New wave of copyright lawsuits
Zynga vs PlayerAuctions (From Web site IP trademark lawyer)
Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. Playerauctions.com, CV10-2576 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2010). (Zynga says that Player Auctions is making money from their work. We’ll keep up with this one.) Others to keep up with after the jump.
Blog from SF Weekly SF lawsuit filed; Crowdstar vs. Wonder Hill; great article about an Aquarium game. (Crowdstar recently rumored to be looked at by Microsoft).
Hitler parody sites taken down. http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/popular-hitler-downfall-parodies-removed-from-youtube-company-cites-copyright-infringement/ Technically this was not a “game-related” lawsuit, but the most famous of these parodies was for X-box.
Gamasutra; Blizzard sues. Gamasutra; Blizzard sues and drops suits
All these are new, therefore no comments on ongoing litigation, but you should read up on these… and perhaps we are in a “new wave” of copyright litigation after a bit of a lull.
Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.
Tags: Blizzard, Copyright, Crowdstar, lawsuits, PlayerAuctions, Wonder Hill, Zynga
The Hitler story interests me.
Broadly speaking parody is allowed in copyright law. However in this case the film itself was not being parodied. Rather its “intense melodrama, artful staging and timely cutaways” were being used to parody nerd rage over game nerfs or sports teams losing.
I think it’s legally correct that the film makers should have the right to protect their artistic work but it’s an interesting fine line.
If one did a Hitler scene using the Downfall clip about Downfall film makers furious that their serious film was being trivially would that be a fair use? If you imitated their cast, staging, cutaways and tone to create an original film footage would that be permissible?
Where does the parody that is explicitly permitted by copyright law start?
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “…
use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied;”
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
jaymoffitt Reply:
April 27th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Ah, copyright law. The bad thing about copyright law is that nowadays its being enforced via “Cease and Desist” and “Who can bully the best” rather than a fair and impartial reading of the law.
The main thing to remember about all the “take-downs” that occur, especially the highly-publicized ones, is the videos are posted on third-party providers. In other words, Youtube, Internet Providers, etc., they are providing a service by being the pass-through to post videos. Almost all these third-party providers do a “take-down” immediately after getting a copyright complaint. No fight, no “we’ll consult our lawyers”, no “I don’t think so”; it’s an economic decision rather than an informed legal judgment.
If it were a Web-site wholly owned and run by a person, and then they upload their own interpretation claiming “fair use”, it is more likely they would fight harder to protect the work and art in their work.
And the unfortunate thing about “fair-use” law is that all the examples we can point to legislatively are usually even pre-VCR, before affordable camcorders, and certainly before inexpensive audio techonology that would allow you to “dub” existing movies. I find it an extremely fascinating area of law, but unfortunately one that for a solo attorney/writer such as myself is not a legitimate source of income (therefore I don’t spend a lot of time or thought on it).
Attorney disclaimer: Of course any comments are solely the opinion of the author and do not constitue legal advice or create attorney/client relationship.