Just as happened with Kurt Cobain's appearance in Guitar Hero 5 and the screams from the bloated, sucking mass which rallied to his defense, Activision is taking some heat for the use of likenesses in their music games. The issue comes this time from No Doubt who are outraged that their avatars can be used to play the full playlist of songs.
The suit filed today alleges that Activision withheld information on how the avatars could be used in the game and, when asked to prevent the use of the avatars on unapproved songs, refused to accommodate the band by stating it would be "too expensive."
While I do think it would be pretty slimy if Activision had in fact not been clear with them, the way the suit approaches the issue is a bit disgusting in it's own right. Instead of making that the main complaint, they dress it up as a bruise to their ego, as if the internet isn't already full of images of Gwen Stefani's head on Marv Albert's lingiere-wearing body.
I want to get behind No Doubt on this because I think people should be able to have at least some measure of control over the use of their likeness in a commercial product but it's really hard to do that when they're going to be such crybabies about something I thought should had been written off as a kinda funny but ultimately harmless thing by now anyway.
Conrad Zimmerman is Destructoid's News Editor and home to the busiest mustache in the gaming press. An amateur historian and pop culture fanatic, Conrad possesses a nearly limitless wealth of videogame factoids and a passion for the power of games to teach, inspire and entertain. He enjoys reading, writing and turning things which should be fun into work.
Likes
Mega Man 2, Arcade Games, Books about games, Board games, Having cultural interests that aren't games
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
40 comments | showing # 1 to 40
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
4:20 PM on 11.04.2009
| 
Fuck them.
Also I can't wait for people to complain about themselves in Lego Rock Band.
Silly child. Panic! wasn't in Guitar Hero III.
I agree people should have some measure over their likenesses but when you willing sign off without reading the fine print...whatcha gonna do?
The response they got from Acti is bullshit though. Oh well.
Look at it like this Gwen: They made Hollaback Girl listenable in DJ Hero...5 times over in fact.
Sue em and shut down the mediocrity!
Who the hell would pay an artist to be in the game so they can only play their own song?
"I'm pretty sure No Doubt signed a contract. If they didn't read the fine print on it then that's their fault."
@Xzyliac
"I agree people should have some measure over their likenesses but when you willing sign off without reading the fine print...whatcha gonna do? "
Really?
Are you guys honestly so naive as to believe that there isn't an army of lawyers on both sides analyzing the "fine print" of any contracts related to marketing and intellectual properties?
The problem seems that what may be written in the "fine print" - and what the developers actually did might be two different things. That's why there is a lawsuit.
From the original article:
"In a suit filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court, the band alleges that Santa Monica-based Activision, the maker of the game, has far exceeded the contractually approved use of likenesses, or avatars, of band members Gwen Stefani, Tony Kanal, Tom Dumont and Adrian Young."
and, "No Doubt’s contract with Activision allowed the company to use the band’s music and likenesses in no more than three of the band’s own songs, the suit states."
Lawyers, even armies of them, screw up all the time. Especially in contracts.
Regardless of what No Doubt claims who's to say they didn't just screw up? The contract also could've had convoluted wording thus giving Acti the upper hand.
I'm just saying musicians aren't very good at knowing what they're signing off in contracts. I don't know why but they just aren't.
I know, I was just giving an example
I swear, everytime I hear about any musician saying or doing anything outside of their music career, I get the impression that they're a total fucking moron.
Because, that's ridiculous and overly simplified thinking. We're talking about oodles of cash here involving lawyers, intellectual property licenses, contract writers, developers, etc - not people who wear paper hats at their jobs.
It doesn't matter if the musicians aren't personally very good at interpreting legalese; they pay lawyers pretty well to represent their interests.
It sounds like there's a legitimate disagreement here over the terms of the usage of the music and the likenesses. Just because we don't fancy No Doubt's music doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate complaint.
Err...I like No Doubt. Like a lot.
Anyways again musicians sign shit and regret it all the fucking time. Seriously ALL THE TIME. Why? I dunno! Seriously I wish I had better reasoning and could give you a nice long and thought out rebuttal but all I'm saying is more often than not the artist is at fault here.
If Acti is at fault they'll get what's coming to them. But I'm not buying No Doubt's (or their representation) story here.
