Schwarzenegger v. EMA (should videos be protected by the First Amendment)
ngon master
http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/index.sjs?awesm=fbshare.me_AMm2T&action_KEY=1781
It seems currently there can't be any laws restricting the sales of mature games any more than its set up now, and some states have tried to pass laws, but have been shot down.
I saw one of my friends post this on his facebook, I hadn't really heard of this today and what other polycounters thought about it, and if anyone is more knowledgeable about it.That means that this year, or early next, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country. It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sectors history.
It seems currently there can't be any laws restricting the sales of mature games any more than its set up now, and some states have tried to pass laws, but have been shot down.
Replies
It has to do with making political statements with your games. Making games specifically targeting politicians, or the famous.
This also opens up to Southpark/family guy style humour, where we can then actually make fun of Lindsay Lohan's decline into depravity, or Osama Bin Laden as the main villain to take down in a game.,
This is a VERY VERY big step towards opening up games for being a medium of social critique and political relevance.
It has nothing to do with the ESRB. The ESRB is simply a rating system.
Ever watch "People vs Larry Flynt"?
Well that's where games are right now. We are not considered an art form, so we can NOT parody anyone. Games do not have freedom of speech, and are not protected by the first ammendment.
If you decided to put Paris Hilton in a game, she can sue you. If you parody a movie, the movie studio can sue you. If you decide to put George Bush or Obama in a game, they can sue you.
This prevents us from making games with any relevant social impact. It prevents games from expressing the same ideas that are in many movies or books.
This is a BIG DEAL.
Presidenterminator for president!
You heard his future nickname here first, folks.
Games like Postal 2 pretty much prove this. You can do whatever you want as it is right now.
(also i'm a little confused on Scwharzenegger's stance. Is he for or against it? Eitherway...)
ah, makes me want to watch Demolition man again
Anyway, I don't think this law is as strict as people think. If you make a game about a movie which is parodying Paris Hilton, where do you stand?
and by first you mean 3 years after this dude coined the phrase on his blog right?
http://www.tomeofcommunism.com/2007/09/dick-in-box.html
"media girl" beats your guy by another 3 years;
http://mediagirltunesin.blogspot.com/2004_10_29_archive.html
Never played Postal 2. Who is actually in it? Someone living who did not give express written consent to use their likeness and name?
Try putting Jerry Falwell in your game as someone who has sex with his mom.
Not a misspelling comical representation of Jerry Falwell. Not Larry Palwell, but "Jerry Falwell" the Virginian Baptist Televangelist.
We are NOT protected by the first amendment. We had an entertainment lawyer give is a HUGE discussion about this not too long ago. You can use people who have been dead for 100 years and are public domain (like Leonardo in Assassin's Creed).
Wait what, never mind.
Damn, I thought I was writing history.
Some day, some day, I will do it.
I know some games do the same (not many), but you could put "Paris Hilton" in your game if you had that disclaimer - the same as you could use John Smith and not have 8million john smiths sue you.
edit: lol immediately after posting this i read this on shitaku:
http://kotaku.com/5543053/unlockable-celebs-will-return-to-nba-jam?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+kotaku/full+(Kotaku)
Anything is subject to getting sued for using the likeness of anybody for a variety of reasons. Games aren't any different.
moose is basically right.
If you're making money off of somebody without them getting paid or without their consent, you can get in serious trouble.
You have every right to slander people, institutions, pets, and all sorts of stuff. Most companies just don't really bother doing it outright. Fallout 2 for example had a whole sect characters based on scientologists, and they basically just changed the name to Hubologists.
Postal 2 had, what... Gary Oldman?
But that's no different from using movie characters in games and what not. It's just part of the contract and license.
Uh, yeah. It's not impossible, but it's just not really done very often. It isn't illegal, so long as you aren't making money directly off of their likeness without their consent.
[edit] looked it up a bit more, since I was wondering how southpark gets away with it all.
Falwell sleeping with his mother is parody if it's a book, a TV show, or a comic strip.
As it currently stands, if you put Falwell in a game, and represent him as someone who sleeps with his mother, you are liable to be sued.
Noticing your location. Canadian or American lawyer?
He should be allowed to run for president a country made up of immigrants not allowing an immigrant to be president.. wha ? If that really were the case then american indians would be the only ones eligible to be president ! Now that would be CHANGE ..
oh and I want paris hilton in a japanese dating game
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/15/esa-humble-about-chances-against-california-in-supreme-court-c/