Jimquisition: Lawsuits, Memes, and Tasty Medicine

[-Dragmire-]

Spoiler: snip

I don't agree with you, and don't see the point of this rant...
You act like this was a singular case and it is justified because "its a big company", but easter eggs and references are common in this industry, and only because WB is being sued now, its legitimate? For example:
- Guacamelee was released recently and had dozens (if not hundreds) of references to sites, memes, other games and public domain jokes, but I don't think they contacted any of the copyrighted material owners, so they are liable to be sued.
- Borderlands and (especially) Borderlands 2 had a lot of the writing being derivative of memes, internet jokes or catchphrases from popular TV shows (like having a character spew "cool story, bro" every few seconds), so that should make Gearbox and its writers huge targets for lawsuits. They even included the dancing alien from spaceballs (itself a reference to, gasp, WB's Michigan Frog) in Colonial Marines, so Mel Brooks should sue them.
- Bethesda included a reference to Minecraft (the Notch Pickaxe) in Skyrim. Given their less than amicable relation (Bethesda suing Notch for the use of the copyrighted word "scrolls"), I doubt they were given permission... So, I guess Notch should sue them for it.

Those are just some examples, from the top of my head, each one having the same validity than this case. Yet, since this is 7th Cell (a big developer) and they are just poor guys who want to profit of their totally original creations, this is different? No, this is not different. This is like Tim Langdell (a small guy) suing EA and Namco (big corporations)... how did that ended up?

The issue is not references, it's the inclusion of the actual character in the game. Were I to make a game, I could reference Bugs Bunny, possibly with an anthropomorphic rabbit saying a similar catch phrase to Bugs, but I would not be able to include Bugs Bunny directly. If I did, Warner Bros would sue me for copyright infringement.

In that case, the keyboard cat has no ground...

That, I have no idea about. This is the first time I've heard of this keyboard cat thing.

Then again, the legal line might be a little blurry here (which is why lawyers are paid so very well to clarify it). For example: Obviously silver had to cross a few palms when Star Wars characters were featured in Soul Caliber -even if they weren't advertised as features in the game but just as a secret unlockable someone would have had to get paid. But what if it was just some dude with a lightsaber?

So I guess where the legal hairs get split is what counts as a 'reference' and what counts as a 'feature'? Does being able to summon a character on-demand to do the thing it's famous for count as a feature? I weight it pretty heavily as 'yes'. And as such, it's creators should definitely get paid for it. On the other hand though, references and parody tend to have a pretty wide berth.

I think you avoid legal trouble by not calling it a lightsaber. For example, in Terraria they're called phaseblades and in several games and shows, they're called beam swords.

 

[kailus13]

What the hell is that at 3.54?! It is absolutely terrifying.

It appears to be the Sony Ericsson Xperiathon Ad. Using the "forever alone" meme.
More information on the forever alone meme here: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/forever-alone

 

[Something Amyss]

Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.

Copyright in the states is opt-out, not opt-in.

You don't actually need to file for copyright to have copyright. You can file for copyright, which offers additional features (such as covering legal fees for contestation), but those aren't necessary.

Trademark (which, to be clear, this case is at least partially about) is opt-in, but can be filed after the fact and is still largely valid. WWE is a good example of a body who's successfully sued for trademark violations on trademarks acquired after-the-fact.

The problem here is an issue of dillution, and the status as an internet meme may be the biggest challenge to a trademark claim.

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.

They didn't show a game in progress. They showed a completely different entity.

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.

Well, that's the thing. They don't have a problem with copyright, they just don't care unless it's theirs.

Plus, last I checked, Willem Dafoe wasn't copyrighted.

Celebrities do have certain rights, however.

On the other hand, this is a depiction of an action figure of questionable likeness portrayed for parody purposes, which probably gives Jim a wide array of defenses not available to the Scribblenauts folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks-snl4JM1U
I'll just post a link to Totalbisquit video on the subject. Watch it, Jim, for he's a smarter man. Thank god for him.

Smarter or not, he doesn't seem to have a very solid argument. They wanted it to be a complete game, yet they actively refuse proper service marks if you try and use them (barring certain licensed characters). Not to mention "WAAAAH! Slippery slope!" and his failure to understand the difference between a reference and the thing itself. And the fact that he doesn't understand what punitive damages reflect.

