Historical Hypocrisy: Donkey Kong, King Kong, & The Public Domain
from the monkey-see-monkey-do dept
Universal Studios seems to have some trouble establishing concrete ideas and positions when it comes to copyright on its own products. In recent iterations, this has manifested itself in the form of their protesting a parody of 50 Shades of Grey while conveniently ignoring that work's birth in the form of Twighlight fan-fiction. Alternatively, there are times when Universal doesn't even seem to know what it holds the rights to and what it doesn't. Well, it turns out that these stumbles aren't exactly a new experience for Universal.Chris ODonnell writes in with the historical and hysterical case of Universal suing Nintendo over Donkey Kong shortly after Universal itself had argued that the property the dispute was based on, King Kong, was in the public domain. See, back when Michael Jackson was still best known for his music, Nintendo came up with their iconic Donkey Kong character, admittedly in some part inspired by the famous King Kong character. This inspiration, it turns out, came after the fact, but that didn't stop Universal Studios from filing suit against Nintendo, because they had released a remake of King Kong a few years earlier. While some within Nintendo wanted to simply settle with Universal and move forward, others within sought out the words of a key ally to fight against them, and that ally was Universal Studios.
Universal’s King Kong movie debuted in 1976, but it wasn’t an original story. Rather, the movie was a remake of a movie with the same title made in 1933 by RKO General. The 1976 remake came with its own round of litigation, with many parties claiming to have at least partial rights over the name, characters, and plot of the movie. Universal, however, argued that no one did, and that the characters and plot were in the public domain. In the subsequent litigation with Nintendo, the court noted this inconsistency, using it as part of the basis for finding that Nintendo’s Donkey Kong game did not infringe upon Universal’s rights (if any) over King Kong. Nintendo prevailed, and, when Universal appealed, the next court admonished Universal for its inconsistent legal logic.Ah, sweet, sweet hypocrisy. With one hand, hitting Nintendo over the head with the IP hammer, while holding a shield against another IP hammer with the other. The court was not pleased, noting that Universal's president, Sidney Sheinberg, was clearly well versed in the intellectual property status of King Kong via the earlier lawsuit, and to then pretend the company held rights in it was clearly a move to abuse the law:
Finally, Universal's conduct amounted to an abuse of judicial processes, and in that sense caused a larger harm to the public as a whole. Depending on the commercial results, Universal alternatively argued to the courts, first, that King Kong was part of the public domain, and then second, that King Kong was not part of the public domain, and that Universal possessed exclusive trademark rights in it. Universal's assertions in court were based not on any good faith belief in their truth, but on the mistaken belief that it could use the courts to turn a profit.As noted, Nintendo was victorious and Donkey Kong was released, since becoming its own franchise and propelling Nintendo so such status that it can initiate its own legal action based on its intellectual property.
Such a wonderful web intellectual property tends to weave.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, donkey kong, king kong, public domain
Companies: nintendo, universal studios
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This should have been shortened and put as part of another news in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't like that, skip to the next article. One thing that mystifies me is people complaining about what's being written about here. No-one forces you to read, nor do they demand payment from you - and if the site's decision over which articles to post are decided by any metric other than what interests the author, it's not going to be whether or not someone said "I don't like it" in the comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is also hard to decide whether or not an article is worth not reading or reading without reading it.
You as a defender of this site, should know by now Techdirt promotes free speech, and criticism as well as opinions (since criticism is an opinion anyway) is welcome.
If you didn't like my comment you could also have just skipped it and read the next one instead. I actually never understood why people reply to the posts I make when they dislike it.
By the way, complaints are also called feedbacks. I wonder if Techdirt values feedbacks or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are also, sometimes, referred to as childish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and if my reaction to an article is that it didn't interest me, I click on to the next one. If I'm indifferent, I rarely comment on it, although I might see what comments were made.
"You as a defender of this site, should know by now Techdirt promotes free speech, and criticism as well as opinions (since criticism is an opinion anyway) is welcome."
Constructive criticism, yes. But when your entire comment is "this article is not relevant to my personal interests", it's pretty pointless. Either TD posts stories purely because they interest the author or they use metrics like page views, number of comments, etc. to judge which subjects interest people. Even if they use comments to judge the subject matter discussed, the fact that I did find the article interesting nullifies your complaint straight away - unless you think that TD should just be listening to your opinion and not that of people with the opposing view.
