Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
It's funny.  Laugh. Movies Games

Dice Age — Indie Gaming Project vs. Hollywood 47

ArrowBay writes "Dice Age, a independent game project that raised nearly $35K through Kickstarter, is apparently facing some scrutiny from a certain movie studio that has produced movies with a similar name. From the latest project update: 'As if the Ice Age was exclusively the name of a movie, or if Dice Age was a movie itself, the 20th century fox has just asked for an extent of time (till 10-26-2011) to oppose to the registering of our beloved Dice Age game name. My point of view, as a scientist, is the Ice age is a geological era before it is a movie.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dice Age — Indie Gaming Project vs. Hollywood

Comments Filter:
  • by Hsien-Ko ( 1090623 ) on Friday July 29, 2011 @06:21PM (#36928418)

    "Seal Team 6"- registered by Disney

    This was revoked.

  • by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Friday July 29, 2011 @06:36PM (#36928586)
    According to this [wsj.com] it wasn't revoked by some authority for being ridiculous, it was pulled by Disney themselves after widespread public backlash. That won't happen in most cases. Also in the most problematic cases of large hollywood studios stealing the public domain, they won't be going up against the world's best military.
  • Re:Baiting the Bear (Score:5, Informative)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Friday July 29, 2011 @06:58PM (#36928784) Homepage
    In a word: no.

    I've seen Ice Age, and a sequel, I think, but when I first read "Dice Age", if it hadn't been in the context about a movie studio claiming to own the name of an epoch, I would not have confused the two in any way. And watching the video on Kickstarter, it's even less confusing.

    Should no one be able to create anything with remotely similar names without expecting this to happen? What about "rice age", "nice age", "spice age"? Or a little further out? "Rice rage"? "Mice Mage"? "Price Gauge"? When do you feel that it ceases to be "obvious that this would happen"?

    Now, if it were a game based on similar characters, or even a the geological epoch with a similar mission theme, I'd say your statement might have some merit. Might. But as it stands, it's ridiculous.

    I was once served with a C&D regarding a trademark I was supposedly infringing on. With the first notice, I explained why there was no TM conflict and provided some documentation regarding the merits of their requests. With the second notice, I re-sent my first response and offered some options of remediations, including offering to sell them the domain in question for what it would cost me to re-brand it and re-establish my new brand. Again, the only response I got was another C&D, and at that point I told them to fuck off or I'd sue them for harassment.

    Amazingly enough, they stopped. A lot of this sort of activity is similar to that of bighorn sheep butting heads in the wild. Show of force, lots of bluster. If it's handled right nobody really gets hurt.
  • by jasomill ( 186436 ) on Saturday July 30, 2011 @09:41AM (#36932358)

    To say he was being "a bit disingenuous" is a bit disingenuous: he himself claimed his goal was to manufacture a controversy to generate publicity for his film; that he did this by "out-lawyering the lawyers" — using bullshit historical and moral claims to preempt bullshit legal claims— is actually quite brilliant. It's not "as if" he wanted Warner Bros. to sue — he actually wanted Warner Bros. to sue, as this would generate even more publicity for the film. Alternatively, he wanted to be left alone to make his movie without legal review of each and every comedic detail to ensure "compliance" with some mythical "good-faith effort to avoid infringing on Warner Bros. rights."

    To wit: his "publicity stunt" is itself carefully-crafted satire. In particular, note how Groucho's letter is a virtual minefield of double entendre, unverifiable half-truths, outright lies, and facts that are "wrong only in detail," carefully crafted to force any conceivable response to read like a parody of itself. And don't think these things weren't intentional, Marx was quite familiar with the things he's speaking of, and with the law. Consider his jab against "confusing and misleading customers": he begins by saying that it's absurd that consumers would mistake someone with a "face only a brother could love" [google.com] for Ingrid Bergman, and goes on to compare the head of the studio to Jack the Ripper, "who," according to Marx, "cut quite a figure in his day" (emphasis mine).

    Incidentally, those familiar with the Marx Brothers' other work will recognize that Groucho's irreverent attitude towards the "legal establishment" was hardly without well-known precedent [youtube.com], and is generally quite consistent with the tradition of "social ridicule" the Marxes represent.

!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH