ZeniMax Sued for "Repugnant" Fallout 4 Ads

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The parent company of Bethesda is being sued for $1 million over the improper use of Dion DiMucci’s song, “The Wanderer,” in Fallout 4 ads. Apparently, the singer/songwriter is not happy about his music being used in “objectionable” commercials that feature “repeated homicides in a dark, dystopian landscape, where violence is glorified as sport.”

Dion is heading into a legal face-off with the people behind “Fallout 4.” Singer/songwriter Dion DiMucci has filed suit against ZeniMax Media over the use of his classic song “The Wanderer” in ads for the video game, according to court papers obtained by TheWrap. In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, DiMucci says that he never signed off ZeniMax using “The Wanderer” for the “Fallout 4” ads, which the lawsuit calls “repugnant.”
 
Last edited:
I hope he loses. I hope zenimax had all proper rights to the song and this gets thrown out of court.
 
Last edited:
Danny Dawg said:
Hmmm .. . about what 2 years since the game came out and now he sues . . . .sounds like somebody's royalty checks are running thin. ..
Click to expand...

So, when ZeniMax sued Oculus over allegations the court found to be meritless, was it because ZeniMax' funds were running thing? What about ZeniMax' new lawsuit against Samsung? How about ZeniMax' legal games with Human Head to try to take over their studio, resulting in the scrapping of the original Prey 2? ZeniMax are greedy predators and are lawsuit crazy. I don't know why people are wanting to act as apologist for them.


Vader1975 said:
I doubt they didn't have official authorization from the actual owners. The "original writer" who doesn't own the song wants a piece if the pie. He will soon find out he gets nothing.
Click to expand...

According to the article, the original writer (I'm unsure of why you put that in quotations) possess rights over the licensing of his music. If he has rights, he must still possess some ownership.


viscountalpha said:
I hope he loses. I hope zenimax had all proper rights to the song and this gets thrown out of court.
Click to expand...

Why? And ZeniMax allegedly didn't:

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, DiMucci says that he never signed off ZeniMax using “The Wanderer” for the “Fallout 4” ads, which the lawsuit calls “repugnant.”

According to the suit, DiMucci entered an agreement via UMG Recordings to license the song for the “Fallout 4” commercials.

However, the suit says, under the agreement DiMucci had the right to separately bargain with ZeniMax for a better rate, and to prohibit the use of the song unless his terms were met first. The suit says that ZeniMax failed to separately bargain with DiMucci, and failed to obtain his advance consent before the commercials ran.

The consent portion is important, the lawsuit says, because the “Fallout 4” ads were “objectionable” due to their violence.

...

Had the terms of the licensing agreement been adhered to, the lawsuit contends, DiMucci could have used his right to refuse consent to persuade ZeniMax “to change the scripts so that, for instance, they instead told the story of a post-apocalyptic struggle for survival without craven violence.
 
Delicieuxz said:
However, the suit says, under the agreement DiMucci had the right to separately bargain with ZeniMax for a better rate, and to prohibit the use of the song unless his terms were met first.


Had the terms of the licensing agreement been adhered to, the lawsuit contends, DiMucci could have used his right to refuse consent to persuade ZeniMax “to change the scripts so that, for instance, they instead told the story of a post-apocalyptic struggle for survival without craven violence.
Click to expand...

Sounds like if the "licensing agreement been adhered to", he would just be richer. I doubt morals and ethics had much play in it.
 
Delicieuxz said:
So, when ZeniMax sued Oculus over allegations the court found to be meritless, was it because ZeniMax' funds were running thing? What about ZeniMax' new lawsuit against Samsung? How about ZeniMax' legal games with Human Head to try to take over their studio, resulting in the scrapping of the original Prey 2? ZeniMax are greedy predators and are lawsuit crazy. I don't know why people are wanting to act as apologist for them.




According to the article, the original writer (I'm unsure of why you put that in quotations) possess rights over the licensing of his music. If he has rights, he must still possess some ownership.




Why? And ZeniMax allegedly didn't:

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, DiMucci says that he never signed off ZeniMax using “The Wanderer” for the “Fallout 4” ads, which the lawsuit calls “repugnant.”

According to the suit, DiMucci entered an agreement via UMG Recordings to license the song for the “Fallout 4” commercials.

However, the suit says, under the agreement DiMucci had the right to separately bargain with ZeniMax for a better rate, and to prohibit the use of the song unless his terms were met first. The suit says that ZeniMax failed to separately bargain with DiMucci, and failed to obtain his advance consent before the commercials ran.

The consent portion is important, the lawsuit says, because the “Fallout 4” ads were “objectionable” due to their violence.

...

Had the terms of the licensing agreement been adhered to, the lawsuit contends, DiMucci could have used his right to refuse consent to persuade ZeniMax “to change the scripts so that, for instance, they instead told the story of a post-apocalyptic struggle for survival without craven violence.
Click to expand...

