White Wolf Sues Sony 130
etherlad writes "White Wolf, makers of pen-and-paper RPGs such as Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse, and author Nancy A. Collins, are suing Sony Pictures, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment for copyright infringement in the upcoming Underworld movie, which they claim not only is blatantly the World of Darkness with the serial numbers (partially) filed off, but that the movie is obviously ripped off Nancy Collins' novel Love of Monsters, also set in the World of Darkness. There's a PDF of the legal brief floating around, and to me (IANAL) it really looks like WW has a case."
Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)
What's ironic to me is that Sony, like Disney, really wants to prevent works from entering the public domain and will vigorously defend their copyrights but seem to have no problem with stealing copyright material or using material in the public domain. It is just sad.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:1)
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:3, Interesting)
TV Guide stated that Disney was remaking Kimba The White Lion.
Matthew Broderick stated that he understood he was being hired as a voice actor for a remake of Kimba The White Lion.
In early production stages, Simba was white.
Right Stuf International was prepared to release Kimba to home video in 1993, but this was delayed by litigation. (Since this release was based on their purchase of the home video rights from Mushi Production
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:1)
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:2)
Sure, given your limited world view. You should have just stopped right there. Everything after was rendered null and void.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:1)
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:2)
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:2)
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:2)
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights (Score:2)
You're going to pay for that, son.
The only thing..... (Score:1)
Welcome ! (Score:1, Funny)
I was talking about this (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly, White Wolf is destroying [timeofjudgment.com] the World of Darkness as part of a final wrap up of the meta plot.
You notice they aren't trying to stop the movie's release with an injunction, they just want a cut of the profits.
Re:I was talking about this (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
126. White Wolf is therefore entitled to:
(a) A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the distribution, marketing, release, sale, and rental of Underworld and Underworld: Bloodlines.
And then they repeat that claim, oh, 20 more times at least.
Re:I was talking about this (Score:2)
When reading any lawsuit, you will find the asking of judgment recited multiple times. It is required to show you have faith in your case and what you expect out of it.
Especially when saying the claims are for multiple things, even if they fall under the same basic category.
Thursdae
Re:I was talking about this (Score:4, Informative)
For those wondering, here's the relevant snippet:
May 2004
Vampire: The Eternal Struggle -- Gehenna (ISBN 1-58846-626-4) -- a new booster set for Vampire: The Eternal Struggle featuring cards based on the Time of Judgment.
An all-new World of Darkness launches in August of 2004.
In short, it's just a big event leading up to a re-invention of WoD.
Re:I was talking about this (Score:2)
My SO and I have been referring to it as "UnderWorld of Darkness" ever since the first trailer came out. That said, for those who love the black, white and blood, gothic, PVC and leather style of the Crow and the Matrix, it looks good.
--
Evan, a.k.a. The Rev. Jerry 'Br [starlitgospel.com]
blah (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad Dugeons and Dragons didn't sue Lord of the Rings when that movie came out. Oh wait, sorry, Dungeons and Dragons is a huge rip off of Lord of the Rings. My mistake.
To wax geek for a moment, this seems kind of like the movie equivalent of a one-click-shopping lawsuit.
Anyway, my overall prediction is no money will be paid out, White Wolf is just doing this for publicity. Whatever. Glad I stopped playing their games.
This is the second time White Wolf has pissed me off, the first time being their desertion of Ars Magica [redcap.org] after stealing part of its mythos and inserting it in their World of Darkness games.
Re:blah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:blah (Score:1)
Re:blah (Score:2)
Anyone have details?
Re:blah (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. Sounds like you have more than a few grudges against WW and you're allowing them to cloud your judgement on this issue.
I'll address them in no particular order:
WW didn't "steal" the mythos of Ars Magica. They had permission to adapt it into a modern game set in the WoD. Ars Magica, while it may have been great for many reasons was never a popular, money-making game. That's why it was abandoned by WW. To their credit, they did allow others to continue supporting it even though it could be considered a competitor to their Mage line. That alone should clue you in to their assessment of its economic viability.
