SCEA vs Virag: Court rules in favor of SCEA, 1st Amendment cited [Old news, 4th suit unresolved]

  • Thread starter Thread starter tankuroded
  • 29 comments
  • 1,965 views
So...

"....cementing of video games as a medium of expressive art, something that really ought to have been settled in the minds of the masses by now. And, finally, anything that gives game developers a greater sense of freedom to pursue realism with less regard for the insane permission culture that has invaded the arts works for me as well..."

Draw a long bow,

PD to "depict" Porsche in next update.. :D
 
Pretty much told @Jordan about this but yeah, I knew Virag didn't stand a chance with all the claims being made.

And OP, its "Amendment" to be exact.
 
The court didn't rule in favor of Sony if they only threw out 3 of the 4 claims in the lawsuit and explicitly allowed them to continue with the 4th.
 
Tornado
The court didn't rule in favor of Sony if they only threw out 3 of the 4 claims in the lawsuit and explicitly allowed them to continue with the 4th.
Click to expand...
I missed that too. Guess this isn't actually news to us, just old stuff reaching the mainstream.
 
RACECAR
No, that was for the initial start of the case (when the first three claims were dismissed). This is about the case ruling in favor of SCEA.
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks to all of you who have been sending this to me over the past few days, but these new articles are actually just recycling and summarizing our story. GTPlanet's article notes that three of the four claims were dismissed based on first amendment rights and explains the fourth one which remains unresolved:

The court of the Northern District of California heard four claims brought by Virag against SCEA on August 21st and dismissed three, largely on the basis of the First Amendment and the fact that consumers are unlikely to have been misled:

Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 6 are racing games and do not involve any products VIRAG makes, and the VIRAG® mark is on a bridge over a track and not on a car. The defendants’ use of the VIRAG® mark comes nowhere close to an explicit misstatement as to source or content.

The fourth claim still stands though, with Virag requesting punitive damages from SCEA for the unauthorized use of the VIRAG logo on the grounds of violating Mirco’s right of publicity as an individual.
Click to expand...
 
With this order, the First Amendment status of video games as an expressive medium continues to be upheld. "Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 6 are expressive works that qualify for First Amendment protection," judge Laurel Beeler wrote.
Click to expand...
 
My wonder is what ever made them think they had a case to begin with. Clearly they knew there was no precedence for such claims that alone should have been enough.
 
Its my impression that when a game seeks to reproduce a racetrack, they have the right to reproduce the billboards on the side of the road on the proviso they contact every company depicted and ask for permission. If permission is denied, they can then put in other logos like their own PD logo or Nvidia or AMD or their own preferred partner.

Is this not the case? I cannot see why Sony would use someone elses logo and not at least ask for the company's permission. I would imagine most would say 'yes' to free publicity.
 
Maybe we can have a Bill Board editor with the Course Creator - Pick a bill board and put your own logo on it - For personal non profit use of course...

"Boring Boring Coconut Flooring by ... you know the name"

I kind of hope that Sony walk all over Virag, those Italian laminates look great under my Gucci loafers.
 
"With this order, the First Amendment status of video games as an expressive medium continues to be upheld. "Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 6 are expressive works that qualify for First Amendment protection," judge Laurel Beeler wrote."
Click to expand...
Can Laurel Beeler also explain why we don't have Porsche cars in Gran Turismo already?
 
HKS racer
Can Laurel Beeler also explain why we don't have Porsche cars in Gran Turismo already?
Click to expand...

That quote is in relation to a specific claim that was made, it's not applicable to the entire law suit.

There is also a difference between using company logos and using company products. Using Porsche logos is one thing, using Porsche cars is another. The first may be protected by the first amendment, but I'm not so sure that the same principle applies to the second.

This lawsuit is not about Sony using Virag products, but Sony using the Virag logo.
 
eran0004
That quote is in relation to a specific claim that was made, it's not applicable to the entire law suit.

There is also a difference between using company logos and using company products. Using Porsche logos is one thing, using Porsche cars is another. The first may be protected by the first amendment, but I'm not so sure that the same principle applies to the second.

This lawsuit is not about Sony using Virag products, but Sony using the Virag logo.
Click to expand...
But if they create a car similar to a Porsche model and then add a Porsche logo, it's still using only the logo not the product.
 
HKS racer
Really? Ok.
Click to expand...

Yeah, between the tail lights. It doesn't exactly pop out, but it's there.

matterhorn-rotenboden_7-jpg.95535
 

Similar threads

Sanji Himura
Puerto Rico Votes in Favor of Statehood
Replies
22
Views
1K
Sanji Himura
Sanji Himura
sesselpupser
Apparently I'm stuck in the 4th of April
Replies
10
Views
1K
speedthrill
speedthrill
amar212
Fanatec CSL Seat Review + ClubSport family vs. T500RS in GT5
2
Replies
57
Views
40K
superslowme
superslowme
Sauc3
The reasons why Bush's government is corrupt
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Solid Fro
Solid Fro

Latest Posts

Back