No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

April 16, 2010 -

The latest round in the battle between Activision and the band No Doubt, which centers on the depiction of the group in Band Hero, has gone to the Gwen Stefani-fronted quartet.

No Doubt originally sued the publisher for turning them into a “virtual karaoke circus act,” because of the game’s ability to use the likenesses of rockers while performing the music of other groups. Activision, for its part, countersued, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment by the band.

The LA Times reports that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Kenji Machida ruled in favor of No Doubt on two clauses: first, rejecting a shift of venue to a federal court (Activision had argued that the case centered on a copyright issue, which it felt justified the move), and second, “rejecting Activision’s effort to invoke freedom-of-speech protections under the 1st Amendment in defense of the broader use of the No Doubt avatars.”


Comments

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Even though it feels dirty to say it I'm with Activision on this one.  I think if I were to take the likenesses of a famous music group and create an animated video of them singing a song that isn't there's I should be able to without asking anyone for permission first.  It's a transformative act just like remixing one song with another is a transformative act, in my mind it should be covered in fair use.

my vanity is justified

my vanity is justified

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Ten to one activision will probably win this via the contract they sign.

The use of likeness will probably used as a broad term, sometimes I wish people would actually read contracts and actually ask questions rather then signing it and then 10 weeks later flipped out because something so obviously coulda been subverted.

---- Rumblerumblerumber

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Are you serious? You really think that No Doubt didn't have a team of high-priced attorneys go over each and every word in that contract with a fine-tooth comb before signing it? Waddya think? The drummer's Dad reviews their contracts for them? 

And the word "subverted" isn't the word I think you really wanted to use. I suspect that you wanted to use the word "averted." Maybe you should have your Dad review your comments for you before posting them.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Yeah, I bet those lawyers went and looked it over and over. But I still doubt they will win.

---- Rumblerumblerumber

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

This is on the edge patent troll disputes, activision paid for their music and likeness to use in a music game where you can dick around with avatars and songs...... really they should get a life....


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Imagine Activision came up to you and said "We'd like to stick your likeness in as the main character in our game."

So you agree, sign a contract expecting to only see your character do certain things you agreed to beforehand and when the game comes out 80% of the content is watching you as the avatar get buttraped. Vividly.

You probably would be apt to sue.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Not really since they were paid for the use of thier imagae and any songs that might have thier name on it but do not own anymore,ect,ect,ect.


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

People have a right to determine how their likeness is used and depending on the wording of the contract they signed they may well have a good legal case as well.

I know I wouldn't want my likeness being used to sing a song I really disagreed with or whose band I really had a problem with. Maybe it is being picky and maybe some people will think its frivolous but all of use should at least have control over our own persons and representations thereof.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

People have a right to determine how their likeness is used and depending on the wording of the contract they signed they may well have a good legal case as well.

I know I wouldn't want my likeness being used to sing a song I really disagreed with or whose band I really had a problem with. Maybe it is being picky and maybe some people will think its frivolous but all of use should at least have control over our own persons and representations thereof.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Sure.  Unless, that is, we sign that control away.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

What's with using Stock Tickers in the subject line? Are we CNN now?

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Great, this will likely just embolden more artists to keep suing for one reason or another.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Is the inverse actually better?

Do we actually want to embolden game companies to do more such violations?  If they want to profit off their likeness, they need permission and a contract.  Generally companies getting permission to do something with someone else's IP is a good thing.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Depends really, upon if the contract ACTUALLY says what they claim.

Re: No Doubt Wins a Few Skirmishes in War with ATVI

Yes, but I truly believe that No Doubt's case has merit. Artists will always sue for one reason or another. Only the legitimate complaints, which I believe No Doubt has, will truly hold water in court.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekAlso, it's the upgrade that's available for installation now. You might need to forcibly initiate the Windows Update process before it'll start downloading, though. (If there's a C:\$Windows.~BT folder on your computer, then you're in luck.)07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekAdmittedly there's more room to push for an advertiser boycott when you get into opinion content versus pure news, but keep in mind that reviews are opinion content as well.07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekMatts: There's a difference between "this person regularly says extremely terrible stuff" and "I don't like the phrasing used in this one specific editorial".07/29/2015 - 8:45am
MattsworknameWait, is that for the upgrade or the clean install only? cause I was gonna do the upgrade07/29/2015 - 8:32am
james_fudgehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows1007/29/2015 - 8:30am
PHX Corp@Wilson, I'm still waiting for My upgrade notice aswell07/29/2015 - 7:57am
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician