White Wolf Sues Sony

Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by Goo.cc · 2003-09-07 23:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

I hope that WW wins this case, as it is not the first time that a large company has ripped someone off.

What's ironic to me is that Sony, like Disney, really wants to prevent works from entering the public domain and will vigorously defend their copyrights but seem to have no problem with stealing copyright material or using material in the public domain. It is just sad.

Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by bitrott · 2003-09-08 02:10 · Score: 1

Lion King is the worst example I can think of for this kind of action. The story has some of the most universal themes ever put to paper. Add an african "skin" and you've got a story that could be told in any culture and any aesthetic known. Let's also mention the simple fact that Disney's version of this same archtypal story is the superior in everyway. Kimba is drek, bad animation, crap story telling, horrid characterization and dribbling dialog. Disney made a cinematic classic in every way the finest animated movie ever made. Better even than Miyazaki's films which are far too non-universal and practically un-interpretable to many cultures.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by Sevn · 2003-09-08 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, I'd say that Lion King is the best example of this kind of action. Facts:

TV Guide stated that Disney was remaking Kimba The White Lion.

Matthew Broderick stated that he understood he was being hired as a voice actor for a remake of Kimba The White Lion.

In early production stages, Simba was white.

Right Stuf International was prepared to release Kimba to home video in 1993, but this was delayed by litigation. (Since this release was based on their purchase of the home video rights from Mushi Productions, who would sue to stop it?) And around the same time Disney announced they were delaying the release of Lion King.

You can love The Lion King all you want. It's a really great film. That doesn't change the fact that Disney are crooked thieves. So sorry. Thank you for playing. It's definitely NOT better than even half of Miyazaki's films. I wouldn't say they are "non-universal" in any way. I'd just say they were "un-interpretable" to you because of your obviously limited world view.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by bitrott · 2003-09-08 10:22 · Score: 1

The points you make are less than compelling. They're also tired and STILL unproven after all this time. It is arguable that it's "better" than Miyazaki's films (though you expose yourself for being a drooling fanboy), but it is FAR more universal than his work. The fact that I've even heard of Miyazaki and can identify that there are many literary and visual cultural tropes in his films which would be obscure to most of the world's movie goers, should show I have anything BUT a limited world view (you insipid git). Like the fucking Turnip god makes any fucking sense to anyone other than the members of Asiatic races. Whereas nearly bloody everyone in any culture can readily identify that the evil scraggly looking lion lurking in the shadows is the bad guy, and that the bold strong lion walking in the sun is the good one. It's simple but that's the point. Really, you don't have a leg here. To the point, Disney sued to stop the distribution of a shitty product that might confuse people. Though how anyone could be confused between art like the Lion King and crappy 1 frame a minute animation like Kimba is anyone's guess. Go soak your head.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by Sevn · 2003-09-08 11:22 · Score: 1

The points you make are less than compelling.

Sure, given your limited world view. You should have just stopped right there. Everything after was rendered null and void. :) THANK YOU FOR PLAYING THOUGH! I'm not the one in denial here.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by blancolioni · 2003-09-09 04:17 · Score: 1

Kimba is drek, bad animation, crap story telling, horrid characterization and dribbling dialog.

You're going to pay for that, son.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by bitrott · 2003-09-09 04:32 · Score: 1

What's this "limited world view" you keep blithering about. I find your points uncompelling, therefore I have a limited world view? What kind of preschool logic is that? You're just being pissy because I don't have YOUR worldview. That's a rather shallow worldview you have there. Then you do the school yard equivalent of sticking-your-finger-in-your-ears, and refuse to respond to the rest of my post. Real grown up. You rediculous little person.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by Sevn · 2003-09-09 07:40 · Score: 1

Ok, so you addressed ONE of my points. and casually ignored the rest. Just dismissed them as not fitting into your version of reality. Then you did something I didn't do. You misquoted me. I never said that Lion King was a bad film. In fact I said it was a great film. I also said that HALF of miyusaki's films were better. Not all of them. That in itself is a hell of a complement. You seem to be punishing me for looking at all the available facts regarding Disney ripping off someone elses work and coming to the only logical conclusion. I'm not sure why you are a Disney apologist. Work for them? Have stock? There has got to be a conflict of interest in there somewhere for you to come to a completely different conclusion than everybody I know. You are either completely in denial, or you have some other agenda. I'm so sorry reality isn't working out for you.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by bitrott · 2003-09-10 04:04 · Score: 1

It doesn't follow that I'd have to respond to every piece of "evidence" you're profferring when I'm outright dismissing the whole lot as "tin-foil-hat" theorizing. Disney apologist? Why do I have to have a motive? I love and argue for GOOD ART. For all intents Kimba (like 99% of anime) is the worst kind of drek. Derivative, poorly made and shallow. Miyazaki's works are the best of them all, but even still not as excellent as LK. Bad art needs to know it's place, in the dust bin. It's motive enough having to see crackpots with their 1/2 truths and heresay insulting the efforts of artists and authors with the skill to bring something as beautiful as LK in the world. I havn't come to the same conclcusion as "everyone else you know" because, well, maybe I have a more open mind than the people you surround yourself with. It's YOUR VERSION OF REALITY you're talking about. And frankly it's rubbish.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by Sevn · 2003-09-10 09:53 · Score: 1

Ahhhh. The tinfoil hat reference. The last desperate ploy of the terminally out of ideas. Well, I'm out of ideas too. I'm thorougly convinced you aren't a troll and that you thoroughly believe what you are saying. By the same token, I'm thorougly convinced that what I'm saying is right also. So this is an impass. I agree to disagree. I'm adding you to my friends list. Thanks for hanging in there. For some perspective on what can be done with the art that is anime, please watch "Grave of the Fireflies". It's the best thing I've ever seen. Watch it and be honest with yourself if you think The Lion King is better.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by bitrott · 2003-09-10 11:22 · Score: 1

Bugger off. I'm not out of ideas. Apparently you're unfamiliar with deductive logic. It follows that the 'evidence' weighed can be summarily tossed out of hand by examination of the CREATIVE PROCESS. We actually know how Disney developed LK. It's true. Books have been writted and people can be contacted. Written a letter to Menken have you? You don't have to, that line of inquiry has been carfeully plotted out. More ink has been spent logging the efforts and inpirations made on LK than your crackpot theories can account for. GOTF is boring and mawkish BTW. And don't go trotting out any BS about me not having a 'soul' or the 'attention span'. Neither is true. It's just not that good.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by Sevn · 2003-09-10 11:42 · Score: 1

Well, at least I'm the bigger man in the end. :) You have much growing up to do.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:Big Companies Suck on Copyrights by bitrott · 2003-09-11 05:55 · Score: 1

Real witty comeback there. Insulting my intelligence and making no substantial addition to the conversation. Yeah, you're really the bigger man.

Welcome ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-07 23:36 · Score: 1, Funny

I, for one, welcome our new blanched lupine overlords.

Re:Welcome ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 16:28 · Score: 0

I didn't know Sony was known for having blanched execs...

I was talking about this by Gryftir · 2003-09-07 23:47 · Score: 4, Informative

My friends and I are part of a LARP in Santa Cruz, (here if you are interested.) We were discussing the similarities, and this came up.

Interestingly, White Wolf is destroying the World of Darkness as part of a final wrap up of the meta plot.

You notice they aren't trying to stop the movie's release with an injunction, they just want a cut of the profits.

--
http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp

Re:I was talking about this by Richard · 2003-09-08 01:36 · Score: 5, Informative

You notice they aren't trying to stop the movie's release with an injunction, they just want a cut of the profits.

Wrong.

126. White Wolf is therefore entitled to:
(a) A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the distribution, marketing, release, sale, and rental of Underworld and Underworld: Bloodlines.

And then they repeat that claim, oh, 20 more times at least.

--
-Richard
Re:I was talking about this by thinlineofsanity · 2003-09-08 02:15 · Score: 4, Informative
They may be 'destroying' the WoD, but it helps if you read the press release.
For those wondering, here's the relevant snippet:
- May 2004
  
  Vampire: The Eternal Struggle -- Gehenna (ISBN 1-58846-626-4) -- a new booster set for Vampire: The Eternal Struggle featuring cards based on the Time of Judgment.
  
  An all-new World of Darkness launches in August of 2004.
In short, it's just a big event leading up to a re-invention of WoD.
Re:I was talking about this by JabberWokky · 2003-09-08 02:49 · Score: 1

Up in the Stockton chronicle, we're planning on going as a group to see the movie. I've been saying we should go IC to discuss if it's a breach of the first. Looks like the technocracy (Sony) won out over the Ventrue control of Hollywood.
My SO and I have been referring to it as "UnderWorld of Darkness" ever since the first trailer came out. That said, for those who love the black, white and blood, gothic, PVC and leather style of the Crow and the Matrix, it looks good.
--
Evan, a.k.a. The Rev. Jerry 'Brimstone' White, Sheriff of Stockton, Whip of Clan Brujah

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:I was talking about this by unclethursday · 2003-09-08 09:25 · Score: 1

And then they repeat that claim, oh, 20 more times at least.
When reading any lawsuit, you will find the asking of judgment recited multiple times. It is required to show you have faith in your case and what you expect out of it.
Especially when saying the claims are for multiple things, even if they fall under the same basic category.
Thursdae

blah by truffle · 2003-09-07 23:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm really not impressed with this lawsuit. White wolf has built their products on the mythos and stories that came before them. Anyone who's played Vampire and read Anne Rice will see striking similarities there.

I'm glad Dugeons and Dragons didn't sue Lord of the Rings when that movie came out. Oh wait, sorry, Dungeons and Dragons is a huge rip off of Lord of the Rings. My mistake.

To wax geek for a moment, this seems kind of like the movie equivalent of a one-click-shopping lawsuit.

Anyway, my overall prediction is no money will be paid out, White Wolf is just doing this for publicity. Whatever. Glad I stopped playing their games.

This is the second time White Wolf has pissed me off, the first time being their desertion of Ars Magica after stealing part of its mythos and inserting it in their World of Darkness games.

--

---
I support spreading santorum

Re:blah by Ceyan · 2003-09-08 02:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you consider D&D to be a huge ripoff of LOTR, then you have to consider LOTR a huge rip-off of folklore. Or consider that ever robot novel is a ripoff of Asimov's work.
Re:blah by ichimunki · 2003-09-08 03:05 · Score: 1

When Asimov started writing about robots, there was already a sizable literature regarding same going back over at least half a century prior. Most notably (at least to Americans) would be Frank Baum's Tin-Man and other mechanical men. That puts the idea into the public domain. ;)

--
I do not have a signature
Re:blah by Zarquon · 2003-09-08 04:58 · Score: 1

Actually, there was a big stir about either the Tolken estate or the LotR movie people suing Iron Crown out of existence. I heard the employees bought back rights to the Rolemaster standard system and started/restarted the company.

Anyone have details?

--
"'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
Re:blah by theghost · 2003-09-08 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Preface: WW = White Wolf, WoD = World of Darkness

Wow. Sounds like you have more than a few grudges against WW and you're allowing them to cloud your judgement on this issue.

I'll address them in no particular order:

WW didn't "steal" the mythos of Ars Magica. They had permission to adapt it into a modern game set in the WoD. Ars Magica, while it may have been great for many reasons was never a popular, money-making game. That's why it was abandoned by WW. To their credit, they did allow others to continue supporting it even though it could be considered a competitor to their Mage line. That alone should clue you in to their assessment of its economic viability.

Tolkien was an early contributor to the fantasy genre, but he was not the first, nor (imo) even the best. D&D readily acknowledges its inspirations. This includes Tolkien and a great many other fantasy authors. D&D has been smacked down by the Tolkien estate on at least one occasion where they got a little too close to the source material, just like WW is doing to Sony.

Anne Rice could very likely have won a similar lawsuit against WW when Vampire came out. She didn't try and so WW now has legitimate claim to their stuff and is entitled to defend it. They have not been frivolously attacking other vampire/werewolf movies. This one is special.

Read the similarities that are listed. They are numerous and not common to vampire/werewolf mythology. There is significant confusion among consumers. Almost everyone i know who is familiar with the WoD, hears about this movie and thinks it's either produced or endorsed by WW.

I thin there are generally too many lawsuits of this kind (one-click, Fair and Balanced, etc.) but that does not mean that all of them are frivolous. This one seems to have some merit.

I'm not sure about the outcome of this either. Let's think of this in extreme situations.

Scenario 1: WW wins and gains all rights to the movie + damages. Probable outcome: they release the film with some changes to make it more WoD compliant. They try to make nice with the actors and get them onboard for promotion, etc. and now have the start of a WoD movie franchise. If the movie does well then they try to make more movies, possibly sequels or just other WoD stories. Chances are good that they'll make a deal with some established company to do this, with the best bet being Sony itself.

Scenario 2: WW loses, the movie goes ahead as planned. The only press they get is negative, plus they probably have to pay court costs and maybe countersuit damages. They even risk losing the rights to their own trademarked properties. Ouch.

The middle ground involves WW settling for a share of the profits and/or a mandatory ad for the Vampire/Werewolf games at the beginning of the film. If the movie does well then chances are good that Sony & WW will be teaming up for more WoD-themed projects.

IMO WW has more to gain than to lose here and they have a better than 50-50 shot of winning. Most likely result: settlement.

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Re:blah by spongebob · 2003-09-08 06:17 · Score: 1

Interestingly I beleive TSR actually had used the term Hobbits in D&D at one point and when approached by Tolkiens reps, they backed down and removed the content.
Re:blah by loopback_127001 · 2003-09-08 11:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're kidding, right?
The only 'striking similarities' between an Anne Rice novel and the World of Darkness/Vampire worlds are the fact that they have, er, vampires in them.
The idea of 'werewolves vs. vampires', and the concept of a vampire society that has a clear social order and houses/clans/whatnot is to be found nowhere in the homoerotic misunderstood-poetry-writing-loner vampires of Anne Rice's novels. Hell, the Dark Island where all the vampires end up agreeing to come to meet and remain in touch is more of a friendly stopover. There is no community, no politics, nothing. An argument could be made for the existence of ancient progenitor vampires that want to destroy all their young, I suppose. But the Akasha/Enkil reality shares very little with the Ghennom mythos that WW's WoD talks about.
Now in the movie that's coming out (i have only seen the television trailer for it, so i am making some very base assumptions), there appears to be a war going on under the unseeing eyes of mortal men. That is pure white wolf, and not something that I think many other Vampire-based games/books have addressed. If someone wants to correct me, please do. I'm far from a fanboy or expert in this stuff.
Re:blah by DeadScreenSky · 2003-09-08 13:28 · Score: 1

...there appears to be a war going on under the unseeing eyes of mortal men. That is pure white wolf, and not something that I think many other Vampire-based games/books have addressed.

Pretty sure the Ghostbuster cartoon covered that storyline quite some time ago. :P

--
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Re:blah by Chasing+Amy · 2003-09-08 17:34 · Score: 1

> Read the similarities that are listed. They are numerous and
> not common to vampire/werewolf mythology.

It's irrelevent whether they're "common" to vampire/werewolf mythology or not; all that matters is whether they've been done before and thus can be considered prior art. They have. Vampires vs. werewolves has literally been done dozens of times before, dating back as far as I personally know to at least the horror/sci-fi comics of the 1950s. There have been comics, stories, and even episodes of the "Ghostbusters" cartoon and HBO's "Tales from the Crypt" dealing with the notion of vampires and werewolves as deadly rivals. There have also been just as many adaptations of the "Romeo and Juliet" concept to various fantasy and supernatural worlds--and let's not forget that *Romeo and Juliet* and many other plays by Shakespeare are themselves adaptations and retellings of earlier plays.

The plaintiffs here are just woefully illiterate and ignorant of the numerous prior art. I'm 100% certain that the defendants will produce so many examples of prior works with extreme similarities to each and every one of the plaintiffs' counts that the plaintiffs will fail completely. They invented none of the ideas and storylines and therefore have no case.

It isn't surprising that the plaintiffs really believe they've been "copied", since even the sci-fi mavens here on /. seem to be largely ignorant of how deep these mythologies run. People have had concepts of the werewolf almost identical to modern ones at least as far back as 15th-century Europe, where it was believed humans used ointments and potions to become horrible wolf-man-beasts during full moons; ancient Roman beliefs regarding lycanthropes were a bit different, but still showed similarities. While the modern Dracula story was mostly an invention of Bram Stoker, all of the elements he attributed to vampires generally were essentially cobbled together from the differing vampire myths of several different cultures and regions, going back centuries before him.

Since the concept of vampires and werewolves coming together as enemies and battling dates at least to the comics of the 1950s, I just don't see how the plaintiffs have a case. Their works weren't blatantly ripped off, since all the concepts within are at least 50 years old. It also wouldn't surprise me if the defendants were able to dig up several examples of earlier stories regarding the same vampire vs. werewolf themes published prior to the 1950s.

The World of Darkness games and writings may be very familiar to the geeks of /., but rest assured they aren't familiar to most people. They haven't acheived a position where their works are considered pre-eminently above those of others that are similar when it comes to IP, as some corporations like Disney have. The plaintiffs may get a relatively small nuisance settlement from the defendants, or they will lose outright. They will not win. The case is probably just a publicity and marketing stunt anyway.

--

Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Re:blah by theghost · 2003-09-09 01:58 · Score: 1

See, here's the mistake you're making - you're applying patent standards to a copyright case. (Our inclusion of the one-click shopping references was only to point out a general trend, not to draw a parrallel.)

In copyright, it doesn't matter that the general ideas have been around for a long time, it's the specific way they are used. The way that WW depicts Vampires and Werewolves is unique to them - it's not cut whole from public domain mythology.

They are not saying that noone else can make Vampire vs. Werewolf "art", or even that they were the first ones to do so. Look at the sources they list in their books - Bram Stoker, Anne Rice, French legends of Loup-Garou, and Native American legends of skin-dancers are in there. They admit that these things were inspirations for their creation, but they did not copy them point for point - they added their own sociology and mythology as well as twisting the traditional powers of these beasts into new forms.

WW is saying that Underworld is doing Vamps vs. Weres in the same way that they did it and that the similarities are too numerous to be coincidence. If you can enumerate 60-odd points of similarity between Ghostbusters' Vampires vs. Werewolves and WW's then you may have a point.

I agree that they probably won't win - Sony will settle. WW's pre-eminence in the field of Vampire/Werewolf entertainment has nothing to do with their chance of victory. Disney gets its way when it can buy politicians to write laws for them. WW doesn't have to do that and the Judicial system is much more resistant to that sort of corruption anyway.

I think WW is committed to their stuff, but even if their real goal is publicity, they have enough evidence to make the case worthwhile. The dog may be barking to scare you off, but that doesn't mean his teeth aren't sharp.

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 08:11 · Score: 0

Actually, White wolf pulled this crap with the NPO that ran their official fan club. I hope White Wolf gets slapped silly because of this.
Re:blah by TTMuskrat · 2003-09-09 08:46 · Score: 1

I read the lawsuit and some of their ideas of similarity are similar throughout all vampire and werewolf mythos.

For example:

WW Werewolfs get hurt by silver, Underworlds werewolves get hurt by silver. (Common werewolf mythos, not unique to WoD AT ALL)

WW Vampires have strength of 10 men, Underworlds vampires have strength of 10 men. (Common Vampire mythos, Vampires are stronger than us - well DUH!, again not unique to WoD AT ALL)

and etc, etc. These types of comparisons go on and on which made the reading of the lawsuit laughable.

And just for the record, I've heard of WW and the WoD (read some of the books, played the Video game hehe) and I didn't think that this movie was set in the WoD. I just thought - "Ooooh, cool. A Romeo and Juliet take with Vampires and Werewolves."

--
Support bacteria! It's the only culture most people seem to get.
Re:blah by theghost · 2003-09-10 04:35 · Score: 1

You're right. Some of their similarities are common, but lots of the specific ones that are or are not common to the mythology are mirrored by WW and Underworld.

To respond directly to your examples:

1) Shows where both the games and the film conform to standard mythology in the same way, just like some of the other points show how they diverge from standard mythology in the same ways.
Remember: it doesn't have to be unique to the WoD for them to claim it's copied - it's the combination that matters. Lots of paintings of star-filled night skies have been painted, but it is possible to copy "Starry Night."

2) I could use the same point as #1, but instead i'll point out that in the complaint the "strength of 10 men" bit is in quotes, so it indicates an exact phrase match between text in the books and dialogue or text in the movie or its promotional materials. Not an uncommon phrase, so it's a weak point, but it still builds on the larger argument.

If you think the lawsuit is laughable, then feel free to laugh or even to write an amicus brief to the court. That doesn't change the fact that they have a possible case - IANALs like us are wrong all the time. Would you deny them the chance to stand up in court and plead their case? If they fail they'll pay the price in bad PR and court costs/countersuits.

The real clincher will be if they can show that the writers had familiarity with the WoD material. If that happens then Sony is screwed. If they can't do that WW's odds are only slightly better than 50-50.

I'd also really like to know how long WW has known about Underworld and if they made any previous attempts to contact Sony about it. That info might not count as much in court, but for public opinion it could be significant.

Does your familiarity with the WoD extend to the the pen and paper rpg version? Does it encompass both Vampire and Werewolf? I've never played the video game or read the novels, but i don't see how anyone who has read the game books could miss the similarities!

(For the record, i think WW is overexaggerating the Vamps vs. Weres conflict in their material, but it's not an uncommon theme in the books. I don't believe that WW is definitely right, but i do believe there's enough evidence for a trial and a good chance of winning. Also for the record, i do not really like WW's games. I think it's a crappy mechanic and that the storylines tend to be too scripted and soap-opera-esque, but i'll give 'em their due for coming up with original and compelling alternatives to the standard D&D or space-opera games that were prevalent in the 80's/early 90's. If you could do justice to Mage with d20 i'd be in heaven.)

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Re:blah by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 05:53 · Score: 0

"2) I could use the same point as #1, but instead i'll point out that in the complaint the "strength of 10 men" bit is in quotes, so it indicates an exact phrase match between text in the books and dialogue or text in the movie or its promotional materials. Not an uncommon phrase, so it's a weak point, but it still builds on the larger argument."

A Star Trek novel I read once said Vulcans have the strength of 10 men. Clearly WW ripped that exact quote off from trek.
Re:blah by theghost · 2003-09-12 06:34 · Score: 1

Hence the caveat, "Not an uncommon phrase." If had something that stupid to say i'd say as AC too.

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p by pocopoco · 2003-09-07 23:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well WW says they have many unique points of similarity, but I find it hard to believe. Movies have so much less depth than books (and rpg systems and their backgrounds/settings/scenarios, etc). This movie claims to be vampire/werewolf/etc + Romeo & Juliet both of which are free game and open to anyone by now. How much more can there be to this movie that's outside those concepts? So another book combined the two at some later date, that doesn't mean a movie can't do the same using the same public domain stuff.

Re:How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p by Bazzargh · 2003-09-08 01:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was under the impression that Werewolves (or at least, a couple of important werewolf 'facts') are much more recent than vampires or Shakespeare - Curt Siodmak, who wrote the novel and then the screenplay of the 1941 film "The Wolf Man", invented the connection between werewolves and the moon, and their achilles heel of silver bullets. This would probably make for significant parts of werewolf anything being the property of Universal Studios, if anyone. (Werewolf legends date back hundreds of years, but the werewolf we know today is Siodmak's creation.)

As for Vampires vs Werewolves being original - has noone seen "Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein" (1948)?
Re:How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p by edmo · 2003-09-08 02:25 · Score: 1

To anyone familiar w/ WW vampires/werewolves can see immense simulates between the them. Just to point out, I am also familiar w/ other/older vampire myths, and I would point out that WW didn't start a suit when dracula 2000 was released

--
Don't save your orgasms for Heaven; Heaven knows we need them here.
Re:How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p by slaker · 2003-09-08 04:36 · Score: 1

Werewolf-like myths go back at least to the roman poet Virgil, who described a man who took herbs that turned him into a wolf at night.

--
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
Re:How old are vampires and Shakespeare again? ;p by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 10:37 · Score: 0

But not in the vein that they're being used in most films nowadays, as a half man/half wolf combination. That concept isn't part of legend, but is based off of the 1941 movie The Wolf Man.

White Wolf have a point by TobascoKid · 2003-09-07 23:56 · Score: 2, Informative

From the WW press release:
"The volume of confusion in our marketplace is amazing," observes Tinney, "our fans think they're going to be seeing our film. Of course, if the movie gets released, in a way they will be."

When I first heard about the plot of the film, my first thought was that it was based on the White Wolf world, after all there was that short lived adaptation of VTM, maybe they decided to try the movies instead. I was a bit disappointed when I found out it was a 'clone'.

Tk

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.

Re:White Wolf have a point by elmegil · 2003-09-08 01:10 · Score: 1

I think it's probably way generic (within the bounds of modern goth vampire tales). When I first heard about the plot of the film, I thought it sounded and awful lot like the Laurel K Hamilton Vampire novels that my wife reads.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:White Wolf have a point by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 01:29 · Score: 0

The fans are expecting it to be your movie WW, because alot of them are hopelessly lost in the World of Darkness. Not being a troll, but speaking from experience of how this game changes lives and attitudes. The experience is from creating and Storytelling 2 World of Darkness Larps and playing in 2 others.

I saw people going from dressing in vibrant colors, to wearing black trenchcoats, in the summer! :o
Re:White Wolf have a point by jshare · 2003-09-08 04:30 · Score: 1

Those books are pretty good timekillers.
It's funny how the series started out as kind of a hardboiled detective novel (albeit with vampires and zombies) and by the last few books is basically just pr0n.
Re:White Wolf have a point by Doug-W · 2003-09-08 05:21 · Score: 1

Having just finished the series, I actually lament the fact. I thought it was much more interesting as a detective story seeing how she balances dealing with the Monsters without being one. Instead it has slid into a rather derivitive work of let's see what erotic-goth we can introduce this time and how fast she can slide into bohemianism. Any detective 'plot' is mentioned in the first 30 pages and then forgotten about to the last 20...
Re:White Wolf have a point by FreeForm+Response · 2003-09-08 07:14 · Score: 1

I concur with your lamentation, but for a slightly different reason. I've read lots of books about vampires and werewolves, but scant few about necromancers. I was very interested in those parts of the story, from the first few books, and I'm sad to see that her innate talents seem to have been forgotten in the last few.
Re:White Wolf have a point by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-08 07:34 · Score: 1

I've read lots of books about vampires and werewolves, but scant few about necromancers. I was very interested in those parts of the story, from the first few books, and I'm sad to see that her innate talents seem to have been forgotten in the last few.

If you like to read about necromancy and can handle some rather graphic descriptions I'd recommend at least the first book in the Necroscope series by Brian Lumley. IIRC the second book went into necromancy a bit, as well, but it was in the form of a vampire's art, rather than a human's use of necromancy (in the first book the necromancer was human, again iirc).

The whole series offers a rather original look at vampires, but the original focus of the series is on humans and various psionic powers, and the first book focuses much more on that aspect than on the vampires that become the focus of the later part of the series (and the further series (plural) spawned from the original Necroscope books).

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:White Wolf have a point by jshare · 2003-09-09 18:50 · Score: 1

Yes yes, the stories were better at the beginning of the series.
I think it's funny that the shift-to-pr0n happened because it indicates that that is what the market wants.

And the similarities would be..... by Kibo · 2003-09-08 00:09 · Score: 1

What exactly are the similarities? When I saw trailers for the movie, it looked like a tech-noir incarnation of a The Real Ghostbusters episode with an obligitory romantic subplot.

--
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.

Re:And the similarities would be..... by TobascoKid · 2003-09-08 00:45 · Score: 1

What exactly are the similarities?

Vampires Vs Werewolves is probably the biggest. I have no idea if anyone thought of that idea before White Wolf did, at least I had never come across it before I started playing the White Wolf games (many years ago), therefore I've always associated the idea with White Wolf. Personally, I always thought the Vampires Vs Werewolves concept to be a bit lame so maybe nobody thought of it before (or thought of it and quickly dismissed it ;-)

As for the other 59 points of similarity, I'll have to wait untill I see the film to see what they are.

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:And the similarities would be..... by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · 2003-09-08 01:49 · Score: 1

Actually, wasn't there a whole slew of 'standard horror movie monster A' versus 'standard horror movie monster B' a long time ago, back in the black and white film days?
Re:And the similarities would be..... by TobascoKid · 2003-09-08 02:51 · Score: 1

Well, apperently there was a film titled Werewolf vs the Vampire Woman made in 1971.

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:And the similarities would be..... by bmongar · 2003-09-08 03:21 · Score: 1

There was an Amazing stories (or some similar show) episode where the basic premise was that being a were-wolf was a defense to the presence of vampires. That is when vampires moved into the neighborhood some people turned into werewolves to fight them off.

--
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Re:And the similarities would be..... by iainl · 2003-09-08 04:55 · Score: 1

House Of Dracula (1945) - Dracula Vs. The Wolf Man Vs. Frankenstein's Monster, basically.

More realistically, the whole film looks remarkably like it should be titled "Romeo & Blade".

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Re:And the similarities would be..... by Kibo · 2003-09-08 07:53 · Score: 1

The episode of The Real Ghostbusters I mentioned featured was not a simple versus, but a full on secret war with many werewolves vs. many vampires.

Appearently, it's called No One Comes To Lupusville and if you've got real player installed, you can even watch it there. Definately an underrated cartoon series.

--
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Re:And the similarities would be..... by unclethursday · 2003-09-08 09:33 · Score: 1

What exactly are the similarities?
The biggest would be the main character's resemblence to Lucitia, who is a trademarked character.
It's kind of like making a Spider-Man like character, not calling him Spider-Man, but having so many simmilarities (especially physical) and claiming him as your own. Marvel would sue the pants off of you because your character could dilute the trademark of Spider-Man.
I think that's what is really the big part of the case, not copyright infringment as much as trademark infringment/dilution.
If one does not protect their trademarks, or attempt to protect them, then they can and will lose that trademark.
The world of Underworld is similar to the WoD. Many WoD fans have said they thought it was a White Wolf movie. The character is almost physically identical to Lucitia, minus the slightly shorter hair; as well as described as similar to Lucitia in other ways (character traits, similar backstory).
Even if White Wolf loses, or the case is thrown out, they have done their responsibility as the owners of trademarked properties and attempted to defend their trademark from infringement.
Thursdae

Penny Arcade Weighs In by Decaffeinated+Jedi · 2003-09-08 00:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Today's Penny Arcade offers a great perspective on this story.

--
DecafJedi
my weblog: apropos of something

Re:Penny Arcade Weighs In by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 01:33 · Score: 0

i like how PA states the obvious, and suddenly it's a "great perspective."
Re:Penny Arcade Weighs In by Suppafly · 2003-09-08 04:01 · Score: 1

That's exactly what I would have posted had I woke up a few hours earlier. Fucking 3rd shift ruins everything, now I can't even be insightful or informative on /. anymore..
Re:Penny Arcade Weighs In by inkless1 · 2003-09-08 06:28 · Score: 1

Actually - after reading the point by point of the argument, I think PA has taken a pretty shallow, albeit kinda funny, look at this. Some of the comparisons are quite silly, some are just a bit too similar. When you combine it all, there's a case to be made.

