Activision can't shake No Doubt

By Robert Purchese Published 19 April, 2010

Freedom of speech plea denied.

Activision's having a hard time getting rid of pop rockers No Doubt, who are suing the publisher for their portrayal in Band Hero.

Activision sought freedom-of-speech protection under the US First Amendment, but Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Kenji Machida has said no, reported the LA Times. Activision can appeal.

No Doubt, like Courtney Love (on Kurt Cobain's behalf), is unhappy about ability for players to use the band's avatars to sing other pop groups' songs. The members of No Doubt claim they didn't sign up for that.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (43) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ParanoidZombie #1 2 years ago

    "The members of No Doubt claim they didn't sign up for that."

    Case closed: if it wasn't part of the deal, it has nothing to do with some freedom of speech thing.
    Edited by ParanoidZombie at 19/04/10 @ 10:20

  • Toothball #2 2 years ago

    They've slowed down a bit on the Guitar Hero series recently. I'd imagine this isn't really helping whatever they're working on at the moment.

  • metalangel #3 2 years ago

    Gwen Stefani is the best kind of skank :)

  • Retroid #4 2 years ago

    No Doubt aren't after an Artificial Sweetener, their case is Hella Good even if she is Just a Girl.

    (Sorry)

  • brommers #5 2 years ago

    i know activision are the enemy at the mo but it seems a little childish to go to court over the portrail of digital avatars. It's not real and i for one couldn't give a toss which avatar is bouncing around on screen anyway as i'm too busy trying to hit all the pretty colours.

  • el_pollo_diablo #6 2 years ago

    No Doubt, and I want to make this absolutely clear, are shit.

  • PearOfAnguish #7 2 years ago

    So presumably Bobby Kotick won't mind if I use his likeness in my new game, 'Dickhead Hammer Face Smash'.

  • harzo #8 2 years ago

    Don't Speak.... or in fact sing, ever again. Please.

  • UltimateDave_80 #9 2 years ago

    @PearOfAnguish - 'Dickhead Hammer Face Smash' - Get it on WiiWare and you'd be a millionare in under a week!

  • curtlikesmeat #10 2 years ago

    It is a bit whiney by No Doubt, I mean who gives a shit really? Still, you can't help but enjoy seeing Activision get all the crap they deserve. They might even have to put the Death Star construction on hold for a few weeks whilst they deal with all this stuff!!

  • schnide #11 2 years ago

    Echoing others, as much as I think Activision should get kicked in the balls, I very much doubt (no shit pun intended) that the band have got much to go on here. They might not like it, but they signed up to have digital representations of themselves to be manipulated as Activision saw fit - I don't think there'll have been a clause which said they should only sing No Doubt songs with them, because otherwise Activision would be clearly screwed.

  • raion #12 2 years ago

    Regardless of deals and laws and rights, some of these people really seems like they need to get over themselves.

  • tobsen #13 2 years ago

    "'Dickhead Hammer Face Smash'" with Wiimote control, I would be all over this!

  • doulema #14 2 years ago

    After the IW fiasco I cant feel bad for Activision neither will feel bad if they end up paying big bucks for the whole matter. Just my point of view on this.

  • icematt12 #15 2 years ago

    DHFS sounds a bit like a japanese name translated to english, but I love the prospect.

    Didn't No Doubt think to ask or read the small print about what their digital versions would be doing exactly?

  • Slipstream #16 2 years ago

    It's fine, it's fine, Bobby is more than happy to flash the cash, so this lawsuit is NOTHING, nothing at all. Isn't that right Bob?

  • hiddenranbir #17 2 years ago

    No Doubt just signed up for some cheap ass money. They're fliipping for no reason, brap.

  • chrisola #18 2 years ago

    Dickhead Hammer Face Smash?

    Sounds like a new Cannibal Corpse song, sure to go down well in Germany!

  • RobotRocker #19 2 years ago

    @schnide

    Depends really. Likeness contracts are a deep and mysterious art. They might still be say they were manipulated into signing a contract they didn't understand would allow developers to manipulate their likeness and their likeness was damaged because of it. Bands are ridiculously protective of their image because its one of the last things they have that makes money since the industry is so screwed up.

    I think the main implication is not for Activision but for the entire industry since using likenesses will be a lot more complex if the Judge finds favour for No Doubt. Though we will still blame Activision for being stupid and arrogant.

  • spekkeh #20 2 years ago

    So presumably Bobby Kotick won't mind if I use his likeness in my new game, 'Dickhead Hammer Face Smash'.

    Actually, that would probably fall within the boundaries of freedom of expression.

  • Beano #21 2 years ago

    I would like to see Bobby Kotick's likeness in a new Frogger game - his face looks perfect for it.

  • glaeken #22 2 years ago

    The fact they have gone for a freedom of speech plea suggests to me that their use of the avatars in the way they are using them is not covered in the contract. If it were there would be no need to try and claim freedom of speech. It would seem by doing that they have pretty much already acknowledged they are screwed for a defense based purely on what the contract says.
    Edited by glaeken at 19/04/10 @ 13:58

  • RobTheBuilder #23 2 years ago

    Sounds like Cannibal Corpse Hero would be quite a hit on this board...

    If it was my likeness being used in an uncontracted way to use in songs I detest then I would do exactly the same thing.

