Judge Rules Games Are "Expressive Works" 157
There has been an ongoing legal battle over the past few years about how and when game makers can use the likenesses of football players without their permission. Former college football player Samuel Keller filed a class action suit in May against Electronic Arts for the publisher's use of NCAA players' information — including things like jersey number, height, weight, skin tone and hair style, but not names — to recreate actual teams within sports games. An earlier suit filed by NFL Hall-of-Famer Jim Brown brought up the fact that video games weren't even a consideration when contracts and licensing rights were negotiated in the '50s and '60s, yet many football players from that era (including Brown) are represented in the occasional sports game whether they like it or not. A ruling came down from a district court judge last Wednesday stating that video games are "expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment," and are thus protected under the First Amendment. Brown and fellow Hall-of-Famer Herb Adderley are now seeking to throw their support behind Keller's lawsuit.
No shit sherlock (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they are.
Its sad when we all applaud a judge actually making a good ruling. Shouldn't that simply be the assumed state of all rulings?
Facts and figures are not copyrightable (Score:4, Insightful)
Facts and figures cannot be copyrighted. And how can public information be abused? They just want money.
Finally computer artists get some credit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling is actually arguing that you don't need any license at all, from anyone, because it's First-Amendment-protected expressive speech.
Open to competition (Score:3, Insightful)
Ronald Katz, the lawyer representing Adderley and Brown, wrote in a filing Monday that allowing EA Sports to profit from the use of athletes' likenesses without their permission means "EA could use for free the identity of thousands of present and former collegiate and professional athletes, eliminating any legal reasons for EA to continue any licensing, and giving it a windfall worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
So if this stands, anyone else could produce their own sports titles to compete with EA? Sounds good. I suppose EA feels that the end of licensing fees will be more of a boon than any competition they face.
On the other hand... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a player, you don't own your own image (Score:1, Insightful)
That would require paying the NCAA?
Re:As a player, you don't own your own image (Score:1, Insightful)
either that or the NCAA actually has the decency not to pimp out amateurs playing for free tuition.
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:2, Insightful)
not if they are not actually present in the movie/game...
you don't get licenses for things that are merely representations of likeness.
Re:As a player, you don't own your own image (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not obvious, but it's not very complicated either.
The game isn't called "American Football like your man Lance Alworth played it" where the main appeal would be connections to the real characters of that era and how they played and how the game was back then, and maybe match them directly to other cool characters from the present.
It's a football game where the appeal is that it's a football game, and only a passive likeness of people is used.
I'd fully support if the "beatles rockband" would have tried to do screw the people left of the beatles over, but this? No, not really, here this is really just an artistic license to create similar characters, they're not exploiting anyones particular identity for capital gain.
Copyright Will Eat Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
In this corner, wearing the blue and yellow trunks, weighing in at 800 pounds, he's pure gorilla madness, we have -- Big Copyright!
And in this corner, wearing the green and pink trunks, weighing in at 800 points, he's the thrilla gorilla, we have -- Big Copyright!
Alright gentleman (and I use that term loosely), I want a dirty fight, with obscure legal references, wildly out of control laws, and frequent appeals to artistic freedom, the rights of the performer, and the advance of the useful arts when you really mean "money." We're also going to expect at least $1 million to go to lawyers on each side, and another $1 million each in extra campaign contributions this year. When you hear the bell ring, come out and start working the groin!
Let's get readyyyyyyyyy to rummmmmmbullllll. (am I going to get sued for typing that?)
Having purchased laws sufficient for them to eat their customers and finding their appetite still unsated, big copyright is now using its own laws against itself. There have been a few stories like this recently. That is so awesome. Mmmmm, mmmm, how does chewing on your own leg taste, buddy? Sure am happy to see that your laws are so strict, and your arrogant contempt has grown so complete, that you have actually started hating yourself. Have fun knuckleheads -- I'll be over here watching user generated content.
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:3, Insightful)
That is very wrong.
Taking your breath away is an emotional response to some art. Other art can make you feel sad, depressed, angry, happy, giddy, naughty, indifferent, enlightened, etc.
Art is kind of like a custom communication protocol. It conveys a message from creator to consumer.
"Oh look, dogs playing poker, that's cute!"
"Why thank you, I did intend it to look cute. This was in my head and I wanted to explain it to you, thank you for understanding what I was trying to say."
See how that works and why you're oh so wrong?
Video games are similar. But with video games, there are several different aspects to the art, level design, story writing, music, even gameplay, that are usually spearheaded by a select few, and developed by many. The junior developers could be regarded as tools, much a kin to a paintbrush, that are used to create a tangible representation of the imagination of the story director.
Your idea that art has to make the consumer feel "breathless" is certainly a bizarre and strange opinion.
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:3, Insightful)
This might be valid as the starting point for a discussion if you're sitting in Philosophy 101 and aesthetics is the current topic. But if you have a court case in which the question "Is it art?" might play a role, you can't very well apply that standard, can you?
Re:No, that's "good" art vs "banal" art. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you see a painting and your only reaction is "oh, that's pretty" it's probably NOT art. If it takes your breath away and makes you say "WOW!" it is art.
No, that's the difference between good art and banal art. NOT the difference between art and not-art.
I heard a definition of art the other day that really seemd insightful (I studied art in college).
That's nice. Lots of people have studied art in college, and actually create art, and have a much broader and less elitist view of the definition of art.
Personally, I like Scott McCloud's definition of art: Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the base acts of survival and reproduction is art.
And a friend of mine, who is a professional artist, gets offended when I tell him that definition because in his view, the act of human reproduction is inseparable from art. His definition is even more expansive than McCloud's.
But hey, you studied art in school and thus can tell what is and isn't art based on how good it is. Tell me, by your own definition of art, have you ever created any? And does your answer imply that you are qualified to judge or not?