Lindsay Lohan Won't Put Her GTA5 Lawsuit Out Of Its Misery
from the game-not-over dept
Here is something you, the dear Techdirt reader, may not have known about me: I had always thought that there was only one proper spelling for the name "Lindsey." I'm not sure why I thought that, but I was certain that name was only spelled with an "e" before the "y." But, it turns out, spelling it as "Lindsay" is a perfectly common and accepted alternate spelling for the name. And the only reason that I now know that is because Linsday, with an "a," Lohan will not let her lawsuit against Take-Two Interactive -- for appropriating her likeness for several characters, which didn't actually happen -- die its final death.
First, a refresher. Lohan decided that a side quest character in Grand Theft Auto 5, which was actually an amalgam of several Hollywood starlet tropes, violated her publicity rights. She also claimed that an entirely different character that was used on some of the game's marketing and packaging was also her and also violated her publicity rights. The case wove its way through the past half-decade, largely with the court and Take-Two casting narrow eyes at the mountains of paperwork Lohan's legal team was able to produce while somehow maintaining an inability to come up with claims that were in any way credible, before the court finally tossed the lawsuit entirely. The court at the time made it clear that Take-Two's characters weren't direct appropriations of Lohan's likeness and that the parody amalgam starlet it had created was clearly protected by the First Amendment.
But, for some reason, it appears that LiLo's legal team was, like, "nuh uh!"
Lindsay Lohan has been granted an appeal in her lawsuit against the maker of the Grand Theft Auto video games. Last year, the Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State tossed the case, stating it was without merit. Her appeal was accepted by the New York Court of Appeals on 16 February.
It must be nice to have the kind of money required to keep the legal team going on a lawsuit that's been a loser at every turn. Still, it's perplexing that this lawsuit hasn't been put out of its misery at this point. The nature of the characters and their status as protected speech seems as clear cut as it gets. And, perhaps more importantly, the character that Lohan is desperate to associate herself with for the purposes of this lawsuit is one that is depicted engaging in sex acts in a public setting and being photographed doing so. I'm struggling to understand why one would want to engage in this kind of legal reach under those circumstances.
Her legal staff should be informing her that it's time to give this whole thing the Ol' Yeller treatment. Why they aren't doing so is beyond me.
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: grand theft auto, gta 5, lindsay lohan, publicity rights
Companies: take two interactive
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Catastrophic removal of a likeness
Before Lindsay (with an a) Lohan's lawyers get all litigious on anyone else, this is an OPINION, no matter how much the target deserves like opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telling her it's time to quit would mean the end of their being paid for the case. They're confident the courts won't penalize them for aiding in the pursuit of a meritless case, so they won't put their paychecks at risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She’s Not The ...
... only Lindsay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
These few lame stories ain't gonna cut the ketchup. Get out now, Geigner, Techdirt is sinking.
Here's one infinitely more important off Drudge: GOOGLE SUES UBER OVER DRIVERLESS TECH!!! -- OMFG! Masnick's head is going to explode!
But it's just another story to ignore. He/you are already busy ignoring that AdRoll this week broke contract with InfoWars specifically to suppress its political opinions. You only support "free speech" that you agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2c9PMV3ZJg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
But hey, thanks for letting us know what we will be leaving techdirt over, in droves.
Have fun cutting and snorting your ketchup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
Techdirt is sinking.
Yet, here you are... still. Go on! Save yourself! Don't endanger yourself for us, we're goners!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
Oh, I see: you're a crazy person. A crazy person that doesn't understand what and to whom the First Amendment and free speech protections actually apply. Hint: an ad agency can conduct business with whomever it wants, and it can certainly exclude a bunch of whiny, sycophantic tin-pot wearing conspiracy theorists that cannot even come up with good fake conspiracies and mostly hide under their mother's bed from its customer roll if it so chooses.
And you're here WHINING about that in the name of free speech? Dingus, the business has free speech rights to, and not doing business with your favorite bullshit-peddler is one of them. So you're not only crazy and ignorant, you're a hypocrite to boot. Go away. I'll enjoy my "sinking ship". I'm sure you Ron Paul video to watch or something....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
What in the sweet hell are you talking about?!??! I'm someone who has screamed to the sky that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against the LGBT community as loudly as I can. I'm in no way a hypocrite on that topic. I've even written about in these very pages and addressed why I think they should be allowed to do so, specifically back when Mike Pence was mincing around his state thinking he was being Jesus-y....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
Calm down there little fellah. [Pictures DH frantically typing on the keyboard to quickly post his childish insults.]
"it can certainly exclude a bunch of whiny, sycophantic tin-pot wearing conspiracy theorists that cannot even come up with good fake conspiracies and mostly hide under their mother's bed from its customer roll if it so chooses."
C'mon DH... you had help with this one; Didn't ya bruh? Is Whatever on the payroll now?
Who hacked the DH account?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
"Stop writing what you want to write about on your blog!!!! Write about exactly what I'm reading on other blogs!!! You should not have original ideas, you must copy others!!!!!!!!"
You guys are reliably insane, as ever.
"OMFG! Masnick's head is going to explode! "
You're hallucinating again - Masnick did not write this article.
"You only support "free speech" that you agree with."
The only person opposing free speech is you, whining about how others are exercising it. The article you're having a breakdown over is actually in defence of free speech, which is under attack from Lohan. So, not only insane but actually living in a different reality. Always entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LiLo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay attention to me!!!
My whole they made me remove my headscarf makes me a posterchild for muslim intolerance!!!
Oh that didn't work??
Fire up that lawsuit again!!!
While her entire suit is pretty much meritless, it pretty much sums up the uncontrolled IP rights expansion.
Someone might think this is me, so I have the right to get paid for it.
I have the right to control anything that I imagine has to do with me, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Abolish IP. It's wrong and dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is not a problem the government can solve without giving up a load of sweet, sweet lobby emoluments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lohan decided that a side quest character in Grand Theft Auto 5, which was actually an amalgam of several Hollywood starlet tropes, violated her publicity rights.
Because she is an amalgam of tropes. It's just too close...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But not Lindsay Lohan!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compare to Vanna White
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/White_v._Samsung_Electronics_America,_Inc./En_banc_Opinion
The district judge quite reasonably held that, because Samsung didn’t use White’s name, likeness, voice or signature, it didn’t violate her right of publicity.
Not so, says the panel majority: The California right of publicity can’t possibly be limited to name and likeness. If it were, the majority reasons, a “clever advertising strategist” could avoid using White’s name or likeness but nevertheless remind people of her with impunity,
“effectively eviscerat[ing]” her rights. To prevent this “evisceration,” the panel majority holds that the right of publicity must extend beyond name and likeness, to any “appropriation” of White’s “identity"—anything that “evoke[s]” her personality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compare to Vanna White
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That's is me, that is absolutely me! ... wait, why are you saying that I would ever do that?!"
And, perhaps more importantly, the character that Lohan is desperate to associate herself with for the purposes of this lawsuit is one that is depicted engaging in sex acts in a public setting and being photographed doing so. I'm struggling to understand why one would want to engage in this kind of legal reach under those circumstances.
The funny thing is, while people may not have associated her with those sorts of things before this lawsuit, after spending years telling the courts how similar the character is with her she really has no grounds to complain if people make that connection now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "That's is me, that is absolutely me! ... wait, why are you saying that I would ever do that?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich idiots have money to burn, and they're in control of our judicial system. They're not getting out of it until they've forced out the result they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hot litigation action
ps I thought Lindsay with an a was the male spelling (or was it the tori spelling?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... "Lindsay" is a perfectly common and accepted alternate spelling...
Here in MURRICA, we spell names any damn way we please, buddy boy.
https://wehavekids.com/parenting/How-Many-Ways-Can-You-Spell-Lindsay-Lindsey-Linsy-Lyndsey
(At least 15 alternates.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a case of art imitating life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]