Slashdot Mirror
Manuel Noriega Sues Activision Over Call of Duty
mrspoonsi sends this BBC report:
Manuel Noriega, the former dictator of Panama, is suing Call of Duty's video games publisher. The ex-military ruler is seeking lost profits and damages after a character based on him featured in Activision's 2012 title Black Ops II. The 80-year-old is currently serving a jail sentence in Panama for crimes committed during his time in power, including the murder of critics. One lawyer said this was the latest in a growing trend of such lawsuits. "In the U.S., individuals have what's called the right to publicity, which gives them control over how their person is depicted in commerce including video games," explained Jas Purewal, an interactive entertainment lawyer. "There's also been a very well-known action by a whole series of college athletes against Electronic Arts, and the American band No Doubt took action against Activision over this issue among other cases. "It all focuses upon the American legal ability for an individual to be only depicted with their permission, which in practice means payment of a fee. "But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision."
Send him truckloads of unsold "Panama" single cassettes.
As much as everyone has reason to hate Manuel Noriega, I want to see him win this, including punitive damages. Activision is that bad of a company.
he was still alive.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Manuel Noriega can't even have some nobody VP at Activision eliminated anymore. Back in the 80s he could have had trained assassins at their doorstep within a week.
I read the internet for the articles.
Why is that? Do you think that US laws only protect US citizens? I don't think so, lest it would be legal to rob and murder tourists.
Activision, as US company, committed the act. They are bound by US laws. Therefore the law applies.
Doesn't that same law apply here?
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Here is your settlement, one copy of Black Ops 2.
We did a study and found out that no one has ever heard of you, because no one played single player.
Good thing we didn't include it in multiplayer, or you might have a valid case.
...and clearly they are American. I wonder if they'll settle out of court with a few kilos?
That's always worked in the past with U.S. deal makers...
This is a great ruling. Panamanian companies can release games with characters based on Jennifer Aniston, OJ Simpson, Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh, without legal consequences.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
There's a difference between civil and criminal law.
sig: sauer
Are we? Since when do rights only apply to US citizens? It's the usual assumption by Americans, that without US Citizenship[tm][c][r] you are essentially without rights wherever you are, but do tell where it actually says that in the law.
Activision is an US company acting in the US, so US laws certainly apply to Activition. Since it's Activision that's doing the depicting, it's not unreasonable for anyone they depicted, wherever they are, whichever citizenship they have, to call Activision on having infringed that particular right granted to individuals. Unless the law somehow requires both parties to be in the US and/or have US citizenship. Does it?
He's in prison under Panamanian law. Sure, we helped put him there (and profited from his crimes before that became unfashionable and he became less willing to be controlled) but he's in prison for violating Panamanian law and was put there by the Panamanian judiciary.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
I find it very strange if I wouldn't have the same standing to sue anyone abusing my likeness in a US court for violation of US law in US jurisdiction as anyone else. For example, if you slander me in a US newspaper why shouldn't I have standing to sue you? If those laws didn't apply to literally everyone, any foreigner would be totally without the protection of the law in every country but their own and there's plenty crimes that can be conducted remotely.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If Noriega prevails, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wuld likely owe damanges to the estate of Kim Jong Il, for their unflattering depiction of him in Team America: World Police.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
COD present a pretty accurate portrayal of that monster. So not libel or slander.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Odd, since the US has said that US laws do apply to Noriega, even when the person and crime are not on US soil.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
If I'm Activision, I'm claiming that this is Constitutionally protected political speech. If you're the public figure in charge of a country, I feel you lose the right to control how you're depicted in media.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This has come up before in similar cases and the celebrity loses unless their image is used in a way that misleads consumers by implying endorsement of the product.
For a video game example, see James "Jim" Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc. Also, Tiger Woods' agent sued regard a painting featuring the golfer, and lost, in ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing. Alyssa Milano's mom, Lin Milano, contacted us about her daughter's "right of publicity" 20 years ago and we found we could tell her to take a hike.
Absent defamation, the celebrity's name and image is protected in a way very similar to a trademark. (In common law jurisdictions, almost _exactly_ like a trademark). You can't sell "Britney Spears" brand headphones without permission, because that would imply that the singer endorses the product, misleading consumers. You CAN sell a comic book titled "Britney Spears is a stupid slut" because nobody will think Ms. Spears endorsed that.
Of course there can be other causes of action if someone does something else bad and also happens to be using a celebrity's image as well, but it usually comes down to implied endorsement. Laws do vary from one state to another.
That's why he's not suing under libel or slander, but under the publicity clause.
He doesn't want it removed, or reparations for damage to his reputation, He just wants to be paid for the too accurate representation of him. If EA had just mad it some random jungle military guy, they'd have been fine.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Team up with Lindsey Lohan and collectively sue the entire videogame industry...
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision.
Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.
That's great news! The Beatles never got their US citizenship since they were convicted of drug possessions. Their IP and images are obviously up for grabs, since they were just a bunch of foreigners. What about the Queen of England, she doesn't have a US Passport. Plus, she's so old, her copyright must have expired by now.
But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision.
Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.
That's great news! The Beatles never got their US citizenship since they were convicted of drug possessions. Their IP and images are obviously up for grabs, since they were just a bunch of foreigners. What about the Queen of England, she isn't a US citizen. Am I right? Plus, she's so old, her copyright must have expired by now.
Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.
Odd, since the US has said that US laws do apply to Noriega, even when the person and crime are not on US soil.
Since when has Justice become a bidirectional thing? Justice as practiced today is a pass-through function for the rich and connected to subject others to their judgement.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
So, you think EA should switch the character to depict George Bush?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
He had put his image and likeness out there, not Activision. Videogames often depict reality. But they are videogames, not movies or biographies. Putin belongs in the next Call of Duty.
... but unless the law in question specifically says that it only protects US citizens, then it applies to everyone.
Even then, international treaties may force the issue. Do personality rights fall under copyrights? If so, The Berne Convention would forbid favourable treatment to US citizens over foreigners.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Many of the bill of rights reference "the people" and their rights being protected. If you look to the preamble you can find a clue to the definition of people.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the very least, the people is a US centric term representing those who ordain and form the government of the United States. Therefore "the people" can be construed to mean voters.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork