Courtney Love signed contract for GH5 use of Kurt Cobain character

The article states “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 today. This is in conflict with her Twitter statements, stating she and Cobain’s Estate were going to sue “the sh*t out of Activision”. Also, a joint statement from Nirvana former bandmates Krist Novisilec and Dave Grohl(Foo Fighters lead-man) said, “While we were aware of Kurt’s image being used with two Nirvana songs, we didn’t know players have the ability to unlock the character. This feature allows the character to be used with any kind of song the player wants. We urge Activision to do the right thing in “re-locking” Kurt’s character so that this won’t continue in the future”

This is quite a different story from the Rolling Stone article about securing the rights to Cobain’s likeness. Activision’s Vice President of Music Affairs Tim Riley says, “Indeed, securing the proper approvals was no small feat. Not only did Cobain’s widow Courtney Love have to sign off on behalf of the estate, so did former drummer Dave Grohl and Primary Wave Publishing, which administers the Nirvana catalog.”

Game Informer lists her numerous twitters surrounding this issues, most notably “Love seems to suggest that some of the lawyers and other people involved in Cobain’s estate have misused it, forged signatures, and breached contract repeatedly, and that these abuses against Courtney are what led to Cobain appearing in Guitar Hero 5.”

This is just a developing story, and may merit followup thoughts later. But at the inception of this, there are a couple of interesting legal issues that may arise.

1. When a videogame acquires rights in a “character” for in-game use, the preferable language for them involves gaining the largest possible rights. That would involve language such as “any and all uses”, etc. Does that idea hold the same perception for the rockers’ widow as it would for a multi-national corporation licensing the rights of hundreds of artists, and dozens of celebrities on a yearly basis?

2. If California law is used, their state law regarding the use of dead celebrity’s likenesses could apply. But if it is proved a legally binding transfer of the rights occurred, would there still be access to common-law remedies such as “right of publicity” or “bad-light”(putting a celebrity in a poor “light” based on the setting, commentary, or use of their likeness)?

And finally…. my 3 for the B (3 for the business side of video-game law)
1. ALWAYS, always, hold a press conference. If a celebrity is big enough to license for a videogame, schedule a 15-minute press conference in the home-town, corporate offices, somewhere that will PROVE TO THE PUBLIC that the two parties have reached an agreement. If you can’t afford that, you know you couldn’t afford the possible lawsuits later on misunderstanding.

2. No, it’s NOT just a contract. Make certain the parties understand that it is a game, and that many uses may occur of that character. If you’ve played a GH game before, you know how silly it may look for an “unlockable” Kurt Cobain to be singing Flava Flav, or Johnny Cash, or anything across the genre. If you don’t wish that, have a lawyer change the language to suit your wish.

3. Don’t disrespect. There aren’t any shouting matches thus far, though some verbal flares are out there, but the public, rightly or wrongly, feels little pity for “biting the hand that feeds you.” Some of the public will take that out in disrespect towards Activision towards the use of the avatar, and some will take it out on the Cobain estate (and Love) for protesting after they have “been paid.” But mainly, it does no one any favors. Rock and roll is about “putting it to the man”, but when this much money is involved how much “rightful indignation” is left out there? Those taking sides probably won’t be convinced to change theirs, but unfortunately those on the fence may just be put off and just go away (which doesn’t sell records, Tshirts, OR videogames).

Jay Moffitt is a TN attorney. The posting does not constitute legal advice, and in no way creates an attorney/client relationship.

Final note: if you enjoyed the posting (or hated the posting) please leave a comment. It will in no way inhibit your day, but it might just make mine.