Lindsay Lohan Is Reportedly Asking Her Lawyers About Going After GTA5 For Non-Portrayal

from the buckets-of-crazy dept

Lindsay Lohan, everyone's favorite train-wreck, sure seems to come up in the world of intellectual property an awful lot. I'm not sure if this is because she has some over-inflated sense of entitlement, or if she's just the devil-incarnate here to entertain me personally, but she's gotten angry about being mocked in music, angry about a talking baby being named Lindsay (and being a "milkaholic"), and angry at the invention of the video camera for showing her stealing stuff that didn't belong to her.

But now reports are that she's looking to step up her game by going after Grand Theft Auto 5 over their portrayal of her, except that (as with the E-Trade babies) it wasn't a portrayal of her at all. Let's take her reported claims to her lawyers in order:

-- The video game cover shows a woman holding a cellphone who looks Lindsay-ish. There's been debate over whether it looks more like Kate Upton or Shelby Welinder.

No, there's no debate. Shelby Welinder was hired by Rockstar Games to serve as the game cover's woman. Next.

-- Part of the game features a mission where a Lindsay Lohan look-alike asks the player to take her home and escape the paparazzi.

If you've played the game, and I have, and you played the paparazzi missions and thought, "holy balls, they're making fun of Lindsay Lohan!", then you need severe psychiatric care. The character in question, Lacey Jonas, is an obvious composite character. The closest thing to referencing Lohan is that Lacey Jonas is famous and once starred in a "cheerleader competition" movie. Sounds like Lohan, except that all the other facts about the character don't and the character doesn't look like Lohan, which sort of kills the whole "they stole my likeness" claim. As does claiming you were also used for a completely different character.

Another part of the game shows another Lindsay-like character at a hotel resembling the Chateau Marmont hotel in West Hollywood -- a place Lindsay not only frequents but once lived at -- and the mission is to photograph her having sex on camera.

We've got more problems, in that this completely different character, Poppy Mitchell, is a recurring character in the series. While that wiki states that this character might be a parody of Lohan, it certainly isn't much of a likeness beyond the character having been convicted of drunken driving.

And all of this is a bit beside the point. Even if each and every one of these characters were somehow a lifting or reference to Lindsay Lohan, it ought to be covered under the same blanket of parody that covers pretty much everything else in GTA5, given that the entire setting is a mocking look at Los Angeles. And I'm not sure what Lohan's legal team is planning on doing with her request to look into all of this, but continuing with the claim that video game characters with the personality traits of fornicating in public, drinking and driving, and being washed up movie stars probably isn't something she should be loudly pointing to as representing her.

Filed Under: grand theft auto, gta 5, lindsay lohan, publicity rights

Once Again, Media Jumps On Violent Video Games Before Knowing The Facts

from the fake-gun,-real-witch-hunt dept

When it comes to linking violence and video games, there is plenty of stupid to go around. The only unifying factor we can typically notice is that said stupid seems to come from someone talking to the media. Whether it's Dr. Oz, cherry-picked citizens, or just your average grand-standing politician, you'll usually get big, scary claims about how a game will turn your child to the dark side, or send them straight to Hell, followed up by exactly no valid evidence. But where does all of this come from? Why do some of our fellow citizens labor under the belief that a link between violence and video games is settled science?

Well, mostly because of equally fallacious headlines and stories, with all the pre-suppositions that should have been beaten out of journalists when they were college freshman. Case in point, you may have heard recently that a young man shot his elderly caretaker in the head after (cue the scary music) playing Grand Theft Auto. Ooooooh! With a headline like "8-Year-Old Intentionally Shot And Killed Elderly Caregiver After Playing 'Grand Theft Auto': Louisiana Police", you know you're going to get equally, if vaguely, scary copy in the piece itself.

"Although a motive for the shooting is unknown at this time, investigators have learned that the juvenile suspect was playing a video game on the Play Station III "Grand Theft Auto IV", a realistic game that has been associated with encouraging violence and awards points to players for killing people, just minutes before the homicide occurred," a statement issued by the Sheriff's Office said.

Experts have long debated -- and are still divided on -- the matter of whether or not violent video games, TV shows and movies trigger aggressive behavior in young people.

Make no mistake, that kind of inclusion sets the tone for the entire story. While the article doesn't specifically come out and say that the game caused the violence, it might as well have. There's nearly as much copy dedicated in some way to mentioning the game as the incident itself. So, the reader is given the framework: kid shoots old lady after playing violent game, there's almost certainly a link.

The problem is the few lines written about how nobody really knows why what happened happened. Those lines themselves aren't the problem, rather the issue is that they're probably the most truthful lines in the entire piece. As the authorities later discovered, the child thought the gun was a toy after getting his hands on it from the woman's purse.

"He's distraught. It's really taken a toll on him. He looks visibly shaken," said East Feliciana Parish District Attorney Samuel D'Aquilla. "It was determined that he did the shooting and it was an accident. He thought it was a toy gun, a play gun," D'Aquilla told CNN.

Oops. So, because the media first rushed the story out with the most eyeball-grabbing headline it could, seizing upon the inclusion of an already controversial game, readers are left with a lie while the truth goes mostly unreported and under-reported where it even saw the light of day. When GTA could be blamed, it was front page news. When it couldn't, not so much.

Thanks a lot, news.

Filed Under: grand theft auto, media, murder, violent video games

Cypress Hill Backup Singer Sues Take Two For $250 Million; Says GTA Character Based On His Life

from the insane-in-the-brain dept

Apparently, a backup singer from the group Cypress Hill, Michael "Shagg" Washington, is suing Rockstar Games and Take Two Interactive, claiming that he was the model for the main character in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and that they now owe him a cool 25% of the total revenue from the game (which would be $250 million of the $1 billion it supposedly made). He apparently met with the game designers and answered a bunch of questions about his life and they said thank you and never spoke to him again. He claims they promised to notify him if he was to be used in the game. His name is apparently listed in the credits under "talent," but that hardly seems like it's worth $250 million. He's claiming "fraud, misappropriation of likeness and copyright infringement." I haven't seen the actual complaint, but all three seem like pretty weak cases from what's been said. Perhaps there's a misappropriation of likeness issue if the guy really looks the same, but even that might be a stretch. I can't see how there's any copyright issue at all. Is he claiming copyright on his life story?

Filed Under: copyright, cypress hill, fraud, grand theft auto, likeness
Companies: rockstar games, take two interactive

UK Tabloid Pays 'Substantial Sum' To Take2 After Totally Made Up Story About Grand Theft Auto

from the but-is-that-a-good-thing? dept

One thing I've never quite understood about the UK: it has some of the most ridiculous libel laws around, that are notoriously plaintiff-friendly... and yet, its tabloids are well known for simply making stories up completely. I'm a bit confused about how those two things co-exist, but it appears to be the case. Perhaps, the answer is just that the tabloids famous for making stuff up have a decent budget set aside to pay the famed "substantial sum," any time anyone complains about a story (we once were threatened with a UK libel suit, and the solicitors mentioned "substantial sum" so many times in the letter that it felt like a code word that meant something else).

A few months ago, we wrote about how a journalist at the Daily Star apparently totally made up a story claiming that Take2 Interactive was going to create a new version of the videogame Grand Theft Auto, based on the headline-hogging story in the UK of Raoul Moat, the guy who shot three people and himself, including his ex-girlfriend, her new boyfriend and a policeman (the new boyfriend and Moat himself died). The journalist seemed to base the story on Photoshopped images that some random person had made online of such a game, which was obviously a joke. He never checked with anyone involved at Take2 or Rockstar... but did check with the grandmother of Moat's ex-girlfriend, telling her (falsely) that such a game was being created and getting her reaction. What was even more ridiculous, was that when called on it, the reporter, Jerry Lawton, went on Facebook, and started insulting everyone who pointed out that the story was clearly bogus. It took a while, but The Daily Star finally pulled the story down, and admitted "We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication..."

Apparently, after all this happened, Take2 sued for libel, and so The Daily Star has now coughed up "a substantial sum" to the company to make amends (thanks to cc for the heads up). As ridiculous as the original story was, I'm not sure Take2 really deserves "a substantial sum" for it. Most people who would actually buy a version of GTA knew that the story was false, but that's what you get with UK libel laws, I guess. As another report on this story points out: "It should be noted that the Star, owned by Richard Desmond, has a history of publishing false stories and carrying apologies afterwards." So perhaps my original inclination was correct.

Filed Under: daily star, defamation, grand theft auto, raoul moat
Companies: rockstar, take 2

Journalist Totally Makes Up Story About GTA Based On Murderer, Then Attacks Video Gamers Who Called Him On It

from the professional-journalism dept

We've discussed a few times the various claims that many UK "news" publications have a history of totally fabricating stories. This seems odd, given the ridiculous libel laws in the UK, which you would think would keep that sort of thing to a minimum -- and yet we seem to hear similar stories quite frequently. The latest, sent in by EnJaySee, notes that the Daily Star (which is not a particularly well-respected paper) was caught totally making up a story pretending that the makers of Grand Theft Auto were working on a new version of the game, GTA Rothbury, based on Raoul Moat, the guy who killed shot his ex-girlfriend, her new boyfriend, a police officer and (eventually) himself -- successfully killing himself and the new boyfriend. The reporter, one Jerry Lawton, even went and asked the grandmother of Moat's ex-girlfriend what she thought of the game, and needless to say, she thought it was terrible. But there is no such game. There was a Photoshopped image, which appeared to be the basis of the story, but no one's quite sure where that came from.

Even worse, after various video gaming publications called out The Daily Star for such a bogus story, the paper deleted the article from its website with no explanation or correction or anything. It just pretended it never happened. Update: As pointed out in the comments, the Daily Star did eventually publish a full retraction and apology, only after this story started getting attention. But the "reporter," Jerry Lawton, apparently took to his Facebook page to lash out at those who caught his made up story and then mocked video game players:

"Baffled by the fury of adult gamers," he wrote. "These are grown (?!?) men who sit around all day playing computer games with one another who've today chosen to enter the real world just long enough to complain about my story slamming a Raoul Moat version of Grand Theft Auto! You would think I'd denied the Holocaust!!! Think I'll challenge them to a virtual reality duel....stab....I win!!!"

As Destructoid noted, Lawton seems to have selective understanding of the situation:

Nice to see that Lawton conveniently left out the bit where he used a poorly doctored image that any idiot could have ascertained was fake, the bit where he used a 69-year-old grieving grandmother for his own ends, and the bit where he cobbled together a shitty little article full of lies that got taken down because it was a load of crap. Hilarious that he references the "real world" when his article was based in total fantasy to begin with. Maybe Lawton's the one who needs to step away from his computer and face reality.

Filed Under: grand theft auto, jerry lawton, made up, raoul moat, reporting, uk

Hot Coffee Finally History? Take-Two Pays $20 Million To Investors

from the hot-coffee-is-now-cold dept

I have to admit that I never quite understood the complaints about the "Hot Coffee" mod in Grand Theft Auto. First, it involved proactively modifying the software to unlock certain levels -- and those levels included scenes of consensual sex. Remember, this is a game that purposely is based on stealing cars, killing people, drug dealing and other sorts of illegal activity... and suddenly people got upset because of a hidden level that included a bit of consensual sex? Yet, lawsuits came flying from all directions. The company eventually tried to settle a class action lawsuit from users -- though most members of that "class" didn't even bother to make a claim, and the court eventually realized that the whole lawsuit was filed incorrectly, and ended up busting up the settlement.

But that wasn't the only lawsuit. Another lawsuit involved shareholders, who claimed that the company was trying to mislead shareholders about Hot Coffee. A judge dismissed that claim, but apparently the shareholders kept suing, and the new management at Take-Two decided it would be best to just settle the lawsuit, fork over $20 million (much of it paid for by insurance) and just be done with the whole thing. In some ways, this is really too bad. It's difficult to see how having an easter egg in a bit of software could possibly be seen as being misleading to shareholders, and this settlement will only encourage other similar lawsuits.

Filed Under: class action, grand theft auto, hot coffee

Rockstar To Use SecuROM DRM On Grand Theft Auto

from the not-smart dept

Given the incredibly negative reaction that many video gamers have been giving any video game that uses the rather draconian SecuROM DRM system, you would think that most video game companies would think twice about using it. Yet, apparently, Rockstar has decided to move forward in using it on the PC release of Grand Theft Auto IV. It won't be quite as draconian as Spore in that there won't be a limit on the number of installs, but the whole thing makes very little sense. The DRM won't stop the game from being pirated -- and once a single copy is available, it will be available everywhere. While Rockstar also claims that cracked copies will have some hidden easter eggs that make the game somewhat unplayable, it's quite likely that folks will figure out ways around those changes as well. In other words, it's not actually going to stop any piracy, but it may serve to annoy legitimate purchasers. So why bother?

Filed Under: drm, grand theft auto, securom
Companies: rockstar games

Kids Have Learned: Blame GTA Even If It's Not In The Game

from the the-press-will-eat-it-up dept

We've noticed a recent trend of kids caught performing criminal acts to blame Grand Theft Auto as their inspiration, knowing full well that officials will focus on that instead of the actual crime. It's even reached the point that kids are blaming GTA for things that aren't even in the game. Witness some kids who were caught making Molotov Cocktails and firebombing cars, claiming that they learned how to make the weapons while playing GTA IV. Of course, as the article notes, the Molotov Cocktails in GTA IV come pre-assembled -- so perhaps it's not exactly to blame. Won't stop adult outrage over the game, though. And that's probably just what the kids want, as it takes some of the responsibility off of them.

Filed Under: blame, grand theft auto

Thailand Overreacts; Bans Grand Theft Auto Due To Stupid Kid

from the yeah,-blame-the-game-instead-of-the-kid dept

What is it with people wanting to blame technology for crimes rather than the idiots who perpetrate the crimes? The latest is that Thailand has banned the sale of Grand Theft Auto IV after an idiot kid killed a cab driver when he tried to carjack the taxicab. The kid claimed that he was copying a scene from the game, and wanted to see if it was as easy to do as in the game. In other words: "Not my fault! The game made me do it!" And, of course, the government believed this killer, rather than recognizing that it wasn't the game, but this kid's own demented brain that was responsible. If it wasn't GTA IV, it would have been something else. Banning GTA IV isn't going to stop such violence, but it will give anyone caught for murder a nice excuse about why it's not their fault.

Filed Under: ban, blame, grand theft auto, murder, thailand

Court Unravels Grand Theft Auto Sex Scene Settlement

from the go-get-some-hot-coffee-and-try-again dept

We still can't understand how someone who bought a game where the focus of game play includes stealing cars, killing people, prostitution and drugs could possibly be offended to later find out that if you applied a special mod to the software you could also experience some consensual adult sex. Yet, some folks (mainly lawyers and politicians) got all uptight about the so-called "Hot Coffee" mod, and a class action lawsuit quickly followed -- supposedly to help reimburse those poor souls traumatized by the discovery (actively, after applying the mod) that the carjacking game they were playing had consensual sex. And, of course, the lawyers won. They reached a settlement where the lawyers made over a million dollars, and those of you traumatized by the hot coffee mod got $5.

It turns out, though, that not too many people were actually traumatized by this. Very few people have actually bothered to file the forms to join the class... and it all might not matter any way. A federal judge has just realized (it took this long?) that the "class" in the class action suit doesn't actually qualify as a "class." You see, the whole thing was filed under the idea that the Hot Coffee mod violated consumer protection laws... which just so happen to be handled at the state level. So the idea of lumping everyone from across the country into the same class is problematic -- since different state laws cover the issue at hand.

Filed Under: class action, grand theft auto, hot coffee