No Doubt suing over Band Hero avatars

By Oli Welsh Published 5 November, 2009

Say they didn't agree to sing others' songs.

The members of pop act No Doubt are suing Activision over the use of their avatars in Guitar Hero spin-off Band Hero.

Their complaint is the same as Kurt Cobain's widow Courtney Love's over the appearance of the Nirvana frontman as a playable character in Guitar Hero 5 - that their likenesses can be used to play other people's songs.

No Doubt - i.e. Gwen Stefani and three men with regrettable hair whose names we've forgotten - say that they gave permission for their avatars to perform three of their own songs only. "Without the band's knowledge or approval, Activision turned the group into virtual karaoke players by having them perform over 60 additional songs by other musical groups," said the band's lawyers in a statement, according to Gamasutra.

No Doubt requested this be changed, but claims that Activision refused, saying the change would be "too expensive".

Activision has issued a statement in response, saying: "Activision has a written agreement to use No Doubt in Band Hero - an agreement signed by No Doubt after extensive negotiations with its representatives... As a result, Activision believes it is within its legal rights with respect to the use and portrayal of the band members in the game and that this lawsuit is without merit."

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (41) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ArchiRag #1 2 years ago

    Probably an easier way of accumulating wealth than producing new material

  • MBar #2 2 years ago

    Some of us prefer Gwen Stefani when she's not producing new material.

    Or opening her mouth in general, basically.

  • menage #3 2 years ago

    Fuck them

    They would suck even as a cover band.

  • penhalion #4 2 years ago

    @ArchiRag

    Seriously mate you need to actually read articles. Pop and Rock artists have one thing to make their living and that is their image. If someone puts you in a game where you are singing your own songs and then decides to making your likeness also sing other peoples songs without your consent. You'd be a fool not to either get more money for the insult or have your image pulled from the game!

  • davisorle #5 2 years ago

    nothing interesting. All I have to say is keep this up with the lawsuits and next thing you know you will be asking from me to sing for you since noone actually famous will sign shit for you guys.I mean I wouldnt expect anything better the way you got things done with your titles...

  • SAMagic #6 2 years ago

    If this is like Courtney's case and they didn't READ THE CONTRACT then it's their own damned fault.

  • Zoro #7 2 years ago

    Not this again. What's the problem with their avatars playing something else, anyway?

  • Apostle #8 2 years ago

    Activision making lots of friends lately.

  • JonFE #9 2 years ago

    Not again... this is getting ridiculous. The written and signed agreement should clearly state exactly how/where these 3D models will be used. If it does either the band or Activision are right and this could be resolved swiftly; if it doesn't lawyers of either side have screwed up. No two ways about it.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 09:57

  • udat #10 2 years ago

    If a frivolous lawsuit falls in the games industry, does anyone give a fuck?

  • ArchiRag #11 2 years ago

    @ penhalion
    if they hadn't signed some form or written agreement to suggest the contrary why pick on it.... unless someone else had done it first (successfully)

  • Toothball #12 2 years ago

    It sounds like some bands are liking what happened with the Beatles and assume that their appearance in a game is going to be similarly tasteful. I guess it doesn't always work out that way.

  • RobotRocker #13 2 years ago

    Its a clear case of didnt read or misunderstood the contract and Activision would probably win any suit filed in court.

    But what this and the Kurt Cobain in GH5 debacle has done is totally fucked up Activision's plans since now when they try look for master tracks or a band/ artists likeness, they are going to have major trouble convincing them since they wont be trusted to look after the image.

    Music games are nearly dead though, so I can guess this will be the killer blow unless Harmonix can pull their thumbs out of their arses and do something special with RB3

  • vegard #14 2 years ago

    i want to see no doubt as victims in manhunt 3 instead.

  • kangarootoo #15 2 years ago

    Good to see most posters forming their opinion of this legal case on the basis of whether they like No Doubt's music. Very worldly and adult of you all.


    Don't know about you lot, but I've not read the contract myself, so I don't know who is in the right. Maybe one of you, so clearly familiar with the exact text of the document, could help me out with the details?

  • kangarootoo #16 2 years ago

    @HenryVIII

    The artistic context side of all makes sense, no doubt (ahaha... ahem). But the issue here is what was specified in a contract agreed between two parties. It should surprise nobody that you can sign away things like artistic context and integrity if you so wish.

    If No Doubt agreed in a contract that their likenesses could be used in the way they are, then Activision are in the right. If they didn't agree that in the contract, Activision are in the wrong.

    Whether anybody is "taking kindly to it" or not isn't really relevant.

  • penhalion #17 2 years ago

    @ArchiRag

    Bands who appear in these games only ever agree that their likeness be used for singing their own songs. If anyone screwed up it's unlikely to be the band and more than likely to be the lawyers.

    People on these forums seem to think that the bands are somehow legal experts and would have had anything to do with most of this. The chances are very high that No Doubt were approached and simply said "yea we'll appear singing our stuff". I don't give them credit to have suddenly launched into some legal spiel about detailed usage of image. It's likely it was implied by them and then misinterpreted by lawyers and the games developers. Either way they have a good case for having this error corrected.

  • dominalien #18 2 years ago

    Knowing how this stuff is done, activision deliberately left the wording vague hoping no doubt's lawyers wouldn't notice, as they probably will have had no experience with this sort of thing. The band/its lawyers then acted on the assumption that only the band's songs will be performed by its avatars, without expressly forbidding it. Of course, the contract may just as well contain very specific provisions on this point, with the band having misunderstood. Still, activision is skating on thinice here. If this continues, no one will want to appear in their games.

    Also, I see a new breed of lawyer emerging in th near future.

  • kangarootoo #19 2 years ago

    "Knowing how this stuff is done, activision deliberately left the wording vague hoping no doubt's lawyers wouldn't notice, as they probably will have had no experience with this sort of thing"

    No experience with this sort of thing? What sort of thing, contracts? The lawyers representing a world famous millionaire music artist have had no experience with reading and understanding the finer details of contracts?

    Where do you think these lawyers did their studies, Alton Towers?

    "Knowing how this stuff is done" indeed.

  • JonFE #20 2 years ago

    "Knowing how this stuff is done, activision deliberately left the wording vague hoping no doubt's lawyers wouldn't notice, as they probably will have had no experience with this sort of thing. The band/its lawyers then acted on the assumption that only the band's songs will be performed by its avatars, without expressly forbidding it."

    The way I see it, there is no "assumption" in the eyes of the law. Do you remember what they say about assume? Let me spell that for you, to refresh your memory: ass-u-me.

    Of course, that does not mean the band's lawyers haven't acted on that assumption, but, if they did, they may not be very good at keeping their clients interests, right?

    EDIT: or what kangarootoo said ;)
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 10:51

  • kangarootoo #21 2 years ago

    This thread contains a disturbing amount of nonsense.


    @penhalion (and you normally know better than this)

    "People on these forums seem to think that the bands are somehow legal experts and would have had anything to do with most of this."

    Nobody is suggesting that. But they are suggesting that they have competant legal representation.


    "The chances are very high that No Doubt were approached and simply said "yea we'll appear singing our stuff"

    On what possible basis can you state "the chances are very high". There is absolutely no trend for this sort of thing. A statistician has never said "on the whole we observe a 92% trend in musical artists saying yea we'll appear singing our stuff". Its complete and utter supposition, with absolutely no basis in fact or reasonable prediction, and you know it.

  • metalangel #22 2 years ago

    I didn't give a shit about Kurt "shotgun" Cobain. But because I like No Doubt and think Gwen Stefani is a hot skank, I am OUTRAGED by this. Am I a hypocrite yet?

  • TitusCrow #23 2 years ago

    Yet? ... you know the answer to that question..

  • ArchiRag #24 2 years ago

    @ penhalion
    If it was the lawyers inadequacey that led them into 'falsifying their image' then surely it was the lawyers that persued the correction, my point being- i don't think No Doubt are legal experts as im sure other people on the forums dont assume bands are legal experts, however they have made a choice to take action. Personally i think ur getting annoyed over a throw away comment but its prob just easier to agree to disagree...

  • p00ntang #25 2 years ago

    Personally, I'm looking forward to making No Doubt sing "Rape Me" by Nirvana

  • Zebula77 #26 2 years ago

    Activision again...lol. :p

  • NorUraeus #27 2 years ago

    kangarootoo is right this thread is already more about how people feel about No Doubts music than the merits of the case. The contract is not public as far as I know and neither do we know what was said during the negotiations. Maybe No doubt signed onto more than they thought or maybe Activision has taken some liberties with the agreement, we can not know. So lets just wait for more details before 'deciding' who is right and who is wrong.

  • spookyzombie #28 2 years ago

    Activision getting in legal tiffs again? Is this the real reason for MW2's RRP?

  • cianchristopher #29 2 years ago

    I have Guitar Hero 5, but haven't had much time to play it yet! Can you still get Kurt Cobain to sing other people's songs?

    Can you get him to blow his head off live on stage if you "fail" the song?

  • kinky_mong #30 2 years ago

    "I don't know what a Holla Back Girl is, all I know is I want her dead."

  • jaywalker3010 Verified Mastering Manager, Square Enix #31 2 years ago

    hmm i love these comment sections.. everyone has an opinion.. simple fact, are any of us `no doubt`? are any of us `lawyers for activision/no doubt`?. am going to guess a mighty big NO to both of those questions, in which case who cares!?

  • RobotRocker #32 2 years ago

    @ cianchristopher

    Sing other songs, yes

    Blow head off, no

    The No Doubt pack in Rock Band is aces for parties by the way. Just avoid the Rocksteady tracks

  • homerbert #33 2 years ago

    Even if the contract doesn't say that they can be used to perform any song*, No Doubt or Courtney Love** should really have looked at the precedent of the dozen odd GH/RB games.

    Eoin
    *which would really surprise me
    ** Or their people.

  • ZuluHero #34 2 years ago

    ahem... "pop act"?

  • kangarootoo #35 2 years ago

    "No Doubt or Courtney Love** should really have looked at the precedent of the dozen odd GH/RB games."

    They might well have been wise to look at those other games, but only so that they could make sure their own contract was specific in that area.

    If their contract is ALREADY specific in that area, what GH or RB have done before matters not a bit. If their contract said "only for performing our own songs", then what GH or any other game has done previously is irrelevant (and there is certainly no legal precedent being set).

  • gjgjg #36 2 years ago

    too expensive for activi$ion create a patch with a handful of lines of code to lock 4 models to certain songs?

    wow, it makes those cheap plastic controllers seem like gold.

    hey atvi, ill do it for e250, i need to pay for that visa OD.

  • bionutz #37 2 years ago

    and three men with regrettable hair whose names we've forgotten.
    LOL!

  • cobaltfram #38 2 years ago

    While, on the whole, I think the bands just didn't understand what the actual game would be like, I would like to know the contents of these contracts.

    I mean, if they honestly didn't know that their likenesses would be used this way because the contract didn't say as much, then there might be grounds, if not for legal action, then at least to serve as a warning to bands to perhaps push for such clauses in the future.

    On the other hand, it might be there in black-and-white, and they've simply forgotten what a video game is, or how to read.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 15:26

  • RobotRocker #39 2 years ago

    too expensive for activi$ion create a patch with a handful of lines of code to lock 4 models to certain songs?

    See, this is the tricky part for them. Wii games are completely un-patchable and would require a store re-call, re-mastering of the game with more QA time and extra costs to ship everything back. Particularly since most copies will be sold in a band bundle. Wit the 360 and PS3, its worse as while the patch seems to be the simple option. Microsoft refuses any patches that remove functionality in any form from the game.

    Activision is stuck. They can either try bear the brunt of the suit, win and piss of the music community even more. Settle and hope it blows over (at the cost of putting future deals in jeopardy since acts wont trust them anymore) or Apologise, re-call stock and re-master the game (Not bloody likely).

    Ah Activision. Short term profit, short sighted deals.

  • dominalien #40 2 years ago

    No experience with this sort of thing? What sort of thing, contracts? The lawyers representing a world famous millionaire music artist have had no experience with reading and understanding the finer details of contracts?

    In my experience contracts are negotiated as follows: someone prepares a draft, the other party prepares an amended draft, that first someone prepares another draft and so on and so forth. Some meetings may be required. If one party spots the other party's omission that is favourable for the former, they won't barge in saying "you missed this, it's not precise enough".

    Contract law has nothing to do with this. It's familiarity with a market and medium. No Doubt probably has lawyers who manage their normal affairs - most probably those same lawyers were involved in the signing of the contract. If anyone from No Doubt read the contract at all, it's doubtful they understood it. Maybe the band members play games, maybe they don't. The same goes for lawyers. Just because lawyers are expensive doesn't mean they are competent. In my experience, just the opposite can be true: the more expensive a lawyer, the more they make sure they don't do anything. It seems possible to me they didn't even understand what the essence of the game is. Maybe one of them has a son, who explained to his half-listening dad what Guitar Hero is about, or maybe even not that. Activision's lawyers, on the other hand, are for sure 100% competent in all matters pertaining to copyright, licencing AND computer games, especially the game in question.

    Activision's choice of words seems to confirm the allegation of vagueness, somewhat: "Activision has a written agreement to use No Doubt in Band Hero... As a result, Activision believes it is within its legal rights with respect to the use and portrayal of the band members in the game." Activision believes? Vague wording. Otherwise, they might have said something like "our contract expressly states we can". Which they don't. Hence my comment.

    "Knowing how this stuff is done" indeed.

    I'm sorry, kangarootoo, you seem like a nice fellow, but you really do not know me and are not qualified to judge my capacity or experience as a lawyer.

  • kongzi #41 2 years ago

    the price of coke must've skyrocketed or something.