Former Mayor Giuliani To Defend Activision In Odd Noriega Publicity Rights Lawsuit
from the public-defense dept
We recently sneered at the publicity rights law suit brought against video game maker Activision by dictatorship-maker Manuel Noriega over his portrayal in the Call of Duty game series. The idea of a foreign historical/public figure filing suit against an American company for publicity rights, which tend to be quite localized to individual states, seemed silly on its face. Add to the mix the dastardly acts by the plaintiff and there was a great deal of room for eye-rolling at this fight.Well, now a new combatant has emerged to defend Activision, and there's a small chance you'll recognize his face.
Is it...Derek Jeter?
No, it's former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has decided to take up the sword for Activision and defend them in court against Noriega. It turns out that America's Mayor has since gone back to practicing law and he's asking for a dismissal of the case for the exact reasons I outlined in the previous post.
Giuiliani told The Associated Press he took the case because he doesn't want the imprisoned Noriega to profit from his crimes, which include convictions for murder, drug trafficking and money laundering. Also, Giuiliani said that if the lawsuit is upheld, it could give historical figures and their heirs veto power over their depiction in books, television, movies and video games.The entire point here is that the First Amendment provides protection in fictional depictions of historical figures. That those depictions are so close in describing the criminal actions of Noriega, in this case as a kidnapper and murderer, doesn't relieve Activision of those protections. Opening the door to more suits by public and historical figures would be absolutely horrific for the areas of historical fiction, whether in games, novels or movies. Noreiga, by the way, is serving prison time for murder and corruption.
"Noriega going after 'Call of Duty,' you should think of it as Osama bin Laden's family going after 'Zero Dark Thirty,'" [Giuliani] said.Hopefully the court will dismiss this nonsense quickly. On a related note, it's always nice to see a former politician come to the aid of new entertainment companies, video games in particular. Too often it's the other way around.
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: call of duty, manuel noriega, publicity rights, rudy giuliani
Companies: activision
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You should invoice Giuliani for your research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drinking the Kool Aid
Tim, I would respectfully suggest that you try to restrain yourself from 'educating' people about international politics, wars, and other historical events that are tangential to the news article. You've demonstrated, time after time, that your knowledge in that area tends to be shallow at best, and in many instances is not even consistent with the dumbed-down, official (US government propaganda) version of events that so many gullible, flag-waving Americans uncritically accept as the Gospel truth.
The US military invasion of Panama and installation of a puppet government might in itself be shocking, if not for the unprecedented railroading of it's president Noriega in order to try to create some sort of mirage of legitimacy to an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.
Panama is to the United States what Crimea is to Russia, a critical strategic asset that simply couldn't be allowed to fall into hostile hands. The original pretext of the US invasion was to "protect American lives" -- it had nothing to do with any specific "crimes" of Noriega or anyone else. This was all manufactured later, I strongly suspect because Noriega ended up having to be taken alive because he had sheltered in an embassy, which thwarted the original plan of having him conveniently killed in combat.
Which brings up another point ... if Noriega had been found 'not guilty' of all charges, does anyone really believe that the US government would have simply released him -- if not turned back the clock and re-installed him as president of Panama? Of course more charges would have been tacked on, and another show-trial begun, for as many times as necessary, as there was only one acceptable outcome.
In the usual slippery slope, the then-novel concept of jailing a foreign national under the laws of a nation he had never set foot in did not end with Noriega. It's now become standard policy, with countries such as Australia and the UK regularly extraditing their citizens to the US to stand trial on copyright offenses that don't exist (or are much more stringent than) under their own country's laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: drinking the Kool Aid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid
For instance, notorious dictators such as Chile's Pinochet, Iran's Shah, and Philippines' Marcos did far worse things than Noriega ever did, but no US-enforced "rules of conduct" ever applied to them. Even after they were overthrown and basically lived as fugitives on the run.
Even assuming that we should accept the concept of the US military policing the world and invading countries and enacting "regime change" at will, it's this hypocritical double-standard that's the most galling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid
"Because we need to be able to raise an army from the population at short notice, the government may not place restrictions on people owning and carrying weapons" - so that the people can practice with those weapons in peacetime, on their own and for their own purposes, and thereby be experienced with them when it comes time to be called up into a regimented military force.
Once you abandon the no-standing-military principle, this basis for the Second Amendment largely disappears. Whether this is a good thing or not is a worthy subject for much debate, but as far as I can see it doesn't even seem to be recognized by most of the people who want to argue over the Second Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: drinking the Kool Aid
Hope you see the light there brah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Reason Guiliani is Defending Activision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]