Atari filed suit yesterday against StateFarm for their blatant IP theft of Crystal Castles in their Gamerhood ad series.

[PowerDubs]

 

Reddit's legal team was smart enough to delete it, but it was nationwide on TV and internet.

 

https://www.reddit.com/user/StateFarmOfficial/comments/14scsmk/whether_you_play_vr_or_8bit_were_on_your_level/

 

 

[NISMOPC]

Atari Interactive, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al 3:2024cv00704 | US District Court for the Northern District of Texas | Justia

[+Cheez26]

I still don't get it. Where's the incriminating evidence in the screenshot? 🤔
No, seriously. I'm not clicking on a reddit link just to find out. 😡

[+jeremiahjt]

54 minutes ago, r_chase said:

I still don't get it. Where's the incriminating evidence in the screenshot? 🤔
No, seriously. I'm not clicking on a reddit link just to find out. 😡

That is a Crystal Castles cabinet with the name changed to Witch's Broom.

[+x=usr(1536)]

50 minutes ago, jeremiahjt said:

That is a Crystal Castles cabinet with the name changed to Witch's Broom.

There's also one behind it that I haven't yet identified, but the marquee has been changed to 'Gut Wrenchers'.

 

Honestly, it's difficult to see what Atari is suing for.  Sure, you can see some of the Crystal Castles sideart, but Atari's name, logo, and the gameplay don't appear.

 

This seems no different to me than seeing an obscure car with no manufacturer's name visible in a commercial.  Sure, I might be able to tell that it's a 1992 Plymouth Sundance, but how many others will?  Atari Games and Plymouth are also both dead companies, so trying to prove any sort of brand dilution or financial damage doesn't seem like a viable path.

[PowerDubs]

Crystal Castles is not dead- so Atari has to defend it.  They don't really have a choice in the matter- that's how the law works.

[+x=usr(1536)]

24 minutes ago, PowerDubs said:

Crystal Castles is not dead- so Atari has to defend it.

The name, gameplay, and logo don't appear anywhere in the ad from what I can tell.  They're defending a nothingburger for that small piece of visible sideart.

24 minutes ago, PowerDubs said:

They don't really have a choice in the matter- that's how the law works.

No, that's not how the law works.  They have a choice to bring a lawsuit or not.  They also have to prove infringement.  Selling insurance is not infringing on their IP simply by showing a sliver of the cabinet.

 

Whether or not their complaint holds up in court is another matter, but it really doesn't look as though there's much to bring suit over here.

[PowerDubs]

Marketing 'insurance' to gamers- hence 'gamerhood' - on twitch, youtube, terms such as 8-bit...

 

IP is IP.   They don't have a choice, they need to defend IP.

 

The court will do what the court will do.

[MrBeefy]

If you can't make money with hardware, make it with lawsuits. Never change Atari!

[+Zeptari]

If I owned something and someone was using it without my permission.. just saying.

[PowerDubs]

Just now, MrBeefy said:

If you can't make money with hardware, make it with lawsuits. Never change Atari!

 

If you can't make intelligent comments... make troll posts. Never change MrBeefy.

[+x=usr(1536)]

50 minutes ago, PowerDubs said:

If you can't make intelligent comments... make troll posts. Never change MrBeefy.

 

At least he's not constantly using this forum like it's his personal bulletin board for the most trivial Atari-related 'news' scraped off of the sole of your shoe.  Upping the old post count there, Pee-Dubzzz, or just reflexively trying to be the most hardcore Atari Brand Lifestyler™ out there?

[BIGHMW]

Would any of my wallpapers I would be using on The Atari Report (or even the name sake for the channel) if I were to bring it back be in violation of any of Atari's IP rights??? I don't want to become lawsuit bait, I don't make very much at my part-time work over at Safeway (I take home less than $1,000.00/month and only get about $1,200.00/month from Social Security, my monthly rent is about 800/month with just my TV, phone and internet being my only other recurring monthly bills) and I don't want to be taken to the cleaners and not be able to (legitimately) have the means to be able to satisfy a potentially massive money judgement.

 

Edited March 24 by BIGHMW

[Albert]

@BIGHMW Please do not bring up Trump again on the forum here, thank you, and I'd appreciate if you edit that bit out of your post.  

 

Thank you,

 

 ..Al

[+x=usr(1536)]

@BIGHMW: I am not a lawyer, but I believe that what you're doing is covered under fair use doctrine.  You should be OK, but if you're really worried I'd suggest getting an actual legal opinion.

[BIGHMW]

Just now, Albert said:

@BIGHMW Please do not bring up Trump again on the forum here, thank you. 

 

 ..Al

It was used in an analogy involving legal actions including Atari's IPs it was not intended to be political in any way shape or form

[Albert]

34 minutes ago, BIGHMW said:

It was used in an analogy involving legal actions including Atari's IPs it was not intended to be political in any way shape or form

I don't care, it's still political, and I'm sure you could have come up with another analogy.  And I don't even see how it's an analogy to your situation anyway. 