Tolkien was an early contributor to the fantasy genre, but he was not the first, nor (imo) even the best. D&D readily acknowledges its inspirations. This includes Tolkien and a great many other fantasy authors. D&D has been smacked down by the Tolkien estate on at least one occasion where they got a little too close to the source material, just like WW is doing to Sony.
Anne Rice could very likely have won a similar lawsuit against WW when Vampire came out. She didn't try and so WW now has legitimate claim to their stuff and is entitled to defend it. They have not been frivolously attacking other vampire/werewolf movies. This one is special.
Read the similarities that are listed. They are numerous and not common to vampire/werewolf mythology. There is significant confusion among consumers. Almost everyone i know who is familiar with the WoD, hears about this movie and thinks it's either produced or endorsed by WW.
I thin there are generally too many lawsuits of this kind (one-click, Fair and Balanced, etc.) but that does not mean that all of them are frivolous. This one seems to have some merit.
I'm not sure about the outcome of this either. Let's think of this in extreme situations.
Scenario 1: WW wins and gains all rights to the movie + damages. Probable outcome: they release the film with some changes to make it more WoD compliant. They try to make nice with the actors and get them onboard for promotion, etc. and now have the start of a WoD movie franchise. If the movie does well then they try to make more movies, possibly sequels or just other WoD stories. Chances are good that they'll make a deal with some established company to do this, with the best bet being Sony itself.
Scenario 2: WW loses, the movie goes ahead as planned. The only press they get is negative, plus they probably have to pay court costs and maybe countersuit damages. They even risk losing the rights to their own trademarked properties. Ouch.
The middle ground involves WW settling for a share of the profits and/or a mandatory ad for the Vampire/Werewolf games at the beginning of the film. If the movie does well then chances are good that Sony & WW will be teaming up for more WoD-themed projects.
IMO WW has more to gain than to lose here and they have a better than 50-50 shot of winning. Most likely result: settlement.
Re:blah (Score:2)
> not common to vampire/werewolf mythology.
It's irrelevent whether they're "common" to vampire/werewolf mythology or not; all that matters is whether they've been done before and thus can be considered prior art. They have. Vampires vs. werewolves has literally been done dozens of times before, dating back as far as I personally know to at least the horror/sci-fi comics of the 1950s. There have been comics, stories, and even episodes of
Re:blah (Score:2)
In copyright, it doesn't matter that the general ideas have been around for a long time, it's the specific way they are used. The way that WW depicts Vampires and Werewolves is unique to them - it's not cut whole from public domain mythology.
They are not saying that noone else can make Vampire vs.
Re:blah (Score:2)
For example:
WW Werewolfs get hurt by silver, Underworlds werewolves get hurt by silver. (Common werewolf mythos, not unique to WoD AT ALL)
WW Vampires have strength of 10 men, Underworlds vampires have strength of 10 men. (Common Vampire mythos, Vampires are stronger than us - well DUH!, again not unique to WoD AT ALL)
and etc, etc. These types of comparisons go on and on which made t
Re:blah (Score:2)
To respond directly to your examples:
1) Shows where both the games and the film conform to standard mythology in the same way, just like some of the other points show how they diverge from standard mythology in the same ways.
Remember: it doesn't have to be unique to the WoD for them to claim it's copied - it's the combination that matters. Lots
Re:blah (Score:2)
Re:blah (Score:2)
Re:blah (Score:2, Interesting)
The only 'striking similarities' between an Anne Rice novel and the World of Darkness/Vampire worlds are the fact that they have, er, vampires in them.
