You said this WAY better than I was going to put it!Susan Arendt said:This is both hella and lame. I am disappoint, Jackson Estate. VERY DISAPPOINT.
OT: Some people just have no sense of humor.
You said this WAY better than I was going to put it!Susan Arendt said:This is both hella and lame. I am disappoint, Jackson Estate. VERY DISAPPOINT.
Oh, I agree, PopCap is taking the moral high ground, and good on them. However, to use your analogy, it would be more like if the Jackson estate went back and said they don't want Weird Al to do Fat or Eat It anymore. Michael Jackson never had a problem with it before he died, and now his family is the ones who are upset. I just think that anything that took place before his untimely death should be left alone, unless there was evidence the Michael Jackson had an issue with it or if it would be legally actionable (i.e. something that would diminish his estate).psrdirector said:Legally probyl right, doesnt mean they want to. To use an example, Wierd Al can legally make fun of any song with out asking any permision, if he puts in on hsi album all he has to do is pay royalties. The artist and management company cant do anything as long as royalties are payed, he does not do this. He asks permision of the performers, if they say no, he wont do it. It has nothing to do with legal its respecting the wishes of people. PopCap is taking the Moral Highroad by simply following the families wishs, not making a stink abotu it and moving on. Personally I see it as showing that they are good people who just want to make fun games and not upset people for no reason.dragontiers said:Am I completely misunderstanding something, or doesn't this fall under parody clauses, allowing them to use it anyways? I mean, I understand respecting the famalies wishes by removing it, but I think they could keep it if they wanted too.
I totally agree. You'd think the family would see this as an homage, and allow it to continue. I guess I just don't understand.John Funk said:I'm not saying that the Jackson Estate might not have had legal grounds to stand on, but it just seems counterproductive to me.
To quote John Waters on the commentary track of an episode of the Simpsons ("Homer's Phobia" if I'm not mistaken) when he briefly discussed he fact that the Rugrats stole his idea (Odorama): "A check would have been an homage".dragontiers said:Am I completely misunderstanding something, or doesn't this fall under parody clauses, allowing them to use it anyways? I mean, I understand respecting the famalies wishes by removing it, but I think they could keep it if they wanted too.
I totally agree. You'd think the family would see this as an homage, and allow it to continue. I guess I just don't understand.John Funk said:I'm not saying that the Jackson Estate might not have had legal grounds to stand on, but it just seems counterproductive to me.
So true it hurtsProtoChimp said:They didn't seem to care when they flaunted his kids to the media. Twats.