Claiming Romeo & Juliet for any story about tragic lovers as "source material" is kinda like saying any action flick uses Rambo as "source material". The reason why R&J stands as a bedrock of "star crossed love" is because it's pretty simple straightforward text.

And yeah, lots of people have done work with vampires. But they almost all do it in stylistically or creatively unique ways. PA suggests White Wolf doesn't have a leg to stand on because The Count from Sesame St. exists - but that just isn't the case.

Sure, any movie about two lovers going against the grain invokes R&J. (spoiler) I think equally any movie about a werewolf and a vampire boinking to create a hybrid invokes Collin's as well.
Re:Penny Arcade Weighs In by jermyjerm · 2003-09-08 10:12 · Score: 1

God forbid you should have to be modded informative or insightful based on your own comments, rather than a link to someone else's opinion.

--
--- "Yeah, I'm a bit stressed out. I have a research paper due tomorrow and it has to be +5, Insightful."

Wait... by ActiveSX · 2003-09-08 01:02 · Score: 0, Offtopic

White Wolf, makers of pen-and-paper RPGs such as Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse, and author Nancy A. Collins...

So you're telling me that White Wolf are the makers of Nancy A. Collins? Impressive...

Smelled that one coming by tony_ratboy · 2003-09-08 01:39 · Score: 1

I hope White Wolf takes a bite out of Sony for this one. When I saw the trailer a few weeks back I knew it stank of Eau de Ripoff.

Would it really have cost Sony that much to flip White Wolf a few bucks for licensing before making Underworld? Think of the PS2 spinoffs... ahh well, I guess it's war from here on in. Sony gets to play the Vampires.

Re:Smelled that one coming by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 08:13 · Score: 0

Actually, there is some sort of agreement with White Wolf and Sony that predates this particular bit of nonsense. Tinney is just an egomaniacal ass.

Oh... by SixArmedJesus · 2003-09-08 02:15 · Score: 1

I have to admit, from the first time I saw the commercial, I thought this was a movie with WhiteWolf's hand in it. I had no clue until now that this was a "clone" and they actually had nothing to do with it... So sad. So sad.

--

*slight crashing sound*

Re: Oh... by slaker · 2003-09-08 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I got this promotional newspaper for "Underworld" when I went to see League of Extraordinary Gentlemen that basically had a lot of backstory in it. Reading it, and being somewhat familiar with White Wolf games, I thought it was based on their product, too. "Oh, they're making up for that awful TV show."

If I and the parent poster can make that mistake, White Wolf's suit probably does have some merit.

OTOH, perhaps the best WW can do is use their current position to cross-promote their games, rather than tie up in litigation what is probably a movie that most WW fans would want to see.

--
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
Re: Oh... by phoenix_rizzen · 2003-09-08 05:01 · Score: 1

Eh, I always figured it to be a cheap rip-off of Blade, only with a female lead who happens to be a full-blooded vamp who wants to kill off all demons. The TV trailers don't mention werewolves at all.

It wasn't until I saw the theatrical trailer that werewolves entered the picture. Then it became nothing more than a horror version of Romeo and Juliet.
Re: Oh... by unclethursday · 2003-09-08 09:16 · Score: 1

If I and the parent poster can make that mistake, White Wolf's suit probably does have some merit.
My brother showed me the trailer on his PC a few months ago, and I thought the female was basically a rip off of Lucita. And the whole setting screamed WoD as well.
I actually forgot to ask about what White Wolf thought of the movie when I was partying with them last week at Dragon*con. Oh well, now I know.
Although I think some of the complaint is a bit much (I wouldn't go so far as to claim copyright infringment in some things), White Wolf definitly has something in a trademark infringmenet suit (when something is used to make people beleive it is something else popular/branded).
Thursdae

Can I say me too? by Xenothaulus · 2003-09-08 02:54 · Score: 0, Redundant

I read the article and was going to say, "I thought it was a WW-endorsed movie. But then I began to read the thread and I see everyone else already said it.

The brief by etherlad · 2003-09-08 03:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's the PDF. I urge people to read it befor emaking snap judgments. WW doesn't claim they invented vampires, for example.

As it was explained to me by someone who knows, it's not the individual similarities, it's the total. If there are 10 similarities, it doesn't matter that 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 can all be found elsewhere, it's the fact that they're all found together which contributes (in this case) to the unique product identity which is the World of Darkness. So vampires have super-strength in both the WoD and Underworld: who cares? What matters is that, in addition to all the other similarites, makes it much much more likely that Underworld is ripping off WW. And if they don't mention everything in the brief, they pretty much can't even talk about it later.

So White Wolf is suing because there are a total of 61 points they've identified. That's a lot, no matter how you look at it.

For the hell of it, here they are:

1. In the World of Darkness, vampires have the ability to disappear from view. In

Underworld, vampires repeatedly vanish from view.

2. In the World of Darkness, some vampires are capable of amazing speed. In Underworld, some vampires move with amazing speed.

3. In the World of Darkness, vampires "have the strength of ten men." In Underworld, vampries "have the strength of ten men."

4. In the World of Darkness, vampires are divided by age distinctions, and older vampires are more powerful and able to rule over younger vampires. In Underworld, vampires are divided by age distinctions, and older vampires are more powerful and are able to rule over younger vampires.

5. In the World of Darkness, the more ancient and powerful vampires are referred to as Elders. In Underworld, the more ancient and powerful vampires are referred to as Elders.

6. In the World of Darkness, vampires, especially Elders, are able to go into a state where they do not rise as normal, but stay alive i nan extended sleep or hibernation. In Underworld, The Elders are in a hibernation state where they do not rise as normal, but stay alive in an extended sleep.

7. In the World of Darkness, vampires in extended sleep lose blood and become more withered and mummified, and return to normal as they feed. In Underworld, Victor (a vampire Elder) awakens from an extended sleep appearing withered and mummified, and returns to normal the more he feeds on blood.

8. In the World of Darkness, a vampire in hibernation remains that way until a vampire provides them with blood. In Underworld, Selene (the main character) rouses Viktor from hibernation using her own blood, just as another Elder (Amelia) was supposed to do.

9. In the World of Darkness, even when in hibernation or when recently roused, elder vampires command a great deal of power and control. In Underworld, Victor, the Elder vampire, "radiates absolute power and control" even when recently roused.

10. In the World of Darkness, vampires are described as "alien." In Underworld, vampires are described as "alien."

11. In the World of Darkness, some vampire groups ("Sabbat") refer to themselves as Covens, and divide into Old World and New World Covens. In Underworld, the vampries divide into Old World and New World Covens.

12. In the World of Darkness, many North African or Middle Eastern vampires belong to a clan of assassins and warriors (called "Assamites"). In the Underworld movie trailer, Kahn, the leader of the Death Dealers, a group of assassins and warriors, appears to be of Northern African or Middle Eastern descent.

13. In the World of Darkness, vampires sometimes call each other "Vee," short for vampire. In Underworld, there is a vampire character named Vee.

14. In the World of Darkness, vampires are organized into Bloodlines. In Underw

--
Soylens viridis homines es

Re:The brief by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 04:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was going to seperate those into stupid and good arguments, but after doing all that work, and because it was so long, I'm not gonna post it.

Instead, I'll just say that starting from around 38 on, the similartiies are very convincing that this was ripped off.

But they did include a lot of crap early on which wasn't very convincing at all. But when you look at the convincing stuff at the end, the stuff at the beginning only adds to it. It looks like they have a very strong case.

And I really wanted to rule against them. If they could convince me, I think they will convince the judge.
Re:The brief by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-08 04:55 · Score: 2, Informative

I would say that #35 was the first one that really caught me off guard.

Still, it also reminded me that I have to go back and re-read my Necroscope books, because I don't remember if Lumley's vampires/werewolves cast reflections or not (and if they didn't, whether it was a physical property or simply something they manifested in the minds of humans).

Oh well, just a good reason to get off my ass and find the last couple of books I don't have in the series and read the one or two I haven't read yet that are on my shelf.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:The brief by dswensen · 2003-09-08 05:44 · Score: 1

I'd be interested in seeing the same point-by-point comparison made between World of Darkness and the Anne Rice novels. I'd bet American money the list would be just about as long, if not longer. (Minus the werewolves, of course.) I can see several direct parallels just glancing at the list.

But White Wolf has conveniently forgotten their own role as rip-off artists. They've become so delusional they think they cut the entire vampire mythos from whole cloth. I never had much respect for White Wolf in the first place, but this move is truly pathetic.

Yes, Underworld is undoubtedly heavily inspired by World of Darkness, but if that's a sin, then White Wolf is equally guilty of it.
Re:The brief by clambake · 2003-09-08 07:56 · Score: 1

3. In the World of Darkness, vampires "have the strength of ten men." In Underworld, vampries "have the strength of ten men."

In my world they have the strength of ten go-rillas!

Seriously, though, how, exactly, is this not stolen directly from Anne Rice?
Re:The brief by Kibo · 2003-09-08 08:08 · Score: 1

Yeah not really. The Real Ghostbusters episode "No One Comes To Lupusville" will answer many of those "points". (need real player) Seems like White Wolf's stuff is just as derivative as anything that comes out of hollywood.

--
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Re:The brief by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 08:38 · Score: 0

Looks like I'm going to have to make some changes to that fan film i've been working on. Let's see what I'd need to do just to make sure all of my legal bases where covered.

Some edits will be in order to make the vampires always brightly visible (dont want them disapearing on us), slow and lethargic weaklings, who never live past 30.

What else, oh yes, they never sleep, and there more skanky than sexy.

They organize themselves as an anarcho-syndicalist commune (Taking turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major...)

They'd also would need a sunlight to live and cast reflections only on odd tuesdays.

I just hope these changes are enough to protect me from White Wolf - but now who would want to watch.
Re:The brief by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 10:18 · Score: 0

Some of those are just plain silly...

"17. In the World of Darkness, the history of the vampires is written in an ancient text. In Underworld, the history of the vampires is written in ancient texts."

Where else would you write ancient history? On 3000 year old laptops?
Re:The brief by loopback_127001 · 2003-09-08 12:37 · Score: 2, Funny

You misspelled "Bram Stoker", genius.
Re:The brief by Drathos · 2003-09-08 14:51 · Score: 1

IMHO, most of these claims are BS. I have never even heard of World of Darkness or White Wolf, yet I have heard of most of these (34 of the 44 WoD claims to be specific). They are fairly common parts of the Vampyre/Lycanthrope mythos. And what about claim 36? How is the omission of any claims about/use of wood is the same as it not having an affect?

What are they smoking?

Where can I get some?

--
End of line..
Re:The brief by merigold77 · 2003-09-09 09:48 · Score: 1

A lot of these supposed "similarities" are very misleading. For example, what are they saying the "Death Dealers" are like, the Black Hand or the Assamites? Those are completely different in the World of Darkness, so an organization that can be compared to both is probably not much like either. Is the "New World Coven" the Sabbat or the Camarilla? It's compared to both. Again, not a very convincing argument.

Look at these 2:
27. In the World of Darkness, certain vampires are able to get pregnant. In Underworld, at least one vampire is able to get pregnant.

35. In the World of Darkness, vampires cast reflections. In Underworld, vampires cast reflections.

All right. Let's be real here. Vampires either do or don't cast reflections, and either can or can't get pregnant. In the World of darkness, MOST vampires CANNOT get pregnant, only "Kindred of the East" that I know of which are very infrequent. And MOST vampires cast reflections but the Lasombra do not. So, if the movie had done it the other way (vampires can't get pregnant and don't cast shadows) they still could've put it as points of similarity with just as much right... which is to say none. If you have vampires, you have to pick one of these 2, and whichever you pick, matches something in World of Darkness.

I could make a list equally or more convincing for every TV show and movie that's had vampires and werewolves in it. Cold Hearts? Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for goodness sake, has most of these or other areas it's similar to World of Darkness. Laurell Hamilton's Anita Blake books. The similarities to Nancy Collins' story aren't convincingly more similar than any other two stories based on the "Romeo and Juliet" concept. The "deathlike sleep" comes from Shakespeare, too.

And some are so vague that you wonder what else they could do. "Multiple types of vampires interact under a single leader." Vampires are, when not solo, almost always portrayed as having a leader. It did not sound like there were *kinds* of vampires in the same way WW has clans. In fact you can tell they leave that out. Vampires living in mansions? Dracula... please... Vampires seeking beauty, that's kind of the Anne Rice territory now. The "Embrace" too. It shows common sources.

It's too bad, because this kind of movie, if it's really good, would be a boost/advertising and get people into the genre so they'd want to buy more White Wolf products, if anything.

Nancy Collins was writing vampire novels before she wrote World of Darkness stories, too.

--
Writing is the only socially acceptable form of schizophrenia. (E. L. Doctorow)
Re:The brief by serialdj · 2003-09-11 07:44 · Score: 1

I'm reading your post, and I can't help but wonder about something.
It would seem that Blade, and its Sequel have many of the same similarities to the WoD that Underworld has, question remains why WW didn't attempt to get a piece of that movie when it was released?

Anecdotally speaking by Jahf · 2003-09-08 03:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

I didn't know a thing about the lawsuit, who made the movie, or anything else about it when I saw the trailer.

Both times I saw the trailer this weekend I thought to myself "interesting, maybe someone finally made a Storyteller movie".

It most definitely has a strong resemblance in the trailer. Enough that WW fans will immediately associate the two. If the trailer is an accurate portrayal of the movie, then I can see a lawsuit having teeth.

While the Storyteller stuff is "just" an interpretation of myths and legends that have been around for centuries (or more), it is a very specific interpretation of them.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.

Hrmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 03:55 · Score: 0

Seems to me that this is a bunch of similarities that could be drawn with most vampire movies. Also, White Wolf has already announced the end to all their World of Darkness games. See: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/27/ 0613213&mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=20 9.

whoop de do. by iainl · 2003-09-08 05:09 · Score: 1

"18. In the World of Darkness, the history of the vampires is written in an ancient text. In Underworld, the history of the vampires is written in ancient texts."

"30. In the World of Darkness, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves. In Underworld, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves

31. In the World of Darkness, the background setting is very dark, described as gothic/punk. In Underworld, the background setting is very dark, with a combination of gothic and punk attire, settings, and people.
"
etc. etc.

Wesley Snipes, please come to the White courtesy phone. White Wolf want a can of Whoop-ass, face first.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

Re:whoop de do. by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-08 06:47 · Score: 1

Wesley Snipes, please come to the White courtesy phone. White Wolf want a can of Whoop-ass, face first.

Just call in Marvel Comics, which is where Blade came from in the first place.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:whoop de do. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 07:18 · Score: 0

Yeah, but a bunch of fatasses from Marvel can't kick ass like Wesley.
Re:whoop de do. by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-09-08 07:36 · Score: 1

Yeah, but they can probably afford better lawyers ;p

Or they can just call in the X-Men or something...

or maybe have an X-Men, Punisher, Blade, Ghost Rider, wtf else crossover series to kick ass on WW and Sony.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:whoop de do. by SuiteSisterMary · 2003-09-09 12:28 · Score: 1

The first time I saw Blade, I thought the same thing, but there are important differences.

The first, of course, is Blade being a rather interesting take-off of a dhampir.

The Houses of Blade aren't anything like the Clans of V:tM, which are closer to 'species of vampires' than anything else.

Blade uses silver and magnesium, which aren't more or less deadly than anything else sharp, or fire.

The vampires in Blade don't seem all that concerned with hiding themselves from mortal eyes.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:whoop de do. by iainl · 2003-09-10 01:07 · Score: 1

"The vampires in Blade don't seem all that concerned with hiding themselves from mortal eyes."