Ironically, your comments and driving more page views, both from myself and you (as well as perhaps others), meaning that if those are the metrics the site uses to decide whether to post more articles like this, you've just encouraged them to write more.
Oh, and you know what also constitutes criticism? My reply to your comment. Deal with it.
"I actually never understood why people reply to the posts I make when they dislike it."
I replied because I find that attitude particularly annoying, and to point out that while you didn't like the article, I did - and I explained my reasons why. I comment to point out that your view isn't the only view. Yet, you still felt the need to reply to what I said.
"I wonder if Techdirt values feedbacks or not."
They probably do. But one person whining in the comments that they don't like a particular subject isn't really feedback. Either go "meh" and carry on (as I usually do if a subject or article doesn't interest me), or use the feedback link at the bottom of the page. If you whine in public, expect a reaction from other members of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also notice you haven't addressed my counterpoint where I stated the reasons for my own opinion on the article being different. You just whined about a fictional attempt at censorship when I pointed out how silly it was to complain that the article wasn't written the way *you* wanted to be written.
Oh, and look up the word "incomplete" in the dictionary. That's not what you originally said - you said "This should have been shortened and put as part of another news (sic)". That's not saying it's incomplete, it's bitching about the fact that it was a complete article by itself. Sorry, but Techdirt isn't your personal news repository, and people have opinions different from you - and that includes others finding articles useful or interesting that you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You complain about an article
Someone expresses there opinion on your complaint
You then complain about them complaining by stating that you have the right to an opinion alluding that they don't.
And it's all over you finding the article incomplete.
Well I have news for you, I and numerous others who will read your pedantic and petulant ranting think that the only thing incomplete at the moment is YOU!
See you're probably not a complete idiot but keep going like this and surely you will get there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--Georges Santayana
That's why, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's taking care of their trademark rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Familiar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Familiar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Familiar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Familiar
https://blogs.kde.org/2013/02/21/sony-pirates-kde-artwork
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so much...
And indeed why shouldn't they think they can use copyright law any way they please? They paid for it and wrote most of it after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real message about Nintendo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real message about Nintendo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real message about Nintendo
In Nintendo's case, they actually hold the copyrights and trademarks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To clear the matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To clear the matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To clear the matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most important line
And yet they continue to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the way, supposedly, the American lawyer who came up with this strategy and defeated Universal so definitively later had the Nintendo character "Kirby" named after him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It bullied third parties for years before Sony got fed up to try the Playstation. And in terms of its customers... Have you tried using their online services? Nintendo nostalgia is very dangerous.
Their business practices have been horrible for markets and that shouldn't be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ultra created:
Metal Gear (June 1988)
Skate or Die! (December 1988)
Gyruss (February 1989)
Q*bert (February 1989)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (June 1989)
Defender of the Crown (July 1989)
Silent Service (December 1989)
Kings of the Beach (January 1990)
Snake's Revenge (April 1990)
Mission: Impossible (September 1990)
RollerGames (September 1990)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game (December 1990)
Ski or Die (February 1991)
Base Wars (June 1991)
Nightshade (January 1992)
Star Trek: 25th Anniversary (February 1992)
Pirates! (October 1992)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Julian Perez on Feb 21st, 2013 @ 5:52am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While that thought was definately been shown wrong since then. They've been doing very well using that belief as a foundation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now if only all cases were as brilliant as this one here ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What should be noted is that Donkey Kong was in fact an original idea from Nintendo. There were inspirations from the original King Kong (and good grief how could ANYONE seriously confuse Donkey Kong with King Kong...I will get to it...but not in favor of Universal).
OK, to put this into perspective, there were a lot of bootleg and clone versions of Donkey Kong...it may give an insight as to Nintendo's draconian game development rules concerning the NES:
A clone named "Crazy Kong" had a brochure that whose cover had a character on it that looked eerily similar to King Kong.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Crazy_Kong_Cover.jpg
It should be noted that Nintendo became particularly litigious after that lest they have to spend more on defending themselves (which apparently costs a lot more than suing about 50 people) and their brand.
Now, here we are today, the same exact industry (the MPAA) is asking for take-down after take-down....all they do is fish for money on things they don't own. Nintendo may have been draconian...but at least they understand the concept of trademark and public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]