Rockstar/EA Tit for Tat in GTA/Simpsons Feud

Last week we discussed how GTA parody elements were pulled from The Simpsons Game after some of Rockstar's lawyers got into the act. Apparently, the folks at EA who made the game are a bit peeved about the aggressive lawyering on Rockstar's part and the wussy lawyering on EA's: "The game begins with Bart wanting to play a game called Grand Theft Scratchy. Of course this is a parody of Grand Theft Auto. And Marge immediately takes it away from him. She tries to clean up the town and stop the game from being distributed in Springfield because Marge is against video game violence. She uses horrific violence to stop video game violence... in a video game... That's called irony. The people who make Grand Theft Auto - they spazzed out like little babies."

"Spazzed out"

[xwizbt]

"Spazzed out like little babies"? The man's intellect is stunning, if nothing else...

Re:

[Nazlfrag]

To be fair, he was writing for a '.biz' site, which by all rights should have died in the dot com meltdown like all the other '.biz' sites. He's just doing his part, bringing it down from the inside.

the EA developer said it...

[putch]

the .biz writer was merely quoting an EA developer. sounds about right.

"if nothing else...", huh?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The man's intellect is stunning, if nothing else...

Is that official confirmation that you have seen our supreme lord Zonk... down there?

Grand Theft Trademark

[mwvdlee]

Read topic.

So sue me, rockstar!

Re:It's their trademark

[njfuzzy]

You don't have to protect yourself from fair use. Allowing anything covered under fair use is required by the law. They would have been all set, with no risk to their trademark. This was clearly parody/satire, which falls comfortably within Fair Use.

Re:

[Tetsujin]

You don't have to protect yourself from fair use. Allowing anything covered under fair use is required by the law. They would have been all set, with no risk to their trademark. This was clearly parody/satire, which falls comfortably within Fair Use.

It's one thing to be right. It's quite another to prove you're right in a potentially lengthy and costly legal battle.

Re:

[Kingrames]

If it's hard work, it's not worth doing. especially not if something like the free speech you exercise in every episode of your show is at stake.

Re:

[StringBlade]

Methinks that Rockstar has gotten too sensitive to anything that looks like "Violent video games are Bad(TM)" thanks to Jack Thompson. Simpsons are parodying GTA and perhaps even Jack himself but it's not beyond the realm of what's already been covered in the Simpson's show itself (i.e. Marge going on a crusade against something she finds indecent like a burlesque house, etc.).

Rockstar is simply making themselves look like fools and in some ways giving Jack Thompson some comfort by letting him know that he

Re:

[tieTYT]

Perhaps EA caved because they foresaw the result would be more damaging to their competitor than themselves. Good press for EA, bad press for Rockstar. No lengthy trial... And all they had to do was change the title of a level!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you protect a trademark from a parody? Makes me glad I haven't bought a GTA game in forever... fuck them.

Re:

[LingNoi]

It is when it comes to EA though.

Re:

[vikramrn]

Wasn't that Second Life [slashdot.org]?

Re:

[XaXXon]

you are an idiot.

Re:

[Goobermunch]

Except that there's no trademark infringement here because they're not actually using the trademark. Also, it's entirely permissible for a markholder to license another person to use their trademark.

--AC

Re:

[Seumas]

Parody, meet LingNoi.
LingNoi, meet Parody.

Reality.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, Reality. Adult Intelligence required for the complex world we live in.

That free speech and all is a bitch when its making fun of your product isn't it? Then again, you've used it a few times to cover your ass, haven't you RockStar?

Can we start shooting lawyers yet? GTA/Simpson style?

Re:

[larry bagina]

That's a different issue. Weird Al pays royalties to the composer.

Re:

[Khaed]

Which is kind of a tragedy, since usually his songs are better than the ones he's parodying.

Re:

[senatorpjt]

This seems especially strange since people generally don't listen to pop music for the lyrics.

Re:

[4D6963]

Mod parent +5 funny. That totally cracked me up.

Sorry but I fail to see what's funny about it.

