Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 199 posts

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

#131

Post by pokeymcsnatch »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #117
cosmodisk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first that came to my mind is Jeep. In some countries it literally means SUV nowadays.The term is so ingrained that pretty much everyone says like this: 'He's got a BMW Jeep' or 'Look, that's a nice looking Jeep, surely it's Mercedes!'. The funniest thing is that nobody can ever see a real Jeep anymore,as nobody buys them( talking about Europe here).

Interesting, I've never heard jeep used like that in the U.S. Actual jeeps are pretty common here though.

There's quite a few people (in the US) that use "jeep" as a general term for any Jeep-sized offroading vehicle.

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

#132

Post by hannasanarion »

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

Who cares? It's my first amendment right to psychologically impact you by writing: "coca cola tastes like spiced oven sludge".

The fact that you can pay me to include your product in my media doesn't imply that it's illegal for me to mention your product otherwise.

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

#133

Post by hannasanarion »

Supermancho wrote: post #126
ceejayoz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just if you want them to pay for the product placement, though.

If you want to use it at all in a movie or tv.

Apple can't stop you from using their products in a movie. Trademarks only protect brand confusion, nobody is going to watch Transformers 17: Age of Voltron and think that the whole movie is an apple product because a robot turns into a iPad.

It's just a case of "if you don't use our product this way, we won't do cross promotions or pay for product placement with you anymore"

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

#134

Post by hermitdev »

save_ferris wrote: post #5
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…

Ehh, I think Humvee saw a company making a truckload of money and felt they had a right to some of it given that they own a major vehicle that's used in the game. I could easily see an ego-maniacal CEO or founder getting pissed that he's not getting paid for something he feels entitled to. Maybe they're seeing how pro athletes are licensing their likeness to games and thought they could make a compelling argument for…

To play devil's advocate, it's not just Activision using the HUMVEE name in the games, but also the likeness of the vehicle. This could be construed as a tacit approval by AM General of the CoD product line, which they may not wish to be associated with.

Personally, I think this should fall into the same sort of fair use as if a HUMVEE was used in a movie without AM General's approval.

Also, I think both sides are being a little childish amd ahould have come to terma outside of court.

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

#135

Post by hannasanarion »

macintux wrote: post #57
Koshkin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's what Freedom of Speech is all about, isn't it?

No, slander and libel are well-established legal principles despite freedom of speech.

And fiction is never libel. Libel requires a falsehood about someone to be presented as truth, causing demonstrable damage, with actual malice.

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

#136

Post by ummonk »

fiblye wrote: post #128
izacus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if? Nothing. It's a dumb product, there joke is over and you move on in a few seconds. There's no real need for this wired free speech limitation to protect something as dead as a brand.

Advertising would very quickly shift from promoting your product, to actively trashing the competitor's. The whole "Our soda taste so much better than the unnamed competitor's!" style advertising would quickly change to something like "X Corp Brand Soda is the biggest supporter of elephant extermination worldwide and uses lead to give their product their sugar-free sweetness. Is their soda really worth it? (haha, jus…

You seem to be under the false impression that companies aren't already allowed to trash their competitors in advertisements.

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

#137

Post by danShumway »

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #83
danShumway wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

>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. I would definitely not classify that as strong evidence. I'm not sure I'd classify it as evidence at all. There are many people that benefit considerably from consumers not being immune to psychological tricks in advertising, and they have a…

It's strong evidence that our law doesn't consider fictional portrayals of real products to be a problem. More importantly, it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks.

If it's not a serious problem that brands are able to pay to portray their products in a positive light, then it also shouldn't be a serious problem that people can portray a brand in a negative light.

That's all that I was trying to get at -- that there's no reason for people to be uniquely concerned about negative product references in media if they're not also concerned about positive references.

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

#138

Post by neurostimulant »

cosmodisk wrote: post #107
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…

The very first that came to my mind is Jeep. In some countries it literally means SUV nowadays.The term is so ingrained that pretty much everyone says like this: 'He's got a BMW Jeep' or 'Look, that's a nice looking Jeep, surely it's Mercedes!'. The funniest thing is that nobody can ever see a real Jeep anymore,as nobody buys them( talking about Europe here).

In my country, "Jeep" is actually an official vehicle classification category from the transportation ministry, which includes cars such as Suzuki Jimny and Katana. FCA (and Ford) doesn't have official presence here anymore, so nobody probably bother to lobby the government against it.

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

#139

Post by danShumway »

Supermancho wrote: post #125
danShumway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 real products to be used in satires, even though satires The brand owners still get licensing fees whenever real brands are shown, in movies

I am not a lawyer, and I'd welcome input from a real lawyer. But I am almost certain that satirical references to real brands are protected by fair use. I similarly suspect that licensing is not a legal requirement for movies.

I would be curious how you square your claim with Rogers v Grimaldi[0], or more directly, how you square it with the outcome of the very case we're commenting on.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

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

#140

Post by bootlooped »

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?

I have read an alternate strategy here is to license the use of the name for free. Them accepting the license implies that you have the legal rights to it, and licensed uses cannot be used as evidence for trademark erosion. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds believable.
Post reply on HN