No Doubt suing over Band Hero avatars News

Probably an easier way of accumulating wealth than producing new material

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

Or opening her mouth in general, basically.

Fuck them

They would suck even as a cover band.

@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!

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...

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

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

Activision making lots of friends lately.

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.

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

@ 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)

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.

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

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

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?

@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.

@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.

LOL
If you dance with the devil you deserve to be burned.

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.

"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.

"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 ;)

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.

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?

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

@ 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...

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

Activision again...lol. :P

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.

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

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?

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

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!?

@ 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

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.

ahem... "pop act"?

"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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

the price of coke must've skyrocketed or something.