Re:

[4D6963]

Surt is saying that your claim that Rockstar didn't base a major part of their games on some other games is so false that it is laughable.

OK, so educate me, which games did they rip off and base their own games on?

Re:

[putch]

well, for one. the original GTA was essentially a poor 2-d imitation of quarantine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine_(game) [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[4D6963]

You should try tuning the in-game car radios to the talk-radio channel, especially the concerned mother that playing video games is teaching children to chase after money (parodying the post-Donkey-Kong Mario games).

You know what's funny? The utter ridiculousness of your point. Did Rockstar copy the Donkey Kong games anywhere in GTA? No. There's a big difference between making a reference to a game in your game's environment, and basing your game on another game and claiming it loud and clear.

Re:

[The PS3 Will Fail]

"and basing your game on another game and claiming it loud and clear.

Have you played GTA: SA? The bars had arcade machines in them that you could play. Those games were certainly based on existing arcade classics. The Simpsons game had a level based on GTA. GTA: SA had a "level" based on existing game franchises.

Re:

[Surt]

Rockstar's games (well, at least Bully and GTA, I don't know any of their other games) are extremely derivative.

Re:

[4D6963]

Rockstar's games (well, at least Bully and GTA, I don't know any of their other games) are extremely derivative.

OK then tell me please what games are they're based on?

Re:

[enderjsv]

Well, we're not talking about copied gameplay, we're talking about parody. From the article, it seems the only real complaint was the use of the name "Grand Theft Scratchy" which was an obvious parody of the grand theft auto games. So its parody, not gameplay, that is the issue. And if you want to know what grand theft auto paradies, here's a quick list. Miami Vice. Scarface. The Godfather. Menace 2 Society. Goodfellas. Boys in the hood. The list goes on and on. Rockstar is blatently guilty of using p

Re:

[aichpvee]

They should have just changed it to Petty Larseny Scratchy or something. BTW, did they change it or just pull it? Did anyone read the article like a little baby to find out?

Re:

[4D6963]

That's completely different. To a certain extent, the Simpsons game are directly concurrencing (in a way) the GTA series by ripping them off, as GTA is heavily inspired by relatively old *movies*. If you can't spot the major difference, please consider your intelligence insulted.

Re:

[enderjsv]

"Parody" is not the same as "ripping a game off". Parody does copy aspects of story and style from one piece of work to another, but parody only exists in light of its source material and is used to convey a point or make a statement. I'm not going to teach you the finer points of literature without a fee, but suffice it to say, if grand theft auto didn't exist, grand theft scratchy would have no connotation and would therefore make no sense. Parody has long been a significant, legitimate literary tool a

Re:

[4D6963]

If you can't tell the difference between parody and plagiarism, then consider your intelligence insulted.

Err, are you plagiarisming me or parodying me here? *scratches head* ;-)

Re:

[enderjsv]

Err, are you plagiarisming me or parodying me here? *scratches head* ;-)

I'll teach you the difference for $4.99. But hold on! Call in the next five minutes, and I'll throw in the correct spelling of "plagiarisming" at absolutely no additional cost. Order quickly, supplies are limited.

Re:

[4D6963]

Call in the next five minutes, and I'll throw in the correct spelling of "plagiarisming" at absolutely no additional cost.

Oh wait, you mean "parodying" is correct? Crap..

Re:

[enderjsv]

um, yes. "Parodying" is the correct way to spell parodying. good job... What were we talking about?

Re:

[4D6963]

What were we talking about?

I don't remember, who cares! I'm off to watch some porn I guess.

Re:

[blueskies]

I spot a major difference that one is a protected work in movie form and one is a protected work in game form. Do i win something?

Now for the bad news....Both are protected by copyright and trademark law, and both have parody exceptions.

But that just hurts the point you are going to make. The only difference between the two is what media they are recorded in.

Re:

[Surt]

A mix of d2, smb, spyhunter, carmageddon, deathrace2000, syndicate.
Other than going more gory, there's not much innovative gameplay wise.

