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

[+GoldLeader]

Also, (Not a lawyer but I'm opening my trap anyway) companies are not required to be dicks; There is no such law.   Now if State Farm suddenly started selling an arcade cabinet with Crystal Castles built in,  and they changed the title screen to say 'Witche's Brew'  That might be something actionable.  You should Defend IP when necessary,  but choose your battles.  Just like Nintendo isn't going to lose Mario anytime soon even though it's included on 1,000s of Famicom Multicarts.

 

Need a very concrete example?  Lucasfilm.  (Pre-Disney here).  Long ago George Lucas said his company would never waste time suing fan sites, fan fiction stories, fan made movies etc.  He wanted the fans to feel welcome and was happy they were part of it all.  (Watch the interview on the Family Guy Blue Harvest DVD to hear it from the man himself).  As long as they weren't profiting off of it or pretending to be Lucasfilm (or 20th Century FOX etc., obvs).  When they did need to defend IP,  there was IIRC, a 12 year old who had a website called StarWarsFanClub.com or thereabouts. The company was very polite.  They explained how they might need that one.  They gave the boy multiple other names he could use,  and I think he got to chat with George Lucas himself!  Who knew,  according to P-Dubs,  Lucasfilm was breaking the law all those years?  

[roots.genoa]

Once again, unless Atari specifically protected the side arts on Crystal Castle's cabinet (which is a possibility, but I doubt it), there's no IP to protect, here.

[MrBeefy]

6 hours ago, r_chase said:

I think the current copyright law allows for too much cutthroat bullshit like this. On the other hand, unlike PowerDubs' blind faith in penny stocks, I still think we should hold Atari themselves accountable. I'm still gonna call out Atari for trying to reach into deep pockets in a provocative way by threatening a decent-sized insurance company known for good service or whatever they say to promote themselves as "good neighbors". I mean...it's just a mediocre ad campaign for insurance ffs...and Atari is a medium-sized independent video game corporation. We're not gonna go back to the days of selling cart case molds for dental cameras and other questionable decisions. We need to remember that Atari is nothing but a corporation managed by humans. Not demigods. Humans. Just fucking humans.

I thought Atari were duck dragons masquerading around as humans in an attempt to overthrow the gaming industry? Who knew they were human. Guess it's time to remove my tinfoil.

4 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

Once again, unless Atari specifically protected the side arts on Crystal Castle's cabinet (which is a possibility, but I doubt it), there's no IP to protect, here.

I kind of agree here. If the game isn't shown, played, etc. It's just a prop like a Coca Cola can with part of the ID removed.

 

The silly old bear doesn't even seem to be in the shot.

[zzip]

7 hours ago, r_chase said:

I think the current copyright law allows for too much cutthroat bullshit like this.

Not allows,  requires.   The people here who say that if you don't defend your copyrights aggressively, you will lose them are correct. 

[r_chase]

12 minutes ago, zzip said:

Not allows,  requires.   The people here who say that if you don't defend your copyrights aggressively, you will lose them are correct. 

How unfortunate.

[+Living Room Arcade]

Hey Guys, Take this poll and let's see where everybody stands!

 

Is Atari right to sue State Farm?

• Yes, definitely
• Yes, pretty sure
• Undecided or neutral response
• No, pretty sure
• No, definitely

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll5149934x23C14E15-155

Edited March 28 by Living Room Arcade

[+GoldLeader]

From what I've read,  Trademarks can be lost through non use or lack of enforcement, Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired. However, if you do not actively defend your copyright, there may be broader unauthorized uses than you would like.

[ZippyOasys]

On 3/27/2024 at 1:04 AM, Living Room Arcade said:

@x=usr(1536)  No, no.  Pretty sure that's what Fair Use is for.  So people can use bits of other people's IP to make videos on Youtube to discuss and review their works without fear of being sued. 

 

Guys, did I say that right?  

I believe @x=usr(1536) was being sarcastic.

[+x=usr(1536)]

47 minutes ago, ZippyOasys said:

I believe @x=usr(1536) was being sarcastic.

I was

 

It's cool, though.  @Living Room Arcade and I got it figured out.  We're all good  

[MrBeefy]

10 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

From what I've read,  Trademarks can be lost through non use or lack of enforcement, Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired. However, if you do not actively defend your copyright, there may be broader unauthorized uses than you would like.

I wonder if Atari knows of those vinyl arcade cab reproduction art that people sell? 🤫

 

Seems more like a cash grab attempt than specifically protecting anything.

[Razzie.P]

16 minutes ago, MrBeefy said:

I wonder if Atari knows of those vinyl arcade cab reproduction art that people sell? 🤫

 

 

I haven't seen a post by pdubs titled "Atari knows of those vinyl arcade cab reproduction art that people sell" yet, so doubt they know.

 

 

 

 

[+Living Room Arcade]

...

Edited March 29 by Living Room Arcade

[DrVenkman]

Man, I *love* when unqualified people play lawyer on the internet, especially on a topic as specialized and nuanced as intellectual property rights and claimed infringement. Clearly I should have saved three years of my life and far too much money and just gotten my degree from Google U. and Reddit threads. 

With the disclaimer that this post does not constitute legal advice, and nothing I say may be construed to create an attorney-client relationship, folks please: leave the legal analysis to people with licenses to practice law. 

[+Living Room Arcade]

Hey Guys, Last chance to vote, this poll is gonna close soon!  

 

Is Atari right to sue State Farm?

• Yes, definitely
• Yes, pretty sure
• Undecided or neutral response
• No, pretty sure
• No, definitely

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll5149934x23C14E15-155

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, Living Room Arcade said:

Hey Guys, Last chance to vote, this poll is gonna close soon!  

 

Is Atari right to sue State Farm?

• Yes, definitely
• Yes, pretty sure
• Undecided or neutral response
• No, pretty sure
• No, definitely

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll5149934x23C14E15-155

You know that you can make polls right here on the forum?

 

  ..Al

[Razzie.P]

1 hour ago, DrVenkman said:

Clearly I should have saved three years of my life and far too much money and just gotten my degree from Google U. and Reddit threads. 

 

 

 

 

[+jeremiahjt]

12 hours ago, DrVenkman said:

Man, I *love* when unqualified people play lawyer on the internet, especially on a topic as specialized and nuanced as intellectual property rights and claimed infringement. Clearly I should have saved three years of my life and far too much money and just gotten my degree from Google U. and Reddit threads. 

With the disclaimer that this post does not constitute legal advice, and nothing I say may be construed to create an attorney-client relationship, folks please: leave the legal analysis to people with licenses to practice law. 

Considering lawyers from State Farm presumably signed off on State Farm's marketing department's decision, and lawyers from Atari still thought filing a suit was appropriate, it seems to me that the "qualified" people do not all agree on this topic either.  Also considering how many opinions from laypeople can be found in this thread, at least one of them statistically is probably right.  Double also, as somebody who is not a lawyer, nor will ever be a lawyer, I can give my opinion on any legal matter I darn well feel like it.  Could it be wrong, sure. Could it be right, also sure.  Could it be somewhere in the middle, maybe most likely.  But lawyers do not have some control over the opinions of people regarding legal matters.  Anybody can read a law, a ruling, a suit, etc., and make their own determination based on their ability to comprehend what they are reading.

[CapitanClassic]

Even SCOTUS justices get the law wrong*. See their ruling in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the government investigated itself and found no wrongdoing.

Quote

The Supreme Court held that Michigan had a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving, and that this technique was rationally related to achieving that goal (though there was some evidence to the contrary). The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers' Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government.

*Note: since the incorrect ruling in Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS is never wrong, even when they overturn themselves at a later time.

[BILLYonaire]

13 hours ago, Albert said:

You know that you can make polls right here on the forum?

 

  ..Al

Hi Al. Would you please check your messages? I just sent you one. Thanks!

[Wayler]

So there's two Bill Murrays here with a conflicting view on the matter. I think we need to consult the real one to settle this once and for all. 

oh... 

[roots.genoa]

4 hours ago, Wayler said:

So there's two Bill Murrays here with a conflicting view on the matter. I think we need to consult the real one to settle this once and for all.

I'm happy I'm not alone finding this really confusing.

[Astro Rabby]

Few things I hate more than copyright trolling. I hope Atari loses this one hard.

[+Living Room Arcade]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:36 PM, DrVenkman said:

Man, I *love* when unqualified people play lawyer on the internet, especially on a topic as specialized and nuanced as intellectual property rights and claimed infringement. Clearly I should have saved three years of my life and far too much money and just gotten my degree from Google U. and Reddit threads. 

With the disclaimer that this post does not constitute legal advice, and nothing I say may be construed to create an attorney-client relationship, folks please: leave the legal analysis to people with licenses to practice law. 

 

That's the trouble with the kids these days.  You love 'em.  You raise 'em.  You send 'em to college.  And when they come home, what do they do?  They start usin' all them BIG WORDS that no one understands!  

 

No, they can't just be 'happy.'  They got to be 'extatic.'  Or whatever that big, fancy college word is!  😁

 

My Son, College Graduate - SNL  

Edited April 4 by Living Room Arcade

[+Living Room Arcade]

Hey, everybody!  The poll is now closed!  Here are the results.

 

Is Atari right to sue State Farm?

• Yes, definitely
• Yes, pretty sure
• Undecided or neutral response
• No, pretty sure
• No, definitely

16 votes from 10 voters in 8 days

 

SUMMARY: 11 people said Yes and 5 people said No.  The aye's have it!  

 

Thank you, everybody, who participated in this poll!  

Edited April 5 by Living Room Arcade

[Razzie.P]

3 hours ago, Living Room Arcade said:

16 votes from 10 voters in 8 days

That a "vote early and vote often" kind of thing?