The idea of 'werewolves vs. vampires', and the concept of a vampire society that has a clear social order and houses/clans/whatnot is to be found nowhere in the homoerotic misunderstood-poetry-writing-loner vampires of Anne Rice's novels. Hell, the Dark Island where all the vampires end up agreeing to come to meet and remain in touc
Re:blah (Score:2)
Pretty sure the Ghostbuster cartoon covered that storyline quite some time ago.
How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p (Score:2)
Re:How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p (Score:1)
White Wolf have a point (Score:2, Informative)
"The volume of confusion in our marketplace is amazing," observes Tinney, "our fans think they're going to be seeing our film. Of course, if the movie gets released, in a way they will be."
When I first heard about the plot of the film, my first thought was that it was based on the White Wolf world, after all there was that short lived adaptation of VTM, maybe they decided to try the movies instead. I was a bit disappointed when I found out it was a 'clone'.
Tk
And the similarities would be..... (Score:1)
Re:And the similarities would be..... (Score:1)
Vampires Vs Werewolves is probably the biggest. I have no idea if anyone thought of that idea before White Wolf did, at least I had never come across it before I started playing the White Wolf games (many years ago), therefore I've always associated the idea with White Wolf. Personally, I always thought the Vampires Vs Werewolves concept to be a bit lame so maybe nobody thought of it before (or thought of it and quickly dismissed it
As for the other 59 points of simi
Re:And the similarities would be..... (Score:1)
Re:And the similarities would be..... (Score:1)
Re:And the similarities would be..... (Score:1)
Appearently, it's called No One Comes To Lupusville [ghostbusters.net] and if you've got real player installed, you can even watch it there. Definately an underrated cartoon series.
Re:And the similarities would be..... (Score:2)
Re:And the similarities would be..... (Score:2)
More realistically, the whole film looks remarkably like it should be titled "Romeo & Blade".
Re:And the similarities would be..... (Score:2)
The biggest would be the main character's resemblence to Lucitia, who is a trademarked character.
It's kind of like making a Spider-Man like character, not calling him Spider-Man, but having so many simmilarities (especially physical) and claiming him as your own. Marvel would sue the pants off of you because your character could dilute the trademark of Spider-Man.
I think that's what is really the big part of the case, not copyright infringment as much as trademark i
Re:White Wolf have a point (Score:2)
Re:White Wolf have a point (Score:2)
It's funny how the series started out as kind of a hardboiled detective novel (albeit with vampires and zombies) and by the last few books is basically just pr0n.
Re:White Wolf have a point (Score:1)
Re:White Wolf have a point (Score:1)
Re:White Wolf have a point (Score:1)
If you like to read about necromancy and can handle some rather graphic descriptions I'd recommend at least the first book in the Necroscope series by Brian Lumley. IIRC the second book went into necromancy a bit, as well, but it was in the form of a vampi
Re:White Wolf have a point (Score:2)
I think it's funny that the shift-to-pr0n happened because it indicates that that is what the market wants.
Penny Arcade Weighs In (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Penny Arcade Weighs In (Score:2)
Re:Penny Arcade Weighs In (Score:1)
Re:Penny Arcade Weighs In (Score:1)
Claiming Romeo & Juliet for any story about tragic lovers as "source material" is kinda like saying any action flick uses Rambo as "source material". The reason why R&J stands as a bedrock of "star crossed love" is because it's pretty simple
Smelled that one coming (Score:1)
Would it really have cost Sony that much to flip White Wolf a few bucks for licensing before making Underworld? Think of the PS2 spinoffs... ahh well, I guess it's war from here on in. Sony gets to play the Vampires.
Oh... (Score:1)
Re: Oh... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I and the parent poster can make that mistake, White Wolf's suit probably does have some merit.
OTOH, perhaps the best WW can do is use their current position to cross-promote their games, rather than tie
Re: Oh... (Score:2)
My brother showed me the trailer on his PC a few months ago, and I thought the female was basically a rip off of Lucita. And the whole setting screamed WoD as well.
I actually forgot to ask about what White Wolf thought of the movie when I was partying with them last week at Dragon*con. Oh well, now I know.
Although I think some of the complaint is a bit much (I wouldn't go so far as to claim copyright i
Re: Oh... (Score:2)
It wasn't until I saw the theatrical trailer that werewolves entered the picture. Then it became nothing more than a horror version of Romeo and Juliet.
The brief (Score:5, Informative)
As it was explained to me by someone who knows, it's not the individual similarities, it's the total. If there are 10 similarities, it doesn't matter that 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 can all be found elsewhere, it's the fact that they're all found together which contributes (in this case) to the unique product identity which is the World of Darkness. So vampires have super-strength in both the WoD and Underworld: who cares? What matters is that, in addition to all the other similarites, makes it much much more likely that Underworld is ripping off WW. And if they don't mention everything in the brief, they pretty much can't even talk about it later.
So White Wolf is suing because there are a total of 61 points they've identified. That's a lot, no matter how you look at it.
For the hell of it, here they are:
Re:The brief (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead, I'll just say that starting from around 38 on, the similartiies are very convincing that this was ripped off.
But they did include a lot of crap early on which wasn't very convincing at all. But when you look at the convincing stuff at the end, the stuff at the beginning only adds to it. It looks like they have a very strong case.
And I really wanted to r
Re:The brief (Score:2, Informative)
Still, it also reminded me that I have to go back and re-read my Necroscope books, because I don't remember if Lumley's vampires/werewolves cast reflections or not (and if they didn't, whether it was a physical property or simply something they manifested in the minds of humans).
Oh well, just a good reason to get off my ass and find the last couple of books I don't have in the series and read the one or two I haven't read yet that are
Re:The brief (Score:1)
whoop de do. (Score:1)
"30. In the World of Darkness, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves. In Underworld, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves
31. In the World of Darkness, the background setting is very dark, described as gothic/punk. In Underworld, the background setting is very d
Re:whoop de do. (Score:1)
Just call in Marvel Comics, which is where Blade came from in the first place.
Re:whoop de do. (Score:1)
Or they can just call in the X-Men or something...
or maybe have an X-Men, Punisher, Blade, Ghost Rider, wtf else crossover series to kick ass on WW and Sony.
Re:whoop de do. (Score:2)
The first time I saw Blade, I thought the same thing, but there are important differences.
The first, of course, is Blade being a rather interesting take-off of a dhampir.
The Houses of Blade aren't anything like the Clans of V:tM, which are closer to 'species of vampires' than anything else.
Blade uses silver and magnesium, which aren't more or less deadly than anything else sharp, or fire.
The vampires in Blade don't seem all that concerned with hiding themselves from mortal eyes.
Re:The brief (Score:2)
But White Wolf has conveniently forgotten their own role as rip-off artists. They've become so delusional they think they cut the entire vampire mythos from whole cloth. I never had much respect for White Wolf in the fi
That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
None of the points mentioned here are original to WoD and can be found else where. The only that that White Wolf has done is gathered all of them in one place. For example; ancient vampires being mummified as they waken and recovering from drinking blood
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
Not to sound pithy, but did you even read my post?
That is exactly the point. It doesn't matter if every single element can be found elsewhere. Having all of them together makes the World of Darkness what it is. It's okay to make a vampire movie. It's okay to make a werewolf movie.
What WW is illustrating is that there are too many similarities
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:2)
It seems to me that the case for directly riping off of the book, Love of Monsters, is stronger than the more general accusation of ripping of their "world". Reading the points towards the end, it becomes pretty apparent that they practically copied the storyline from the book. Not that it's an exceptionally inventive storyline or anything, but somebody else did it first.
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:2)
Doesn't really matter how original the book was, if the movie directly rips it off as badly as WW is claiming, then it's infringement. The last 20 or so points they list are pretty strong. If you know of any other vampire vs. werewolf source material that hasn't been mentioned, then that might be helpful too.
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
Copyright infringement is word-for-word copying of exact text or note-for-note copying of music, etc.
Copying a bunch of ideas is not copyright infringement.
It may be disappointing that Sony chose to so closely mirror WoD, but I don't think any case for copyright infringement can be made unles
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:2)
Not so. While the reverse is true, copyright also covers (amongst other things) the production of derivative works. The question of "what's derivative?" is perfectly valid, and any valid defense of Underworld hinges on the argument that it isn't a derivation of the World of Darkness property. Either crucial elements of Underworld were developed in ignorance of the White Wolf World of Darkness (ideally,
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
True, I went a bit far there. Direct copying is not the only form of copyright infringement.
As you suggest, the question of "what's derivative" is valid. However, if this case sets the precedent that you can't take a story concept, change the names, change the dialogue, change the imagery, etc., then I think we are going to see a hell of a lot of new copyright infringement cases.
The fallo
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:2)
If it was only the earlier points, I might grant you that. However when you get down to the later points where they're ripping off pretty much the entire story from the novel it's a lot harder to make that case.
If Sony h
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:2)
However when Sony has a setting that
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
However, seeing as all these notes are used in other pieces of music they have no case.
It's not just the constituent parts that matter in a copyright case but how they are put together. In the case of Underworld it is a clear and direct rip-off of World of Darkness - it is literally only the names that have changed.
WoD is itself clearly distinct from other interpretations of the vampire myth when taken *as a whole*. Blade is
Re:That would all make sense if...... (Score:1)
If I had stated that they both used English, so their results were the same, then your music analogy would hold water. I am saying they both used Rock & Roll (a style of music) and Stin
Re:The brief (Score:2)
In my world they have the strength of ten go-rillas!
Seriously, though, how, exactly, is this not stolen directly from Anne Rice?
Re:The brief (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The brief (Score:1)
What are they smoking?
Where can I get some?
Re:The brief (Score:1)
Look at these 2:
27. In the World of Darkness, certain vampires are able to get pregnant. In Un
can't get the book anymore (Score:2)
NOT mentioned on amazon [amazon.com] or in white wolf's own catalog [white-wolf.com].
it did exist, as you can find it on google [google.com].
perhaps the book was completely inaccessible
and the only thing ripped off was World of Darkness?
Anecdotally speaking (Score:4, Interesting)
Both times I saw the trailer this weekend I thought to myself "interesting, maybe someone finally made a Storyteller movie".
It most definitely has a strong resemblance in the trailer. Enough that WW fans will immediately associate the two. If the trailer is an accurate portrayal of the movie, then I can see a lawsuit having teeth.
While the Storyteller stuff is "just" an interpretation of myths and legends that have been around for centuries (or more), it is a very specific interpretation of them.
And in other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Looks bad (Score:2)
Words to live by... (Score:1)
That's what i said... (Score:2)
I have no idea if it was intentional or not, but Sony is clearly benefiting from the similarities between the M
Re:That's what i said... (Score:1)
Sounds about right (Score:1)
I haven't seen the movie, but I think that Sony screwed up with this one.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:1)
Re:Sounds about right (Score:2)
Actually, a Magic:TG movie would do really well after LOTR. They completed the Urza storyline a year-or-so ago, and it would be really cool to see on the big screen...but it would have to be done right.
I can't believe... (Score:1)
On what basis? (Score:1)
Is it copyright infringement? No, because there is no copyright in conceptual material like "vampires can disappear".
Is it "passing off"? No, because there is no claim that this is the same material.
Is it trademark infraction? No, because no trademarks are being misused.
What law exactly are Sony breaking?
Re:On what basis? (Score:1)
They don't stand a chance of winning, because no copyright has been broken. They are not copying the text of the books. This lawsuit is frivolous.
Re:On what basis? (Score:1)
If you start writing about an interviewer talking to a vampire of a long family
JK Rowlings had a similar lawsu