Jimquisition: Lawsuits, Memes, and Tasty Medicine

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
This reminds me of the Motorola patent suit vs. Microsoft. Basically Microsoft was allowed to pirate code because they're Microsoft and didn't want to pay Motorola the amount Motorola wanted.
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,851
0
0
Despite the probability of this lawsuit being dead in the water, I agree with Jim. It's about time they get a taste of their own medicine. They've been doing this to other people for waaay too long.
My favorite example: Terrordrome.
A few guys had started up a homebrew project to create a high-quality 2D fighting game featuring a roster of 12 famous horror movie characters like Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Ash Williams, Leatherface, etc. They released builds of the game completely free from the website, and gave rightful credit to all of the parties responsible for the creation of the characters, but Warner Brothers and Orion still demanded that they take down the download link, even though the developers weren't making a profit on it.
Thankfully, the game is still in progress, and they'll be ready to release the final version (with the new inclusions of Pinhead and Pumpkinhead, boosting the roster to 14) around Halloween this year. Still, it frustrates me that they'd get so pissy about a fan game.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
Not saying this about Jim here, but I think a lot of escapists need to know how copyright works before they drop their two cents in in a angry comment. Jim even in the comments has hit the nail on the head, WB is taking content and not giving credit, paying royalties but making money off it, using a batman image/mask in a video/image is covered by fanart/parody and very broadly infact but what WB is doing isn't a parody it's down to the exact name and a clear image is there. And it's been in use for many games it's not like a once off thing.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Copyright law as it stands is a fucked up mess. I with Jim on this. Hypocritical douchbag companies, I hope they get exactly what's coming to them.
 

QUINTIX

New member
May 16, 2008
153
0
0
This is worth comparing to the Jonathan Coulton/Glee fiasco
It's easy to see the "Baby Got Back" indignation to be more righteous because of the labor/talent involved, and Coulton not asking for money, just acknowledgement.

However, these two plaintiffs, however "trivial" their work may be, are not comparable to patent trolls trying to leach off of products actually on shelves (unlike what the trolls have). They have no history of such behavior. I doubt they even care for massive royalties, just that their copyright is treated the same as WB's copyrights.
 

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
He didn't make the Nyan Cat gif with the intention of it becoming a viral success. A meme isn't created. It's simply a word used to describe any viral material that has become popular on its own.
 

Raioken18

New member
Dec 18, 2009
336
0
0
I'm actually going to side with Warner Bros on this one, especially when it comes to what is essentially an easter egg. As long as it's not main content then I don't see why it should be a problem. Take World of Warcraft for instance, the bulk of the main content is the nature of the Alliance vs the Horde and their "original" storyline, but there are a bunch of sidequests which reference other games and tv shows. The first that came to mind was the Linken quest, which I just looked up and it no longer exists, but never fear there are still plenty of other references. Then there's games like Borderlands 2 that have references as well, like the 4 mutants who live in a sewer and eat pizza (TMNT) etc etc.

For those of you who are on the accusers side, how far do you think it should be taken? Should it extend to item descriptions as well? The Elder Scrolls series might be boned.

Then what about user generated non commercial content?

Frankly... I think copyright is taken too far. A few years ago my Youtube account was banned for some Battlefield BC 2 vids I made, I created a compilation vid of me strapping C4 to a quad bike and 1 hitting tanks. It was a blast to make. I asked a friends band if I could use their music and they agreed, they own the copyright to their songs so it shouldn't have been an issue either. The notice I received via email stated that I had infringed on copyright and game exploits and that if I questioned anything a legal shitstorm would come my way. I was pissed about that, I had other content on that account as well, and I would have gladly taken down the vids had I received some notice...

...and it's not even that. I made the vids because I loved that game, hell I still love Battlefield 3. It was just something that was intended to be fun and cool, I wasn't earning money with it... wasn't screwing with the man.

At least whoever's behind CoD lemme make quick scoping and throwing knife vids till my heart was content.

Still... it's not worth making stuff like that anymore...
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
People are really struggling over the difference between a "reference" and "full inclusion of a named copyrighted character."
Indeed. Keyboard Cat and Nyan Cat in Scribblenauts Unlimited isn't a parody. It's a straight up clone of a copyrighted image.
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Tara Callie 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.
Miniature Fantasy Willem Dafoe wouldn't just disappear. Jim would have to get a complaint FROM Willem Dafoe himself for using his likeness in any sense, and even then it's a figurine that Jim bought and owns himself.

If you're going to debate copyright law, you need to get your facts straight.
Says the person who thinks buying a figurine then gives you the right to use it however you want it, even for personal profit. No sir, it does not, with somethings you actually never really own them in the first place, it's in the small print.

My example was an exaggeration of what might happen if the mere reference or appearance of something becomes a copyright infringement. Which I suggest you brush up on because apparently you think that if you buy a batman puppet and make a batman movie with it, then release it for commercial gain you will not be slammed with a take down.
 

Altered Nova

New member
Apr 5, 2012
14
0
0
I agree that Christopher Torres and Charlie Schmidt legally have a probably solid case. I also agree that Warner Bros are hypocrites and totally deserve this. But I also think that Torres and Schmidt are being massive hypocrites themselves and have lost a lot of respect for them for filing this lawsuit.

Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat are memes. They have only become so mind-shatteringly popular because millions of people copied and used and modified and reuploaded them without asking for permission first. If Torres and Schmidt had enforced their copyrights from the beginning their creations would be have faded into obscurity and they never would have become famous or been in a position for a major corporation to use their characters in the first place. You can't just ignore your copyright for years so other people can make your creation famous without you having to lift a finger yourself and then spit on all those people by suddenly starting to enforce that copyright the instant you smell money. For those two to step back in now and claim "ownership" over the memetic quality of their works is insulting. It's a slap in the face to the community of folks who made those two memes popular. To do so is blatantly hypocritical, ungrateful and opportunistic.

Torres in particular is being extraordinarily hypocritical considering he has publicly admitted that his creation was originally a "pop tart cat" but has obviously never purchase a license from Kellogs to use their copyrights breakfast food in his work and his legal documents now go out of their way to call it a "horizontal breakfast bar."
 

Tommy Toejam

New member
Mar 10, 2012
6
0
0
Cushman & Denison owns the patent for paper clips, surely most of us has taken a paperclip from someone else's box. we should all be sued! when i was a kid i remember straightening out a papaerclip and making new shapes. i remember the guy at the phone store using the pointy end of one to insert my sim card on my iphone. shit, i'm fucked
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Tara Callie said:
1337mokro said:
Tara Callie 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.
Miniature Fantasy Willem Dafoe wouldn't just disappear. Jim would have to get a complaint FROM Willem Dafoe himself for using his likeness in any sense, and even then it's a figurine that Jim bought and owns himself.

If you're going to debate copyright law, you need to get your facts straight.
Says the person who thinks buying a figurine then gives you the right to use it however you want it, even for personal profit. No sir, it does not, with somethings you actually never really own them in the first place, it's in the small print.

My example was an exaggeration of what might happen if the mere reference or appearance of something becomes a copyright infringement. Which I suggest you brush up on because apparently you think that if you buy a batman puppet and make a batman movie with it, then release it for commercial gain you will not be slammed with a take down.
First of all, it's "Ma'am" not "Sir"

Second of all, as I said before, Jim would have to get a complaint from Willem Dafoe. And he's a busy man with much to do. He doesn't have the time to focus on this crap. And "Fair Use" laws exist for a reason.

Hell, Canada passed an internet piracy bill, and the politicians said "Eh, nobody's going to bother to sue you anyway."
Apologies for that "Madame" though why you want it between "" is probably none of my business ;)

It was simply a manner of speech. The "No sir, It does not..." was added for dramatic effect, not a distinction of gender.

However like I already said it was an exaggerated statement, wherein the assumption is already made that Dafoe would take offence and issue a complain. Right now were he to issue a complain that complaint would fall on deaf ears because fair use and it is not the actual image of Dafoe, just a doll referred to with Dafoe. However if the mere act of referencing can be considered infringement then that same Fair Use law gets allot wobblier, not to mention the Fair Use law is already being pissed on repeatedly with no consequence by rights holders. The last thing they need is more ground to stand on.

Just because nobody enforces it doesn't mean it can't be enforced. This attitude is the same reason why ancient laws are still in place and things like going parachuting on Sundays is forbidden in some parts of the world or other weird specific nonsensical laws. Rather than cleaning up legislation it is rive with superfluity, absurdity and down right corrupt bills.

They invented the paper shredder for a reason, I suggest using it on most of the Law books.
 

Infernal Lawyer

New member
Jan 28, 2013
611
0
0
So many thickies, so little time.

First off, Warner Bros. fucked up big time, not so much by forgetting to ask permission, but by blowing off the creators of the memes when they sent a friendly letter to them. You can argue all day whether Nyan Cat or Piano Cat are public property or whatever (it's not, they copyrighted the characters before Scribblenauts Unlimited came out, so shut up already), but the fact is if you use someone else's intellectual property thinking that it's okay, and they send a friendly, non-threatening letter saying "Um, you could have asked us first", you don't just ignore them. Hell, I was on WB's side on this matter until I found out that WB were being class A dicks and the meme creators were trying to settle the matter peacefully.

For those who claim filing lawsuit is greedy, what was the alternative? To do nothing and let WB get away with it? That would have sent the message that the massive corporations don't need to follow their own convoluted copyright laws when it suits them (i.e. when said copyrighted material is not their own). And trust me, we DON'T want to teach the big players that they can take anything that isn't nailed down or owned by other big players without at the very least asking nicely. I mean, really people. Do you really want to defend WB for not sending taking the time to write a letter saying 'pretty please'?

Secondly, THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF REFERENCING. 5th Cell put the characters into their game as-is, in the same way the Wreck-It Ralph film had existing video game characters inside it as-is, e.g. Ryu from Street Fighter, Bowser from Mario Bros etc. How is it so hard to understand the difference? If I make a game that includes a plumber who really, really likes mushrooms and owns a green dinosaur-shaped motocycle, that's a reference. Plonking a guy named Mario with red and blue overalls who shouts "yahoo!" a lot isn't. And no, just because this character was some easter egg that would only been seen on a blue moon when the stars align or whatever, doesn't mean that it gets away with avoiding copyright either, ESPECIALLY NOT if I advertise the game with said character, as WB did with Nyan Cat and Piano Cat.