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    "Didn't No Doubt think to ask or read the small print about what their digital versions would be doing exactly?"

    If it was in the small print, Activision wouldn't have tried the frankly bizarre freedom of speech angle. They would have just said "its on the contract, suck it up".

    Edit: oh. What glaeken said :)
    Edited by kangarootoo at 19/04/10 @ 14:51

  • Notez #25 2 years ago

    God damnit, now there's some terrible No Doubt song playing in my head after soaking in the news and the comments.

  • schnide #26 2 years ago

    @RobotRocker

    I don't think you can claim you were screwed if you signed a contract you didn't understand, surely..

    In general, freedom of speech might have just been an easy way to get the suit dismissed. If Activision really did break the agreed contract, then let's hope to see them nailed to the wall.

  • darc #27 2 years ago

    "Didn't No Doubt think to ask or read the small print about what their digital versions would be doing exactly?"

    Or here's an angle, before you agree to become a featured artist in a video game, have a first-hand look at the game for a few minutes. I'm as pro-artist and as anti-Activision as anybody, but unless there was a clause specifically stating that No Doubt would only be on-screen during No Doubt songs, they're being asses about this. My guess, their manager said, "do this; it's good exposure", and they said yeah without doing sufficient homework. It's embarrassing all around to make such a big thing out of it; certainly worse than having your polygon-self sing *anything* featured in the game.

    Felt the same way when Courtney Love went all batshit about Cobain's likeness.

  • darc #28 2 years ago

    "I don't think you can claim you were screwed if you signed a contract you didn't understand, surely.. "

    Yeah, sign a contract you don't understand and it's still your own problem. Which is why lawyers make so much damned money. I just find this particular case unsettling because the band has apparently chosen to engage an audience by way of a successful product/medium without having *any* understanding of said product/medium. And that is insulting to the audience, frankly. i.e. I know you kids are down with this and subsequently I will get $$$ and exposure if I play along, but it does not actually play any part in my artistic life and therefore I can't be bothered to do my homework. That's fine if you have bills to pay, but crying about it after the fact is distasteful.

  • RobTheBuilder #29 2 years ago

    I fail to believe that Interscope wouldn't have read through the legal details. I would expect that (if true) the wording was vague and led them to believe it was only for their songs. If the wording was misleading then I believe that counts as harshly as a breach.

  • Redeye #30 2 years ago

    If you need an artist for "Dickhead Hammer Face Smash", count me in.

    As for everything else, both Activision and No Doubt can fuck off to the arse end of Hades.

  • Acrid #31 2 years ago

    Somewhat on topic....

    Activision are cunts and Bobby Kotick is the king of the cunts

  • AOFanboi #32 2 years ago

    If they replace them with caricatures in-game then that would be protected free speech though. It is only if the likeness is too close that they need acceptance.

  • lucky_jim #33 2 years ago

    The fact that No Doubt aren't the first to have this complaint suggests that Activision are being cunts. Who'd have thought it, eh?

  • Vyggo #34 2 years ago

    So, I guess it's not a cool thing to do on this boards to admit I kinda like a few of the No Doubt songs and that I probably wouldn't say no to Gwen if she wanted to do some kinky stuff with me.
    Edited by Vyggo at 19/04/10 @ 20:58

  • Gastrian #35 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • kongzi #36 2 years ago

    somewhat slightly less on topic but still bang on the money:
    this is a case of cunts sewing cunts over money they made by being total cunts.. ?
    i mean.. like... wow... friggin amazing, dude.



  • alcides #37 2 years ago

    They asked for rights. So they RECOGNIZED those rights.

    No "South Park treatment" from Activision then. Especially when the persons they are portraying are linked to actual cpyrighted content... and a contract linking the two.

    Activision... I never bought a game from you, never will.

  • Phishfood #38 2 years ago

    Their contract stipulated that their avatars can only be used for the songs they made. You can't invoke freedom of speech and you can't say "this has been done in previous guitar heroes and so you should know better".

    If Activision told them their avatars would be used in other peoples songs they probably would have never made the deal in the first place. Its like saying I'm going to buy 5 apples from you, and after they've been bought you think "I think I deserve 2 more apples for the money I paid so I'll take 2 more". This is a business deal gone bad its perfectly okay to sue them.

  • Raziel #39 2 years ago

    The worst thing is that, if they do lose, they'll just make another 25$ WoW epic mount thing and make all the money they lost over the lawsuit back in like a few hours.

  • schnide #40 2 years ago

    @Phishfood

    Have you read the contract, do you know this for sure? Genuine question.

  • gjgjg #41 2 years ago

    take bobby's money! just dont use it to make a new album or anything please

  • actionfitz #42 2 years ago

    'Dickhead Hammer Face Smash'

    quick! to the App Store!
    :)

  • darc #43 2 years ago

    "Their contract stipulated that their avatars can only be used for the songs they made."

    As Raziel says, this is the core question. If this is true, then No Doubt is plainly justified in their greivance and Activision is plainly at fault. But this is not stated in the article. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say there is no such clause - why would Activision hang their own asses out for yet another legal dispute with content that does not in any way make the game more profitable?

    More likely that No Doubt had one set of expectations and Activision had another. I tend to be more sympathetic to Activision in this instance just because there were half a dozen products to market that plainly set a precedent, for anyone who cared to look.

    But without seeing the contract, this is all speculation.