Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Games Are "Expressive Works"
There has been an ongoing legal battle over the past few years about how and when game makers can use the likenesses of football players without their permission. Former college football player Samuel Keller filed a class action suit in May against Electronic Arts for the publisher's use of NCAA players' information — including things like jersey number, height, weight, skin tone and hair style, but not names — to recreate actual teams within sports games. An earlier suit filed by NFL Hall-of-Famer Jim Brown brought up the fact that video games weren't even a consideration when contracts and licensing rights were negotiated in the '50s and '60s, yet many football players from that era (including Brown) are represented in the occasional sports game whether they like it or not. A ruling came down from a district court judge last Wednesday stating that video games are "expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment," and are thus protected under the First Amendment. Brown and fellow Hall-of-Famer Herb Adderley are now seeking to throw their support behind Keller's lawsuit.
Of course they are.
Its sad when we all applaud a judge actually making a good ruling. Shouldn't that simply be the assumed state of all rulings?
Facts and figures cannot be copyrighted. And how can public information be abused? They just want money.
While I don't think an EA football title is the perfect example of artistic expression... it is nice to know that the supreme court is finally giving artists of the digital age their due. There's a reason game design and computer graphics is always filed in a colleges Art's and Sciences program. It's because these fields are the best of both worlds. We might be nerdy but don't forget the art part
This ruling is actually arguing that you don't need any license at all, from anyone, because it's First-Amendment-protected expressive speech.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Ronald Katz, the lawyer representing Adderley and Brown, wrote in a filing Monday that allowing EA Sports to profit from the use of athletes' likenesses without their permission means "EA could use for free the identity of thousands of present and former collegiate and professional athletes, eliminating any legal reasons for EA to continue any licensing, and giving it a windfall worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
So if this stands, anyone else could produce their own sports titles to compete with EA? Sounds good. I suppose EA feels that the end of licensing fees will be more of a boon than any competition they face.
... if a game was created that had the faces and bodies of various judges (this judge in particular) and politicians and played like GTA complete with hookers and drug use I don't think that said figures would care very much about the first amendment. What if a game about hookers was created with a character that looked like the judges wife? Would he care as much then?
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
That would require paying the NCAA?
either that or the NCAA actually has the decency not to pimp out amateurs playing for free tuition.
Someone should tell the NCAA about the Tostito's Fiesta Bowl / the Rose Bowl presented by Citi / or the hundreds of sponsors for March madness. Any argument that the NCAA wants to prevent corporations from making money is proved false by reality. The NCAA simply wants to be the only beneficiary of the tens to hundreds of millions. That's why the player's names aren't on the jerseys, and why their names aren't in the games. If their names were actually mentioned, then the players would have to get some of the money. If it can be claimed they're only selling a team jersey, the colleges and NCAA keep it all. Never mind that the only jerseys that sell are the ones with the past or current stars numbers on them. To the subject at hand, people don't buy sports games to play as a uniform, they also want to play as their favorite players with realistic stats, abilities and looks. Even with the looks, jersey, and stats being accurate, it's usually not enough. The first thing many people do is download a patch with the real names.
In this corner, wearing the blue and yellow trunks, weighing in at 800 pounds, he's pure gorilla madness, we have -- Big Copyright!
And in this corner, wearing the green and pink trunks, weighing in at 800 points, he's the thrilla gorilla, we have -- Big Copyright!
Alright gentleman (and I use that term loosely), I want a dirty fight, with obscure legal references, wildly out of control laws, and frequent appeals to artistic freedom, the rights of the performer, and the advance of the useful arts when you really mean "money." We're also going to expect at least $1 million to go to lawyers on each side, and another $1 million each in extra campaign contributions this year. When you hear the bell ring, come out and start working the groin!
Let's get readyyyyyyyyy to rummmmmmbullllll. (am I going to get sued for typing that?)
Having purchased laws sufficient for them to eat their customers and finding their appetite still unsated, big copyright is now using its own laws against itself. There have been a few stories like this recently. That is so awesome. Mmmmm, mmmm, how does chewing on your own leg taste, buddy? Sure am happy to see that your laws are so strict, and your arrogant contempt has grown so complete, that you have actually started hating yourself. Have fun knuckleheads -- I'll be over here watching user generated content.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If you see a painting and your only reaction is "oh, that's pretty" it's probably NOT art. If it takes your breath away and makes you say "WOW!" it is art.
No, that's the difference between good art and banal art. NOT the difference between art and not-art.
I heard a definition of art the other day that really seemd insightful (I studied art in college).
That's nice. Lots of people have studied art in college, and actually create art, and have a much broader and less elitist view of the definition of art.
Personally, I like Scott McCloud's definition of art: Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the base acts of survival and reproduction is art.
And a friend of mine, who is a professional artist, gets offended when I tell him that definition because in his view, the act of human reproduction is inseparable from art. His definition is even more expansive than McCloud's.
But hey, you studied art in school and thus can tell what is and isn't art based on how good it is. Tell me, by your own definition of art, have you ever created any? And does your answer imply that you are qualified to judge or not?
The enemies of Democracy are