive, or at the very least the person is trying to make money off of your family member's name.

Here, the guy being referenced has been dead 70 years, and the Dillinger name was used as a reference or a sign of respect, rather than trying to make a profit. It's not like EA went around, trumpeting: "THIS GAME HAS A GUN NAMED AFTER THIS DUDE DILLINGER, BUY IT NOW!" If they had, this would look legitimate.
That's a good point. The game has sold just as many copies as it would have with or without that weapon in it.
True enough, and I also have no idea if there's a gun commonly referred to as a Dillinger Tommy Gun, or if EA made that up. But I certainly don't think it's fair to call this guy a "fucking loser" because he doesn't want people profiting from his relative's name or likeness.
(Again, the claim that the game would or would not sell based on that gun is another argument entirely.)
 

aflockofnoobs

New member
Sep 2, 2009
4
0
0
xmetatr0nx said:
Interesting, well i guess hes got nothing better to do. Oh how the legacy boils down to a bitter and sad man trying to get money the easy way...oh wait nothing has changed. Oh well, good luck taking on everyone who uses "your name".


Yes, robbing banks, breaking out of jail, robbing police stations, and generaly public mahem. Thats the easy route for everyone. Thank god my problems are solved.
 

oneniesteledain

New member
Aug 5, 2009
206
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
oneniesteledain said:
scotth266 said:
Susan Arendt said:
Let's say you have a very famous relative, and some yokel down the block who never so much as spoke to your relative starts trying to make money off of that fact. You're telling me you wouldn't take a certain degree of umbrage?
This is slightly different. In your case, the person being referenced is still alive, or at the very least the person is trying to make money off of your family member's name.

Here, the guy being referenced has been dead 70 years, and the Dillinger name was used as a reference or a sign of respect, rather than trying to make a profit. It's not like EA went around, trumpeting: "THIS GAME HAS A GUN NAMED AFTER THIS DUDE DILLINGER, BUY IT NOW!" If they had, this would look legitimate.
That's a good point. The game has sold just as many copies as it would have with or without that weapon in it.
True enough, and I also have no idea if there's a gun commonly referred to as a Dillinger Tommy Gun, or if EA made that up. But I certainly don't think it's fair to call this guy a "fucking loser" because he doesn't want people profiting from his relative's name or likeness.
(Again, the claim that the game would or would not sell based on that gun is another argument entirely.)
I'm not referring to him as anything. And okay, my claim is unprovable. In that case, it comes down to whether or not EA put that in advertising, as was pointed out.

But I would definitely be pissed if someone tried to use my relative's name. But millions of dollars in damages is uncalled for.
 

scotth266

Wait when did I get a sub
Jan 10, 2009
5,202
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
True enough, and I also have no idea if there's a gun commonly referred to as a Dillinger Tommy Gun, or if EA made that up. But I certainly don't think it's fair to call this guy a "fucking loser" because he doesn't want people profiting from his relative's name or likeness.
(Again, the claim that the game would or would not sell based on that gun is another argument entirely.)
I wouldn't call him a loser either, but if he were interested in protecting his family's name, he could just ask EA to patch the game to change the names of the guns before attempting to sue them. It's not like it would take a huge amount of effort to do, and I'm sure EA would have obliged in the interest of avoiding a long, costly lawsuit.

Then there's the hotel thing...
 

qwerty15990

New member
Apr 14, 2009
20
0
0
the bloke isnt actuall related to him and most probably never met dillinger. and why did he go for ea over the producers of public enimies?? is this what the world has come to, sueing someone over the use of some ones name
 

SMOKEMNHALO2001

New member
Sep 10, 2008
245
0
0
I'm so becoming a gangster...uh gangsta so I can trademark my name and sue people over it! If you are born after me you can not have the same name as me!
The legal system always sucked to me but this is down right "I have to be reading this wrong" stupid!