Once again though, he waited two years to complain they didn't do separate bargaining with him? And he's fucking high if he thinks himself and his song had the power to influence the "scripts" and change the story to not involve violence.

As for ZeniMax being greedy predators...good job you know what a corporation is, do you want a gold star now?
 
Nolan7689 said:
Once again though, he waited two years to complain they didn't do separate bargaining with him? And he's fucking high if he thinks himself and his song had the power to influence the "scripts" and change the story to not involve violence.
Click to expand...

Well, who knows why the wait, and what happened in that time.

The power to influence script he's talking about could be regarding the narrative and message presented by the commercial, and not regarding what's in the actual game.

As for ZeniMax being greedy predators...good job you know what a corporation is, do you want a gold star now?
Click to expand...

What's the point of that post (which missed the point of the post it is responding to) - is it because of some behavioural tick? Not only is it unwarranted in the conversation, but business is about being greedy and predatory like government is about being subjugating of citizens - only the bad ones are.

Also, if you're defending ZeniMax for being unscrupulous and motivated by greed because 'they want money, duh', then you have no valid argument against the songwriter seeking to get more money in this case, because you just acted as apologist for greed-based actions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this
Lawsuit sounds like shit to me. Reading the article, he entered into an agreement with UMG recording to license the song for the commercial. However his terms with UMG was supposed to be that he could by pass them and go directly to ZeniMax to get more money from them by creating a separate licensing deal directly that would cut UMG out of the picture. At that point had he seen the final version of the trailer he could have charged them extra and voided the other contract to "safeguard himself against the potential loss of goodwill". I am sorry but if you are licensing your content for a game that is part of a series you know what you are getting into. He is just upset that they never came directly to him to try to create a second deal to cut UMG out of the loop so that he could get more money.

Personally I would like to see how sells of this song did before and after the commercial as I bet it brought him more money afterwards.
 
Delicieuxz said:
So, when ZeniMax sued Oculus over allegations the court found to be meritless, was it because ZeniMax' funds were running thing? What about ZeniMax' new lawsuit against Samsung? How about ZeniMax' legal games with Human Head to try to take over their studio, resulting in the scrapping of the original Prey 2? ZeniMax are greedy predators and are lawsuit crazy. I don't know why people are wanting to act as apologist for them.




According to the article, the original writer (I'm unsure of why you put that in quotations) possess rights over the licensing of his music. If he has rights, he must still possess some ownership.




Why? And ZeniMax allegedly didn't:

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, DiMucci says that he never signed off ZeniMax using “The Wanderer” for the “Fallout 4” ads, which the lawsuit calls “repugnant.”

According to the suit, DiMucci entered an agreement via UMG Recordings to license the song for the “Fallout 4” commercials.

However, the suit says, under the agreement DiMucci had the right to separately bargain with ZeniMax for a better rate, and to prohibit the use of the song unless his terms were met first. The suit says that ZeniMax failed to separately bargain with DiMucci, and failed to obtain his advance consent before the commercials ran.

The consent portion is important, the lawsuit says, because the “Fallout 4” ads were “objectionable” due to their violence.

...

Had the terms of the licensing agreement been adhered to, the lawsuit contends, DiMucci could have used his right to refuse consent to persuade ZeniMax “to change the scripts so that, for instance, they instead told the story of a post-apocalyptic struggle for survival without craven violence.
Click to expand...

Without the actual contract and documents, all you can do is speculate. Don't get me wrong, I think zenimax is shady as fuck but that doesn't excuse proper execution of the contract. If they did wrong he artist, then they should but as it stands I stand by my previous comment that it appears to be meritless.
 
Delicieuxz said:
What's the point of that post (which missed the point of the post it is responding to) - is it because of some behavioural tick? Not only is it unwarranted in the conversation, but business is about being greedy and predatory like government is about being subjugating of citizens - only the bad ones are.
Click to expand...
Only as unwarranted as your post point out the obvious that ZeniMax are not to be defended or trusted. Sorry I realize that is all large companies. They're in the business to make money, and they're cutthroat.

Also, if you're defending ZeniMax for being unscrupulous and motivated by greed because 'they want money, duh', then you have no valid argument against the songwriter seeking to get more money in this case, because you just acted as apologist for greed-based actions.
Click to expand...
I didn't defend ZeniMax at all unless you consider saying they're par for the course a defense. I also didn't argue against the songwriter beyond his strange wait to file.

If he has a case he has a case but nothing about this seems like he has a case to me, not that I'm an expert. The greed of either party is basically a nonissue, and just mud slinging.
 
According to the article, the original writer (I'm unsure of why you put that in quotations) possess rights over the licensing of his music. If he has rights, he must still possess some ownership.

