White Wolf sues Sony over the movie "Underworld"

[Xeriar]

It is a common legal practice to bring as much as you possibly can to a lawsuit, which is why many of the points seem 'frivolous'. Of course they are frivolous alone - but everything taken together...

 

[nikolai]

My opinion:

I really don't buy the "if you take all the points together it looks like they have something" arguement. Can people really claim rights over a collection of motifs they collect together from different places? White Wolf's just trying to assert property rights over a loose genre they didn't invent.

There's a whole morass of vampire literature, just because both sources deviates from Dracula in a way that has some similarities doesn't mean one's copied from the other. There's a range of variant literature both before and after Dracula that can be drawn on.

The use of terms drawn from noblity (sire, clan), horror (abomination, coven) and blood/bat/romance metaphors (bloods, embrace, torpor) doesn't demonstrate anything. These things have been used by writers again and again, they're obvious extensions of the vampire concept.

This isn't a statement on the validity of the suit, I can't comment on US law. But, if this is a just world it will fail. Does anyone think the world would be a better place it lawsuits like this succeeded? Frankly, we could all easily draw up similar documents to the pdf (and in many cases a damn sight more substantial than it) with a copy of Lord of the Rings, Gone with the Wind, a Raymond Chandler novel and respective works inspired by them.

nikolai.

 

[reapersaurus]

Does anyone think the world would be a better place it lawsuits like this succeeded?

umm... YES! Absolutely, without a doubt.

Let's assume that it succeeds.
Let's further assume that it succeeds because there is enough burden of proof to show that Underworld did copy enough things from WoD to justify slapping Sony on the wrists.

If that's the case, than why would anyone not think this was a Good Thing?

Defending Intellectual Property, and protecting your creative efforts suddenly became something Bad on these boards?

That is NOT the common approach taken on these boards - not even CLOSE.
What explains this aberration from the normal board approach here?

 

[Pielorinho]

BTW: personally, the strongest parts of the lawsuit are the shared differences from traditional vampires, as well as character actions and relationships (torpor, what the childe and sire are doing, etc) as well as the conceit that there are 2 "groups" in Underworld: a ruling group (Ventrue in WW) and a group that is concerned with beauty (Toreador in WW).

Actually, I think these are great examples of the weakest part of the suit. Vampires entering torpor was certainly an Anne Rice trope long before it was a White Wolf trope, as was the relationship between sire and child (I'm assuming the spelling of "child" is immaterial in the movie, so I'll use conventional, rather than WW, spelling). If such things are anyone's IP, they'd be Anne Rice's; WW's use of them without giving Rice royalties is implicit acknowledgement that such tropes are NOT IP.

As for the two groups in Underworld -- this is very weak. Does underworld include as well the violent revolutionary punk vampires (the brujah)? What about the wizard vampires (the tremere)? Or the incredibly ugly sewer-dwelling Nosferatu, or the bestial Gangrel, or the insane Malkavians? They bring up the Assamites in the lawsuit, but where are the Tzimisce, the Ahrimane, the Lasombra, the (forget the name) Gypsy-vampires? The serpentine Settites?

Surely there are only so many stereotypes of different Western vampires, and White Wolf has, as a sensible gaming company, come up with clans allowing players to take on just about any stereotype, from the ugly monstrous vamps to the beautiful effete vamps. If the movie Underworld were to differentiate their vampires from one another in any way at all, they were bound to run into one or another of the stereotypes that White Wolf also mined.

And let's look again at the werewolves. The heart of the WW Werewolf game is a battle against encroaching civilization. While there are urban werewolves in WW's setting, they generally fall into one of two groups: homeless people, and computer geeks. "Street thugs" is most certainly not a WW werewolf stereotype; while there are occasional Get of Fenris street thugs (implied, I believe), they're definitely an exception to the general image.

Again, White Wolf has a huge variety of stereotypes all over their materials. As well they should: they've published literally dozens of books on the mythos, and they've tried to draw out every existing vampire stereotype somewhere or antoehr. For that reason, whatever choices Underworld made when describing their werewolves and vampires, they were bound to run into ideas that WW had incorporated.

The lawsuit mentions that Underworld vampires reflect in mirrors, as do WW vampires. But what if Underworld vampires didn't reflect in mirrors? Why, neither do LaSombra vampires in White Wolf! Look at the blatant plagiarism!

You see what I'm saying? By virtue of entering this genre (modern goth-punk vampires), whichever way they turn, they'll be running into images White Wolf has worked with. That doesn't mean they're borrowing from WW, much less illegally copying from them.

Daniel

 

[nikolai]

Does anyone think the world would be a better place it lawsuits like this succeeded?

To which reapersaurus replied (and thanks for the spirited response):

umm... YES! Absolutely, without a doubt.

Let's assume that it succeeds.
Let's further assume that it succeeds because there is enough burden of proof to show that Underworld did copy enough things from WoD to justify slapping Sony on the wrists.

If that's the case, than why would anyone not think this was a Good Thing?

There's a lot of unknowns there, what is "enough" copying to "justify" WW winning?

I've no problem with intellectual property, or it being defended. The question is should WW have ownership of the IP they claim to? Rephrased, should they be able to stop people from creating works as similar to the WoD as they claim Underworld to be? I don't think they should.

I don't think giving WW ownership of the vampires, werewolves etc as seen in WoD does any good. (For that matter I don't think they're the results of the creative talent at WW, the ideas presented there are adapted from somewhere and I think that perfectly legitimate - though WW don't appear to). As long as setting specific points and characters aren't plagerised, I've no problem with other people having a bash at the sort of story that was in Love of Monster.

Creating this movie isn't in the same league as other issues on the boards - it's not mp3ing or OCRing something or fanfiction in the same world. I tend to think it should be allowed.

yours,

nikolai.

 

[Villano]

Hmmm. Thorny issue, this.
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'?)

Too true. Lawsuits like this rely on the ignorance of the jury. The Superman/Capt. Marvel points make them seem virtually identical. It's only a comic fan that would recognize the above points describe half the superhero population. Drop the part about flying and wearing a cape, and you've just described Spider-Man.

They both wear costumes? Check.

They both have secret identities? Check.

They both have super strength and speed? Check.

They both have 'families' of other similar characters? Check. Spider-Woman and Spider-Girl, not to mention Venom and Carnage if you want to stretch it.

They bot have mad scientist arch-villians? Check. Dr. Octopus and/or Green Goblin.

They both have secret identities as journalists? Check.

DC should sue!

 

[Tsyr]

You see what I'm saying? By virtue of entering this genre (modern goth-punk vampires), whichever way they turn, they'll be running into images White Wolf has worked with. That doesn't mean they're borrowing from WW, much less illegally copying from them.

An excellent point, though as I've said before, I'm perfectly willing to accept that they did copy from WW, for lack of proof one way or another, it's a valid theory.

And if not WW, then someone else. Vampires not being "true to the legends" in terms of what kills them is hardly a new concept... in fact, it's sort of chic right now... Every vampire flic introduces new concepts of what kills vampires and what doesn't.

 

[reapersaurus]

NOW we're getting to some good points about this suit.

I'd have to agree with where Pielorinho and nikolai are going.
I'd have to say, WW's incredibly-voluminous output for the WoD over the last decade+ HAS made it pretty damn hard to have anyone else create a vampire story that wouldn't be stepping on the toes of some WW content.
They have put SO many ideas and character types in their World, I doubt if there's any non-fringe idea that hasn't been used.

What does this mean for any Vampire material from here on out?

Personally, I think it's a case-by-case basis.
While I recongized the inclusion in the movie Blade of blatantly V:tM ideas, I thought the main thrust of the movie, and by far the lion's share of the movie was concentrating on non-WW material.

With Underworld, I'd have to guess (and that's all I can do at this point) that the main thrust of the movie IS infringing on WW material. It LOOKS like the inspiration for the movie-world came directly from WW's ideas, not in Blade when it was used as window dressing.

P.S. gads, it's ironic that my only V:tM character, one I'm using in the In-Character board, is named Nikolai. It's tough using the name in any way other than in reference to my character....

 

[Jhamin]

Alot of folks are talking about this movie vs. why White Wolf didn't sue over "Blade".

While I'm not sure about White Wolf vs. Blade, didn't one of the White Wolf artists sue the producers of Blade over Blade's Tatoos? I seem to recall that they were a little too close to some tatoos on a vampire in one of the Vampire Players guides.

So this isn't exactly unprecedented.

 

[Pielorinho]

P.S. gads, it's ironic that my only V:tM character, one I'm using in the In-Character board, is named Nikolai. It's tough using the name in any way other than in reference to my character....

Looks to me like someone's copying you. Have you considered a lawsuit?

I actually like WW games a lot: while the rules systems are wonky, I really enjoy the flavor, and they're second in my gaming heart only to D&D. However, from the little I know about copyright law, they're not going to come close to meeting the standard of IP theft in this case. Even if the producers of Undeworld openly acknowledge a debt to WW's universe, that's not grounds for a lawsuit; people are inspired by the works of others all the time, and an aesthetic, a general idea, a mood, a theme, a dynamic -- none of this is protected IP.

I remember in college knowing a woman who categorically refused to play WW games because, she claimed, she'd sent them a proposal for a game based around ghosts, and they'd rejected it; when Wraith: the Oblivion came out, it was identical to her proposal (she said). In that case, I defended WW against charges of copyright infringement on grounds very similar to what I'm doing now.

Daniel