Oodles of cash doesn't buy intelligence.
"Anyways again musicians sign shit and regret it all the fucking time. Seriously ALL THE TIME. Why? I dunno! Seriously I wish I had better reasoning and could give you a nice long and thought out rebuttal but all I'm saying is more often than not the artist is at fault here. "
What on earth can you possibly be basing this on? Also, assuming this were somehow magically true, does this automatically make this lawsuit less legitimate?
I can see it now:
The Judge: "Well, since all of these other musicians aren't very good at reading contracts and often have 'buyer's remorse' about what they've signed, we're just going to have to assume that No Doubt is automatically at fault here. The Court going to be forced to throw out yet another trivial lawsuit, regardless of the arguments!"
"...Furthermore, tt doesn't matter that they've been a high-profile band for over two decades or that they have been dealing with licensing issues for longer than most of the readership of Destructoid has been alive, they're not cool and smart like Activision (who are publishing Modern Warfare 2!!!) and therefore, we have no doubt that they're completely incapable of protecting their image, music or personal interests. So, NEXT CASE!!"
Maybe oodles of cash won't always buy you intelligence, but I do know that it can buy you people who don't overly-simplify complex issues! ;)
Didn't I just say if Acti fucked them over the court would see it NB's way? I'm not over simplifying anything. I'm saying this is the same old song and dance we've seen over and over and almost every time the courts have seen it Acti's way so I don't see any reason for this to be any different other than Acti said "Fuck you" when they asked them to lock their characters to their songs.
They tried it with Hendrix, they tried with Cash, and as we all know they tried it with Cobain (although I don't think that's been settled). It always ends the same.
Would it completely blow your mind if Activision used evil complicated wording and NB signed off on it and after the Nirvana erupted NB went back to Acti and asked for them to lock their avatars and they said no?
Yeah, No Doubt sucks and Gwen Stefani is a lizard whore from Mars, because they're all in Band Hero. There, I said it.
the owners of Jimmy Hendrix's estate and Tool had no problems in world tour...why all of a sudden are there problems in 5 and band hero?
not like i care...I hate No Doubt
Since I'm already being way too talkative I'll keep talking.
A)Tool wasn't in GH. Just their songs and some stupid shit venue.
B) Someone did have a problem with Hendrix. I don't believe it was their estate exactly but some individual who had their hand in the license. Anyway the lawsuit died farely quickly and quietly as they all have except for Courtney Love because she has a fat mouth and everyone pays attention to her for whatever reason and now this one because Courtney Love brought this to people's attention.
So either things are getting really shady or this is just news fodder. Both are likely. However again this isn't THAT new. It's just previous attempts died quickly so I'm assuming Acti payed them off real nicely real quickly right up until Courtney Love came along and probably didn't take the bait OR Acti has evil wording.
Either way I'm saying what they did is right entirely. Just, well, legally it may have been.
Holy. Shit. I can't wait until they take Britney Spears without permit.
I never said Tool the BAND was in the game, their venue was in it and anytime you play even one of their songs it can ONLY be in their venue. even if you made a quickplay list Tool songs can only be in the Tool venue.
either way it's just attention grabbing at this point. *shrugs*
Also, @Prof. Pew
When Qui-Gon signed his contract he didn't foresee Lucas' ability to rape and misuse characters.
Did any of these musicians (I use that term lightly in No Doubt's case) actually read the contracts? They sure didn't seem to mind signing away for money and publicity. Now play dumb and say Activision took advantage, but really they didn't take advantage if it's in the contract because it's your responsibility to read a contract before signing it (tht's why they exist), and score even more publicity and possible even more money while making teenyboppers think you have so much integrity.
I was fully behind the Kurt Cobain thing. That really did feel like the raping of a dead man when you think how he was and to see his digital self singing, well, No Doubt songs.
If he had come back from the dead, that right there would have made him eat another shotgun shell all over again.
But No Doubt? They're as inconsequential a pop band as there is. People like them and Blink 182, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using in different songs. They were borderline cartoon characters to begin with.
And now they might get to look like they're singing well written songs.
Also, B-A-N-A-N-A-S. WHERE IS THE SHAME!?
Screw 'em.