The version used was the recorded Dion version that is actually owned by the Universal Music Group / Capital Records / 3C Records / Laurie Records. So licensing use of that recording does not require the consent of Ernie Maresca as licensing rights for that particular recording are owned by UMG whom Fallout's creators got permission from.
So no they don't have a case.

"Dion DiMucci entered an agreement via UMG Recordings to license the song for the "Fallout 4" commercials."
 
Last edited:
“Defendant’s Commercials were objectionable because they featured repeated homicides in a dark, dystopian landscape, where violence is glorified as sport. The killings and physical violence were not to protect innocent life, but instead were repugnant and morally indefensible images designed to appeal to young consumers,” the lawsuit reads.

I must have missed something. I saw him shoot something that looked like a bug and he shot at a giant humanoid (actual human?). Aside from the bug, I'm not sure he hit anything. I'd rate this ad PG...maybe PG-13 (but probably not). Maybe the contract is in his favor, but if his reason for suing is stupid even if he ends up having the law on his side.
 
I found the violence in that game ad released over 1 1/2 years ago to be horrific.
Did I mention how repugnanted it made me feel.
I want my blankey.
 
Last edited:
Now, if the guy was suing because parts of the Fallout 4 script were soooo excruciatingly stoooooopid and the game as a whole was a bit of a letdown...
 
How to get rich 101 for bad musicians:

  1. Sell your music for anything without thinking, the more questionable the better.
  2. Wait until some of the works that uses your music makes a lot of money
  3. Sue their ass for some made up whiny reason!
My advice: Fuck you hypocrite if your concern is really the objectionable content, then you should've sued them immediately. But if you offer up any settlement from the case for charity for murder victims then I'll believe it's really about the message for you and not a cash grab.
 
M76 said:
How to get rich 101 for bad musicians:

  1. Sell your music for anything without thinking, the more questionable the better.
  2. Wait until some of the works that uses your music makes a lot of money
  3. Sue their ass for some made up whiny reason!
My advice: Fuck you hypocrite if your concern is really the objectionable content, then you should've sued them immediately. But if you offer up any settlement from the case for charity for murder victims then I'll believe it's really about the message for you and not a cash grab.
Click to expand...

Bad musician? He ain't my thing, but Dion is pretty well regarded by a lot of musicians. As for the timing of the suit, if he didn't sign of on it, then maybe he wasn't aware of it. Or maybe the lawyers told him to hold off. The timing, IMO, is not nearly as relevant as the silly statement about the video having lots of violence and killing. It's just not there.
 
nilepez said:
Bad musician? He ain't my thing, but Dion is pretty well regarded by a lot of musicians. As for the timing of the suit, if he didn't sign of on it, then maybe he wasn't aware of it. Or maybe the lawyers told him to hold off. The timing, IMO, is not nearly as relevant as the silly statement about the video having lots of violence and killing. It's just not there.
Click to expand...

He knew about it the entire time. He gave consent for the song to used but UMG was supposed to have special stipulations in the contract. those never got followed through on, if anything he should be suing UMG if he really thinks he has a case.

He told UMG that yes the song could be licensed for the game and gave them the amount to license it for. The contract was to state that he could make a agreement with Zenimax himself to try to get more money from them outside of the original UMG contract. They were also supposed to run the final product past him. The reason being that if he seen the final work he could then request that a new contract be created to give him more money and void the first contract. So this is all just about money.
 
nilepez said:
Bad musician? He ain't my thing, but Dion is pretty well regarded by a lot of musicians. As for the timing of the suit, if he didn't sign of on it, then maybe he wasn't aware of it. Or maybe the lawyers told him to hold off. The timing, IMO, is not nearly as relevant as the silly statement about the video having lots of violence and killing. It's just not there.
Click to expand...
So he somehow became aware of it suddenly now after the ad has been out of the public eye for over a year? Give me a break. Of course his lawyers told him to hold off, cause they can have a bigger payday then. And he should've told them to fuck off if he had any self respect.

I wasn't even aware of him until now, so to me this seems like a publicity stunt more than anything.
 
Exavior said:
He knew about it the entire time. He gave consent for the song to used but UMG was supposed to have special stipulations in the contract. those never got followed through on, if anything he should be suing UMG if he really thinks he has a case.

He told UMG that yes the song could be licensed for the game and gave them the amount to license it for. The contract was to state that he could make a agreement with Zenimax himself to try to get more money from them outside of the original UMG contract. They were also supposed to run the final product past him. The reason being that if he seen the final work he could then request that a new contract be created to give him more money and void the first contract. So this is all just about money.
Click to expand...
What I meant was he may not have known about the content of the video (I don't always read the articles, but I did this time ;) )
 
M76 said:
So he somehow became aware of it suddenly now after the ad has been out of the public eye for over a year? Give me a break. Of course his lawyers told him to hold off, cause they can have a bigger payday then. And he should've told them to fuck off if he had any self respect.
I wasn't even aware of him until now, so to me this seems like a publicity stunt more than anything.
Click to expand...

