Jimquisition: Lawsuits, Memes, and Tasty Medicine

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
Jimothy Sterling said:
People are really struggling over the difference between a "reference" and "full inclusion of a named copyrighted character."
It can be a thin line to walk sometimes.

OT: I was on the other side of the fence when I was under the impression that the copyrights were filed AFTER the game's release. Now that I know otherwise I agree with Jim on this one.
 

rasputin0009

New member
Feb 12, 2013
560
0
0
I definitely don't think they're being greedy. They'll make maybe just a little more than their legal fees, if that. They just need to protect their work (no matter how trivial) so that it doesn't become a widespread issue where everybody starts using those memes in their commercials, movies, etc. without compensation.

In the end, fuck Warner Brothers.
 

Ilikemilkshake

New member
Jun 7, 2010
1,982
0
0
I agree with everything you've said BUT when it comes down to it, what harm is done from nyan and keyboard cat being included in the game? Are WB really making a profit from their creations because I highly doubt it. I think at the very least the creators should have been credited but anything beyond that seems frivolous to me.
 

Tanakh

New member
Jul 8, 2011
1,512
0
0
Good video on a non clear cut issue. One of your best works to create awareness and shed insight.

I think this deserves a follow up, there seems to be a great deal of confusion on legal issues and terms.
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
I completely agree. Systems should apply equally. Blades should cut both ways.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
You don't file copyrights... They're given the instant you create something new. This post I've just made is legally copyrighted to me and if you steal it verbatim you have committed a copyright infringement.

Copyrights are the only form of intellectual property that doesn't require licensing. Patents, Trademarks (registered ones anyway), and industrial designs all must be registered with your country's IP agency, but copyright doesn't. All you need to justify a copyright claim is proof that you created the copyrighted material before the infringers did, which may be something easier said than done, but since it's pretty common knowledge that Nyan Cat was created prior to this Scribblenauts game, it can be proven in this case.

The only way that WB may be able to make a case for this if they can prove that they used it in a scenario supported by Fair Use laws.

It's funny how much a lot of people don't understand copyright law.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
Ya from the U.S. Copyright office's website [http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork]

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright
So ya you're argument is utterly without merit.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
synobal said:
DVS BSTrD said:
Except for the fact that the game was released BEFORE the copywrite was even filed.
Ya from the U.S. Copyright office's website [http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork]

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright
So ya you're argument is utterly with out merit.
I believe I've beaten you to the punch on this one, but kudos for the fancy link and actual sources :D.
 

Bobic

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,532
0
0
So, any news on whether the inventor of Nyan Cat payed any money for the use of the poptart that makes up Nyan Cat's torso?
 

Slash2x

New member
Dec 7, 2009
503
0
0
*looks at base issue on video* yeah not gonna touch that with a 3 meter pole.

To comment on the video.... I think you were channeling your inner Murloc at the end.
 

artician

New member
Nov 16, 2008
10
0
0
One thing I see a lot of is the fact that Nyan Cat is in several other commercial works. This is absolutely true, but it is irrelevant for two reasons. First, the creator of Nyan Cat has been approached by several companies, who then ask permission to use that likeness in their works. Money changes hands, and the creator IS credited. Neither is the case in the case against Warner Brothers. Second, this is a lawsuit against Warner Brothers. What other games and/or properties have done is not the case in question.

I also have seen a lot in this thread with people whining about "Precedent". This is completely irrelevant, ignorant, and pedantic. No precedent is ready to be set, except that maybe small content creators will be able to protect their creations from theft by large corporations. This type of suit is not new in any regard. Apple is suing Samsung over some design similarities (rectangles with rounded corners, look it up), the lawsuits against Youtube for parody works (Viacom Vs. Youtube). This suit is upheld the precedent of many, many lawsuits under the Digital Millennium Copyright Protection Act. All this said, I support the suit. Back to my first point, if other companies recognized the copyright held by the creator, and the fact that copyright is opt-out, not opt-in, it is clear that WB either did no research before using the property, or knowingly used the properties without credit, or payment.
 

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
At first I was like "they're sueing them cuz their memes are in the game? Really? How petty."

Then Jim was like, well, they did patent and copyright/trademark their material so it is an intellectual property that they /own/, and it was put in the game without their consent and with no acknowledgement or reimbursement, and then I was like "oh.... well then yeah, rock on, sue the mother fuckers."
 

Orekoya

New member
Sep 24, 2008
485
0
0
Lord_Gremlin said:
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.
Oh yes, thank god for his slippery slope cry about the woes that would befall our vidja game industry should companies not be allowed to ransack and gut the internet culture wholesale and for the blatant misinformation about the suit at hand that he provides in a condescending tone.
 

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
Froggy Slayer said:
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.
Uhh, no? I don't care what the person's repertoire is, they did wrong, they refused to make it right, so they do in fact deserve to go down. Someone could be a living saint whose saved thousands of lives, but if he flat out stole someones car they would and should still be subject to legal punishment for blatant theft. And as far as the law is concerned that's what this is: inclusion of someone elses intellectual property without credit or reimbursement to the original content creator. Jim may focus on WB alone, but fuck that, WB didn't send a note down to 5th Cell saying "include these cats in the game, they're popular." WB didn't ignore the original content creators efforts to get into contact with them. 5th cell fucked up, they ignored any opportunities to set things right, and now they're being punished for their stupidity. They can either take it as a lesson learned, or they'll continue to reap what they sow and they'll fucking deserve it. Making fun games doesn't make you immune when you break the law and generally act like a dick.

Orekoya said:
Lord_Gremlin said:
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.
Oh yes, thank god for his slippery slope cry about the woes that would befall our vidja game industry should companies not be allowed to ransack and gut the internet culture wholesale and for the blatant misinformation about the suit at hand that he provides in a condescending tone.
TB is an ignorant hypocritical knee jerk fear mongering dipshit and I legitimately think lesser of people who look to him for "guidance" as opposed to the inane lowest common denominator "entertainment" he provides. You wanna listen to the funny man make silly noises while playing a video game like a toddler, no one has a right to say boo. You wanna listen to same funny man try to talk like an adult, you're the one who is gonna suffer for thinking to take his belligerence seriously. You try to shove that ignorant outlook on others, deal with the fact people are gonna get in your face about it.
 

Gaias

New member
Apr 2, 2009
88
0
0
So much Cyril Sneer... Haunting the memories of my childhood... *runs away screaming*
 

AngelOfBlueRoses

The Cerulean Prince
Nov 5, 2008
418
0
0
Monxeroth said:
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?
The correct term is "*****." The lyrics go, "If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for you, son/I've got 99 problems but a ***** ain't one." It's *****. Get it right.

OT: Good on them for suing WB. Nice to see them getting a taste of their own medicine, especially if they didn't give any credit whatsoever.
 

cannedfury

New member
Aug 22, 2009
10
0
0
Good lord, as nice as it is to see a big company get nailed, I hope the Nyan Cat people don't win. Not only is their creation mostly a copyrighted food product, it only got popular by borrowing the song from a different meme. That's like me taking the dancing banana meme, speeding up "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" a little, and lazily replacing the banana with a barely animated can of Monster energy drink. With a mustache or something. If that got popular, it's only from borrowing other material under the exact same excuse of "it was on the internet." Also the meme's predecessors put in way more work to make it happen, so demanding money for it like it was my original creation would make me a gaping asshole.

It's like if the pissing Calvin sticker jackasses saw their product (redrawn) in something else and sued them claiming "Hey, that's OUR original character!" Which for all I know they actually do, but if it caught on it would make things a lot worse for actual artists.
 

TrulyBritish

New member
Jan 23, 2013
473
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Why are people constantly bringing up the first game in the series? The lawsuit isn't just about the first game in the series, so it existing before the Nyan Cat copyright has very little to do with it.
This is exactly what I'm thinking as I read through the comments, everyone keeps saying" But Scribblenauts was released in 2009, before Nyan Cat was copyrighted." When are people going to pay attention to the fact that this is about Scribblenauts Unlimited, which wasn't released until 2012?
Other than that, I think I'd be more lenient to WB on this case if:
1) These were proper references. I'd understand more if, say, when you give a keyboard to a cat it plays the keyboard cat tune or whatever. That would be an amusing reference. Just having it so the cat turns up by typing "Keyboard cat" is a bit naff.
2) I'm interested to see if the makers are right in that WB snubbed them while trying to be polite. Certainly, their reputation isn't endearing them to me.
3) I don't really see a reason WB couldn't ask for the right (or games wanting easter eggs later as well) to use the memes in the game. Sure, if you're a small company or just a single person making a fan video, I'd understand, but a big company like WB?
I'm justing waiting to see how this turns out though, seeing as I'm unsure of what'll happen afterwards. If it results in the start for some changes in Copyright law, it can't be too bad surely? But then, what do I know?