Look, I understand TB is fairly firmly in the corner of the gaming industry and justifies stuff. He's even rabid enough to remove dissenting opinions even when they cite legal reference or other FACTS. Maybe you are, too (It's hard to tell when someone just copies a link to someone else's opinion with no real input to offer themselves), but that doesn't make him accurate here.

I actually don't get why he's so upset that gaming might be hurt by this, when companies like WB ARE in fact so aggressively controlling of creative content that they don't even need to own the content before going after it.

 

[MB202]

Thing about memes is that it's hard to tell where it originated and giving proper credit where credit is due... Not to mention, most people use memes the same way new Family Guy and the Scary Movie franchise uses it's jokes: with absolutely no context and expecting a mere reference to whatever subject to be a stand-in for actual humor or thought. That's probably why content creators hate memes so much... they consider it "disposable entertainment", least that's what I assume.

People are really struggling over the difference between a "reference" and "full inclusion of a named copyrighted character."

Maybe because that's the primary method in which most memes are used? Not that your wrong, but it would help in understanding why this confusion exists.

 

[Entitled]

As much as I love to debate about file-sharing, and how much bullshit the laws regarding that are, yeah, this is basically a much more significant issue. Ther is an easy way around copyright trying to control our personal internet access, namely the fact that they are technologically incapable of doing it anyways.

But with the overuse of copyright claims in commercial works, it's riiculous to think about how much they are actually stifling creative work under the claim of protecting "their property".

Whether it's WB taking down fan videos, SSega taking down Jimquisition episodes, or these guys taking down Nyancat from Scribblenauts, it has came to a point where there is basically a huge amount of censorship on all products that are to be released commercially, and even if you don't plan to release it commercially, you can be literally forced to stop creating by C&D letters, just for including pre-existing characters, settings, or basically any element of 20th-21th century popular culture.

Just imagine how much more entertaining Scribblenauts could be, if you could actually objects and characters that appeared in movies. Imagine how easier writing would be, if artists wouldn't have to worry about their new works somehow "taking away property" from each other (or more likely, from corporations).

If it would depend on me, Fair Use would be an actual law instead of a doctrine, and it would be defined as "every newly produced creative work that is neither a direct replication of an earlier one, nor so similar that the average viewer consider it to be the same."

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.

They really did that? :/.........Why? Isn't that kind of like free advertisement?

Publishers are amazingly irrational in that regard. They pretty much placed profitability as a secondary issue, compared to having direct control over data usage.

For example, even if Fair Use would be interpreted so widely as I said above, that it would reduce IP to the specific works themselves and all "universes" would be free to use by anyone, the Big Five movie studios would have much more options than they have now: Spiderman could appear in The Avengers 2, the fucking Justice League could appear in Avengers 2, Sony could make it's own Harry Potter reboot, everyone would be making various Star Wars EU adaptations contradicting each other, and generally, they would continue to be the Big Five, and all get ridiculously rich from giving people what people want, using their big budgets.

The price of this would have to ignore that other people, not just the other four, butsmall fries and indies, are "touching their stuff" and using their own franchises as explicit inspirations.

so instead, they are grabbing with all ten at every possible controllable concept, just so they can spend millions constantly circle-suing each other for the smallest details. Not because it's necessarily more profitable, but because at this point, they just get a kick out of controlling stuff.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

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.

They didn't show a game in progress. They showed a completely different entity.

And here's, perhaps, a slippery slope argument towards this: what was presented and what was the final product are both similar. Though the quality is drastically different, nothing but the visual content was altered; unless there was a playable demo released to the public, in which case my previous statement is null and void. Also, when the demo video was released to the public, there was a message in the bottom of the screen "work in progress" or something to that effect. Both things presented, at demo trailer and launch, were games of the Alien franchise. So, unless both products were different in a magnitude that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt a complete reworking of their product, I'm not sure the lawsuit has enough merit.

To be clear, I personally believe SEGA and Gearbox are in the wrong, I just don't know (and completely comprehend, to be honest) if such a thing can be proven within the confines of the legal system.

 

[Something Amyss]

To be clear, everything is copyrighted as soon as it's created.

As true as this is, most people don't understand the difference between variosu IP laws and several people on this site will repeat the same stuff after corrected the next time the thread comes up.

Heroes of Newerth (a MOBA) sells a skin for a courier that is Nyan Cat for currency that is only obtainable via IRL money.

Several groups have licensed Nyan Cat. Can you tell me for certain whether or not these folks have, since you are using them as an example? That would be a fairly important point for or against your argument.

If ths lawsuit succeeds, the implications are potentially very negative, it could mean the end of any sort of cultural references, and Easter Eggs in video games. The world would be a duller place if that happened.

It would, were this merely a reference.

I can't go with you on this one Jim, seems like Fair Use to me...I mean according to the suit, the fact that you just showed gameplay footage from your video might constitute a copyright infringement (and I think we all disagree on that).

Jim's use seems firmly within the commentary/criticism category of fair use. I would like to know where you think Scribblenauts' use of Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat fits. in the definition of fair use.

After all if the big companies can get screwed buy the fucked-up way US copyright law works there may be a push for reform sooner rather than later.

Yes, but the odds are they will further dice it in their favour. As it is, they've gerrymandered the situation grossly to their favour. What makes you think they would suddenly decide to play fair, rather than pushing for legislation that would remove the unfavourable scenario?

So are they going to sue everyone who has used it like the girls who sell earrings on twitter and stuff...

I don't know this just comes across to me as really petty.

Virtually nobody goes after stuff like twitter sales or etsys. I don't know why it seems petty that they wouldn't, either.

 

[muffinatorXII]

first of all the lawsuit wont really hurt WB it will hurt 5th Cell way more.

also think about the precedent this lawsuit will set if it's successful. Scribblenauts has a ton of references of all sorts of stuff, including internet memes like Nyan Cat, and keyboard cat and even fucking rickrolling, and all those references and easter eggs are fun and cool little things for us to enjoy. games finding ways to incorporate these sorts of stuff is creative, it's fun, and this kind of stuff is punishing that creativity, which is the last thing we need in an already stagnating industry.

there are plenty of reason to dislike WB, but they're not gonna get punished, 5th Cell is. they're gonna be punished for making an interesting game, THE BASTARDS!

these guys are just looking for some money

 

[Eve Charm]

Meh the thing is Nyah cat at least has a leg to stand on, the keyboard cat looks nothing like "keyboard cat" if this whole thing is about the actual copying vs parody of.

But who knows what they wanted, the fact they were contacting them before the lawsuit can just mean they wanted credit for there work, or hell why not a small percent to get using the actual nyah cat without permission.

I'm pretty damn sure no one bought scribblenauts because you can spawn the cats, but with all versions of the game able to connect to the internet, I say no less then updates with their names in the credits.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Spoiler: snip

As much as I love to debate about file-sharing, and how much bullshit the laws regarding that are, yeah, this is basically a much more significant issue. Ther is an easy way around copyright trying to control our personal internet access, namely the fact that they are technologically incapable of doing it anyways.

But with the overuse of copyright claims in commercial works, it's riiculous to think about how much they are actually stifling creative work under the claim of protecting "their property".

Whether it's WB taking down fan videos, SSega taking down Jimquisition episodes, or these guys taking down Nyancat from Scribblenauts, it has came to a point where there is basically a huge amount of censorship on all products that are to be released commercially, and even if you don't plan to release it commercially, you can be literally forced to stop creating, just for including pre-existing characters, settings, or basically any element of 20th-21th century popular culture.

Just imagine how much more entertaining Scribblenauts could be, if you could actually objects and characters that appeared in movies. Imagine how easier writing would be, if artists wouldn't have to worry about their new works somehow "taking away property" from each other (or more likely, from corporations).

If it would depend on me, Fair Use would be an actual law instead of a doctrine, and it would be defined as "every newly produced creative work that is neither a direct replication of an earlier one, nor so similar that the average viewer consider it to be the same."

They really did that? :/.........Why? Isn't that kind of like free advertisement?

Publishers are amazingly irrational in that regard. They pretty much placed profitability as a secondary issue, compared to having direct control over data usage.

For example, even if Fair Use would be interpreted so widely as I said above, that it would reduce IP to the specific works themselves and all "universes" would be free to use by anyone, the Big Five movie studios would have much more options than they have now: Spiderman could appear in The Avengers 2, the fucking Justice League could appear in Avengers 2, Sony could make it's own Harry Potter reboot, everyone would be making various Star Wars EU adaptations contradicting each other, and generally, they would continue to be the Big Five, and all get ridiculously rich from giving people what people want, using their big budgets.

The price of this would have to ignore that other people, not just the other four, butsmall fries and indies, are "touching their stuff" and using their own franchises as explicit inspirations.

so instead, they are grabbing with all ten at every possible controllable concept, just so they can spend millions constantly circle-suing each other for the smallest details. Not because it's necessarily more profitable, but because at this point, they just get a kick out of controlling stuff.

I've heard this line of thinking before and like the current system, also limits creativity. I believe creators should be rewarded for their creations, within reason. Under what you are talking about, an artist could create a work and have absolutely no say in the matter if someone publishes that work as their own(as in, they say they created the concept for the ip). Not only that but the artist would constantly have to prove that the original idea was theirs in job interviews when presenting their portfolio. Now, from the consumers point of view, they now have a gigantic selection of media that all have the same characters and are mostly crap making it extremely hard to find what's good. Quality would be all over the place but mostly low as their would be no overseeing element licensing the ip to quality productions.

I just want the line for ip to move into public domain to be 25 years, after that it's open season on the ip. It gives enough time for the creator to profit and make sequels while making it possible for other people to take the ip in different directions in under a lifetime.

EDIT:

first of all the lawsuit wont really hurt WB it will hurt 5th Cell way more.

also think about the precedent this lawsuit will set if it's successful. Scribblenauts has a ton of references of all sorts of stuff, including internet memes like Nyan Cat, and keyboard cat and even fucking rickrolling, and all those references and easter eggs are fun and cool little things for us to enjoy. games finding ways to incorporate these sorts of stuff is creative, it's fun, and this kind of stuff is punishing that creativity, which is the last thing we need in an already stagnating industry.

there are plenty of reason to dislike WB, but they're not gonna get punished, 5th Cell is. they're gonna be punished for making an interesting game, THE BASTARDS!

these guys are just looking for some money

... I take it you just watched TB's content patch?

I really wish he understood the difference between a reference to a character and including the original character wholesale...

Also, putting a character someone else created into your own work is not a creative endeavor without context. Do you think Nyan Cat was included for creative reasons and including other ip like Mickey Mouse, Megaman, Mario or Sonic was avoided because it wasn't in their vision or wasn't creative enough?

 

[mjc0961]

I cannot stress this enough: Fuck Gearbox and fuck SEGA, I hope they lose. And especially fuck SEGA. I'm sick of people treating SEGA like the victim here. SEGA is the most guilty of all the offenders, not the victim. We, the gamers, are the victims. If SEGA had done their job as a publisher and not let Gearbox jerk them around for 6 years, or at least not released the game for any platform and just taken Gearbox to court, none of us would be out $60 for the massive pile of lies and shit that is Aliens Colonial Marines. Fuck SEGA fuck SEGA FUCK SEGA!

Anyway I was actually not aware that WB and 5th Cell were being sued over that. I didn't even know you could copyright memes. Really shows how fucked up copyrights are. And yeah, I know I didn't buy any Scribblenauts game for Keyboard Cat or Nyan Cat, nor did I use either in any of the games that I played. Two memes aren't really a selling point so yeah, they do seem greedy at first glance indeed.

But like you said, despite how fucked up it may be that you can copyright such things, they are copyrighted, and thus the copyright holders are entitled to sue and get compensation for the illegal use of their characters. And absolutely Warner Brothers would do the same thing if it was their characters showing up in some game without permission. Sorry Warner Bros, but fuck you. Hope you lose, because you deserve to lose legally and morally (even if I do have issues with being able to copyright a goddamn meme, but that's got nothing to do with the copyright infringement on hand here).

...Also fuck SEGA.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.

Under US law, that's completely irrevelevant. There are plenty of copyrights and patents where the creator (or not the creator, life being what it is) files their registration after the fact, gets it accepted and then retroactively applies the copyright.

It's how Immersion got away with suing the bejesus out of Sony and Microsoft, their original 1995 patent has nothing to do with tactile feedback in game controllers, it was for the tactile reproduction of sound from TVs, it also relied on either a speaker or a stepping motor to theoretically work. Their updated 1998 patent (note, over a year after Dual Shock hit the market) suddenly included game controllers and weighted universal motors responding to non-audio inputs. They completely changed what their patent covered and the means used to achieve it, then sued the guys it now applied to.

They won the case, it was complete bullshit, but they won (Yay Patent Trolls!).

Also, in the US intellectual property is automatically the copyright of it's author (and for up to 70 years after their death) unless the owner signs it away or it's deemed to be an abandoned or 'Orphan' work where the creator (or their estate) is somehow impossible to trace or contact. Since Nyancat has it's own website and Wiki page, it can't be very well argued that Torres was impossible for Warner/5th Cell to track down and ask/pay for permission.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

The only people here that I'm sad for is 5th Cell, they don't deserve to go down over this. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

So are they going to sue everyone who has used it like the girls who sell earrings on twitter and stuff...

I don't know this just comes across to me as really petty.

Well to be fair, they did try and talk the issue out first. You can't say they didn't try to have it end civilly, instead of ending in court.

If there is pettiness here, I'd say it's on both sides.

 

[Vivi22]

You are wrong, both objectively and factually because this video is MISINFORMATIVE.

The game WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE objectively and factually released BEFORE the trademark copyright of the Nyan Cat was even filed, this cannot be denied.

This might (and I really want to stress the MIGHT portion) be relevant in deciding damages, but when they filed for the copyright is irrelevant. Copyright is automatic so the second that person created nyan cat they had exclusive rights to it, and one would have to be delusional to think WB didn't know that. And I think this is something we need to be very clear on for those who seem to think that when the copyright was officially filed is relevant: there is no requirement to file for copyright with any official organization in order to hold the copyright. It makes it a bit simpler to proceed in litigation when you can point to it and say you have registered proof you're the copyright holder, but not having it does not vacate your rights as the creator of a copywritten work.

1.If this is succesful then companies will have even more reason to believe that we're a bunch of thieves out for money and to steal whatever we can take just because we can

If companies want to think we're a bunch of thieves because they stole and rightly got sued over it then they can go ahead and continue being morons/completely insane. We'll see how well that works out for them.

2.If this is succesful then things like scribblenauts, good games, will not be possible in the future

Bullshit. It just means they'll do the smart thing and get the rights before hand instead of stealing someone elses intellectual property. Not to mention this has absolutely zero impact on any original, generic, or fair use IP they utilize. WB losing this suit would literally have zero impact on the law as it exists today. Existing precedents would continue chugging along as they were before.

3.References, eastereggs and any kind of hint at anything will not be possible in any game

Again, bullshit. There's plenty of room for all kinds of things under various fair use exceptions such as satire. Every single point you've just made is needlessly alarmist and objectively wrong.

Imagine if Jay-Z did this to oh i dunno Left 4 Dead for example because of "I got 99 problems but a witch aint one".
Would "justice" be served then?

If it was a parody it would be perfectly fine under the law. If not a parody or something that falls under another fair use exception, he'd have to pay for the rights. Something a hip hop artist is likely familiar with anyway since so many of them sample other songs and pay various rights holders anyway.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I just can't help but feel that 5 Cell will be the one to pay for this, rather than WB. Then again, if 5 Cell was approached by the original creators about this beforehand, then they probably deserve this as it was their decision to include Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat, not WB. This really does seem more a case of 5 Cell vs creators because of this, rather than WB vs creators, and thus I'd say that people need to set aside their hatred of Warner Bros when discussing this particular case.

There are 2 main questions I have regarding the case being made here:

1) Were the characters Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat copyrighted before their inclusion in each count of alleged infringement? Any inclusion of the characters before the copyright was filed are legally allowed, whereas any inclusion of the characters afterwards are indeed illegal.

2) What precedent will this set on copyright as a whole, and will the results do more harm than good? On one hand, we already have people like the MLP staff and game devs who actively are forbidden from taking fan suggestions or reading fanfictions of their own works because of lawsuits like these, as well as the obvious concerns over references and use of internet memes in for-profit works. On the other hand, you have a case of stopping people from just flat-out taking copyrighted works from content creators or even worse - the original content creators losing their IPs over not immediately defending their copyrights and trademarks. The whole ordeal with Bethesda and Mojang comes to mind with that, as well as the takedown of many fangames entirely out of fear of losing the IPs. All sides need to be considered in a case like this.

 

[LetalisK]

Imagine if Jay-Z did this to oh i dunno Left 4 Dead for example because of "I got 99 problems but a witch aint one".
Would "justice" be served then?

Eh? Did Valve do something I wasn't aware of? Because Jay-Z doesn't mention a "witch" in that song, nor have I found anything from Valve concerning "99 problems but a witch aint one"

 

[Dana22]

From what I read, the suing guy owns the rights to "Poptart Cat", not "Nyan Cat" which is derivative of the first (and as a derivative, protected by us law).

 

[Entitled]

I've heard this line of thinking before and like the current system, also limits creativity. I believe creators should be rewarded for their creations, within reason. Under what you are talking about, an artist could create a work and have absolutely no say in the matter if someone publishes that work as their own(as in, they say they created the concept for the ip). Not only that but the artist would constantly have to prove that the original idea was theirs in job interviews when presenting their portfolio.

I didn't say abolishing all IP, I said limiting it to the actual works themselves produced, instead of extending it to all aspects of franchises. (and obviously, plagiarism is an entirely different matter).

Now, from the consumers point of view, they now have a gigantic selection of media that all have the same characters and are mostly crap making it extremely hard to find what's good. Quality would be all over the place but mostly low as their would be no overseeing element licensing the ip to quality productions.

Qualiy *is* already all over the place, most big budget works are in existing IPs, and every time a new work gets popular, there are instant knockoffs, "inspirations", and genre imitators, that are entirely uninspired. Except that now they have to jump around legal barriers to exactly which IPs they are allowed to use, and in what way, instead of just telling whatever people are interested in, without limits.

The problem with IP-ing entire franchises, is that while it leads people to identify "new IP" with "original content", it doesn't really protect the values of originality, but the shallowest possible elements of it. Character names, costumes, strings of data, etc. It's purpose was never to inspire true creativity. Just look at Fifty Shades of Grey. It was Twilight fanfiction, and it could be published basically by replacing the main character names with other generic names.

Meanwhile, actual high quality fan-made works produced through several work-years, that take their premise seriously AND provide plenty of originally executed narrative, couldn't possibly do the same so they must hope really hard that at least they won't get persecuted if they stay non-commercial.

I just think that art is basically a form of communication, and it's normal that artists are reacting to each other.

"The Problem of Susan", a novella from Neil Gaiman, is a thought-provoking criticism to the theological message C.S.Lewis's Narnia stories, that could only be published because the protagonist was never formally identified as Susan, but as a woman who just happened to go through the same thing as her decades ago.

Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality, is a novel-lenght story by Eliezer Yudowski, that contains thought-provoking criticism of many theological, moral, and logical implications of Rowling's Potterverse. And it could never get published, because it's the kind of story that explicitly identifies itself as fanfiction, with canon characters and plot points apparent.

Giving artists the power to control the fate of every work that is reacting to ideas started by them, is like giving forum OPs moderator rights for the threads that they started. I believe that an artist's right to their intellectual "property", shouldn't extend to limiting what art other people are allowed to create. It does nothing but limits the number of things that can be told.

Going back to Scribblenauts, it limits the number of items that can be used. Would that truly decrease the amount of creativity?

 

[Lightknight]

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.

Ah, that answers my initial questions. I figure the case will be argued more or less along the lines of fair use and can go either way from what we've seen. Interestingly enough, if it falls on the side of the defendants then a hefty legal bill could end up ruining the copywrite holders. One of the wonderful effects of a system that favors the group with the most money when the cost of losing is disparate.

Well, I expect some sort of settlement to wave it all away.