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.
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..
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?
No. It's the Daniel Radcliffe drama they are suing over.
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.
Yep, so far all they have done is to quite successfully promote the documentary. I had not heard about it till now.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Maybe that's Rockstar's plan:
1. Promote the documentary with the lawsuit.
2. See the documentary make lots of money.
3. Win the lawsuit and take all the money.
4. Pay the lawyers.
5. Profit?
OK, maybe this is the lawyers' plan.
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)
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.
Depends... TakeTwo may have trademarks registered in the UK.
Thing is, if the film were an actual documentary instead of a dramatic play, one could easily claim "because journalism!" and then tell TakeTwo's lawyers to go pound sand.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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
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
I don't know a lot of Biography's have been written without talking to the subject, Maybe the BBC wants the truth and not the spin that Rock Star will give them. Remember Rock Star was behind a lot of the bad press they got, it was mostly marketing, and oh boy did it work.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.