Jimquisition: Lawsuits, Memes, and Tasty Medicine

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Lawsuits, Memes, and Tasty Medicine

Warner Bros. and 5th Cell are facing a lawsuit over the inclusion of Keyboard Cat and Nyan Cat in Scribblenauts. Preposterous, you say? Greedy, are the meme makers? I say well done them!

Watch Video
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
According to the creators, the legal blog that initially reported this suit got all the dates wrong.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
I think this is about Scribblenauts Unlimited which is after the copyright... Apparently Nyan Cat was copyritten in 2011 which is before the WiiU.
 

Chessrook44

Senior Member
Legacy
Feb 11, 2009
559
3
23
Country
United States
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
This reminds me of another semi-famous instance that was similar. Bill Waterson was the creator and owner of Calvin and Hobbes, and was against doing any sort of merchandising aside from one or two calendars and a few collection books. Well some people made those Calvin Peeing stickers you occasionally see on truck windows or the like. Bill copyrighted Calvin and Hobbes, but by then, it was too late. The judge ruled against him, saying that "Well you should have copyrighted sooner." And that's kinda what's happening here. WB used the images, the cat owners copyrighted them after, and most likely a judge will say "Well, you're kinda too late here."

This is compared to when WB has videos copyrighted, and then goes after people who post that copyrighted material after it was copyrighted. Unfortunately, it seems like WB might end up on top here, and they'll just have a big grin on their face that they got away with it.

"Don't steal everything from the internet. Just steal what hasn't been copyrighted yet. They can't prosecute us for that."
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
I think there is a HORRIBLE oversight here Jim.

You see that little Willem Dafoe? That's a reference. You get away with it because of free use. If Nyan cat and Keyboard cat wins... goodbye Willen Dafoe. You see it sets a precedent, where easter eggs, references, little off jokes and cut away jokes are basically possible lawsuits waiting to happen.

True it's fun to see Warner Bros get a taste of it's own medicine, but this would be even worse if the Nyan cat and Keyboard cat people win. I seem to remember Batman showing up in one of your episodes, be that in clip or in costume. That would then have a legal precedent to get your ass sued off, after all I presume the escapist is paying you, what they pay you with is not really important but you are making a profit whilst using trademarked or copyrighted images in your work. This would eventually not harm WB but the creators, in this case 5th Cell and yes even you.

In the case of a Nyan cat or Keyboard victory it will result in a possibly worse version of copyright law. It's basically the Russian way of winning a war, by clogging the gears of your enemy with your own dead.
 

ninjaRiv

New member
Aug 25, 2010
986
0
0
To be honest, my gut reaction was never "boo, you greedy buggers" it was "good for you" simply because I thought it was about time a big shot like WB got a taste of their own medicine. I'm in total support of people protecting their creations, demanding compensation, etc but not to the point where it hurts anyone. I kind of like the "use it however you like as long as you give full credit and don't make a profit on it" thing. That seems fair to me.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
1337mokro said:
I think there is a HORRIBLE oversight here Jim.

You see that little Willem Dafoe? That's a reference. You get away with it because of free use. If Nyan cat and Keyboard cat wins... goodbye Willen Dafoe. You see it sets a precedent, where easter eggs, references, little off jokes and cut away jokes are basically possible lawsuits waiting to happen.

True it's fun to see Warner Bros get a taste of it's own medicine, but this would be even worse if the Nyan cat and Keyboard cat people win. I seem to remember Batman showing up in one of your episodes, be that in clip or in costume. That would then have a legal precedent to get your ass sued off, after all I presume the escapist is paying you, what they pay you with is not really important but you are making a profit whilst using trademarked or copyrighted images in your work. This would eventually not harm WB but the creators, in this case 5th Cell and yes even you.

In the case of a Nyan cat or Keyboard victory it will result in a possibly worse version of copyright law. It's basically the Russian way of winning a war, by clogging the gears of your enemy with your own dead.
I think there's a difference here, though. Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat aren't just comical references, they're included as-is, with no real parody or even a real credit. This lawsuit wouldn't set a new precedent if it succeeded, it already exists -- its why most games make up their own gun and car brands, and don't include real-life products without some sort of agreement.

This is not to say, however, that my show is free of licensed material. Hell, SEGA has actually blocked some of my episodes from YouTube for using footage from its trailers, of all things. I don't like it, but this lawsuit wouldn't set any new sort of precedent, just turn around the existing ones on those who set them in the first place.

Which I'm alright with.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
First, beyotch!
I hope the warning you're going to get was worth it.

OT: I didn't hear about the Scribblenauts thing.

My stance on the subject is that if the NyanCat and KeyboardCat guys tried contacting them to sort it all out and were subsequently ignored, Warner Bros. deserves whatever they get out of all this.

[sub][sub]What? I'm totally not still bitter about WB shutting down that free Middle Earth total conversion mod for Skyrim...[/sub][/sub]
 

Simon Leonhart

New member
Jan 4, 2010
47
0
0
I haven't watched the Jimquisition in a very long time, but I'm really glad I tuned into this episode. I think that Jim brings up some very good points, especially where he outlines that there is truly a difference between the copyright holders of Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat coming from a very different place on this than a multinational corporation like the WB does when it demands blood for any perceived copyright infringement.
 

Another

New member
Mar 19, 2008
416
0
0
Chessrook44 said:
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
This reminds me of another semi-famous instance that was similar. Bill Waterson was the creator and owner of Calvin and Hobbes, and was against doing any sort of merchandising aside from one or two calendars and a few collection books. Well some people made those Calvin Peeing stickers you occasionally see on truck windows or the like. Bill copyrighted Calvin and Hobbes, but by then, it was too late. The judge ruled against him, saying that "Well you should have copyrighted sooner." And that's kinda what's happening here. WB used the images, the cat owners copyrighted them after, and most likely a judge will say "Well, you're kinda too late here."

This is compared to when WB has videos copyrighted, and then goes after people who post that copyrighted material after it was copyrighted. Unfortunately, it seems like WB might end up on top here, and they'll just have a big grin on their face that they got away with it.

"Don't steal everything from the internet. Just steal what hasn't been copyrighted yet. They can't prosecute us for that."
I came into the thread to say this exact thing basically. As much as I don't like Warner Brothers, If the meme guys filled copyright after Scribblenauts then they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
 

CrazyCapnMorgan

Is not insane, just crazy >:)
Jan 5, 2011
2,742
0
0
It's sad when those who have the money used to make the system seem to be impervious to its own hypocrisy. However, this is the sad truth of the systems in place nowadays - if you have the monetary means, you can be exempt from all of the bullshit surrounding you. The whole "Screw The Rules, I Have Money" thing.

Don't misunderstand me - if these creators are, indeed, worthy of recompense, then it stands to reason, moral and legal, that they should be compensated for the uses of their work. It's just after seeing nonsense like this happen over and over again, I wish this whole fething mess of a system gets obliterated, Exodia style, and then rebuilt so that it favors the creators, regardless of their net worth.

I realize that while greed exists this is a pipe dream, but still...!

Also, as far as the whole SEGA & Gearbox lawsuit goes, they showed a product "in progress". Now, is it possible that by proving that the game "regressed" instead of "progressed", it was misrepresented and, therefore, constitutes false advertising? I am not versed in law nor am I proficient in 'legalese', any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 

rdaleric

New member
Jan 22, 2009
309
0
0
I agree with you 100% both on WB deserving it and copyright law is a mess. Copyright law is stacked so much for the big guys to keep coining it in, Disney were a huge part in extending the length of copyright, which is so hypocritical since so many of their films are based on books that were copyright free.
 

T3hSource

New member
Mar 5, 2012
321
0
0
Yes, I agree that these companies finally deserve a taste of their own medicine, but I don't think it will matter that much for now.

On the subject of copyright law and 'protecting the artist's work', this is a tangentially related video I think, which provokes some interesting thoughts.
 

The Grim Ace

New member
May 20, 2010
483
0
0
Got to love how this is the same WB that, in exercising THEIR copyright, is preparing to -- if they haven't already -- remove all their shows and movies from Netflix. So, they definitely still know when and how to exercise copyright, just a little more vague on who is allowed that privilege.

The whole thing still leaves a bad taste in my mouth since the copyright system is beyond broken but glad to see the comparatively little guy screwing over a corporation at least once.

[small]Why do I have a bad feeling the courts will set some new precedent that basically boils down to, "well they have more money so there." Right, because that's the case more often than not...[/small]
 

Matthew Abbott

New member
Jan 13, 2013
18
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
1337mokro said:
I think there is a HORRIBLE oversight here Jim.

You see that little Willem Dafoe? That's a reference. You get away with it because of free use. If Nyan cat and Keyboard cat wins... goodbye Willen Dafoe. You see it sets a precedent, where easter eggs, references, little off jokes and cut away jokes are basically possible lawsuits waiting to happen.
I think there's a difference here, though. Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat aren't just comical references, they're included as-is, with no real parody or even a real credit. This lawsuit wouldn't set a new precedent if it succeeded, it already exists -- its why most games make up their own gun and car brands, and don't include real-life products without some sort of agreement.
Plus, last I checked, Willem Dafoe wasn't copyrighted.

Fair use is a fairly troublesome thing, and is largely subjective and unequally enforced (yet another reason why copyright law is all kinds of fuggered up). I honestly don't think that a WB defeat would mean any sort of significant change in how copyright is handled...I honestly doubt it'll even stop companies like WB from pirating material to any serious degree. I think it will result in a bit of catharsis from those of us who think that copyright law is unfairly weighted in the favor of massive companies that simultaneously attempt to bludgeon content creators with bags of comedy oranges while doing the exact same thing that they're orange-bludgeoning people for.
 

Clovus

New member
Mar 3, 2011
275
0
0
Chessrook44 said:
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
This reminds me of another semi-famous instance that was similar. Bill Waterson was the creator and owner of Calvin and Hobbes, and was against doing any sort of merchandising aside from one or two calendars and a few collection books. Well some people made those Calvin Peeing stickers you occasionally see on truck windows or the like. Bill copyrighted Calvin and Hobbes, but by then, it was too late. The judge ruled against him, saying that "Well you should have copyrighted sooner." And that's kinda what's happening here. WB used the images, the cat owners copyrighted them after, and most likely a judge will say "Well, you're kinda too late here."

This is compared to when WB has videos copyrighted, and then goes after people who post that copyrighted material after it was copyrighted. Unfortunately, it seems like WB might end up on top here, and they'll just have a big grin on their face that they got away with it.

"Don't steal everything from the internet. Just steal what hasn't been copyrighted yet. They can't prosecute us for that."
Do you have a link or something to a Judge saying this? Everything I saw just indicated that the infringment was very wide spread before he reacted, so it was simply impossible to stop it. There wasn't a legal problem.

You don't have to register to own the copyright on something, you just have to create it in the US. You own the copyright on anything you create. Not registering it can have an effect on how much you can win in a civil case though. So, the late filing might affect the damages, but the WB could still be forced to remove the content.

Does anyone know if the game has other similar content? If you ask for Mickey Mouse, do you get that? I'm guessing not. If so, the WB should have respected all copyright, not just those of its fellow MPAA members.

As Jim said, "parody" and "fair use" really don't seem to help much here.