Re:

[4D6963]

You've got a point, but I think we can say the GTA series had its fair share of gameplay innovations with respect to these games (if not why would people consider GTA III as such a stepping stone?)

Re:

[kisrael]

Did it ever occur to you that mixing "d2, smb, spyhunter, carmageddon, deathrace2000, syndicate." would actually be a bit of innovation, in and of itself? (actually, what's d2? and smb, super mario)?

Anyway, what GTA has done nearly better than anyone is create a world flexible enough that all this kind of gaming is possible, without an excessive amount of hacking the world and its physics. It's a great sandbox, just to drive around and interact with, and then the missions are all set up in that world, plus

Re:

[Surt]

Sure. And the Simpson's game mixing in a bit of gta, with some humor seems equally innovative. Which was the original point I was making, if you follow the thread up the tree.

Re:

[kisrael]

Well, let me hedge my bet: GTA also innovates by making that WORK w/ the game overlaying sandbox thing. (More than I can say for that Simpsons Hit and Run or whatever their GTA-ish game was called.

Anyway. getting back to hte main point, I agree; it sounds like Rockstar and their lawyers are being terrible whiners here, with a streak of kettle/pot/black.

Re:

[chromatic]

Parody is only protected free speech if it's non-commercial? That's a dangerous metric for an inalienable right.

Re:

[mqduck]

Yeah, I'm a bit perplexed by all this. I like to assume its just Rockstar's evil corporate layers being corporate layers - you know, being evil. Has anyone outside of Rockstar's legal department said anything? I can't imagine the people who actually make the games have a problem with this Simpsons game.

Heh, and for a very brief moment I thought there might actually be a corporation that refused to bow down to censors because it somehow anomalously cared about freedom of creativity. Granted, I was drunk.

Re:

[4D6963]

Damn right! If anyone, EVER, dares to make a third-person shooter-em-up in which the protagonist is capable of interacting with his or her environment, they'll have to go through ME.

It's not like they're just happening to make a game a bit similar, otherwise they would already have sued for Saints Row or 25 To Life, the thing is that they repeatedly make their games off copying their games. As in, they're not even going "no, we're not copying your game, we're just doing an unrelated third person game in w

Re:

[p0tat03]

ER... Sandbox games like this have been done to death - not only in GTA but in Saints Row, and a bunch of other less notable ones. If EA was using the GTA name purely to cash in on GTA's fame, then sure, Rockstar should object, but this smells like a clear parody to me. For one thing, the marketing around the game isn't centred about "look! we're just like GTA!", and neither does the GTA-parodying part make up a huge chunk of the work.

Re:

[bwalling]

the thing is that they repeatedly make their games off copying their games

Look up Weird Al - he makes a living "copying" music. It's called parody. While you're at it, watch a few Simpsons episodes - if you don't notice all of the parodies, then you're rather out of touch with culture. Have you seen South Park? Have you seen Saturday Night Live? You've posted about five times in this thread in defense of Rockstar, but I don't see what defense is there. Parody is legal. Parody is common and quite popu

So now are they going to patent it

[webmaster404]

So now are they going to patent "Making a violent video game" now? If so then I think that the quality of games is going to drop.... But clearly, its not hurting Rockstar, everyone knows that GTA is violent, so is it right for Nintendo to threaten other platforming games that have a character that can jump? Because everyone knows that Mario does that and so Nintendo is loosing money left and right because of that....

If that's how Rockstar's going to be

[Steeltalon]

Then maybe we should release the Jack Thompso... er, Hounds. Seriously, though... As appalled as I am that EA caved on what was clearly a case of parody (vs. freaking Rockstar games -- not like they don't have every other mission as a parody), Rockstar is on my list now.

Re:

[ivan256]

Why weren't they on your list before?

What "good" have they ever done? Sure, GTA was excellent, but it was done by DMA Design. Once Rockstar bought them, the culture slowly started to creep in.

With the exception of GTA3 games, my experiences with Rockstar titles have always been negative: buggy, rushed out, clueless business guy driven turds on a shiny disc. It really isn't all that surprising that their legal department has its head too far up its ass to talk to the PR department once in a while. It won't b

To turn a phrase

[mazarin5]

So it says "Tit for Tat," but I'm not seeing it. That phrase usually implies some form of equal retaliation, such as "Suzie didn't invite me to her party, so I'm not inviting her to mine."

So... Rockstar pulled out their lawyers, and so EA got really mad? Is that what they're referring to?

The point is: Tat or GTFO.

Re:

[mqduck]

Lois: Thank God everythings alright, I half expected that when we returned you'd owe a lot of money or something.
Peter: How do you "half expect" something?
Lois: I don't know, it's just a turn of phrase.
Peter: How do you turn a phrase?
Lois: God you're stupid, thank goodness for that ass.

Oh, wrong cartoon show...

Re:

[jollyreaper]

The point is: Tat or GTFO.

I don't care if there's a tit for Tat. Are there tits for the rest of us?

Hurting sales and profiting are still fair uses

[HTH NE1]

Previously, The Simpsons Game lead designer Greg Rizzer told CVG, "I was always under the impression that when you do parody, it's a sign of respect... If we make fun of Grand Theft Auto, we're not going to hurt the sales of Grand Theft Auto."

And even if it did hurt sales, it's still fair:

Reputation [wikipedia.org]

Sometimes the reputation of a parody outlasts the reputation of what is being parodied. For example, Don Quixote, which mocks the traditional knight errant tales, is much more well-known than the novel that inspired it, Amadis de Gaula (although Amadis is mentioned in the book). Another notable case is the novel Shamela by Henry Fielding (1742), which was a parody of the gloomy epistolary novel Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded (1740) by Samuel Richardson.

Maybe...

[vertinox]

Everyone at Rockstar was a Family Guy fan.

El Plagiarismo?

[adamofgreyskull]

Or American Dad fa...no wait..where is my head...

They removed nothing.

[Vampyre_Dark]

They just renamed that section to mob wars. Otherwise it looks just like San Andreas. Marge suns around a place that looks just like the grove you start out at in GTA:SA, where CJ's house is.

You can see it right here.
http://www.ea.com/simpsons/mob/ [ea.com]

Fire whomever advised that lawyer action

[unity100]

For that idiot have cost you much credibility with gamers. The gamers who supported you during the recent gaming related stampedes. bad move. very bad move. and top quality idiot(s) you have there.

Re:

[Khaed]

I'm sorry, but you're over your quota of "teh" for the 2007 calendar year.

Please refrain from further usage until 00:01, January 1st, 2008.

Thank You,

- The Internet

Mr Burns owns Rockstar???

[ThirdPrize]

That's the sort of scam he would pull.

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Smithers, release the houn^H^H^H^H lawyers!

Simpsons would get off their cases

[WillAffleckUW]

I think the Simpsons would get off their cases if they just released GTA: Emerald City.

Why?

Because the real-life version of Emerald City is Seattle, and it has a Monorail [monorail.org].

Plus, we have a lot of Guitar Hero III players here, now that it's been ported to the Wii in addition to the PS3 and xBox360 ...

mob rules = lame name

[Grackle]

Too bad they didn't rename it "Springfield: Vice City"

Maybe it's not the trademark...

[reshin]

I don't think it was a good move as far as building credibility with gamers, but maybe the underlying reason isn't trademark, which does sound absurd. Maybe Rockstar is more concerned that the references in a franchise many more conservative parents would find acceptable (the Simpsons) will bring Rockstar unwanted attention from a potentially hostile audience. Despite all the press about sex/violence in Rockstar's titles, I'll bet that many of the details have remained below the radar of many of these paren

Comic Book Guy would agree

[scottyja]

Worst lawsuit... ever.

Why Not Fight?

[balthan]

If Rockstar had no legal leg to stand on, as most here seem to think, why didn't EA simply fight it? Surely they have the legal resources to mount a defense.

Unless they were worried that Rockstar had some legitimate point.