Take Two Sues BBC Over Drama About GTA Development 81
An anonymous reader writes: Take Two Interactive, the parent company of Rockstar Games, is suing the BBC for trademark infringement over its planned "making of GTA" drama, Game Changers. The 90-minute movie was created without the involvement of the studio, which rarely comments on the GTA series' development outside of organised press events. (It is expected that it will draw upon the public conflict between Sam Houser and notorious anti-gaming crank Jack Thompson, via the expose "Jacked" by David Kushner.) After direct negotiations with the BBC failed, Take Two brought suit to "ensure that [their] trademarks are not misused." The details of the suit, Rockstar's objections, and the penalties sought, are not yet known.
Misused (Score:5, Insightful)
Take Two brought suit to "ensure that [their] trademarks are not misused."
= Take Two intend to misuse trademark laws to control discussion and criticism of their product.
Re: (Score:2)
It's tough to fight even bad journalism, and in this particular case, a particularly foul and fruitless move. Good to know they used astute PR before they made their decision to litigate.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a simpsons quote for this.
"If Disney sues, we'll claim fair use,: Ho heigh, ho heigh ho heigh ho heigh. Ho heigh, ho heigh,:"
Re: (Score:2)
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. (Score:2)
They're allowing the filming of a movie about Rockstar with Daniel Radcliffe playing Sam Houser and they want to stop a documentary that's probably going to be a bit more honest? Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're allowing the filming of a movie about Rockstar with Daniel Radcliffe playing Sam Houser and they want to stop a documentary that's probably going to be a bit more honest?
No. It's the Daniel Radcliffe drama they are suing over.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. That'll teach one to actually read the article. Or the summary. And to actually comprehend what one is reading.
Re:Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, so far all they have done is to quite successfully promote the documentary. I had not heard about it till now.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's Rockstar's plan:
1. Promote the documentary with the lawsuit.
2. See the documentary make lots of money.
3. Win the lawsuit and take all the money.
4. Pay the lawyers.
5. Profit?
OK, maybe this is the lawyers' plan.
Trademark dilution; nominative fair use (Score:3)
Since trademarks don't apply outside the market the trademark is for
Unless the mark is "famous". Then a separate cause of action called "trademark dilution" comes into play.
Since trademarks don't apply to use of the mark to denote the product.
This is what U.S. trademark case law calls "nominative fair use". But the applicability of this defense varies from country to country. In Germany, for example, I've read that comparative advertising is prohibited. The BBC operates in Great Britain; does it recognize nominative fair use?
Since trademarks are to stop people confusing products that "are similar" and nobody will mistake a BBC documentary for an interactive computer game.
The confusion would be between a computer game and an authorized film adaptation of said game.
Re:Trademark dilution; nominative fair use (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless the mark is "famous". Then a separate cause of action called "trademark dilution" comes into play.
Except the use of a mark to refer to a product for the purpose of criticism which is outside of normal trade falls under fair use and cannot be dilution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fictionalized docudrama. Change all the names. It works for Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, the poster child for plots ripped from the headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
The applicable concept in UK law is "fair dealing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I believe this falls safely under either "Criticism or review" or "Reporting of current events".
But IANAL.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends... TakeTwo may have trademarks registered in the UK.
Thing is, if the film were an actual documentary instead of a dramatic play, one could easily claim "because journalism!" and then tell TakeTwo's lawyers to go pound sand.
Re: (Score:1)
If it was in the US they couldn't sue for libel if something is foul but true. In the UK, they can sue for libel if it runs their image through the dirt, even if it is true. You'd think that the BBC would be more wary of these issues and take actions to get permission or prevent court action.
As for trademarks, they have to defend it, or risk losing control of it. If they let this through, then could another game developer take the name and say they are making a game based on the documentary instead of basin
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, they can sue for libel if it runs their image through the dirt, even if it is true.
Bollocks. They certainly could sue. And then the BBC demonstrates it's true, and the case is dismissed.
Truth is the complete defence to libel. You cannot be found guilty of libel for stating a truth. Even if the BBC deliberately sets out to do a hatchet job. If it's true, it cannot be libel.
In a nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
In a nutshell, what they're saying is:
"If we can't control your editorial content in reporting about or dramatizing our behavior, we're going to sue you in an attempt to make it not worth your while to report on or dramatize our behavior"
Fuck them. I hope the BBC has the backbone to stick up to this sort of corporate bullying. If the show isn't flattering to Take Two, they can suck it up like anyone else.
Re: (Score:1)
In the UK laws regarding free speech (and the press) are very different than in the US. Muckraking is at a whole other level there.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, so are the libel laws... interesting that TakeTwo specifically went after trademark and not libel (especially in the UK!), isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
In England, true statements that are intended to defame are actionable.
There was a dude who lost for calling chiropractors quacks.
Re: (Score:1)
Hi,
I think you're referring to Simon Singh's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh) case and he won (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/01/simon-singh-wins-libel-court).
As a consequence of that case, and a long campaign by leading scientists and journalists the libel laws were reformed, amongst other things introducing a public interest clause that applies to scientific publishing, journalism etc.
It's a very different landscape post reform bill.
So what (Score:5, Interesting)
What if it's a smear job on Take Two? At taxpayer expense?
1. This isn't at taxpayer expense. It is at television owners' expense. Only people with televisions have to pay the television license that funds the BBC, not all taxpayers. To conflate the two is disingenuous.
2. So what if it is inaccurate or a smear job. That is part of having a free press: the right to get it wrong (and if you do, be eviscerated and/or humiliated by everyone else). The BBC has a very good record and deservedly good reputation, because despite the occasional imperfection, by and large their reporting and documentaries are first rate.
This lawsuit is an attempt to undermine the free press and apply inappropriate pressure to the editorial process, and frankly, Rockstar and Take Two deserve a severe smackdown for trying to do so, irrespective of the program's content.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a licence just to own a TV. You only need one if you watch live TV. Simply watch recordings on iPlayer and other streaming services and you don't need a TV licence.
As a bonus if you don't have one the TV licencing authority will send you a free supply of kindling every month, in handy paper format. There might be some vague threats printed on it, but you can ignore those.
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming on your tablet is fine but you want to own an actual TV in the UK, you need a licence, whether you watch live TV or just use it for TV games is irrelevant.
Incorrect,
I cancelled my TV license last year as i don't own any TV services (eg: sky/virgin), and, i don't watch TV as its being shown live. Our household only uses internet streaming, netflix and bbc i player (on demand).
The TV license "representative" who checked my property confirmed, you only need a license if you watch or record LIVE tv.
Even if you have a SKYbox or Virgin box, they would still need to prove your doing it before they can fine you.
TV licensing uses "scare tactics" in their methods. But
Re: (Score:1)
Then they have the same recourse as anyone else - even those without a library of trademarks; they can sue for defamation after broadcast.
And then they discovered Streisand, and recursion (Score:5, Funny)
The lawyer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
was he eligible to practice law at the time?
if so they're fine.
you'd say the title of this film would never be, rockstar ex-president Sam Houser, even if houser were dead, because he was the president during the time-frame in question.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Tyrion will get to kill Ramsay in the end
Re: (Score:2)
As for GTA, violence against both sexes is equally bad. However, there is a problem with violence against prostitutes in real life, and it's fine for people to be upset about that. It doesn't mean they don't care about violence against men, which is also a huge problem, it just means they identified a specific issue to tackle. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
As for GoT, the guy is clearly evil, period. Both acts were sex crimes, and if we are making a comparison it seems like mental and physi
Re: (Score:1)
As for GTA, violence against both sexes is equally bad. However, there is a problem with violence against prostitutes in real life, and it's fine for people to be upset about that. It doesn't mean they don't care about violence against men, which is also a huge problem, it just means they identified a specific issue to tackle. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
The villainy you teach them, they will learn well, and better the instruction.
Modern/third wave feminism has set the precedent that if you're not with them, then you're against them. MRAs, MGTOW, GamerGate, SadPuppy, etc. are all painted with a broad brush as being about misogyny and harassing women, and not what those groups say they're about.
Those groups used the same argument as the one you presented, that they're just focusing on issues that they choose to tackle. It doesn't mean they hate woman.
But no,
Harry Potter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A license requirement that is enforced by the government.
Re: (Score:1)
A license requirement that is enforced by the government.
The UK government is not involved in enforcing laws at all. They are involved in creating and repealing laws but not in enforcing them.
The BBC is explicitly a non-political organization and separate from government.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do the cops work for in the UK?
How about the people in the cat detector vans?
Trademark Fair Use (Score:2, Informative)
See also Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros (LV's suit over bag scene in Hangover 2 dismissed). This [arnoldporter.com] is a good resource generally, though it deals mainly with advertising.
Slap a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie and call it a day. If they want to be extra safe, give it the subtitl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, considering this is the BBC, I wouldn't have thought it'd matter what the first amendment has to say about anything.
Re: (Score:3)
If the suit is in the UK, I can't comment on the jurisprudence. IIRC, they have analogous (weaker) fair use provisions for copyright, not sure about trademark. Any input from a UK IP attorney would be welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything to add about UK trademark law? Or... you know I could go for some more posts about why American law won't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trademark Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Turnabout is fair play (Score:3)
"GTA will make kids violent", "GTA is a crime simulator", "GTA is responsible for school shootings", and most recently "GTA promotes violence against women". The BBC has played host to a wide array of nonsense claims and dubious "experts". And now the BBC is making a drama (not a documentary) giving disbarred and disgraced lawyer Jack Thompson just a little bit more airtime to further insult the company and their customers. Is it really such a surprise that they company doesn't want it's flagship product to be the target of yet another hit piece?
Take Two's claim against the BBC is obviously bullshit, but it's a little rich for BBC to come crying now that they are getting a taste of their own medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck you T2 (Score:2)
Time to go pirate some GTA games.
BeeB BeeB CeeB (Score:1)
BBC have a bad attitude thinking that they are untouchable with a holier than thou perspective. They encroach on anyone and anywhere. They are banned some countries because of this. It's not only that. They try to compare some mythical 'pseudo-victorian' ethic, claiming that if it doesn't fit their world view then there is something wrong with it, sensationalizing these made up issues and forcing their own political correctness upon the hapless audience.
This GTA thingy is typical of their arrogance and I f
Re: (Score:2)
Will Danny be up for a BAFTA next year?
Nobody here knows the content of the film so, maybe we should all stop talking shit.
The usual screwed up game studio (Score:2)
At what point will someone set up a game company that is a true workers cooperative where there are no Ferrari driving founders. Just lexus driving everyones?
Re: (Score:2)