NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3166706)

About two weeks ago, Capcom managed to intrigue everybody by involving itself in some very odd legal gymnastics relating to the basic issue of zombies -- and whether or not it's possible to trademark their antics. More specifically, the company was seeking immunity from lawsuits relating to the general similarity between Dead Rising and George A. Romero's classic cult movie Dawn of the Dead.

Simply put, Capcom announced that it had recently been to court in an attempt to convince a judge to grant legal immunity against any attempt by third parties to sue over the game's basic premise of "Zombies Attack a Shopping Mall" -- an idea which independent movie producers MKR Group and New Line Cinema claim to own the exclusive rights to.

Sadly, Capcom was unsuccessful in its preemptive efforts at thwarting litigation -- which brings us to today's Reuters report announcing that the MKR Group will be going ahead with a plan to sue the game manufacturer over issues of intellectual property violation.

A complaint from MKR (filed in U.S. District Court in New York on Monday) reads:

"Both works are dark comedies. In both, the recreational activities of the zombies and absurdly grotesque 'kill scenes' provide unexpected comedic relief. Both works provided thoughtful social commentary on the 'mall culture' zeitgeist, in addition to serving up a sizable portion of sensationalistic violence."

Capcom's legal spokesman declined to comment on the filing.

So are we now meant to infer that the basic premise of "zombies in malls," a concept seemingly as unpatentable as "zombies in a city" is somehow proprietary? Or does this sudden and increased interest mean that MKR Group suspects a big announcement from Capcom might be planned for sometime in the near future? Hmmm.

It should surprise nobody to learn that Richard Rubinstein, the producer of both the 1979 original film and senior producer of the recent 2004 remake, is a principal shareholder and president of the MKR Group.


This has got to be one of the stupidest lawsuits I've ever heard of...
Are they going to try and copyright Zombies now? :rolleyes:

Poll Coming

By this logic Capcom could sue pretty much every games publisher going for ripping off SF2, including demanding 90% of Midway.

Much as I love the Romero films, this is ridiculous. They've had zombie films set pretty much everywhere - does this mean zombies are off limits now? And how can you not provide "thoughtful social commentary on the 'mall culture' zeitgeist" if you're setting a piece of media in a mall? The things are like huge capitalist cathedrals. How many zombie films don't contain "absurdly grotesque 'kill scenes'"?

Gah.

Capcom seemed to invite problems themselves when they sought immunity as their actions are obviously directed at MKR, who would thus have every right to "suspect" something was up as a result. On the other hand, MKR's lawsuit is pretty stupid- if a story concept can be copyrighted, then we might as well copyright the "damsel in distress" story, the "love triangle" story or the "epic battle" story, because those are just as vague as the zombie story.

It's not the dumbest lawsuit I've ever heard of (the dumbest would be the guy who keeps on trying to copyright words like "stealth", or another guy who tried to sue God and the entire U.S.), but it's pretty close.

Braaaaaaaaains.

Braaaaaaaaains.

*Shotguns Knights of Liberty*

Capcom seemed to invite problems themselves when they sought immunity as their actions are obviously directed at MKR, who would thus have every right to "suspect" something was up as a result. On the other hand, MKR's lawsuit is pretty stupid- if a story concept can be copyrighted, then we might as well copyright the "damsel in distress" story, the "love triangle" story or the "epic battle" story, because those are just as vague as the zombie story.

It's not the dumbest lawsuit I've ever heard of (the dumbest would be the guy who keeps on trying to copyright words like "stealth", or another guy who tried to sue God and the entire U.S.), but it's pretty close.

this isn't nearly as "stupid" as people try to make it out to be. Under existing copyright law, you can not copyright "universal and common" concepts like, "damsel in distress" or "epic battle" or the rest. Which is to say general, common literature themes can not be granted a copyright.

But specific storylines can. Specific, individual stories certainly can be given a copyright. And if we saw a story out there about a boy named "Barry" who turned out to be a "magician" instead a normal human, which other magicians call "huggles" and is sent to a school to learn how to be a "magician" and meets various people and eventually does battle with an evil guy named "holdenmart" would we be at all surprised if J.K. Rowlings sues the living crap out of that author? Would we argue that she couldn't?

At some point a story ceases to be a connection of common themes and becomes the author's own invention. Where that line is, is of course, a matter of the courts. Is "zombie horror story" something that can be protected by copyright? Of course not. Is "zombie horror story taking place entirely in a mall" sufficiently unique? Possibly, it's certainly an open question.

And one not so easily dismissed as saying "if you can copyright story concepts" because, well, yes, you can.

The game has been out for over a year now and was a high profile game. How is it they are just now sueing?

this isn't nearly as "stupid" as people try to make it out to be. Under existing copyright law, you can not copyright "universal and common" concepts like, "damsel in distress" or "epic battle" or the rest. Which is to say general, common literature themes can not be granted a copyright.

But specific storylines can. Specific, individual stories certainly can be given a copyright. And if we saw a story out there about a boy named "Barry" who turned out to be a "magician" instead a normal human, which other magicians call "huggles" and is sent to a school to learn how to be a "magician" and meets various people and eventually does battle with an evil guy named "holdenmart" would we be at all surprised if J.K. Rowlings sues the living crap out of that author? Would we argue that she couldn't?

At some point a story ceases to be a connection of common themes and becomes the author's own invention. Where that line is, is of course, a matter of the courts. Is "zombie horror story" something that can be protected by copyright? Of course not. Is "zombie horror story taking place entirely in a mall" sufficiently unique? Possibly, it's certainly an open question.

And one not so easily dismissed as saying "if you can copyright story concepts" because, well, yes, you can.

I don't question that specific storylines can be copyrighted- I'm just not sure if "zombie attacks mall" is enough of a "specific concept" that it can be copyrighted. I don't know enough about Capcom's game and "Dawn of the Dead" to know if there is actual infringement, but in general terms I don't think there's a definitive case- zombies and the idea that they can attack something aren't specific to George A. Romero.

My concern is that if you declare that "zombie attacks mall" can be copyrighted, it might eventually lead to anything "zombie-related" falling under the same copyright- why restrict the definition to "zombie attacks mall"? Why couldn't it also extend to "zombie attacks city" or "zombie attacks ship", because it's the same idea only within a different setting. We have to make sure we don't go too far with it.

I really think that the justice system should be amended so that people who want to bring this sort of lawsuit can be put into a sort of gladiator-style deathmatch, and whoever wins gets the rights to the product. It's a zombie movies, they're all pretty much the same, or have dark comedy aspects/satire in them.

The game has been out for over a year now and was a high profile game. How is it they are just now sueing?

Because the game kicks ass and there is money to be had.

Here's the funny thing: with Resident Evil, CAPCOM has been making zombie games forever.

And they probably won't stop at Capcom likely. They might go after Twilight Creationsnext , a much smaller company most famous for its Zombies!!! board game and its many expansions, among which is included a Mall setting.

This dickery is right up there with pre-Wizards TSR passing out C&D orders to websites of people posting fan-based D&D materials like they were $cientology.

I seriously doubt George Romero has any part in the lawsuit. Hell, Capcom hired him to make a Japanese Biohazard commercial.

This has got to be one of the stupidest lawsuits I've ever heard of...
Are they going to try and copyright Zombies now? :rolleyes:
They're not copyrighting zombies here. They copyrighting the 'zombies attacking a shopping mall' concept which is very different and very specific.
Majority of ppl out there seeing this game would quite naturally assume it was linked somehow to Romero's (very popular) movies. Thus Capcom is exploiting this fact to sell more games and make more money.

What I want to know is: Is it any good?

But specific storylines can. Specific, individual stories certainly can be given a copyright. And if we saw a story out there about a boy named "Barry" who turned out to be a "magician" instead a normal human, which other magicians call "huggles" and is sent to a school to learn how to be a "magician" and meets various people and eventually does battle with an evil guy named "holdenmart" would we be at all surprised if J.K. Rowlings sues the living crap out of that author? Would we argue that she couldn't?
Something that specific would probably be protected under parody/satire laws. If it wasn't, there've been plenty of older, better "wizard school" books - in fact there's practically nothing in there that's not been done before either in mythology, literature or pen and paper role-playing. I'm guessing JKR got away with it because some of these things were from way before copyright existed, others are out of copyright and for the rest the original creators haven't protected them. This shouldn't mean she now gains exclusive right to the concepts.

With copyright stretching to cover a spectrum around the original work there's a finite number of things to be copyrighted. To apply a fallacious slippery slope, one day it may be impossible to write a book, song or whatever without paying royalties to a dozen multinationals.

"Zombies in mall" is too vague. It's about as specific as "aliens invading D.C.", so I can't see how this would hold up in court.

You copyright the expression, not the idea. And unless their expression is similar... they should be okay.

However, if their expression of the idea is similar enough, they could be sued for infringing by creating an unauthorized derivative work.

Copyright Law is paying off already, and it's only the end of February!

"Both works are dark comedies. In both, the recreational activities of the zombies and absurdly grotesque 'kill scenes' provide unexpected comedic relief. Both works provided thoughtful social commentary on the 'mall culture' zeitgeist, in addition to serving up a sizable portion of sensationalistic violence."
And legal counsel for MKR just described an overwhelming assload of movies.

What I want to know is: Is it any good?

Very.

they can patent human genes, so why not zombies?

Very.
I bow to your superior game knowledge and will head out this weekend to track it down. A good zombie-killing game is one I've been without for far too long.

They're not copyrighting zombies here. They copyrighting the 'zombies attacking a shopping mall' concept which is very different and very specific.
Majority of ppl out there seeing this game would quite naturally assume it was linked somehow to Romero's (very popular) movies. Thus Capcom is exploiting this fact to sell more games and make more money.

What I want to know is: Is it any good?
I'm forced to agree and disagree. "Zombies attacking a mall" obvious reminds people of Dawn of the Dead; however, if companies were allowed to copyright every concept that made people think of x movie/corporation/game, nothing would get done. "Zombies attacking a mall" is a pretty god damn generic concept.
"Undead attack a castle" - the main fight in Army of Darkness, but how many other places have you seen that?
Hell, the "zombies attack a mall" concept is combining two other equally generic concepts that define other movies - the "stuck in (a building)" and the "oh shit, the dead have come back to life as zombies" concepts.

I bow to your superior game knowledge and will head out this weekend to track it down. A good zombie-killing game is one I've been without for far too long.

I've seen it on XBox 360 -- the graphics are terrific, the gameplay is challenging, and just about anything you can lay hands on can be used as a weapon (with varying degrees of effectiveness. (My fiance has it and loves it.)

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/deadrising/review.html

I'm forced to agree and disagree. "Zombies attacking a mall" obvious reminds people of Dawn of the Dead; however, if companies were allowed to copyright every concept that made people think of x movie/corporation/game, nothing would get done. "Zombies attacking a mall" is a pretty god damn generic concept.
"Undead attack a castle" - the main fight in Army of Darkness, but how many other places have you seen that?
Hell, the "zombies attack a mall" concept is combining two other equally generic concepts that define other movies - the "stuck in (a building)" and the "oh shit, the dead have come back to life as zombies" concepts.
I agree with you there. The concept per se is a pretty generic one. What's left to the courts to decide is how similar are the two (the movie and the game). If it's just based around the same concept (zombies trapping you in a building), then it'll probably be thrown out.
However if NewLine can show enough other similarities (and that's the important bit) between the two (say how the zombies act/react, the player's actions, ways of killing, the way the zombies are portrayed, the general storyline etc etc) then they do have a valid point.

It's a bit of a grey area here, primarily due to the immense popularity of Romero's movies. His movies have certainly influenced popular culture's thinking of what a zombie is, and what to expect in a zombie movie/game. It'd be churlish to argue that such cultural influences are in themselves copyrightable and so could never be used. Then every single fantasy book writer out there could be sued by the Tolkein estate.
But how much can be excused as influence and how much be considered plagarism? Where do we draw the line? They're questions best answered in a court of law, hence this lawsuit.
So no, I don't think it ridiculous or frivolous at all.

I really think that the justice system should be amended so that people who want to bring this sort of lawsuit can be put into a sort of gladiator-style deathmatch, and whoever wins gets the rights to the product. It's a zombie movies, they're all pretty much the same, or have dark comedy aspects/satire in them.

Thunderdome!

Two lawyers enter, one comes out...

Plus it'll lower the surplus lawyer population :p

With copyright stretching to cover a spectrum around the original work there's a finite number of things to be copyrighted. To apply a fallacious slippery slope, one day it may be impossible to write a book, song or whatever without paying royalties to a dozen multinationals.

I hear that it's already really hard to name something.

I've seen it on XBox 360 -- the graphics are terrific, the gameplay is challenging, and just about anything you can lay hands on can be used as a weapon (with varying degrees of effectiveness. (My fiance has it and loves it.)

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/deadrising/review.html

I know that it's a good game because I've read other reviews, but after the Jeff Gerstmann incident I don't care too much about what GameSpot have to say, or have ever had to say.

It is a very stupid lawsuit.
Why?
Romero may have thought of the concept first, but movies/games like these have a habit of writing themselves.

On a (loosely) related note, did you know that uncopyrightable and dermatoglyphics are the longest words with no repeating letters?

It is a very stupid lawsuit.
Why?
Romero may have thought of the concept first, but movies/games like these have a habit of writing themselves.

On a (loosely) related note, did you know that uncopyrightable and dermatoglyphics are the longest words with no repeating letters?

Romero merely reinvented zombies as reanimated corpses that hungered for human flesh. There were horror films of traditional Haitian-style zombies long before Night of the Living Dead.

In fact, this lawsuit holds as much water as Marvel Comics trying to sue the makers of City of Heroes because there's a potential for copryright infringement with the character generation.

I hear that it's already really hard to name something.

Names can't be copyrighted. Well, short names and such can't. I'm sure a name like
WHEN THE PAWN hits the conflicts he thinks like a king
What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight
And he'll win the whole thing before he enters the ring
There's no body to batter when your mind is your might
So when you go solo, you hold your own hand
And remember that depth is the greatest of heights
And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land
And if you fall it won't matter, cuz you know that you're right

could be copyrighted.

Names can't be copyrighted. Well, short names and such can't. I'm sure a name like
WHEN THE PAWN hits the conflicts he thinks like a king
What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight
And he'll win the whole thing before he enters the ring
There's no body to batter when your mind is your might
So when you go solo, you hold your own hand
And remember that depth is the greatest of heights
And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land
And if you fall it won't matter, cuz you know that you're right

could be copyrighted.

I meant more trade-marking than anything else, names have to get increasingly stupid as all the relatively reasonable ones get taken.

I meant more trade-marking than anything else, names have to get increasingly stupid as all the relatively reasonable ones get taken.

You have to make a name recognizable and it has to go with a product to be trademarked. So unless you're trying to name something Microsoft or Coca Cola, I think it shouldn't be too difficult. But this is speculation.

Where's the "you're shittin' me, right?" selection?

Even if the game shares similarities with some movies (I don't know because I haven't seen them, nor have I played the game), the reason for having the game set in a mall is probably more technical than anything else. A game needs walls that box the player in, for both technical and gameplay reasons, and a mall provides this without the level designers having to do it by lining the sides of the player's path with fences, unclimbable mountains and invisible walls. It also gives them the perfect excuse to make different areas different in design, and let the player move between these areas quickly, and back and forth, without it feeling unnatural.

Many great games put the player in a relatively small, self-contained area. A few examples is the city in Bioshock, the spaceship in System Shock 2, the ship graveyard in Elite Force and the prison in Riddick.

Also, I wonder if the idiots suing Capcom even realizes that if copyright did indeed work the way they hope it'll work for them, the very same copyright ideas, if enforced, would have prevented them from making their zombie movies in the first place because other and too similar movies already existed. And those zombie movies wouldn't exist either because they too built on something made before. And so on.

Actually, we'd all be sitting in caves. Cold and not wearing any clothes, because the idea of clothes would be someone's property, as would the recipe for fire be.

But specific storylines can. Specific, individual stories certainly can be given a copyright. And if we saw a story out there about a boy named "Barry" who turned out to be a "magician" instead a normal human, which other magicians call "huggles" and is sent to a school to learn how to be a "magician" and meets various people and eventually does battle with an evil guy named "holdenmart" would we be at all surprised if J.K. Rowlings sues the living crap out of that author? Would we argue that she couldn't?Not in Russia, she can't. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2914111.stm)