 

Thank you, 

 

 ..Al

[jhd]

I wonder if State Farm applied to formally use the Crystal Castles title and either the request was denied or it was unwilling to pay whatever fee was requested. So they just changed the name and went ahead anyway.

 

Many years ago I handled copyright and licensing for my (then) employer -- primarily photographs. 

 

On at least two occasions we had requests for permission to use a photograph that was denied (in one case, copyright was held by an estate currently tangled in litigation and nobody could give clear rights; in the other case, copyright was owned by a direct competitor of the firm making the request). In both cases, the requestor went ahead and used the photograph anyway without permission.

 

I do not know if either matter resulted in litigation, but people were certainly not happy with how this happened. 

Edited March 24 by jhd

[BIGHMW]

41 minutes ago, Albert said:

@BIGHMW Please do not bring up Trump again on the forum here, thank you, and I'd appreciate if you edit that bit out of your post.  

 

Thank you,

 

 ..Al

already did 20 minutes ago

[Albert]

1 minute ago, BIGHMW said:

already did 20 minutes ago

Thank you.

[Razzie.P]

52 minutes ago, BIGHMW said:

Would any of my wallpapers I would be using on The Atari Report (or even the name sake for the channel) if I were to bring it back be in violation of any of Atari's IP rights??? 

 

 

They do seem kinda sue-happy these days, so probably could bust you on a number of things --

 

Atari Logo -- how dare you!?!?!  Sued!

The word "Atari" -- eeek!!!!  Sued!

2600 -- They had a console named that, way back when. Sued!

5200 -- They had a console named that, way back when. Sued!

7800 -- They had a console named that, way back when. Sued!

Ray -- Former CEO had that name.  Legally change yours or face the consequences!

7ON7 -- Nobody knows what the fuck that nonsense even means, but sue anyways to be safe.

The War Room  -- "War" is too close to Combat.  Sued!!!!

 

Probably safest to roll everything up into one channel/show and call is <redacted> by <redacted>

 

 

[roots.genoa]

21 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

There's also one behind it that I haven't yet identified, but the marquee has been changed to 'Gut Wrenchers'.

 

Honestly, it's difficult to see what Atari is suing for.  Sure, you can see some of the Crystal Castles sideart, but Atari's name, logo, and the gameplay don't appear.

 

This seems no different to me than seeing an obscure car with no manufacturer's name visible in a commercial.  Sure, I might be able to tell that it's a 1992 Plymouth Sundance, but how many others will?  Atari Games and Plymouth are also both dead companies, so trying to prove any sort of brand dilution or financial damage doesn't seem like a viable path.

Exactly, unless Atari specifically protected the side arts on that cabinet, I don't see how they can win.

 

1 hour ago, x=usr(1536) said:

 

At least he's not constantly using this forum like it's his personal bulletin board for the most trivial Atari-related 'news' scraped off of the sole of your shoe.  Upping the old post count there, Pee-Dubzzz, or just reflexively trying to be the most hardcore Atari Brand Lifestyler™ out there?

Don't be too hard on PDubs. He doesn't share every Atari-related piece of news; he conveniently ignored Wade Rosen's interview on Time Extension for instance. 🙂

[PowerDubs]

1 hour ago, x=usr(1536) said:

 

At least he's not constantly using this forum like it's his personal bulletin board for the most trivial Atari-related 'news' scraped off of the sole of your shoe.  Upping the old post count there,

 

I couldn't care less about post count.  Just sharing Atari news- on an Atari forum. 

 

1 hour ago, jhd said:

I wonder if State Farm applied to formally use the Crystal Castles title and either the request was denied or it was unwilling to pay whatever fee was requested. So they just changed the name and went ahead anyway.

 

They never asked. That is stated in the filing.  But they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong...which is why they changed the marque name.

 

17 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

He doesn't share every Atari-related piece of news; he conveniently ignored Wade Rosen's interview on Time Extension for instance. 🙂

 

If others have already shared something....and I see it- there is no need for me to post it.

 

[+x=usr(1536)]

23 hours ago, jhd said:

I wonder if State Farm applied to formally use the Crystal Castles title and either the request was denied or it was unwilling to pay whatever fee was requested. So they just changed the name and went ahead anyway.

 

Entirely possible - and, quite honestly, I'd be surprised if they even asked.  It's a fictional video game, regardless of the cabinet it's in.  If the assertions in this thread held water, every video game ever appearing in publically-viewable video would have to have had appearance rights cleared with the manufacturer.  By the logic that has been employed here, Atari should sue the band Crystal Castles for also stealing their IP.

 

Atari will need to demonstrate financial losses, damage to reputation, or other harm to the company arising from partial sideart appearing in an ad in order to win in court, assuming that the judge doesn't toss it out immediately.  Yeah, good luck with that.

 

This molehill does not need to be turned into a mountain.  Companies lob sueballs every day over inconsequential crap like this.  Total non-event.

[+x=usr(1536)]

24 minutes ago, PowerDubs said:

Just sharing Atari news- on an Atari forum. 

 

Of course you are.

 

Can you find out what kind of mayonnaise Atari's employees prefer?  That would be awesome and totally newsworthy.