Lawyers in Canada: Davis LLP - Legal Advisors Since 1892

LittleBigPlanet DELAYED OVER RELIGIOUS LYRICS

A Muslim gamer's flagging of a song that contains lyrics from verses of the Koran has resulted in a formal apology from Sony. It is reported that the complaint will result in the delay of the release of LittleBigPlanet to mid-November, in order to allow for the removal of the controversial material.

Opinions vary on whether the material is disrespectful or forbidden.

Coverage at: Gamedaily.com

Real People in Games -- Some Thoughts

Game Politics has an interesting entry about infamous anti-game attorney Jack Thompson's allegation that he is depicted in Grand Theft Auto IV (currently under development).

Thompson says (based on an article in a game magazine) that one of the game's missions involves the assassination of a lawyer who, when confronted by the player's character, says things such as "Guns don't kill people. Video games do." Thompson says that this lawyer is clearly meant to be him, and has demanded that Rock Star and Take Two remove all references to him from GTA IV before it is released (see copy of Thompson's letter on Game Politics here).

This situation (regardless of whether it is all accurate) raises interesting issues about the portrayal of real people in video games. Note that all of these discussions depend on there being a recognizable depiction of a real person -- having an in-game character who is a lawyer who says that video games cause violence is not necessarily the same has having an in-game character that is recognizably Jack Thompson.

In many jurisdictions people have rights in their personalities, and including a person's likeness in a game without permission may violate those rights -- for example, by suggesting an affiliation or endorsement that doesn't exist. If I appear in a game, people might logically think that I support or endorse that game.

Including a real person's likeness in a game could also involve defamation -- for example, if a game included a recognizable likeness of me doing something objectionable, I might have a claim that the depiction was harmful to my reputation.

Another issue -- the one Thompson raises in his letter to Take Two -- is personal safety. If a game involves violence against a game character that is recognizably a real person, might that game be seen as encouraging or inciting actual violence against the real person? The connection between general violence in games and actual real-life violence is a common topic of discussion and study (with no clear causal link yet demonstrated so far as we are aware). But intuitively it seems to follow that if a game involves violence against a specific recognizable person, there might be more likelihood of actual violence against that actual person. Such activity might raise issues under both criminal and civil law.

It's not clear whether Thompson's claims are accurate, or whether the final version of GTA IV will actually involve a depiction of an anti-game lawyer. But the issues are interesting, and demonstrate that depicting real people in games (or movies, or TV shows, or books) should not be undertaken lightly.

See the Game Politics article here.

JACK THOMPSON VS THE BULLY

For weeks now, the attempt made by Jack Thompson to block the sale of the controversial 'Bully"? video game in Florida has been a hotbed of discussion and debate amongst video-gamers and lawyers alike. Jack Thompson, a Florida-based lawyer, named Wal-Mart, Gamestop and Take-Two Interactive as defendants in a suit in which he sought to have a Florida court issue an injunction estopping the release on October 17th, 2006 of the Bully video game. The judge refused to block the sale of the game, but it hasn't stopped there Thompson now faces contempt of court charges filed by Blank Rome, the Philadelphia law firm representing Take-Two Interactive. 

His reaction? 'You want to play hardball"?? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink"?"?

There is sure to be more to come"?

Coverage at 

http://www.shorl.com/jabribrilidrapy (Gamespot)

http://www.shorl.com/bapifrastitymi (Kotaku)

http://www.shorl.com/fajafupytreno (1up)

TABLE OF VIDEO GAME CASE LAW

We're pleased to report that our blog now contains a table of video game law cases.  It's a work in progress (we have a bunch more cases to add) but we're so excited that we just can't wait to share.  So here's the link  http://www.davis.ca/community/blogs/video_games/files/blogtable.htm

Keep checking back for updates.  There's also a link on the homepage of the blog. 

TAKE-TWO SUED BY ACTOR

Take-Two Interactive is reported to have been sued for $250,000 by actor Roger Hill for the unlawful use of his likeness in The Warriors, a game based on the film by the same name. He is also seeking an injunction to bar the use of his likeness. Mr. Hill claims that he turned down an initial offer made by Take-Two for the use of his name and voice in the game and that they never followed up. Take-Two has dismissed Mr. Hill's claims as groundless and affirms having the right to use his likeness as portrayed in the film.

 
coverage at http://shorl.com/gigrepistekogry (gamespot)

The Adventures Of Jack Thompson, Video Game Lawyer

Earlier in November, Florida attorney Jack Thompson attempted to withdraw as counsel from an Alabama civil suit against members of the gaming industry. However, judge James Moore has rejected Thompson's motion to withdraw, and has instead removed him from the case, and revoked a temporary Alabama bar license Thompson was using to practice in the state. The judge removed Thompson as a result of a defence motion which claimed Thompson's numerous press releases and open letters on violence in video games represented a breach of legal ethics.

Thompson, not one to stay silent in the face of criticism, responded to Judge Moore's 18-page ruling in a document apparently filed with the Alabama court, which harshly questions the rationale of the defence in attempting to have Thompson removed, and Moore's power to remove him after he had already voluntarily withdrawn.

Coverage at

http://www.shorl.com/dilotipukadry

and

http://www.shorl.com/gonikijufroto

LIABILITY IN THE MMO WORLD

We just published an article in theLawyers Weeklyregarding unexpected potential liability in the online gaming world. 

Here's the link  http://www.shorl.com/gorufebradrome

A CAREFUL BLOGGER IS A HAPPY BLOGGER

Several of our readers have noticed that our 'comment"? feature is disabled. A recent US lawsuit shows that this is not necessarily a bad thing a blog operator has been sued for comments posted by the blog's readers.

It's not that we think any of you would post anything lawsuit-inducing, but hey "? as lawyers, of course we're risk-averse.

Coverage at http://shorl.com/hatovelepygri

STARGATE DISPUTE TURNS UGLY

Video game lawyers around the world are no doubt on stand-by now that Australian developer Perception has accused publisher JoWood of libel. JoWood terminated Perception's development agreement and publicly questioned Perception's ability to develop a quality Stargate SG-1 game.

The interesting twist is that Perception claims to be the official MGM licensee of the Stargate SG-1 rights, so Perception will continue the project despite the termination. We must admit, we're scratching our heads on this one. We've reviewed plenty of licence agreements and development agreements and can't figure out why this is even an issue just look on the first page of the contract and figure out who is the licensee!

In any case, it sounds like a lawsuit is imminent.
Coverage at  http://www.shorl.com/gevyrenudropre

EA WINS RACIAL LAWSUIT

Steve Neal is an African American male and former football player for Western Michigan University. He's also a Caucasian player for the New England Patriots.

Oh alright, they're two different football players with the same name.

EA used Western Steve's photograph in Madden NFL Football 2005, but (oops!) paired it with New England Steve's statistics. Western Steve sued EA for invasion of privacy "by appropriation", invasion of privacy "by false light", and defamation. In a recent decision, the US District Court ruled in favour of EA.

The court concluded that Western Steve had licensed the use of his photograph Western Steve had signed a contract with the NFL Players Association giving the Association the right to licence third parties (such as EA) to use his likeness and name. The Association sublicenced that right to EA. Therefore, Western Steve lost the invasion of privacy "by appropriation" argument.

The court also concluded that EA hadn't placed Western Steve in a "false light" by using his likeness as a representation for a Caucasian player. To win on this point, Western Steve had to show that EA's actions were highly offensive to a reasonable person. The court didn't think that portraying an African American player as a Caucasian player met the test (although the court might have come to a different conclusion if dancing were a larger part of football). For the same reason, the court concluded that EA hadn't defamed Western Steve by attributing the wrong biographical information to him.

The case is available here http://www.shorl.com/bubrajujymihe

The citation is Neal v. Elec. Arts, Inc., [2005] U.S.Dist. LEXIS 12324 (June 1, 2005).