White Wolf and author Nancy A. Collins sue Sony over Underworld

[Stormfalcon]

I hate to dredge up a somewhat old thread, but I think the folks at Penny Arcade have pretty much nailed it.

 

[reapersaurus]

I hate to dredge up a somewhat old thread, but I think the folks at Penny Arcade have pretty much nailed it.

It's ironic that you think a 4 or 5 day old thread is "old", yet you link to a ridiculously-simplistic comic from Sept 8th..... almost 2 weeks old!

It was lazy and irresponsible then... I guess its inapplicableness to this case only gets better with age, eh?

 

[jdavis]

I hate to dredge up a somewhat old thread, but I think the folks at Penny Arcade have pretty much nailed it.

Yes If White Wolf had clamed they invented vampires, of course that has absolutely nothing to do with this suit so it pretty much misses the point entirely. It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published, if you wrote a book and somebody changed around some of the details but kept the same storyline then you would be upset too. It also doesn't take into account that this is a legal case not a satirical cartoon, you know the kind of thing done by lawyers not cartoonist. There is a lot more to this case than "who made up vampires?" heck that really has nothing to do with the case at all.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Yes If White Wolf had clamed they invented vampires, of course that has absolutely nothing to do with this suit so it pretty much misses the point entirely. It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published, if you wrote a book and somebody changed around some of the details but kept the same storyline then you would be upset too. It also doesn't take into account that this is a legal case not a satirical cartoon, you know the kind of thing done by lawyers not cartoonist. There is a lot more to this case than "who made up vampires?" heck that really has nothing to do with the case at all.

I can't speak to the plagerism charge from the short story as I havn't read it, but WW was claiming infringements as well on its general World of Darkness vampire/werewolf themes. In this respect they are fighting a losing battle since the movie did not take anything from the game world, but rather from the goth subculture, the Matrix, and many other vampire/werewolf legends and stories while creating a unique origin story. Unless of course the Goth subculture was invented by White Wolf . If anyone has a claim to Underworld ripping off the general feel of something it is the Matrix, but then they seem to be letting everyone rip them off in this respect. Now if the movie used a plotline from a book that is another story but it better be more than just a vampire falling in love with a werewolf. If you want real plagerism look at what Enterprise gets away with.

 

[jdavis]

I can't speak to the plagerism charge from the short story as I havn't read it, but WW was claiming infringements as well on its general World of Darkness vampire/werewolf themes. In this respect they are fighting a losing battle since the movie did not take anything from the game world, but rather from the goth subculture, the Matrix, and many other vampire/werewolf legends and stories while creating a unique origin story. Unless of course the Goth subculture was invented by White Wolf . If anyone has a claim to Underworld ripping off the general feel of something it is the Matrix, but then they seem to be letting everyone rip them off in this respect. Now if the movie used a plotline from a book that is another story but it better be more than just a vampire falling in love with a werewolf. If you want real plagerism look at what Enterprise gets away with.

Yes exactly. My point I was making was that the comic strip from the link was just a comic strip and really did not get anything right about the lawsuit (nor did it try to it was trying to be funny as that is what comic strips do). I have not read the short story myself but I have been told by somebody who did read it that the movie was pretty blatent in it's copy of the story. I don't think White Wolf would of sued if they didn't have the short story and this is not a open and shut case either way as is, but every point White Wolf listed did corespond to the movie so they didn't lie about anything and when I watched the movie I saw a lot of stuff that reminded me of the games (much of which also corresponds to the short story too). I will have to find and read the short story myself I guess but I really doubt White Wolf would of gone to court against Sony unless they felt they had a pretty good chance of winning (lawsuits are expensive).

 

[Brown Jenkin]

but I really doubt White Wolf would of gone to court against Sony unless they felt they had a pretty good chance of winning (lawsuits are expensive).

I am not sure anymore that they do have a good chance of winning or neccesarily ever thought they did. After seeing how wrong they were about the WoD elements in thier suit I don't neccesarily believe the other part anymore. Lawsuits are expensive but so is marketing. What WW is getting is free publicity and by bringing this suit they might be thinking that some people who like this movie might decide to check out the game since WW is claiming they are the same thing.

 

[Mark Chance]

I will have to find and read the short story myself I guess but I really doubt White Wolf would of gone to court against Sony unless they felt they had a pretty good chance of winning (lawsuits are expensive).

You mean you haven't already read the short story?

 

[nikolai]

It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published, if you wrote a book and somebody changed around some of the details but kept the same storyline then you would be upset too.

It's totally legitimate to adapt/borrow from/steal other people's plots. It's done all the time. Plots can't be copyrighted and borrowing like that has been going on for ages. White Wolf is upset - but so what? There's a world of difference between hurt feeling and a legitimate case. It doesn't mean they've a right to sue Sony or to their claim of ownership.

And they're not just suing because of the story, if anything that's just added to bolster the rest of their case, they think:

we found what we believed to be a nearly identical expression of our unique kinds of Vampires and a nearly identical expression of our kind of social dynamics between these two opposed societies"

So they're not claiming to own "vampires". But are claiming to own concepts of "vampires" and "werewolves" which are sufficiently similar to their versions. A subset of "vampires" and "werewolves" if you like.

The fact that their version is cobbled together from various sources, created by others, makes no difference. The fact that the claim stems from them producing a vast range of material and then engaging in highly selective quoting, makes no difference. WWs whole case (from what I've heard so far) boils down to artificially conflating an "idea" and an "expression" of an idea. With any luck they'll get it handed to them.

nikolai.

 

[reapersaurus]

nikolai - are you saying that WW should not be able to defend their property, since they didn't invent the ideas of vampires, etc?

That any writer or director can just scour their catalog and nab anything they want, since they didn't originate the idea of vampires, or that they have powers and relationships with other creatures and themselves?

They could just take any power and clan they wanted from WW, and as long as they don't use the name, than it would be OK with you?

I doubt that WW is smoking crack when they talk about "expressions" of ideas - if it wasn't a protected property in legal circles, than I doubt if they're trying to establish precendent in this case.

BTW: Next post, I'd suggest/request that you not tie your entire point to a word (conflating) that is not even in a Pocket Books' Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary. I had to go to www.m-w.com to see that it basically means "join."

 

[nikolai]

Thanks very much for the reply. I'm just going to clarify what I meant and leave it at that. We both disagree and since we disagree in our opinions rather than on anything concrete; I don't think any good will come of pushing it any more.

nikolai - are you saying that WW should not be able to defend their property, since they didn't invent the ideas of vampires, etc?

WW should be able to defend their property. I'm just saying "their" version of vampires shouldn't be (and hopefully isn't) their property. It's the public's; which, morally, makes what they are trying to do theft. Sony's not printing their books, using their trademarks or dressing this up as the world of darkness. The film's not even a competitor for them (not that I think they would be able to stop competitors). I do think what is effectively the commercial sabotage of the computer game is very, very, very iffy; and can see why WW would be fuming. But immoral isn't neccessarily illegal and it's difficult to see a way to deal with a situation like that.

That any writer or director can just scour their catalog and nab anything they want, since they didn't originate the idea of vampires, or that they have powers and relationships with other creatures and themselves?

They could just take any power and clan they wanted from WW, and as long as they don't use the name, than it would be OK with you?

Yes. Similarly I think WW should be able to take stuff from elsewhere and use it in the world of darkness (as they have done; and some would say their business is founded upon).

I doubt that WW is smoking crack when they talk about "expressions" of ideas - if it wasn't a protected property in legal circles, than I doubt if they're trying to establish precendent in this case.

I'm afraid they may be on to something. But then again misguided legal cases are made all the time (I don't think this is a "frivolous" suit - or anything other than sincere on the part of WW - just wrongheaded).

Their point is that "Vampires" (garlic, stakes, mirrors, crucifixes, holy wavers, beheading, bats, wolves, mist, blood drinking) is an idea. However, "Vampires" (minus: garlic, stakes, mirrors, crucifixes, holy wavers, beheading, bats, wolves, mist; plus: "elders", torpor, "amazing speed", "fighting with guns") is an expression; so let's break out the lawyers. I find this hard to fathom.

BTW: Next post, I'd suggest/request that you not tie your entire point to a word (conflating) that is not even in a Pocket Books' Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary. I had to go to www.m-w.com to see that it basically means "join."

Sorry, I didn't mean to be abstruse or recondite.

nikolai.