Well, yes and no. A major plot element of Blade is the struggle between the elder vampires, who want to maintain the secrecy of vampires, and the new guys led by Frost who would rather take over the world than hide from it.

At the end of the day, though, Blade (the comic) was written long before VtM.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

And in other news... by iainl · 2003-09-08 05:12 · Score: 2, Funny

New Line point out that they own the rights to Blade, and White Wolf ought to get to the back of the damn queue.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

That would all make sense if...... by Nagatzhul · 2003-09-08 06:13 · Score: 1

you only found this stuff in the World of Darkness. However, that is not the case. All of this stuff can be found in other works of fiction as well as in ancient myths and legends. Not to mention what was stolen from other folks who did piece work for them.

None of the points mentioned here are original to WoD and can be found else where. The only that that White Wolf has done is gathered all of them in one place. For example; ancient vampires being mummified as they waken and recovering from drinking blood. That was in Bram Stoker's Dracula, both his work and the movie.

--
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant

Re:That would all make sense if...... by Matchu · 2003-09-08 06:29 · Score: 1

If this actually goes to court, it'll get thrown out. What White Wolf wanted from this was publicity, and it's comparatively cheap to throw this together and ride the coattails of Sony's PR machine. Most likely it'll be settled in a bit for an undisclosed amount (read: pittance).
Re:That would all make sense if...... by etherlad · 2003-09-08 06:44 · Score: 1

None of the points mentioned here are original to WoD and can be found else where. The only that that White Wolf has done is gathered all of them in one place.

Not to sound pithy, but did you even read my post?

That is exactly the point. It doesn't matter if every single element can be found elsewhere. Having all of them together makes the World of Darkness what it is. It's okay to make a vampire movie. It's okay to make a werewolf movie.

What WW is illustrating is that there are too many similarities between Underworld and their own work for it to be anything other than an intentional rip-off. 10 points, I could see. 20 points, maybe. 60 points is stretching it pretty far.

Yes, White Wolf has put them all in one place. That's what makes their property theirs. The collection of elements makes it unique. Underworld has the same collection of elements, and that's what makes it allegedly an infrigement.

--
Soylens viridis homines es
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Nagatzhul · 2003-09-08 07:18 · Score: 1

I did read all of your post. My point is that just because they have used myths and legends in their work, does not make it theirs. What they have that is their original work (which is not all the much really) is what they can protect and keep people from using. They don't have the right to put a lock on "intellectual property" that they have copied from other sources.

--
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Danse · 2003-09-08 07:26 · Score: 1

It seems to me that the case for directly riping off of the book, Love of Monsters, is stronger than the more general accusation of ripping of their "world". Reading the points towards the end, it becomes pretty apparent that they practically copied the storyline from the book. Not that it's an exceptionally inventive storyline or anything, but somebody else did it first.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Nagatzhul · 2003-09-08 07:34 · Score: 1

Except that there was nothing in Love of Monsters that as original. I kept feeling like I was rereading the same material from other sources. The only thing that is different is that Sony managed to make a movie first and make it visual to the audience first. That gives them all kinds of merchandizing tie-ins that White Wolf wants. That is something that White Wolf has tried to get financing for, for the longest time without success because of the failed TV show (gratis, it failed because of the death of the main actor).

--
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Daetrin · 2003-09-08 07:43 · Score: 1

That would all make sense if you only found this stuff in the World of Darkness. However, that is not the case. All of this stuff can be found in other works of fiction as well as in ancient myths and legends. Not to mention what was stolen from other folks who did piece work for them.
If it was only the earlier points, I might grant you that. However when you get down to the later points where they're ripping off pretty much the entire story from the novel it's a lot harder to make that case.
If Sony had just the basic similarities but an entirely different story, White Wolf would have a much harder case, although the use of the exact same word in many cases ("Abomination" particularly stands out) would still give them some leverage.
Likewise, if story was the same but a lot of the world settings were different again White Wolf would have a tougher case. However when both the specific story line elements and the generalized world elements are so similar, one really has to start questioning exactly what Sony was up to.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Nagatzhul · 2003-09-08 09:17 · Score: 1

White Wolf swallowed a lot of material in creating the World of Darkness. You literally can't use any vampire or shapeshifter legend from any culture because they have included it as a clan or a tribe. And they basically swallowed the whole world as well. You can't use a locality that is real, without that treading on an area that WW has also used. You could create a fictional area though. But what if you want to use real localities? Like Underground Seattle, for example?

--
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Bytenik · 2003-09-08 10:35 · Score: 1

WW is suing for copyright infringement. You cannot copyright storylines. You cannot copyright concepts or single words such as abomination. The combination of a bunch of similarities is not copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is word-for-word copying of exact text or note-for-note copying of music, etc.

Copying a bunch of ideas is not copyright infringement.

It may be disappointing that Sony chose to so closely mirror WoD, but I don't think any case for copyright infringement can be made unless Underworld actually contains directly identical dialogue or imagery.

--

"Scientists prove we were never here."
-- Devo
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Daetrin · 2003-09-08 12:16 · Score: 1

You're not paying atention to the overall argument. If Sony made a movie about vampires that fit one of the clans in V:tM, White Wolf would have a hard time with the lawsuit, because as you say, most of the clans align with one of the historicaly portrayed kinds of vampire. Sony would just say there were basing it off of the earlier legends, and even if they had done all their research in White Wolf books White Wolf would have an almost impossibly hard time proving it.
However when Sony has a setting that is very similar to WW's gothic-punk world AND two or three bloodlines of vampires which are similar to bloodlines in WW's world, AND they use the same terminology in many of the cases (such as Abomination and coven, and i believe bloodline itself) AND they are using an almost identical plot from a WW novel, AND all the other similarities cited above, then WW has a pretty strong case for copyright infringement.
If all you had to do was show that each individual element was used somewhere else no one would ever be able to sue _anyone_ for copyright. I could reprint an exact copy of one of the Harry Potter books but change the names and use a thesaurus every so often to swap words, and by the argument you're making i could say it was legal by pointing out every similarity between my book and the original Harry Potter was also present independently in some other fantasy book.
However in reality each example i showed would most likely share only one or two similarities with Harry Potter, whereas my book would share hundreds or thousands of similarities. Sure, "Harry Potter has wizards and your book has wizards" isn't much of an argument all by itself, but it's one of the many many feathers on the camel's back.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Danse · 2003-09-08 14:39 · Score: 1

Doesn't really matter how original the book was, if the movie directly rips it off as badly as WW is claiming, then it's infringement. The last 20 or so points they list are pretty strong. If you know of any other vampire vs. werewolf source material that hasn't been mentioned, then that might be helpful too.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:That would all make sense if...... by erroneous · 2003-09-09 00:58 · Score: 1

That would make sense if.... you only found these notes in *this* piece of music.

However, seeing as all these notes are used in other pieces of music they have no case.

It's not just the constituent parts that matter in a copyright case but how they are put together. In the case of Underworld it is a clear and direct rip-off of World of Darkness - it is literally only the names that have changed.

WoD is itself clearly distinct from other interpretations of the vampire myth when taken *as a whole*. Blade is different, Dracula 2000 is different, Anne Rice is different, Bram Stoker is different, Underworld is identical.

--
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Nagatzhul · 2003-09-09 05:20 · Score: 1

Musical notes are a system where by music is created. Everybody uses them to create source material. If they just threw them together, they would create garbage. Since White Wolf and Sony both drew from the same source material and neither changed it much, it makes sense that the result they created was exactly similar.

If I had stated that they both used English, so their results were the same, then your music analogy would hold water. I am saying they both used Rock & Roll (a style of music) and Sting (an artist with a particular style) as their source, thus their respective pieces of music came out sounding pretty darn close to each other.