If you haven't heard of him, that's on you. He was a pretty big artist in teh 50s and 60s (not sure how well he did in the 70s). Pretty sure he was a huge influence on Dylan and probably Springsteen too.
 
while yes the two years is sketchy... i gotta say, what isnt reported anywhere is if he had actually been trying to reach out to them during that two years or not... that makes a huuuuge difference here (but only about the sketchyness of it... not the fact that you licensed it and now you just want more cuze ... ya know.... greed).
 
harbingerofdoom said:
while yes the two years is sketchy... i gotta say, what isnt reported anywhere is if he had actually been trying to reach out to them during that two years or not... that makes a huuuuge difference here (but only about the sketchyness of it... not the fact that you licensed it and now you just want more cuze ... ya know.... greed).
Click to expand...

Agree here - I think that if the guy knew about the 'abuse' or 'use without consent' and did not say anything or attempt to say anything - that certainly has bearing on the merit of his argument (diminishes the merit). Now, if he was trying to negotiate and can demonstrate this and that he was being ignored, then that certainly increases the merit of the argument.
 
nilepez said:
If you haven't heard of him, that's on you. He was a pretty big artist in teh 50s and 60s (not sure how well he did in the 70s). Pretty sure he was a huge influence on Dylan and probably Springsteen too.
Click to expand...

In case you aren't aware 1950 was almost 70 years ago. Honestly I have heard the song, couldn't have told you who sings it as that is decades before I was born.
 
Exavior said:
In case you aren't aware 1950 was almost 70 years ago. Honestly I have heard the song, couldn't have told you who sings it as that is decades before I was born.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's before I was born too, though this is from 61 and I think he started in the late 50's....yup 1958 was his first hit and he was probably 18 or 19 then. But my point wasn't that you know his music, so much as you know he's not an unknown crap musician which is what M76 said.
 
nilepez said:
Hey, it's before I was born too, though this is from 61 and I think he started in the late 50's....yup 1958 was his first hit and he was probably 18 or 19 then. But my point wasn't that you know his music, so much as you know he's not an unknown crap musician which is what M76 said.
Click to expand...

But his statement still holds some truth even if I had heard of one or two of his songs. I had no idea what the singer of the songs were till now because of this lawsuit. Honestly I assumed that the singer of the song was long dead.

Knowing of a song and knowing the singer are two different things.
 
Exercate said:
Yeah, I saw that a few times today. The first story said that Dion SUPER-disliked Fallout 4...without an explanation. This one explains it in more detail.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainm...-‘the-wanderer’-in-‘repugnant’-ads/ar-BBDODCL

You know, it's all that VIOLENCE stuff that Dion does not want associated with his name.
Click to expand...

Nobody even heard of this dude until now. Way to get noticed I suppose... All in all, it all sounds like he figured he should have made more money given how well FO4 did hence the lawsuit.
 
Exavior said:
But his statement still holds some truth even if I had heard of one or two of his songs. I had no idea what the singer of the songs were till now because of this lawsuit. Honestly I assumed that the singer of the song was long dead.

Knowing of a song and knowing the singer are two different things.
Click to expand...
He didn't claim he didn't know him. He claimed he was a crap musician. That statement is false.
 
nilepez said:
He didn't claim he didn't know him. He claimed he was a crap musician. That statement is false.
Click to expand...

Not to drag out too much further down that rabbit hole, but crap musician is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't know why anyone liked Elvis and think his music is crap. Doesn't matter how many records he sold or how popular his music was still think it was crap. The same for any country song ever wrote. Some people think the same thing about various other bands. On the flip side there are many bands considered one hit wonders that I loved their entire album and can't figure out why others never.

nilepez said:
It appears that this is a misunderstanding (though nothing official at this point). Apparently there's a fan made video that incorporates many of the elements from the original ad and is the kill fest that the lawsuit alleges. https://www.gamecrate.com/dion-dimucci-wanderer-fallout-lawsuit-misunderstanding-fan-video/16704?cm_mmc=SNC-Facebook-_-CNT-GameCrate-_-Fallout-Lawsuit-Dion-Dimucci-_-071517
Click to expand...

That actually makes much more sense in that regards if that really is what this lawsuit is in regards to. However that still then seems bad that they did little research to make sure they were suing the correct company / person.
 
Exavior said:
That actually makes much more sense in that regards if that really is what this lawsuit is in regards to. However that still then seems bad that they did little research to make sure they were suing the correct company / person.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty easy to believe that that's an official video. If I hadn't been told it was a fan video, I would have assumed I was watching an official trailer. If this is what they're suing over, it'll get thrown out of court in 5, 4, 3,...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top