Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

33. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 8, 2014, 13:10 Orogogus
 
I got that from:

"If that's the case, then this suit would be to establish that she is the rightful owner of the IP, which would be needed to go after Rovio."

You and 1badmf are the only people who seem to think that Rovio got their designs from Hartz. I think she couldn't possibly go after Rovio because she's got nothing more than a red cartoon bird, whereas you seem to think she has a design with multiple, incontrovertible but inexplicably indescribable similarities to Rovio's bird. I keep asking and asking...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 8, 2014, 12:49 Quboid
 
I think it's absurd that you think this lady can win a separate case against Rovio based on "general similarities."

I think it's absurd that you got that from this:

Proving this would be next to impossible if there isn't contract between Rovio and Hartz in the first place.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 8, 2014, 12:14 Orogogus
 
I think it's absurd that you think this lady can win a separate case against Rovio based on "general similarities." That she should file a case based on nothing more than, "Just look at them, geeze!"

What I know about Family Guy comes from YouTube clips, but if I were to make a case for Peter Griffin ripping off Homer Simpson, I would point to specifics like both being overweight, foolish, everyman characters, living in suburbs with dysfunctional nuclear families. And then I would expect it to get shot down since the suburbs and nuclear families are dysfunctional relationships are hardly unique, and the characters themselves owe a lot to prior creations like Fred Flintstone or George Jetson.

Plus the whole thing about them both being Fox cartoons.

What you have are red cartoony birds with hardly any similar features that aren't common to birds in general.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 8, 2014, 07:26 Quboid
 
I don't think all cartoons look alike, quite the opposite, I think there is huge scope for variation. This is my point. If I thought all cartoons looked the same, I wouldn't be claiming that these two look suspiciously similar.

I think they look similar in general terms. I thought this was obvious, yes, evidently it's not to everyone.

Here's an example to illustrate what I mean by general similarities. Peter Griffin has different hair to Homer Simpson, a different chin, different clothes, he typically wears glasses, his car port is on the other side of his house - yet there's a reason why Family Guy is frequently seen a rip-off of the Simpsons and shows like King Of The Hill aren't.

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2014, 08:42.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 8, 2014, 02:06 Orogogus
 
I think you're wrong. Also, you don't seem to be able to describe any similarities other than "it's obvious, duh." Despite the fact that one's a cardinal and the other's a hummingbird. You handwave away a ton of differences by saying, oh, that was to make it fit the game, but you don't have any actual similarities. I keep asking and asking, and nothing.

Does every single cartoon and comic cat ever made look the same to you? Like, you see Sylvester, Garfield and Bill the Cat, and it's immediately obvious to you that they were all copied from some prototypical cartoon cat, and that there's no way people could independently come up with whiskers and cat ears?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 7, 2014, 22:28 Quboid
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 7, 2014, 20:14:
That's not even an argument the lawyers are making. Why are you making it? The game design and characters were not taken from a cat toy.

I explained why in this thread - she would need to establish ownership first if this is her belief. I don't expect the game design or characters where taken from a cat toy, no, just that the name and the art direction might have been. I was wrong to say that there was no way that this could be independent but it seems unlikely.

If you showed that cat toy to a hundred people and asked them if it was based (with or without permission) on the game, how many do you think would say yes? I'd predict 95%.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 7, 2014, 20:14 Sepharo
 
That's not even an argument the lawyers are making. Why are you making it? The game design and characters were not taken from a cat toy.  
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 7, 2014, 19:21 Quboid
 
I think the similarities in name, theme and appearance are such that combined, it seems unlikely that both came around independently. It's not impossible, but in my opinion it would be odd; evidently in your opinion it would not be.  
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 7, 2014, 18:57 Orogogus
 
Quboid wrote on Aug 7, 2014, 17:59:
Orogogus wrote on Aug 7, 2014, 17:33:
The shapes are completely different. Rovio's is a ball for throwing, and the other is thinner and elongated

This explains most of the points you make, Rovio adapted the design to fit their game. Take the first toy, adapt it to fit the theme of a catapult game, and bar a few minor cosmetic changes you've got the second toy.

I get the feeling that anything red and bird-themed would fit your definition. Like, for some reason you think cartoon birds are really, really difficult to come up with.

They're not even the same kind of bird.

What are the points of similarity to you other than red theme, white eyes, yellow beak? I think you need more than that to seriously claim that one was derived from the other, and I seriously don't see anything else. Red feathers and a yellow beak are basic bird features, and white eyes are a fundamental cartoonism. You've got something else, right?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 7, 2014, 17:59 Quboid
 
Orogogus wrote on Aug 7, 2014, 17:33:
The shapes are completely different. Rovio's is a ball for throwing, and the other is thinner and elongated

This explains most of the points you make, Rovio adapted the design to fit their game. Take the first toy, adapt it to fit the theme of a catapult game, and bar a few minor cosmetic changes you've got the second toy.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 7, 2014, 17:33 Orogogus
 
Quboid wrote on Aug 7, 2014, 16:38:
I don't know what else to say, I see resemblances in the designs on the page of the PDF that I linked to (*cough*proving I did at least skim it*cough*).

Like what besides the red color and white eyes? I guess the beak is yellow.

- The shapes are completely different. Rovio's is a ball for throwing, and the other is thinner and elongated
- Rovio's doesn't have any wings
- Rovio's has a stubby beak instead of a long proboscis
- The lady's design has legs, and Rovio's doesn't. Also sneakers.
- Rovio's has a small crest -- I think it's supposed to be a cardinal -- whereas the lady's doesn't, because it's a hummingbird
- Rovio's has eyebrows
- Rovio's has a secondary chest coloration
- Rovio's has a little bush tail whereas the other has the tail built out

Is it that they don't have red birds in your part of the world? Otherwise I just have no idea where you're coming from.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 7, 2014, 16:38 Quboid
 
I don't know what else to say, I see resemblances in the designs on the page of the PDF that I linked to (*cough*proving I did at least skim it*cough*). They could come up with the name independently and they could come up with the design independently but both seems unlikely.

The fonts are similar but putting your angry cartoon character's product name in a high impact cartoon font isn't the most amazing idea and I can readily believe that they would come up with this independently if they had done the rest.

Proving this would be next to impossible if there isn't contract between Rovio and Hartz in the first place.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 6, 2014, 22:33 Sepharo
 
Orogogus wrote on Aug 6, 2014, 19:47:
1badmf wrote on Aug 6, 2014, 01:23:
it's pretty clear the game is based on her designs with some modifications

What makes you say that? I mentioned it before, but I don't think her design really looks anything like the video game birds. They're both red and they have big white eyes. She claims Hartz used her font, but they don't look similar at all. What else are you and Quboid seeing?

I suspect it's from not reading the PDF and the misleading headline.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 6, 2014, 19:47 Orogogus
 
1badmf wrote on Aug 6, 2014, 01:23:
it's pretty clear the game is based on her designs with some modifications

What makes you say that? I mentioned it before, but I don't think her design really looks anything like the video game birds. They're both red and they have big white eyes. She claims Hartz used her font, but they don't look similar at all. What else are you and Quboid seeing?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Angry Birds Aug 6, 2014, 14:27 Beamer
 
Quboid wrote on Aug 6, 2014, 14:11:
It's strange that Rovio are licensing anything to Hartz. Did they independently come up with the same name and art direction and then somehow get the manufacturer of an existing toy of the same name and style to pay them to make toys with this name and style? That doesn't add up.

There must have been a deal between Rovio and Hartz at some point to buy or license AB from Hartz to Rovio, only for them to decide that there's a new market for toys and get together again to license AB back to Hartz.

If that's the case, then this suit would be to establish that she is the rightful owner of the IP, which would be needed to go after Rovio.

Hartz had an Angry Birds line. Rovio separately came out with a different Angry Birds. Hartz had the trademark to the name for pet toys, and only pet toys, so it was natural for them and Rovio to synch.

Hartz did not have it for video games, so there was nothing that needed to transfer from Hartz to Rovio. There's also no evidence that they are linked. The name is the same, the artwork is similar, but the artwork is different and the name isn't the least generic.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Angry Birds Aug 6, 2014, 14:11 Quboid
 
It's strange that Rovio are licensing anything to Hartz. Did they independently come up with the same name and art direction and then somehow get the manufacturer of an existing toy of the same name and style to pay them to make toys with this name and style? That doesn't add up.

There must have been a deal between Rovio and Hartz at some point to buy or license AB from Hartz to Rovio, only for them to decide that there's a new market for toys and get together again to license AB back to Hartz.

If that's the case, then this suit would be to establish that she is the rightful owner of the IP, which would be needed to go after Rovio.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 6, 2014, 01:58 Sepharo
 
1badmf wrote on Aug 6, 2014, 01:23:
it's pretty clear the game is based on her designs with some modifications

I almost responded the first time you said this but Beamer covered it in a roundabout way. I guess you missed it though because this has nothing to do with the game design / art / gameplay. It's about the name "Angry Birds" as used in pet toys. Do you really think 1 bird from a cheap cat toy series inspired the design of the Angry Birds mobile game?
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 6, 2014, 01:48 DangerDog
 
How are they catching these laser strike retards? Is it the big fat reward or are they somehow digging through a mountain of data to see who purchased lasers in an area?  
Avatar 6174
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 6, 2014, 01:23 1badmf
 
i still think she has a case against rovio. it's pretty clear the game is based on her designs with some modifications. and if she copyrighted her work, they can't just rearrange a few things and come up with a new copyright. i think it's close enough that if she really pushed it, she could likely invalidate rovio's copyrights and take them to the woodshed over this.

it'd be like me making a game called ManBat and BirdieBoy and saying DC has no case. of course it depends on the licensing deal, but based on what little i've read, hartz didn't have the right to resell the license since she retained it, so that would also contribute to invalidating rovio's copyrights.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 5, 2014, 22:30 jdreyer
 
Bodolza wrote on Aug 5, 2014, 12:34:
Reading through the filing, it looks like the Angry Birds lady has a pretty good case.

Yeah, but the article is total click bait. She's not getting royalties for the re-use of her licensed trademark by Hartz to license Rovio Angry Birds likenesses. It's not like Rovio stole her designs, which is what the title implies.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"Microsoft is the absent minded parent of PC gaming" - Verno
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo