Escapist News Now: Rockstar Sued Over GTA 5 "Mob Wives" Character

[Sofus]

I don't see how her story is unique or how she can possibly claim that Rockstar somehow stole it... if it's public knowledge then the story doesn't belong to anyone.

 

[nyysjan]

I don't see how her story is unique or how she can possibly claim that Rockstar somehow stole it... if it's public knowledge then the story doesn't belong to anyone.

Just because the plot of Lord of the Rings is public knowledge, does not mean that anyone can start publishing the books in their own name.

 

[Sofus]

I don't see how her story is unique or how she can possibly claim that Rockstar somehow stole it... if it's public knowledge then the story doesn't belong to anyone.

Just because the plot of Lord of the Rings is public knowledge, does not mean that anyone can start publishing the books in their own name.

There is a massive difference between fiction and reality.

 

[nyysjan]

I don't see how her story is unique or how she can possibly claim that Rockstar somehow stole it... if it's public knowledge then the story doesn't belong to anyone.

Just because the plot of Lord of the Rings is public knowledge, does not mean that anyone can start publishing the books in their own name.

There is a massive difference between fiction and history.

Not necessarily.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that people do have some level of ownership to their name, face and lifestory.

 

[PinkiePyro]

quote cut out because long post is long

I feel Therumancer has hit the nail on the head she cant really do jack shit because the whole matter is a case of parody...

and Nyysjan there is a difference between real life events and fiction... I think sofus is saying you cant say write a book about some historical event and then claim only you have rights to it just because you wrote about it

 

[Something Amyss]

Seems as though you were wanting to know why people going after companies are often labeled as greedy cash-grabbers. As such, I took it upon myself to tell you their reasoning. If you accept it or not, I don't care, but that's their reasoning.

So it seems you're saying the reasons they make these accusations are irrelevant and pointless. If that's the case, I agree.

 

[Something Amyss]

I feel Therumancer has hit the nail on the head she cant really do jack shit because the whole matter is a case of parody...

The problem being that parody isn't that cut and dry.

and Nyysjan there is a difference between real life events and fiction... I think sofus is saying you cant say write a book about some historical event and then claim only you have rights to it just because you wrote about it

That's not really an apt comparison, though.

Just because the plot of Lord of the Rings is public knowledge, does not mean that anyone can start publishing the books in their own name.

Lord of the Rings isn't public domain, though. It's copyrighted. And there are many stories that tell the same tale.

With a real life example, many biographers can cover the same topic, but you can't take someone else's biography verbatim and publish it. Not because the person is protected, but because the work is.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that people do have some level of ownership to their name, face and lifestory.

And that's the question of any such case. Whether the likeness and life story are close enough to count as infringement and whether parody is a significant enough instance to protect Rockstar.

This is where I end up getting flak for both sides because while I don't think the case necessarily is bad faith, I also don't think she has an automatic win here, either. IP laws, even without the case of likeness, tend to be this great big ball of...Wibbly-wobbly...Legal wegal...Stuff. The law on these matters is absolutely clear as mud and it even makes a difference where the suits are filed because things like likeness rights are not universally recognised and can vary from state to state in the US.

 

[nyysjan]

Just because the plot of Lord of the Rings is public knowledge, does not mean that anyone can start publishing the books in their own name.

Lord of the Rings isn't public domain, though. It's copyrighted. And there are many stories that tell the same tale.

With a real life example, many biographers can cover the same topic, but you can't take someone else's biography verbatim and publish it. Not because the person is protected, but because the work is.

My point was that just because something is known, does not automatically make it legal for you to sell it.

 

[Something Amyss]

My point was that just because something is known, does not automatically make it legal for you to sell it.

The example was awful, however, and the point isn't really made by it.

 

[nyysjan]

My point was that just because something is known, does not automatically make it legal for you to sell it.

The example was awful, however, and the point isn't really made by it.

Except that it does.
It takes a thing, commonly known, and points out that it is not legal to sell it.
Therefore simply being commonly known, does not make it ok to sell something.

Everything else about them is different, but those differences don't matter, because i am only answering one point, and that is common knowledge of the thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

It takes a thing, commonly known, and points out that it is not legal to sell it.
Therefore simply being commonly known, does not make it ok to sell something.

Except it has no application here, as a biography is perfectly legal. Hell, retelling Lord of the Rings is perfectly legal, provided you don't violate the copyright or associated trademarks, which has nothing to do with actually protecting the story. Otherwise, thousands of fantasdy authors would be out of a job. Do you have any idea how many times Lord of the Rings has been retold with the serial numbers filed off?

Yes, being commonly known in itself doesn't make it okay to sell something. That statement is utterly meaningless in itself.

 

[nyysjan]

It takes a thing, commonly known, and points out that it is not legal to sell it.
Therefore simply being commonly known, does not make it ok to sell something.

Except it has no application here, as a biography is perfectly legal. Hell, retelling Lord of the Rings is perfectly legal, provided you don't violate the copyright or associated trademarks, which has nothing to do with actually protecting the story. Otherwise, thousands of fantasdy authors would be out of a job. Do you have any idea how many times Lord of the Rings has been retold with the serial numbers filed off?

Yes, being commonly known in itself doesn't make it okay to sell something. That statement is utterly meaningless in itself.

Except it is perfectly applicable here.
someone made a claim the because the story was commonly known, Rockstar had the right to put it in their videogame, and i made a point that it would not by contrasting it to something even more commonly known.

Any number of other reasons might make it perfectly legal (lack of copyright, not violating privacy, not infringing on other trademarks, etc...), and over the course of the lawsuit we will almost certainly here about those from Rockstar.

But the point remains: story commonly known =/= legal to sell

 

[Something Amyss]

Except it is perfectly applicable here.
someone made a claim the because the story was commonly known, Rockstar had the right to put it in their videogame, and i made a point that it would not by contrasting it to something even more commonly known.

Except you didn't actually contrast it. They're not literally putting in her life story, they're putting in an approximation. I've covered how common it is to use LOTR as a story, so you shouldn't need me to go over this again. You're not making an applicable parallel and I've already explained why.

And honestly, LOTR wouldn't have any more protection here.

 

[Someone Depressing]

An apology and some ice cream? She might get that.

A million dollars is pushing it.

Besides, GTA is known for being black comedy and parodying real life events and pop-culture. Aside from the sandbox, it's the whole point of the games.

 

[Cerebrawl]

It does seem that the game did directly reference her but I still fell this whole case is more a way for her to get extra attention for her book then it is about winning the case.

This right here.

She's doing this for the publicity as much as any possible out-of-court settlement pay-off.

 

[nyysjan]

Except it is perfectly applicable here.
someone made a claim the because the story was commonly known, Rockstar had the right to put it in their videogame, and i made a point that it would not by contrasting it to something even more commonly known.

Except you didn't actually contrast it. They're not literally putting in her life story, they're putting in an approximation. I've covered how common it is to use LOTR as a story, so you shouldn't need me to go over this again. You're not making an applicable parallel and I've already explained why.

And honestly, LOTR wouldn't have any more protection here.

Again, you totally miss my point.
I am not making a large treatise of privacy, copyright, trademark or any other kind of law.
I am pointing out that something being commonly known, does not automatically make it ok to use it in a game, or sell it for profit.

Whether or not Rockstar was justified in doing whatever it is they did, i do not know, i am not a lawyer, judge, or even all that familiar with the case.
I am just pointing that one argument presented in this thread, is wrong.

And if you do publish a Lord of the Rings, with some name changes and minor modifications to the plot, Tolkien estate can sue you, and depending on the situation, and they might win, or they might lose, depending on specifics of the case.