'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#71

Post by danShumway » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #51

danShumway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should your product be protected from that? Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. If we're not protecting products from negative reviews, opinion peices, or satire -- then fictional stories seems to me like a really weird place to draw a line. What if I took your product and made a joke about it having ties to a cult?[0] I don't see any reason to treat fictional movies and games li…

> Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. Well, it depends. Generally there is some sort of minimal realism when it comes to objects; you'll never have a sports car lose to a clunker, and when it does, the movie plays it as surprising. If people treat your product in a certain way, even in fiction, consumers might think that they're just missing out on the association they're supposed to…

The number of car chases I've seen in movies where motorcycles, taxis, and trucks keep pace with fast-moving vehicles makes me skeptical that is a real concern.

But let's say that we are concerned about consumers forming an incorrect association. If that was the case, we also would block brands from showing their products succeeding spectacularly in unlikely or impossible situations. If we don't trust consumers to treat fictional stories with caution, then we should also ban depictions of cell phones that have infinite reception in the middle of disasters, cars that allow drivers to walk away unharmed after crashes, or branded laptops that perform computing tasks that are beyond them.

Just a few weeks to a month ago, studios were joking about how Apple had a policy of making sure that movie villains never used iPhones. That's a clearly deceptive association Apple is trying to create, lots of evil people in the real world use iPhones.

The fact that we don't ban deceptively positive depictions of branded products is strong evidence that we do trust consumers to know the difference between fiction and reality.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#72

Post by pvg » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

boring_twenties wrote: post #67

filoleg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that word too, but it is usually only used to refer to ATV vehicles (specifically amphibious ones), not offroad cars or SUVs.

Interesting, I heard a Russian guy refer to his Lincoln Navigator as that, heh

This was probably ironic use, like calling your big car a tank. Like the other commenter says 'вездеход' is a related but different term - a specialized vehicle where the all-terrainness is the main purpose rather than the extra capability of a road vehicle.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#73

Post by filoleg » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #51

danShumway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should your product be protected from that? Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. If we're not protecting products from negative reviews, opinion peices, or satire -- then fictional stories seems to me like a really weird place to draw a line. What if I took your product and made a joke about it having ties to a cult?[0] I don't see any reason to treat fictional movies and games li…

> Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. Well, it depends. Generally there is some sort of minimal realism when it comes to objects; you'll never have a sports car lose to a clunker, and when it does, the movie plays it as surprising. If people treat your product in a certain way, even in fiction, consumers might think that they're just missing out on the association they're supposed to…

Yep. That's why Apple prohibits depictions of their products in media where those are used by villains.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#74

Post by csallen » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #33

ceejayoz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it being marketed as a documentary?

Let’s say it isn’t.

Then why should it be illegal? Sure, as the maker of said product, I won't be happy seeing it portrayed in a negative light. But bad reviews, negative jokes, and outright mockery are a natural risk that comes from the totally optional endeavor of creating products. Should my feelings trump your rights to creativity and speech?

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#75

Post by detaro » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #63

duskwuff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flow is typically in the other direction, though -- companies pay for placement of their products in media, like movies and video games, as it's seen as a form of advertising.

That's what I thought too, but then your comment got me thinking deeper. What you said definitely seems to be the case for general media, but what about something that relies almost entirely on the realistic products to be compelling? The specific example I was thinking of was racing games that use real cars (Forza, Gran Turismo, etc.). Do those companies get paid to feature real cars or do they have to pay to use th…

The game makers pay for racing games, or at least work out deals regarding marketing etc. I've read that car companies also care a lot about the presentation in-game, so e.g. games with real cars can't have extreme damage models because many companies don't want horribly wrecked versions of their cars to be shown.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#76

Post by danShumway » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #59

danShumway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should your product be protected from that? Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. If we're not protecting products from negative reviews, opinion peices, or satire -- then fictional stories seems to me like a really weird place to draw a line. What if I took your product and made a joke about it having ties to a cult?[0] I don't see any reason to treat fictional movies and games li…

Being smart enough to know something is fake is not enough to be psychologically unaffected by it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#Research

But to follow up, why should we protect brands from negative psychological associations in movies?

We still allow real products to be used in satires, even though satires could have the same unconscious effects you reference. We still allow people to publicly criticize products. We still allow real public figures and events to be referenced in fictional media, even though the same psychological effects you reference could negatively impact people's perception of them as well.

I still don't see anything that's special about a trademark that means it needs extra protection in this area.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#77

Post by duskwuff » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #63

duskwuff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flow is typically in the other direction, though -- companies pay for placement of their products in media, like movies and video games, as it's seen as a form of advertising.

That's what I thought too, but then your comment got me thinking deeper. What you said definitely seems to be the case for general media, but what about something that relies almost entirely on the realistic products to be compelling? The specific example I was thinking of was racing games that use real cars (Forza, Gran Turismo, etc.). Do those companies get paid to feature real cars or do they have to pay to use th…

> The specific example I was thinking of was racing games that use real cars (Forza, Gran Turismo, etc.). Do those companies get paid to feature real cars or do they have to pay to use them?

I'm not sure, but I imagine so.

What gets complicated is how the cars are depicted in the games. I've heard stories of racing simulators which couldn't use realistic damage models because the licensors for their cars wouldn't approve of having their cars depicted in a damaged state. I can imagine there might be issues with having some models of cars modelled as having worse performance than their competitors (slower, worse handling, etc) as well.

It's not as though this is unique to video games, though. A company that's paying to have their car appear in a movie might stipulate that it not appear in situations involving it breaking down or crashing, for instance.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#78

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

tinkertamper wrote: post #4

smabie wrote: post #2

I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…

I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?

[deleted]

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#79

Post by Angostura » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #29

solinent wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard example I've heard is for Trampoline. No one calls them rebound tumblers anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampoline#First_modern_trampo... I think this is really just a case of lawyers being super-protective. It also pays well, I'm sure. I think a words like Humvee or even Google have coloquially already lost their meaning--their meaning is polymorphic, it's only a matter of time (100 years is a m…

I’ve always liked escalators and xerox machines.

Not to mention Heroine.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#80

Post by HBKXNCUO » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #76

kube-system wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being smart enough to know something is fake is not enough to be psychologically unaffected by it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#Research

But to follow up, why should we protect brands from negative psychological associations in movies? We still allow real products to be used in satires, even though satires could have the same unconscious effects you reference. We still allow people to publicly criticize products. We still allow real public figures and events to be referenced in fictional media, even though the same psychological effects you reference…

>We still allow people to publicly criticize products.

Yes, but you're not allowed to harm people or businesses by knowingly making false statements about the product in your criticism. I would guess that a negative fictional portrayal of the product would run afoul of that. Satire often uses branding that is fake but similar enough to the real thing that it's obvious what it's meant to portray.