Okay now I've got a clearer idea about what's going on. At first I thought Love had nothing to do with Kurt's appearance in the game and that she saw this controversy as a way to make a quick buck. Instead it turns out she already sold his soul to Activision and now she's trying to wring more dough out of them because having him sing AFI crosses some kind of line. I don't hold Kurt or Nirvana particularly near and dear, but the hypocrisy and greed at play here really turns my stomach.
Whoa, so I just read an article with a new development in this situation. Apparently, Courtney Love is now blaming Dave Ghrol for what happened and that she wants him "ass raped". This was also via her Twitter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Dave has no control over Cobain's estate, that would mean he could not possibly be the one to blame. Courtney's the one who is charge of that stuff. Dave only has a say in terms of Nirvana's music, no?
Everyone is sooooo upset over Kurt Cobain being misused in GH5, yet everyone conveniently forgets that you can do the same damn thing with Johnny Cash. Who, I might add is infinitely a bigger star and musical influence than Kurt could ever hope to be.
Yet you hear nothing from the Cash estate about suing Activision.
I'm sorry, but this is a load of shit. They used vague language in their agreement with Activision. Apparently, having Kurt perform songs other than his own "denigrates" him? Really? I normally wear black shirts - if someone draws me wearing a white shirt, can I sue them for "denigrating my image"? It sounds like she's butthurt because she didn't define the terms of her agreement properly, and now wants drug money as compensation. Poor her, but maybe she needs better lawyers in the future if the don't do a proper job in specifying how third parties can use Kurt's likeness.
While their may well (and should!) be an anti-denigratioin clause, your claim that his avatar preforming other songs is denigration has a weakness.
"Guitar Hero secured the necessary licensing rights from the Cobain estate in a written agreement signed by Courtney Love to use Kurt Cobain's likeness as a fully playable character in Guitar Hero 5," Activision told Kotaku
If the contract, which NEITHER of us has seen, explicitly allows his use as a fully playable character, then even if it IS defamation Activision is within their legal rights.
As in any legal arrangement, you are responsible for making sure that your understand your rights and must actively protect them. Look at what Harmonix is saying about RB:B and Ms. Ono; she was clearly engaged with the product, and was aware of its nature and contents before its release. Ms. Love could and SHOULD have taken similar steps.
The current situation says either she did not do so, or she did not understand what she was seeing. Both can be placed on her.
Or do we automatically assume that HER lawyer's press releases are false, while those from Activision are not?
If Cobain's likeness were used for Mortal Combat games...His finishing move would be a shotgun and would only work on himself...his opponent would then drown in the mess left.
@jack m: A lot of people love that suicidal junkie's records man. I was a huge Nirvana fan. So yes, your ridiculous sarcastic tone aside, he DOES deserve respect.
@ThisCharmingMan: So none of the other deceased musicians depicted "deserve respect" in the same manner? Why get upset over Cobain but not Cash? Seems to be a bit selective in your misguided anger.
@KW802: Trust me, I'm not playing favorites. The image of Johnny Cash in that game is just as disturbing, and I don't really consider my anger misguided. Or even anger, for that matter. Would you be happy if a virtual replica of yourself appeared doing something you despised? I wouldn't.
I don't even understand why they needed to sign a contract in order to use Cobain's name and likeness. Did Robot Chicken have to get permission for their episode where Zombie Kurt Cobain shoots himself with a shotgun?
@dowingba: It's protected under law, that's how so. That's just the short and sweet of it really. He was right on the money when he said "fair use expcetion." Otherwise things like political cartoons and Robot Chicken would be under constant legal fire. ((Codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works.")) That's not the entireity of it, but enough for you to no longer question it, I would hope.
@dowingba: He went out and explained to you in full detail to remove your misunderstanding of the difference between satire and commercial use and you call him an asshole.
@ryanisjimdandy: Because he was being a fucking asshole.
First of all people, no matter how "obvious" this US law is, some of us don't actually live in the US. I still don't understand why someone like Robot Chicken gets a free ride when the equally unrealistic version of Kurt Cobain in GH5 doesn't.
But I'm not gonna bother checking back for actual answers, as for some reason you people take this as some sort of attack on your God Kurt Cobain or something. It was just a simple question, people. Fucking relax.
@dowingba: I wasn't intentionally being an asshole - one of the problems with the internet is the lack of tone. To be honest I took your "how so" as a bit of douchebaggery rather than an honest question - mea culpa. Regardless it's not parody because it's not making a comment, usually satirical in nature. ((A parody in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation)). Again that's not the end all be all (although it's a fairly decent rule to follow) but GH5 is mostly a creation that uses other works (via licensing) in order to make a profit. The works themselves (characters or otherwise) would remain legally in the hands of the original creator/owner while the only thing GH5 actually owns is the engine/code. The game itself isn't making any sort of commentary etc. Anyways I hope this clarifies the real issue at hand and question.
@Izod517: In addendum there's a lot in parody law/protection that requires a new 'work' in order to be valid. In the case of Robot Chicken while they are using likenesses, they are obviously original creations and used in original situations that creates an entire new piece of work. In Robot Chicken you would never mistake a claymation figure and it's extreme actions for either being the persona it represented or being the actual act of the person represented. There is /something/ to be said that they rendered a new figure - but not much - since it's being portrayed AS that person and not a caricature of them. The real key there is caricature.
Wow, talk about splitting hairs here. "You can use Cobaine for songs he wrote but not for every song in the game its demeaning to his name!" Cobaine was a singer just like everyone else, he wasn't some freaking god or something that stands tall above everyone else. If Activision had a contract to use his name and likeness then it ends there, saying that he is being defamed for "singing songs that are his" is laughable at best.
@Deegs: no, he wasn't a singer just like everyone else. can you imagine let's say... tupac singing/rapping a song made by hmm... will smith? He CAN, but would he?
@Deegs: Except that if the contractual agreement was "Cobain can only be used in Nirvana songs" then that was the contractual agreement and Activision is in violation of their contract. That is the end of it.
Seriously, who are the people promoting these garbage comments?
@Deegs: It's okay. If you don't even know how to spell the man's name, nobody expects you to understand why Activision's non-Nirvana use of the Cobain Cartoon is upsetting to his fans and especially those who were closest to him (by which I'm referring to Novoselic and Grohl, not necessarily Love). So don't loose any sleep over it.
09/13/09
09/12/09
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Dave has no control over Cobain's estate, that would mean he could not possibly be the one to blame. Courtney's the one who is charge of that stuff. Dave only has a say in terms of Nirvana's music, no?
Here's the article's URL.
[www.defamer.com.au]
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/14/09
Too bad the version in the game is so bad- I'd have wanted the Anthrax version or none at all.
09/11/09
Yet you hear nothing from the Cash estate about suing Activision.
09/11/09
09/11/09
"Guitar Hero secured the necessary licensing rights from the Cobain estate in a written agreement signed by Courtney Love to use Kurt Cobain's likeness as a fully playable character in Guitar Hero 5," Activision told Kotaku
If the contract, which NEITHER of us has seen, explicitly allows his use as a fully playable character, then even if it IS defamation Activision is within their legal rights.
As in any legal arrangement, you are responsible for making sure that your understand your rights and must actively protect them. Look at what Harmonix is saying about RB:B and Ms. Ono; she was clearly engaged with the product, and was aware of its nature and contents before its release. Ms. Love could and SHOULD have taken similar steps.
The current situation says either she did not do so, or she did not understand what she was seeing. Both can be placed on her.
Or do we automatically assume that HER lawyer's press releases are false, while those from Activision are not?
09/11/09
09/11/09
10/02/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
It's spelled Mortal Kombat.
09/11/09
09/11/09
It's a side effect of responding to a comment. Imagine it as another word, and all will be well.
09/11/09
09/11/09
Where the crap did they find a good Courtney pick, this is the question!
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
Why are you being such an asshole? It was just a fucking question.
09/11/09
Great.
09/11/09
First of all people, no matter how "obvious" this US law is, some of us don't actually live in the US. I still don't understand why someone like Robot Chicken gets a free ride when the equally unrealistic version of Kurt Cobain in GH5 doesn't.
But I'm not gonna bother checking back for actual answers, as for some reason you people take this as some sort of attack on your God Kurt Cobain or something. It was just a simple question, people. Fucking relax.
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
It'd be interesting to see where people on both sides of the Cobain debate would fall if this same thing was happening with Cash.
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
Seriously, who are the people promoting these garbage comments?
09/11/09
09/11/09
Here's a question: Who was really excited about having a virtual Kurt Cobain mumble his way through a Three Days Grace song?
I mean, who is the audience for that?