--
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Nyarly · 2003-09-09 09:01 · Score: 1

Copyright infringement is word-for-word copying of exact text or note-for-note copying of music, etc.
Not so. While the reverse is true, copyright also covers (amongst other things) the production of derivative works. The question of "what's derivative?" is perfectly valid, and any valid defense of Underworld hinges on the argument that it isn't a derivation of the World of Darkness property. Either crucial elements of Underworld were developed in ignorance of the White Wolf World of Darkness (ideally, by predating them), or whatever similarities do exist are different enough to be considered Fair Use inspiration rather than infringing derivation.
Now, obviously, IANAL, but I have and have had cause to be very interested in copyright, and the time to investigate.

--
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Bytenik · 2003-09-09 09:32 · Score: 1

Not so. While the reverse is true, copyright also covers (amongst other things) the production of derivative works.

True, I went a bit far there. Direct copying is not the only form of copyright infringement.

As you suggest, the question of "what's derivative" is valid. However, if this case sets the precedent that you can't take a story concept, change the names, change the dialogue, change the imagery, etc., then I think we are going to see a hell of a lot of new copyright infringement cases.

The fallout in the romance novel industry alone would be devestating!

--

"Scientists prove we were never here."
-- Devo
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 06:08 · Score: 0

Yah, good thing I saw all those proofs, because I never heard of a vampire being kiled by sunlight before.
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 06:10 · Score: 0

Wqaoh, useo f the word abomination, hot damn. And sunlight kills vampires according to this book. WOAH!
The originality is killing me.
Re:That would all make sense if...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 06:14 · Score: 0

Woah, whitewolf owns the words coven and bloodline now?

The only thing..... by Nagatzhul · 2003-09-08 06:28 · Score: 1

that White Wolf has to stand on it the World of Darkness itself. Unless Underworld actually says that phrase, WW doesn't have a case. Everything else can be found in other cultures and books where THEY took it from.

--
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant

Looks bad by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-09-08 06:37 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, last time I saw the trailer, the movie looked horrible. In fact, I can remember telling my friend that "this looks like a bad ripoff of the WoD, its too bad Whitewolf never got off their ass and made a proper WoD movie." So Whitewolf, how bout you get the money from this, and then make your own movie which you own the rights to. Personally, I think it could be a lot cooler than just vampire vs werewolf. Fans of the WoD will recall that there are many denizens there, including mages, changelings, wraiths, etc. And additionally, I'd love to see werewolves portrayed as the good protectors of the earth.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:Looks bad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 08:17 · Score: 0

Most likely because White Wolf is pathetic and couldn't make a movie to save their souls.

Words to live by... by Snowmit · 2003-09-08 06:38 · Score: 1

If I still had access to my friend's White Wolf books, I would be able to confirm this, but I SWEAR TO GOD that one of the Vampire books had a quotation that read "Creativity is not acknowledging your sources."

--
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects

George Lucas syndrome! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-08 06:38 · Score: 0

Reminds me of when George Lucas sued the makers of Battlestar Galactica, saying that he'd copyrighted (among other things) space battles between small fighters and capital ships, and also the relationship between an old serious warrior and a young upstart.

That's what i said... by Daetrin · 2003-09-08 07:25 · Score: 1

when describing the movie to my friends, and it's been described the same way by my coworkers. "Have you seen the new Underworld trailer? It's like a White Wolf movie!" The fact that it is so much like the White Wolf universe has gotten a lot of people (including me) excited about it. I want to go see it because of the similarities. I hadn't stoped to think about the legal repurcusions until now.

I have no idea if it was intentional or not, but Sony is clearly benefiting from the similarities between the Masquerade/Apocalypse worlds and their own.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:That's what i said... by inkless1 · 2003-09-08 09:33 · Score: 1

That's kinda the point. Sony is allegedly profiting from White Wolf's design. Also, WW almost has to sue them if they ever want to make a movie on their own, or face getting sued by Sony over the same thing. Isn't copyright fun?
Re:That's what i said... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 06:18 · Score: 0

By the same token white wolf is copying from everyone else anyway, so they dont have a lot of room to stand.

Sounds about right by Siniset · 2003-09-08 07:37 · Score: 1

I remember seeing some trailers for the movie, and thinking, "oh cool, they're making a Hunter: The Gathering movie. This should be fun."

I haven't seen the movie, but I think that Sony screwed up with this one.

Re:Sounds about right by Kyrthira · 2003-09-08 12:06 · Score: 1

Actually, it's Hunter: the Reckoning and Magic: the Gathering. One's a WW game about Hunters in the World of Darkness, the other's a card game/money hole ;)

--
~Kyrthira Phelan~
Re:Sounds about right by mabhatter654 · 2003-09-08 18:19 · Score: 1

I'm sure it was intentional..gamers are actually WORSE that /. for game brand particulars!
Actually, a Magic:TG movie would do really well after LOTR. They completed the Urza storyline a year-or-so ago, and it would be really cool to see on the big screen...but it would have to be done right.

I can't believe... by j450n · 2003-09-08 18:12 · Score: 1

... they didn't even include a "***SPOILERS!***" tag in the legal briefing. Now I know what happens in the movie. Thanks WW!

On what basis? by StaffordBeerIsMyHero · 2003-09-08 23:46 · Score: 1

What are they suing for?

Is it copyright infringement? No, because there is no copyright in conceptual material like "vampires can disappear".

Is it "passing off"? No, because there is no claim that this is the same material.

Is it trademark infraction? No, because no trademarks are being misused.

What law exactly are Sony breaking?

Re:On what basis? by StaffordBeerIsMyHero · 2003-09-08 23:48 · Score: 1

My bad, they do claim copyright infringment.
They don't stand a chance of winning, because no copyright has been broken. They are not copying the text of the books. This lawsuit is frivolous.
Re:On what basis? by inkless1 · 2003-09-09 00:49 · Score: 1

Let's try this from the top. Let's say you write a story about vampires. Can Anne Rice sue you? No. Nobody owns a copyright on vampires, or the sun, etc. Now let's say you write a story where vampires have long bloodlines and family fueds, etc. Can Anne sue you now? Probably not - because you haven't done anything specific that's unique in her books.

If you start writing about an interviewer talking to a vampire of a long family ... now you might start having problems.

JK Rowlings had a similar lawsuit against a Harry Potter ripoff recently and I'm pretty certain won handedly. Does anyone own a copyright on wizards? No. It's all about the details, and WW putting vampires disappearing isn't saying they own that idea, it's just listing details that make up a bigger picture.

If the similarities are strong enough, it doesn't even matter if Sony did this intentionally.
Re:On what basis? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-09 08:19 · Score: 0

None, Tinney has an ego that will not allow him to let anyone else do something that he deems is his, regardless of if it is. This is much akin to the SCO and IBM mess right now. He claims lots of things because he wants to. He's just a child going through a temper-tantrum right now. He lets other people do work and then steals it from them by using the legal system. Tada.. Now you know what white wolf is all about.

Here's hoping Sony kicks his has into the unemployment line.
Re:On what basis? by StaffordBeerIsMyHero · 2003-09-18 23:36 · Score: 1

Based on what? Copyright applies to specific words on a page, not the ideas behind those words. Ever hear of the Munsters? Ever wondered why the producers didn't get sued into oblivion by the producers of the Addams Family? Because there is no case in copyright law. There is no room for manouver here.
I don't know about this Harry Potter case, but there is different unrelated law concerning "passing off" - e.g. calling your trainers Hikes or Reebox, or calling your book Henry Potter. Nothing to do with copyright.

counter suit by bloodgroove · 2003-09-10 15:08 · Score: 1

The movie studio should buy out The howling series, lost boys, american werewolf, and whatever they get their hands on and do a counter suit.

can't get the book anymore by Khopesh · 2003-09-12 00:43 · Score: 1

Love of Monsters, by Nancy A. Collins, 1994.
NOT mentioned on amazon or in white wolf's own catalog.
it did exist, as you can find it on google.

perhaps the book was completely inaccessible
and the only thing ripped off was World of Darkness?

--
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.

130 comments