Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 7:24 PM
Wed Dec 9
60 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/29/09
However, should you add some freedom in that interpretation, then it can get into other issues, possible, e.g. slander, defamation. Then again, it could be protected by parody, depending on the situation.
Additionally, using a character that an actor portrays isn't protected, since the character is actually under copyright by the film studio. However, using that actor in a game as an actual actor (not in any particular role, though perhaps something made up), then you should be protected.
That sound about right?
09/29/09
09/29/09
Personally I disagree with the "expressive" ruling comparing video games to paintings. Is there a difference from a sketch artist in the mall selling caricatures to using an athlete in a video game? Of course it also irks me about the number of comic book companies capitalizing on Obama's likeness.
Watch out celebrities. You're next.
09/30/09
09/29/09
In other words the first ammendment lets you author creative works depicting real people without concern about "false endorsement" statutes provided that your work doesn't actually suggest the individual endorses your product. I have no reason to believe the broader issue of publicity rights generally was reached.
However, in this area the courts have (correctly IMO) to apply a balancing test between first ammendment considerations and publicity rights. Thus if you want to sell a video game depicting the president as Bill Clinton when your mission requires protecting the president you shouldn't need Clinton's permission. On the other hand if you want to slap Clinton's face on the front of the box and call your game "Being Bill Clinton" you would probably run afoul of his publicity rights. The fact that the speech is commercial is relevant but not a huge factor as the first amendment protects art you sell as well as what you give away.
In other words when it comes to sports games EA should have to pay Madden to publish Madden Football but if you only appear as a name on a jersey with your look and stats then you need not be compensated. This may appear like a minor detail when it comes to sports but if we allowed a broader understanding of publicity rights to be enforced then games expressing unfavorable opinions of various persons/institutions might be impossible to make.
For instance OJ shouldn't have the power to stop a LAPD video game because it includes a scene where you chase OJ along the highway. Nor should Manson have the power to prevent a video game from exploring a future in which he breaks free and rebuilds his cult.
09/29/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
If this stands, be prepared for every celebrity's likeness...not just athletes...to be featured in a video game....as expressive works of course.
Clint Eastwood in Call of Duty 7.
And a young Arnie in Crackdown 2.
09/29/09
Based on this ruling, you could, in theory, use the likenesses of Clint and Arnold in your game. But if you start making them look like Dirty Harry or Conan, then you'd be treading on someone else's intellectual property and this ruling would do nothing to protect you.
09/29/09
09/28/09
This ruling will most likely be overturned in appelate court.
09/28/09
A photograph can also be an "expressive work" and there's no debate that someone's image in a photograph can be wrongly appropriated. Jurisprudence FAIL.
09/28/09
09/29/09
Was it indeed the 9th District? That was pretty much the first thing that came to mind when I was reading this.
09/28/09
This judge is implying I can create a painting of, lets say, Mr. Owen Good firing an machine gun into a crowded orphanage on fire, which I'm sure would be against his wishes to be portrayed, and sell it at a kiosk at the mall, and be in perfectly good legal terms? I mean, Mr. Owen Good isn't getting a dime for this, and all commercial gains are going right into my pocket.
There's a degree of legality here that needs to be slapped back in this judge's face.
EDIT: The only tangible way I can see any of this being legit is if the athletes had a clause in their contracts stating that their affiliation with this organization may use the players likeness at the discretion of the organization. My guess is that their contracts, if any, don't have that clause.
09/28/09
A better example might be something more neutral, like a painting of Owen Good eating a sandwich or something like that.
09/28/09
Even in your example of a sandwich, mayhaps Owen is a vegetarian and doesn't wish to be portrayed eating a sandwich with meat on it. He has that right.
Of course, if they just GAVE NCAA away free, none of this would be a problem, for the most part. People would still complain of course, but the law wouldn't be as much on their side.
09/28/09
And what you'll see in the future, frankly, is someone of limited celebrity status (not saying that I am even that) being depicted in such a way on the Internet — where the whole of the public doesn't know the subject, nor is it aware of his reputation (thus there's not much to be ruined) but for pockets of cyberspace, it's as bad as general slander.
09/28/09
06/07/09
06/06/09
06/07/09
No, but seriously, that's one of the funniest commercials Madden has done. (Seriously fun? What is this?!) I chuckled every time I saw it. :D
06/07/09
06/06/09
I also imagined John Madden giving me the breakdown of this article while reading it.
Or at least that comedian who does impressions of Madden, and never changes his act.
06/06/09
I thought he was funny too. Though he's done nothing but say stupid things in celebrity voices that, admittedly, are uncanny in their similarity to the actual person.
06/06/09
That's the guy. Did a pretty good Pat Summerall too if I remember right.
04/19/09