Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is . . .

[Zkribbler]

... If you guess "art," you're right!

An L.A. strip club called "The Play Pen" sued the makers of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" for trademark infringment because of the club's appearance in the game. The plaintiff alleged the game "had ravaged the club's reputation."

In July 31, District Court Judge Margaret Morrow tossed the case out based on her findings that "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is art, that the depiction of the club was "artitically relevant," and that the use was not "explicitedly misleading."

The Play Pen says it will appeal [to the 9th Circuit.]

Oh, I do so love this town!

[snoopy369]

Wow, hmm. I'd think they'd be required to pay a fee for the use of the trademark ... otherwise baseball games could use baseball players' names/likenesses without paying them, i'd think ...

[Kuciwalker]

It is art, by any reasonable definition.

[Al B. Sure!]

nah it is art... whether the images in the game or the storyline, it is all art.

[:) Smiley]

Haven't played much of the game, how is it depicted?

[Al B. Sure!]

it's bizarre that an appearance in a video game 'ravaged' a strip club's 'reputation'.

[Havak]

Um isn't the club in question called the "Pig Pen" in the game? So what grounds is there for trademark infringement exactly?

It is spelt P-A-R-O-D-Y (for the benefit of the lawyers and judges taking this nonsense seriously).

[alva]

So when having made a movie with say... a chopper flying over a city, the makers should pay anyone (and everything) who was in that shot?

[Caligastia]

GTA San Andreas sucked. They changed the controls and introduced a bunch of "yo nigga" black crap. Give me Vice City any day.

[Darius871]

racist

[Adagio]

Parody
People who doesn't understand parody



I doubt it has hurt them in any way, it's more likely that it actually could have helped them as it's kinda free advertising

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It is art, by any reasonable definition.

No, it is a commercial product which contains art.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by alva
So when having made a movie with say... a chopper flying over a city, the makers should pay anyone (and everything) who was in that shot?

There are rules which cover who has to be paid (or at least consent obtained) and under what circumstances. A distant shot with no identifiable individuals, which is essentially equivalent to images in the public domain, is a different issue than close, identifiable shots of individuals, or specific sites used as sets or backgrounds. Sorting out all that crap is what you have associate producers for.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
No, it is a commercial product which contains art.

So is a movie. Same difference.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There are rules which cover who has to be paid (or at least consent obtained) and under what circumstances. A distant shot with no identifiable individuals, which is essentially equivalent to images in the public domain, is a different issue than close, identifiable shots of individuals, or specific sites used as sets or backgrounds. Sorting out all that crap is what you have associate producers for.

Definition "Associate Producer:" The only type of person who will associate with a producer.
[Old jokes are the best jokes.]