Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dice Age — Indie Gaming Project vs. Hollywood

Posted by Soulskill on from the we-own-all-the-words dept.

ArrowBay writes "Dice Age, a independent game project that raised nearly $35K through Kickstarter, is apparently facing some scrutiny from a certain movie studio that has produced movies with a similar name. From the latest project update: 'As if the Ice Age was exclusively the name of a movie, or if Dice Age was a movie itself, the 20th century fox has just asked for an extent of time (till 10-26-2011) to oppose to the registering of our beloved Dice Age game name. My point of view, as a scientist, is the Ice age is a geological era before it is a movie.""

13 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. Are you surprised? Its Hollywood. by WiiVault · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hollywood has made it their goal to privatize everything from "Seal Team 6"- registered by Disney, to our fairy tales like Snow White. Stealing from the public domain and threatening everybody not in the club is nothing new for them. I have little doubt that the bean counters at Fox known damn well that most courts in the land will back their insane claim, assuming the small developer can even afford to fight the battle.

    1. Re:Are you surprised? Its Hollywood. by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aye. Who needs a court victory when you can just make the cost too much before even getting to the courtroom.

    2. Re:Are you surprised? Its Hollywood. by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Seal Team 6"- registered by Disney

      This was revoked.

    3. Re:Are you surprised? Its Hollywood. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to this it wasn't revoked by some authority for being ridiculous, it was pulled by Disney themselves after widespread public backlash. That won't happen in most cases. Also in the most problematic cases of large hollywood studios stealing the public domain, they won't be going up against the world's best military.

  2. Simple solution! by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just rename it "Dice Edge"!

    Oh... wait, that won't work either.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Simple solution! by milkmage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Langdell got the smackdown in court
      http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30784/Court_Refuses_Preliminary_Injunction_In_Edge_Trademark_Case.php

  3. Don't play along by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why should anyone pay to see a motion picture from a major studio ever again?

    If they're going to have this kind of hostility to society, by claiming all of culture as their own private property, I don't see a single reason why I should respect them in any way.

    I have said before, and believe more strongly all the time, that pirating movies is a political act of civil disobedience against elements of private industry who have attacked us first by stealing our shared culture.

    They can take a story from Aesop, turn it into a movie, and then sue anyone who uses the phrase "The Tortoise and the Hare".

    They have declared cultural war against us. I think we should strike back.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Don't play along by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last week we drove to Pennsylvania and spent time with friends, at a wedding. We then spent time with other friends playing mini-golf and chatting. We played a couple flash games and commented about indie game development. Monday we spent time in DC, including visiting the National Cryptologic Museum (and checking into the NSA on Foursquare). Later that night, we swapped books and killed a couple beers while talking about quilting and Roman cuisine. We spent Tuesday wandering through the back hills of West Virginia with friends, out of any cell coverage and quite happy (some of those towns not only don't show up on Wikipedia, they don't even appear on Google other than a Flicker photo by a biker who snapped a photo as he rode through!). Wednesday, my wife and I drove all day to Tennessee (back home), stopping and getting fireworks and otherwise enjoying the trip. I'm about to head out and go play a tabletop roleplaying game.

      I'm enjoying my life quite nicely without seeing movies. We did go and catch Captain America on Saturday night. It was good -- but certainly not the highlight, focus or anywhere near necessary to have had a blast for the last week. I'm pretty sure I and my friends are enjoying culture without the MPAA being involved. Or the TSA, for that matter.

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    2. Re:Don't play along by westlake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why should anyone pay to see a motion picture from a major studio ever again?

      Because the paying customer gets to vote on future productions.

      The paying customer gets The Incredibles, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3 with a $200 million dollar production budgets. The paying customer gets ten years of Harry Potter with impeccable British casting.

      The paying customer gets the theme park and the Broadway production of The Lion King.

      The remake of True Grit.

      He gets The Dark Knight Returns.

      Batman and Batman: The Animated Series. He gets Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill and Heath Ledger as The Joker. Batman: Arkham Asylum as the video and PC game tie-in.

      They can take a story from Aesop, turn it into a movie, and then sue anyone who uses the phrase "The Tortoise and the Hare".

      No they can't --- and the geek knows better.

      What they can do is copyright their unique interpretation of the characters and story, as Disney did in 1935 and Warner Brothers in 1943. The Tortoise and the Hare

      Disney's animated "Cinderella" was released in 1950. The Rogers and Hammerstein musical was produced for television in 1957. Jim Henson's "Hey Cinderella!" with the Muppets in 1969.

  4. Reminds me of Groucho's letter to Warner Bros.. by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...about using Casablanca in the title of their film. Sadly, Snopes says Groucho ws being a bit disingenuous, but still an awesome read.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:Reminds me of Groucho's letter to Warner Bros.. by jasomill · · Score: 3, Informative

      To say he was being "a bit disingenuous" is a bit disingenuous: he himself claimed his goal was to manufacture a controversy to generate publicity for his film; that he did this by "out-lawyering the lawyers" — using bullshit historical and moral claims to preempt bullshit legal claims— is actually quite brilliant. It's not "as if" he wanted Warner Bros. to sue — he actually wanted Warner Bros. to sue, as this would generate even more publicity for the film. Alternatively, he wanted to be left alone to make his movie without legal review of each and every comedic detail to ensure "compliance" with some mythical "good-faith effort to avoid infringing on Warner Bros. rights."

      To wit: his "publicity stunt" is itself carefully-crafted satire. In particular, note how Groucho's letter is a virtual minefield of double entendre, unverifiable half-truths, outright lies, and facts that are "wrong only in detail," carefully crafted to force any conceivable response to read like a parody of itself. And don't think these things weren't intentional, Marx was quite familiar with the things he's speaking of, and with the law. Consider his jab against "confusing and misleading customers": he begins by saying that it's absurd that consumers would mistake someone with a "face only a brother could love" for Ingrid Bergman, and goes on to compare the head of the studio to Jack the Ripper, "who," according to Marx, "cut quite a figure in his day" (emphasis mine).

      Incidentally, those familiar with the Marx Brothers' other work will recognize that Groucho's irreverent attitude towards the "legal establishment" was hardly without well-known precedent, and is generally quite consistent with the tradition of "social ridicule" the Marxes represent.

  5. Re:Baiting the Bear by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Informative

    In a word: no.

    I've seen Ice Age, and a sequel, I think, but when I first read "Dice Age", if it hadn't been in the context about a movie studio claiming to own the name of an epoch, I would not have confused the two in any way. And watching the video on Kickstarter, it's even less confusing.

    Should no one be able to create anything with remotely similar names without expecting this to happen? What about "rice age", "nice age", "spice age"? Or a little further out? "Rice rage"? "Mice Mage"? "Price Gauge"? When do you feel that it ceases to be "obvious that this would happen"?

    Now, if it were a game based on similar characters, or even a the geological epoch with a similar mission theme, I'd say your statement might have some merit. Might. But as it stands, it's ridiculous.

    I was once served with a C&D regarding a trademark I was supposedly infringing on. With the first notice, I explained why there was no TM conflict and provided some documentation regarding the merits of their requests. With the second notice, I re-sent my first response and offered some options of remediations, including offering to sell them the domain in question for what it would cost me to re-brand it and re-establish my new brand. Again, the only response I got was another C&D, and at that point I told them to fuck off or I'd sue them for harassment.

    Amazingly enough, they stopped. A lot of this sort of activity is similar to that of bighorn sheep butting heads in the wild. Show of force, lots of bluster. If it's handled right nobody really gets hurt.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  6. I don't get it by carlzum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Products in different industries with no reasonable claim that it may confuse or mislead consumers. Absolutely no attempt to invoke the film's characters, images, or design. The game's title is not even Ice Age, it's a pun for a common phrase which accurately describes the product.

    This isn't even close to copyright/trademark gray area, like parody, fair use, etc. It's simply intimidation and proves we're speeding down the IP-law slippery slope opponents had feared.