WizarDru
Adventurer
Hmmm. Thorny issue, this.
On the one hand, WW appears to have some very strong consequential evidence. Individually not very compelling, but en masse (which presumably is part of their strategey for listing all those attributes) is starts to form (or try to form) a pattern. How much chance of success they have will be determined by a jury, the presentation of the case, and possibly even the facts.
Is it a widely-acknowledged fact that White Wolf's core line is, at the least, influenced by Anne Rice's Vampire series and Lumley's Necroscope? I think that it is. But so is D&D clearly taken from Tolkien, Lieber, Andreson, Howard and Vance. But the question is, how original are the ideas, and does White Wolf legitimately have a right to claim ownership of them? And therein lies the problem.
Many of the points listed serve two functions: to clarify how both properties are dissimilar to the wide-spread 'knowledge' of vampires and wereloves, and to establish a pattern of possible plagarism. Let's remember, outside of gaming and even further outside of fandom in general, many people hold very generalized 'Halloween' type ideas about vamps and werewolves.
But at the same time, many of these ideas aren't exactly revolutionary. It didn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision vampires, as they've been represented for a long time in western culture, as a collection of aristocratic sophisticates. That was, after all, what Dracula was. Formation of vampire clans isn't that much of stretch, especially with the idea of characters like Dracula again, who was already a member of the nobility....it's simply a matter of redefinition. And consider films like Wolfen, the Howling, The Crow and more....White Wolf didn't originate these ideas, by any stretch.
At issue is really the confluence of sources, and the depth of the material. Is it coincidence (albeit an extreme one) or sloppy behavior? If Underground stole it's visual look from The Matrix, and The Matrix stole it's look from somewhere else, who in turn did the same...how do you determine where the Worm Ourborous of cultural referential loop began?
I honestly don't know.
In Harlan Ellison's case(s), there was clear and substantial unacknowledged IP theft. And Harlan Ellison is a maniac when it comes to asserting his rights legally or otherwise, regardless of the amount of money involved. He is an intellectual pit bull, and has proven time and again that he'll bankrupt himself, if necessary, to prove his point. Corporations FEAR THIS.
Circumstantially, it looks like WW might have an actual case...or at least enough of one that they may get Sony to settle with them. Or Sony might fight them tooth-and-nail, to discourage exactly such lawsuits. Someone, somewhere within Sony's organization was familiar with White Wolf, I have no doubt. Either for potential cross-marketing opportunities, or for simply looking at a potential audience. That doesn't mean that the major decision makers did, or that it got that high up the chain. That doesn't remove them from liability, but it does explain some things, if they are found guilty.
To use Captain Marvel as an example, as Villano mentioned above, he doesn't look too similar, when comparing his minutae of details. But look at them from a broader picture, especially in light of a jury of non-comic book readers. They both wear costumes. They both have capes. They both have secret identities. They both fly, have super strength and speed, have 'families' of other similar characters (supergirl/mary marvel, superboy/Captain Marvel Jr.), have mad scientist arch-villians, have secret identities as journalists...and so on and so forth. You might say: "But Superboy was superman as a young boy in Smallville, and Captain Marvel Jr. was a different kid entirely in the present!" To which I would reply: "Yes, that's true. But in the context of many stories, that's just plain irrelevant to the reader. A solo story of either character would look very similar if you ignored the minor differences. And to someone with no emotional investment in either character, it would be irrelevant." Of course, a better argument would be that most of Superman's 'family' didn't really appear until after Marvel was effectively banned...but that's another story entirely. (Bonus question: who possessed the 'Shazambago'?)
And that's really what this is all about, is a question of reasonable doubt. The deciding factor for the jury will be the credibility of Sony and it's writers over whether or not it was known and intentional. For example, if Sony made overtures prior to the film of licensing rights, and then didn't...they've got a problem. If the movie uses a lot of very similar, even if not copyrighted, terms and elements, then they have a problem.
On the whole, it doesn't look frivolous to me, but it's far from ironclad, either. And having sat on the jury of a frivolous lawsuit, I can tell you that this ain't it, from what we're seeing.
On the one hand, WW appears to have some very strong consequential evidence. Individually not very compelling, but en masse (which presumably is part of their strategey for listing all those attributes) is starts to form (or try to form) a pattern. How much chance of success they have will be determined by a jury, the presentation of the case, and possibly even the facts.
Is it a widely-acknowledged fact that White Wolf's core line is, at the least, influenced by Anne Rice's Vampire series and Lumley's Necroscope? I think that it is. But so is D&D clearly taken from Tolkien, Lieber, Andreson, Howard and Vance. But the question is, how original are the ideas, and does White Wolf legitimately have a right to claim ownership of them? And therein lies the problem.
Many of the points listed serve two functions: to clarify how both properties are dissimilar to the wide-spread 'knowledge' of vampires and wereloves, and to establish a pattern of possible plagarism. Let's remember, outside of gaming and even further outside of fandom in general, many people hold very generalized 'Halloween' type ideas about vamps and werewolves.
But at the same time, many of these ideas aren't exactly revolutionary. It didn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision vampires, as they've been represented for a long time in western culture, as a collection of aristocratic sophisticates. That was, after all, what Dracula was. Formation of vampire clans isn't that much of stretch, especially with the idea of characters like Dracula again, who was already a member of the nobility....it's simply a matter of redefinition. And consider films like Wolfen, the Howling, The Crow and more....White Wolf didn't originate these ideas, by any stretch.
At issue is really the confluence of sources, and the depth of the material. Is it coincidence (albeit an extreme one) or sloppy behavior? If Underground stole it's visual look from The Matrix, and The Matrix stole it's look from somewhere else, who in turn did the same...how do you determine where the Worm Ourborous of cultural referential loop began?
I honestly don't know.
In Harlan Ellison's case(s), there was clear and substantial unacknowledged IP theft. And Harlan Ellison is a maniac when it comes to asserting his rights legally or otherwise, regardless of the amount of money involved. He is an intellectual pit bull, and has proven time and again that he'll bankrupt himself, if necessary, to prove his point. Corporations FEAR THIS.
Circumstantially, it looks like WW might have an actual case...or at least enough of one that they may get Sony to settle with them. Or Sony might fight them tooth-and-nail, to discourage exactly such lawsuits. Someone, somewhere within Sony's organization was familiar with White Wolf, I have no doubt. Either for potential cross-marketing opportunities, or for simply looking at a potential audience. That doesn't mean that the major decision makers did, or that it got that high up the chain. That doesn't remove them from liability, but it does explain some things, if they are found guilty.
To use Captain Marvel as an example, as Villano mentioned above, he doesn't look too similar, when comparing his minutae of details. But look at them from a broader picture, especially in light of a jury of non-comic book readers. They both wear costumes. They both have capes. They both have secret identities. They both fly, have super strength and speed, have 'families' of other similar characters (supergirl/mary marvel, superboy/Captain Marvel Jr.), have mad scientist arch-villians, have secret identities as journalists...and so on and so forth. You might say: "But Superboy was superman as a young boy in Smallville, and Captain Marvel Jr. was a different kid entirely in the present!" To which I would reply: "Yes, that's true. But in the context of many stories, that's just plain irrelevant to the reader. A solo story of either character would look very similar if you ignored the minor differences. And to someone with no emotional investment in either character, it would be irrelevant." Of course, a better argument would be that most of Superman's 'family' didn't really appear until after Marvel was effectively banned...but that's another story entirely. (Bonus question: who possessed the 'Shazambago'?
)And that's really what this is all about, is a question of reasonable doubt. The deciding factor for the jury will be the credibility of Sony and it's writers over whether or not it was known and intentional. For example, if Sony made overtures prior to the film of licensing rights, and then didn't...they've got a problem. If the movie uses a lot of very similar, even if not copyrighted, terms and elements, then they have a problem.
On the whole, it doesn't look frivolous to me, but it's far from ironclad, either. And having sat on the jury of a frivolous lawsuit, I can tell you that this ain't it, from what we're seeing.
Last edited:
