Slashdot Mirror
Take Two Sues BBC Over Drama About GTA Development
An anonymous reader writes: Take Two Interactive, the parent company of Rockstar Games, is suing the BBC for trademark infringement over its planned "making of GTA" drama, Game Changers. The 90-minute movie was created without the involvement of the studio, which rarely comments on the GTA series' development outside of organised press events. (It is expected that it will draw upon the public conflict between Sam Houser and notorious anti-gaming crank Jack Thompson, via the expose "Jacked" by David Kushner.) After direct negotiations with the BBC failed, Take Two brought suit to "ensure that [their] trademarks are not misused." The details of the suit, Rockstar's objections, and the penalties sought, are not yet known.
Take Two brought suit to "ensure that [their] trademarks are not misused."
= Take Two intend to misuse trademark laws to control discussion and criticism of their product.
They're allowing the filming of a movie about Rockstar with Daniel Radcliffe playing Sam Houser and they want to stop a documentary that's probably going to be a bit more honest? Good luck with that.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
You guys sure are trigger happy when it comes to suing people to try and shut them up. This will be seen as fair use, you can't just take all the good publicity and try to censor the bad. What a waste of money.
In a nutshell, what they're saying is:
"If we can't control your editorial content in reporting about or dramatizing our behavior, we're going to sue you in an attempt to make it not worth your while to report on or dramatize our behavior"
Fuck them. I hope the BBC has the backbone to stick up to this sort of corporate bullying. If the show isn't flattering to Take Two, they can suck it up like anyone else.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Just announced, BBC are planning another new project: it's a drama centered around the time when Take Two Interactive sued the BBC for creating a "making of GTA" documentary called 'Game Changers' ...
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
From TFA: "The 90 minute feature will focus on the real life conflict between Rockstar President Sam Houser and the US lawyer ... Jack Thompson."
Surely they mean the disbarred lawyer. He can't practice no mo'. While I agree he still has his JD even if he isn't allowed to use it at all, lawyer usually refers to someone who can actually practice law. It's not a title like say "doctor" is. While plenty of people go around calling themselves Dr. so and so, I don't remember anyone introducing himself as Laywer so and so. It's usually So and so, esquire...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Do a bit on the hypocrisy of most of GTA's critics who went apoplectic over the possibility of violence against women versus the mandatory violence (in myriad forms) against men.
(Sorta like how the reaction to what Ramsay Bolton did to Theon Greyjoy just made him a "bad, bad man" but coercing Sansa Stark into consummating their marriage made him Worse Than Hitler)
They got Harry Potter to play Dan Houser? I would have gone with Sebastian Janakowski myself.
Since trademarks don't apply outside the market the trademark is for, and RS and the BBC operate different markets.
Since trademarks don't apply to use of the mark to denote the product.
Since comment is fair use, and documentaries are commentaries.
Since trademarks are to stop people confusing products that "are similar" and nobody will mistake a BBC documentary for an interactive computer game.
Then this is absolutely not trademark infringement.
What the fuck do rockstar think they're fucking doing?
Since trademarks don't apply outside the market the trademark is for
Unless the mark is "famous". Then a separate cause of action called "trademark dilution" comes into play.
Since trademarks don't apply to use of the mark to denote the product.
This is what U.S. trademark case law calls "nominative fair use". But the applicability of this defense varies from country to country. In Germany, for example, I've read that comparative advertising is prohibited. The BBC operates in Great Britain; does it recognize nominative fair use?
Since trademarks are to stop people confusing products that "are similar" and nobody will mistake a BBC documentary for an interactive computer game.
The confusion would be between a computer game and an authorized film adaptation of said game.
Isn't the BBC funded by the UK government as public TV? Sounds like lose, lose, lose and possibly lose for Take Two. Of course their lawyers, you know the ones that sent the letter, might make a bit of change out of it.
to avoid being sued again, they'll skip from Take One to Take Three!
ahaha...... that's why I posted as Anonymous
Between the First Amendment protection for comment/criticism, nominative fair use (how do you do a movie about Take Two without saying "Take Two"?), and zero likelihood of confusion, I don't see how this case has any legs.
See also Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros (LV's suit over bag scene in Hangover 2 dismissed). This is a good resource generally, though it deals mainly with advertising.
Slap a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie and call it a day. If they want to be extra safe, give it the subtitle "The Unauthorized Take Two Story" or something like that.
Nothing posted to
I thought this was about something else.
Have people suddenly forgot how much the media, including the BBC, has maligned the whole GTA series?
"GTA will make kids violent", "GTA is a crime simulator", "GTA is responsible for school shootings", and most recently "GTA promotes violence against women". The BBC has played host to a wide array of nonsense claims and dubious "experts". And now the BBC is making a drama (not a documentary) giving disbarred and disgraced lawyer Jack Thompson just a little bit more airtime to further insult the company and their customers. Is it really such a surprise that they company doesn't want it's flagship product to be the target of yet another hit piece?
Take Two's claim against the BBC is obviously bullshit, but it's a little rich for BBC to come crying now that they are getting a taste of their own medicine.
What if it's a smear job on Take Two? At taxpayer expense?
1. This isn't at taxpayer expense. It is at television owners' expense. Only people with televisions have to pay the television license that funds the BBC, not all taxpayers. To conflate the two is disingenuous.
2. So what if it is inaccurate or a smear job. That is part of having a free press: the right to get it wrong (and if you do, be eviscerated and/or humiliated by everyone else). The BBC has a very good record and deservedly good reputation, because despite the occasional imperfection, by and large their reporting and documentaries are first rate.
This lawsuit is an attempt to undermine the free press and apply inappropriate pressure to the editorial process, and frankly, Rockstar and Take Two deserve a severe smackdown for trying to do so, irrespective of the program's content.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Yeayea, I see people complaining about how rockstar and take 2 are trying to control the press.. But if you go look at the source, you see the BBC is making this drama without talking to take2/rockstar at all.
Really, if you are going to make a documentary drama about the making of grand theft auto, SHOULDN'T you actually talk to the people that made it? Where are they getting their information? Taking some comments from the president of rockstar, and jack thompson and spinning it out into an entire 90 min docu-drama?
I'm all for freedom of the press, really. I just don't see how you can have a making of 'documentary' without talking to the people who MADE THE GAME.
from the statement from TakeTwo
""While holders of the trademarks referenced in the film title and its promotion, Rockstar Games has had no involvement with this project. Our goal is to ensure that our trademarks are not misused in the BBC's pursuit of an unofficial depiction of purported events related to Rockstar Games."
I mean, how many sports teams would be happy about a documentary about winning season where they won all their games, but didn't talk to anybody from the team, or connected to it?
Big reason no to pickup the game GTA V, they ban people for using mods even in single player mode.
Time to go pirate some GTA games.
FC Closer
BBC have a bad attitude thinking that they are untouchable with a holier than thou perspective. They encroach on anyone and anywhere. They are banned some countries because of this. It's not only that. They try to compare some mythical 'pseudo-victorian' ethic, claiming that if it doesn't fit their world view then there is something wrong with it, sensationalizing these made up issues and forcing their own political correctness upon the hapless audience.
This GTA thingy is typical of their arrogance and I for one have a warm, glowing feeling about this action.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
From what I have read and herd take two is the absolute norm for a horrible game studio that exploits the crap out of its employees first to buy fancy cars for the founders and then when they get pushed aside by the MBAs to buy fancy cars for them.
At what point will someone set up a game company that is a true workers cooperative where there are no Ferrari driving founders. Just lexus driving everyones?
It isn't hard to find the actual answers to this. You just need to go look at the TV licensing web site*.
In summary:
You** need a license if you watch or record TV as it's broadcast, irrespective of the medium by which it's delivered.
So basically:
1) You do NOT need a license simply because you possess a TV - if, say, you simply play games on it, or only use it to watch commercial DVDs.
(However, it IS the case that the default assumption is that, if you have a TV, you will use it to watch broadcast TV. And if you buy one, your details are - or certainly used to be - passed on to the licensing authorities, who will chase you up if they have no record of you having a license. Just drop them a polite reply confirming its limited use. Worked fine for my daughter and her partner.)
2) You DO need a license to watch streamed TV as it's broadcast, however you watch it - even on a tablet, PC or other non-TV device.
(If you attempt to use, say, the BBC iPlayer to watch TV as it's aired, the first time you try to do so, you will almost certainly be prompted to click a button to confirm that you have a license.)
3) You need a license to record TV as it's broadcast, even if you don't watch it at the time (or, indeed, ever!).
* It was, maybe 10 years ago, the case that the wording on the TV license itself was changed by the licensing authority to purport to claim a degree of requirement that, to the best of my knowledge, it hadn't been given in law. I have no idea whether that was ever challenged - but the law has since been changed to cover changes to technology, so that's no longer the case. And, by the way, it is not merely a civil but, currently, a criminal offence to not possess a license if you ought to have one (the incoming government has proposed changing that, but even if it happens, that's for the future).
**Well - not necessarily you precisely. But SOMEONE needs a license that covers your actions. Again, check the site.