Rockstar Forces L.A. Noir TV Show Name Change

[Marshall Honorof]

Rockstar Forces L.A. Noir TV Show Name Change

The director of The Shawshank Redemption has renamed his new show Lost Angels.

Videogames may not yet have the same cultural cachet as TV, but at least they bring in plenty of money. Frank Darabont, a famous screenwriter and director of movies such as The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile learned this the hard way. When he tried to call his new show about mid-century Los Angeles L.A. Noir, Rockstar hit back with a lawsuit threat. Fans of Darabont's work can expect the new show to debut under the title Lost Angels instead.

Despite their similarities, Darabont's original L.A. Noir title had nothing to do with Team Bondi's detective game. Rather, the show is based on John Buntin's 2009 literary nonfiction title [http://www.amazon.com/L-Noir-Struggle-Americas-Seductive/dp/0307352080] of the same name. Nevertheless, publisher Rockstar was not happy about the nearly identical names. "The videogame company with the videogame called L.A. Noire (with an e!) threatened to sue the shit out of me, TNT, every company that actually ever worked in Hollywood," Darabont explains. "And they have the billions of dollars to back it up, apparently." Not wanting a costly legal battle, Darabont backed down and renamed the program.

Naming issues aside, there's a good chance that people who enjoyed L.A. Noire will enjoy Buntin's book and Darabont's new series based on it. The story is different, but the setting is the same, and the themes of rethinking the American Dream and trying to keep one's morals in an immoral city are both present. Lost Angels has no definitive release date, but filming is already underway. If you want to read the book first, you've still got at least a few months.

Source: io9 [http://io9.com/5978361/frank-darabonts-brilliant-pitch-for-a-new-conan-the-barbarian-movie?]

Permalink

 

[KeyMaster45]

He must have never thought to plug the title of his show into google, else he would have seen seen this coming. That or he just assumed he could use the name and a videogame company would never have the ability to challenge him on it; which by his exaggerated reaction I'd be inclined to say is the case.

 

[INeedAName]

I often read about stupid reasons companies threaten lawsuits, especially when it comes to names. This one, however, I feel was pretty justified, though. Rockstar's pretty much got to respond if they want to keep their IP name.

 

[Legion]

I know it's "not the point" but having the TV show named the same as the game is hardly going to cause much confusion. It's not like it will prevent a loss of sales due to people picking the "wrong one".

If anything it'd help game sales as people searching for L.A. Noir would get the game come up in searches even if they were looking for the show.

Sadly the whole "You have to defend your copyright or risk losing it" rule makes it necessary for them.

 

[Sidmen]

I love his reaction. I wonder if he'd have given the same reaction if he was trying to make a show about a Ironman about a wealthy industrialist who puts on a suit of advanced power armor he builds while imprisoned in Iraq - since it doesn't have a space between Iron and man.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I think it's a stupid move. The name of the show doesn't really matter. People who know about the video game also know that the show has nothing to do with the video game. However, those who don't know anything about the game might actually pick it up after watching the show.

 

[Fudj]

....problem is if you don't stand up for an IP you own you lose it, it's easy to say oh look at this dick company, but sometimes they have no other course of action.

 

[batti]

I know it's "not the point" but having the TV show named the same as the game is hardly going to cause much confusion. It's not like it will prevent a loss of sales due to people picking the "wrong one".

If anything it'd help game sales as people searching for L.A. Noir would get the game come up in searches even if they were looking for the show.

Sadly the whole "You have to defend your copyright or risk losing it" rule makes it necessary for them.

It´s more of a principle thing. It dilutes the brand name and gives a precedent for other companies, some that actively try to cash in on the brand recognition of the game. This would f.ex. be much different if he was trying to sell a detergent

 

[BramblinTheGnome]

I would support Rockstar for defending their game, however the fact that the guy was trying to name his show after the source material changes my mind. If Rockstar thinks that the TV show is too close to the game's name, then shouldn't they have thought that their game was too close to the name of the book? I see this as opening up a possible lawsuit against them from the author, and I wouldn't blame the author if this happened, especially since the changing of the tv show's name will almost certainly hurt his book sales (people who like the show would have possibly picked up the book, but it will be harder to know the connection with the names so far removed from each other). I see this as saying "Hey, we already stole that, you can't go and steal it back, our lawyers say so." Kind of makes me lose a little respect for Rockstar.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I often read about stupid reasons companies threaten lawsuits, especially when it comes to names. This one, however, I feel was pretty justified, though. Rockstar's pretty much got to respond if they want to keep their IP name.

But the article says the show is based on a book by that same name. I don't know how copyright works, but why would Rockstar get pissy about a TV show and leave the book alone?

 

[BramblinTheGnome]

But the article says the show is based on a book by that same name. I don't know how copyright works, but why would Rockstar get pissy about a TV show and leave the book alone?

Because the book (actually named 'L.A. Noir: The Struggle for the Soul of America's Most Seductive City') was out before the video game, meaning if anyone is infringing on copyright it's Rockstar.

 

[charge52]

I often read about stupid reasons companies threaten lawsuits, especially when it comes to names. This one, however, I feel was pretty justified, though. Rockstar's pretty much got to respond if they want to keep their IP name.

But the article says the show is based on a book by that same name. I don't know how copyright works, but why would Rockstar get pissy about a TV show and leave the book alone?

Because the book in question was published in 2009, which as you most likely know, was before the game.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Because the book in question was published in 2009, which as you most likely know, was before the game.

Because the book (actually named 'L.A. Noir: The Struggle for the Soul of America's Most Seductive City') was out before the video game, meaning if anyone is infringing on copyright it's Rockstar.

So, forgive my ignorance, what's the problem? How can Rockstar sure someone for using a name which was in use even before they made the game?

 

[SonicWaffle]

I swear, for some reason I thought you'd been banned. Welcome back!

 

[charge52]

Because the book in question was published in 2009, which as you most likely know, was before the game.

Because the book (actually named 'L.A. Noir: The Struggle for the Soul of America's Most Seductive City') was out before the video game, meaning if anyone is infringing on copyright it's Rockstar.

So, forgive my ignorance, what's the problem? How can Rockstar sure someone for using a name which was in use even before they made the game?

Rockstar can sue because the copyright lights are fucked, it really comes down to how popular they think the show could be. Since it mainly comes down to having to protect the brand name, and if it could become really popular, more so than the book, than that would harm the brand name. It's a risk and reward thing, Rockstar was willing to risk legal charges for the reward of not having to worry about having a direct competitor on Google if you type in L.A. Noir(e).

 

[Beautiful End]

Well, honestly, I'm not up to date with my TV shows. Or my TV overall. So if someone would have released a show called L.A. Noir, I probably would have thought "HEY! Is this related to the game? It's missing an E but whatever!". And then I'd watch it. And then I would realize it has nothing to do with the game. And then I would be upset anyway.

At any rate, I like Rockstar but if the book indeed came out before the game, then they could have had the right to sue Rockstar first instead. So is it fair to say Rockstar pulled a dick move here?

 

[grigjd3]

Rockstar has some money, but multiple billions seems like a stretch. Of course, this is a Hollywood guy so exaggeration is par for the course.