Game Sued For Featuring General Patton

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This case seems pretty straightforward. Simply delay your game for a year or pay the royalties. Problem solved.

In the latest video game right of publicity lawsuit, CMG Worldwide Inc. has filed a complaint against California based Maximum Games LLC, on behalf of General George Patton’s estate. [1] Maximum’s History, Legends of War: Patton is a turn-based game featuring the legendary World War II commander of the American Third and Seventh Armies. Interestingly, Patton has been dead for sixty-nine years, one year shy of California’s seventy-year statutory limit for right of publicity lawsuits.
 
Should just change the name to George Paton. So many people would have no idea the spelling is wrong.
 
Someone has a copyright on a historical figure? So long bible games lol.
 
couldn't wait a year?

[2] George Patton died in an automobile accident on December 21, 1945. As provided in California Civil Code § 3344 (g) “An action shall not be brought under this section by reason of any use of a deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness occurring after the expiration of 70 years after the death of the deceased personality”.
 
Not release in California or wait a year. Problem solved. Go f-yourself CMG.
 
Doesn't this hamper the public interest in overseeing/reviewing/studying political figures, their policies, and their effects on the nation?
 
Back in the 80's a strategy game called Patton vs. Rommel was released on 5 1/4 floppy disk. I remember playing it as a kid, and I think I still have the game file around somewhere.
Anyway, I am wondering now if that game developer bothered to pay royalties or get permission from the estate of George S. Patton for the use of his name and likeness in their game.

Part of me seriously doubts licensing was an issue back then because the pc gaming industry was practically newborn at the time. If the Estate of George S. Patton happened to overlook that usage in the 80's, I wonder if it could lend help to the defendants in this lawsuit (similar to a trademark dispute where the trademark holder does not perform due diligence defending the trademark and therefore loses protections afforded to the trademark).
 
Use the year to fix your stuff, then release. Problem solved. Or you can factor how much royalties you will have to pay vs. your profit and take a chance.
 
:eek: props to Tom Waits ( I'm not a fan but some of his stuff is amusing ).

Former television game show personality Vanna White was awarded $403,000 after Samsung depicted her as a robot in their VCR television advertisements. [14]

Singer Bette Midler received $400,000 after a sound-alike performed one of her hits in a Ford commercial. [15]

Singer-songwriter Tom Waits was awarded $2,500,000 after Frito Lay imitated his distinctive voice for a Doritos commercial. [16]
 
Someone has a copyright on a historical figure? So long bible games lol.

Faith and religion aside (since I do not want to get in a religious debate). The Bible (and most religious texts for that matter) ARE NOT historical record and never have been due to the lack of primary sources. That's the equivalent of saying the Iliad is historical record simply because we found the crumbled remains of Troy somewhere in modern day northwestern Turkey.
 
Back in the 80's a strategy game called Patton vs. Rommel was released on 5 1/4 floppy disk. I remember playing it as a kid, and I think I still have the game file around somewhere.
Anyway, I am wondering now if that game developer bothered to pay royalties or get permission from the estate of George S. Patton for the use of his name and likeness in their game.

Part of me seriously doubts licensing was an issue back then because the pc gaming industry was practically newborn at the time. If the Estate of George S. Patton happened to overlook that usage in the 80's, I wonder if it could lend help to the defendants in this lawsuit (similar to a trademark dispute where the trademark holder does not perform due diligence defending the trademark and therefore loses protections afforded to the trademark).

There wasn't much of an internet back then so this would be easier to conceal. It really has changed our lives (for better or worse)
 
Patten troll.

what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg
 
Americans love a winner.... and apparently they also love to sue one another.
 
Doesn't this hamper the public interest in overseeing/reviewing/studying political figures, their policies, and their effects on the nation?

the game is using his name for a commercial purpose within the "statute of limitations" of how long a name can be considered valuable.
 
Congress will extend the "protected" time period before a year is up I'm sure. They love to do that sort of thing.

Don't they do that only as a whole though? Like from everything? I thought that was the case, where Disney did that, and it was extended to the now 70 years.
 
Don't they do that only as a whole though? Like from everything? I thought that was the case, where Disney did that, and it was extended to the now 70 years.

They do it any time a donor for their campaigns has some sort of IP/content for which protection is about to expire and tells Congress to extend it.
 
They do it any time a donor for their campaigns has some sort of IP/content for which protection is about to expire and tells Congress to extend it.

I somehow doubt the Estate of George S. Patton will invest the money into swaying a vote in Congress due the use of his likeness in an obscure video game.
 
I thought the use of historical and newsworthy characters, in the context of of that history or newsworthiness was in the public domain?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041395373 said:
I thought the use of historical and newsworthy characters, in the context of of that history or newsworthiness was in the public domain?

Well it may seem obvious but it'll require spending millions on lawyers to put that in writing.
 
I somehow doubt the Estate of George S. Patton will invest the money into swaying a vote in Congress due the use of his likeness in an obscure video game.

Please consider that they went out of their way to cause this issue.
 
This is definitely not the first time General Patton has appeared in media.

Does this law only apply to video games, or did every movie featuring Patton pay a royalty too?
 
Back
Top