GTA Parody Elements Pulled From Simpsons Game 46
The Grand Theft Auto section of the game is still there, but 1up is reporting that EA's The Simpsons game won't have any overt themes from the Rockstar title. That section is now labeled 'Mob Rules'. "Lead designer Greg Rizzer commented that 'if we make fun of Grand Theft Auto, we're not going to hurt the sales of Grand Theft Auto... But yeah, we've definitely had some reactions -- we've had to pull stuff from the game.' Otherwise, the trailer looks untouched, so it seems that the title was the major problem and not the parody game content itself ... Rockstar does have a point -- it's not as if they've ever used an existing work as inspiration for satire. Oh wait."
Re: (Score:1)
What bitter irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not everyone has been a spoil-sport, though. Harmonix, for instance, was so enamored with the "Sitar Hero" parody poster (with Apu playing a 60-button sitar controller) that they asked for 20 copies. "They just loved it so much."
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163412 [1up.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Knee-jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it...The Simpsons has done some messed up things on their show, but most parnts don't seem to have a problem with their kids watching the show...those same parents would likely have a problem with their kids playing a GTA type game, and if the name is different they might not notice...
Yes, I'm aware how much of a stretch this is and yes I'm aware that my post only sorta made sense...but you get the idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily think that was their motive, but I can see where the gp post is coming from.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Hit & Run... (Score:2)
Simpsons Hit and Run (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Parody is protected free speech (Score:2)
I think what is really happening here is that EA and Rockstar are in the same business, and are just being polite to one another. It isn't in either companies' interest to get into any form of legal battle - that would just make the public's perception of "mature" video games even worse.
Re:Parody is protected free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Parody may be protected, but trademark violations are not. From what we've seen the content of the game remains unchanged, but EA has been forced to change the chapter's name from "Grand Theft Scratchy" to "Mob Rules". Rockstar is clearly using the trademark violation line to do this, not a "don't parody us" sort of thing.
That being said... I thought "grand theft auto" was a very standard English word with a lot of history prior to Rockstar's usage, can they REALLY claim trademark on it?
Re:Parody is protected free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Trademark always applies to a specific domain. Think of "Windows". No, they're not going to sue you for having a house with glass panes. They will come a-callin' if you write a software package with the same name though. Think of any of the MS product names in fact, "Office", "Word", or "Excel". All of these are common English words, much more so than the phrase Grand Theft Auto.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't agree with your conclusion. The offical name of those products is Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word, etc. Even the shortcuts installed all follow that same pattern, probably because they'd not be able to register a trademark simply as "Word." If you can find a trademark registration for Word that refers to MS Word, you'd have a point. I d
Re: (Score:2)
True, but a mark does not need to be an EXACT replice of an existing trademark to be problematic. It is often enough to be substantially similar, e.g. "Lindows" vs. "Microsoft Windows", "Grand Theft Scratchy" vs. "Grand Theft Auto", etc.
Often, but not always: apparently "Office" isn't unique enoug
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it isn't. [lfiplaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, you can't use a trademark to make fun of something unrelated. You can't appropriate Hasbro's Monopoly trademarks to make fun of Microsoft, for instance.
Couldn't they have come up with a better name? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For one, the Wiki definition says "Grand Theft" is a legal term. "Grand Theft Auto" is a 1977 movie. Now, Grand Theft Auto the movie and Grand Theft Auto the game can hardly be mixed up, but I absolutely agree that the creators of GTA the game should not be able to claim monopoly on all terms "Grand Theft foo".
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, the owners of Monopoly (Hasbro), can claim, as you called it, "monopoly" on the name Monopoly in the spheres of board games, and/or games in general, but not on all uses of the legal term "monopoly".
So, Rockstar (or possibly Take-Two) very likely have some kind of claim to stake here. All the valid counter-arguments aside, including that the names are not exactly the same, and that this use is a parody, EA probably made the decision to change the name rather than face any legal murkiness (or ba
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought "grand theft auto" was a very standard English word with a lot of history prior to Rockstar's usage, can they REALLY claim trademark on it?
It's a descriptive term ordinarily, yes, but within the specific context of electronic gaming it's acquired (at least arguably) sufficient 'secondary meaning' to be a 'source identifier' for Rockstar's series, and can therefore be protected by trademark.
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just going to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Oddity in the achievements list (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They may have had to change a few of the models they used, but I can't imagine that they had to change the entire sequence just to avoid possibly being sued.
Grand Theft Scratchy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh (Score:2)
Perhaps EA should just calmly pull Rockstar aside, lean in and say softly. "We're EA. W
Re: (Score:1)