Rockstar Ironically Goes On The Trademark Muscle To Silence BBC Documentary
from the think-twice dept
If you're amongst that odd combination of gaming enthusiast and strident supporter of the First Amendment, Rockstar is likely one of your hero-companies. The maker of the Grand Theft Auto series has long relied on free speech principles both for the outlandish (and entertaining) content in its games, but also as a defense against every last crazy sorta-famous person out there that thinks the company has appropriated their likeness in what amounts to at worst parody and more likely an amalgam composite of pop culture characters.
And, as it is with any kind of hero, it truly hurts when they fall to the dark side of the force. Rockstar has announced, for reasons I can't even imagine, that it has filed suit against the BBC over an upcoming film called Game Changer, which is to focus on the stories of GTA creator Sam Houser and all-around great human being Jack Thompson. The basis for the suit is -- sigh -- trademark violations.
The game company told IGN that it has filed a lawsuit to ensure its trademarks "are not misused in the BBC's pursuit of an unofficial depiction of purported events related to Rockstar Games." Now, Take-Two is claiming that the BBC's movie infringes its intellectual property, though the substance of its arguments remain vague. The company wouldn't provide a copy of the complaint that it had filed against BBC.The obvious part of this is that a filmmaker ought to be able to rely on the same sort of principles of fair use in order to make a dramatic telling that deals with real-life figures, companies and games. The US, the UK, wherever; this should be a no-brainer. No amount of use of gameplay footage or company logos ought silence artistic speech as a general rule, but it's absolutely insane for this argument to be made by Rockstar of all companies. Allowing these kinds of restrictions to prevent speech is the exact misdeed Rockstar is still fighting against in the Lindsay Lohan suit, after all.
If a lawsuit that objects to a film covering a First Amendment battle isn't sufficiently on the wild side, the complaint comes as Take-Two and Rockstar are still in court defending themselves against Lindsay Lohan's allegation that Grand Theft Auto V ripped off her image and persona. In that dispute, Take-Two has sought to sanction Lohan for filing a frivolous lawsuit and has told the judge, "Artistic works like GTAV simply cannot form the basis for right of publicity claims under either New York law or the First Amendment."While trademark law and publicity rights laws aren't the exact same thing, the moral ground is the same in both arguments. For Rockstar to champion free speech in one court while seeking to plainly undermine it in another brings to mind names like Judas and Brutus. Why, when free speech has served it so well, is Rockstar seeking to undermine the very tool it's used to produce so many great games? Nothing in this BBC movie could be worth this betrayal. Hell, we all know that Jack Thompson is an asshat, guys.
Don't make us think you are too.
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: documentary, first amendment, free speech, grand theft auto, jack thompson, publicity rights, trademark
Companies: rockstar
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those at the upper level of politics, which includes company management, only have one moral imperative, win and impose their desires onto the world. Therefore they always fight for that which is to their advantage in any situation, and not any consistent principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like fans who BOUGHT the game Bioshock couldn't play their PAID FOR games due to Securom activation issues?
This company paved the way for activation bullshit that has only ingrained itself like freaking scabies in today's gaming - oh, sorry, LICENSING - landscape.
Bish, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Will hang onto that grudge, though. Signaled a slide that made distrust a major purchasing factor that never improved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite as black and white here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite as black and white here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite as black and white here.
Not really. To the extent that the rules are different, they are more restrictive in works of nonfiction than fiction. Using real brand names is a trademark issue, and the particular one that is most likely to come into play is disparagement. Disparagement is only a concern if you say something nasty about the brand that isn't true and the audience is likely to believe that it is true.
Payment (in either direction) is not required to make the use of a brand name legal, as long as you're staying within the lines of trademark law.
Hollywood confuses this whole thing because movies tend to try to avoid using real brand names unless they're getting paid to do so. Not because that's required, but because they want to get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what it's worth...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"GTA creator Sam Houser"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They've been punishing their users for stuff they couldn't get right. How can anyone be surprised by this? Rockstar are one of the worst gaming companies out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing on earth dumber or more parasitic than a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something?
You know it's possible to report on interesting news in this area without the parties being either heroes or villains, right? Rockstar ain't no hero, never has been. Are they villains? No more so than any other company in the same situation, probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rockstar is not, nor has never been one of the good guys.
This incident is not uncharacteristic of Rockstar Games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Job failed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]