There’s no romance like necromance.
4 Likes
Shit - Patton would fucking LOVE being in a FPS video game about killing Nazis. If he where alive he would probably offer to do voices and wear a ping pong ball motion capture suit.
8 Likes
Has the game already been made?
Just change the title and artwork (nothing else) to ‘Hitler’ and release it…
I’m sure his estate won’t mind…
btw make sure you leave the original artwork in as an easter egg 
This is proof that all lawyers are evil necromancers, and should be banished to Dol Guldur.
1 Like
As a game developer, I’m sorry to say this is more or less true. However, it’s not the basis for the case, so…
Although they could refile in Indiana, which has a 100 year term (and covers more elements, such as “gestures,” etc.)
Only if the company making the game does business in Indiana.
Presumably selling the game in Indiana counts as “doing business” there?
It wouldn’t; they would sell it to a distributor who would sell it to retailers, et cetera. At most, they’d be able to bar it from Indiana, but that would probably fall afowl of interstate commerce laws.
Wait to release it until the end of this year. Problem solved, plus they get a Christmas release.
Its kinda the court’s job to interpret ambiguous laws 
. My understanding is that it’s not settled whether or not “audiovisual work” exclusively refers to television and movies.
It’s too bad judges are almost as bad with understanding technology and culture as congress.
Probably not, as the right of publicity is based on the laws of where the celebrity was resident when he or she died. Princess Di’s estate found that out the hard way when they tried suing the Franklin Mint; the court ruled she was resident in the UK, where they don’t have post-mortem rights of publicity. Patton’s estate claims California was his intended domicile at the time of his death, conveniently enough.
2 Likes
It’s more of a statutory construction question than a tech question. Is “audiovisual work” a term of art that refers exclusively to TV and film? What did the California legislature mean when they wrote the law in 1985? (note: I don’t have an answer)
It’s not just endorsements. With some exceptions, it’s any use of the deceased’s likeness. As it says in Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1(a)(1):
Any person who uses a deceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods [emphasis added], or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
1 Like
I read this as you can’t sell merchandise that libels or misrepresents the person. If this game were called “Legends Of Goatfucking: Patton” CMG might have a solid case (although the defense could argue satire, that no reasonable person would believe Patton actually fucked goats,) as there would be provable damage to his reputation. Accurately depicting a historical figure doesn’t cause any damages.
This is game is put out by the History Channel though, so we can pretty much assume it’s going to be full of fantastical and unsubstantiated claims, while still pretending it has veracity…
1 Like
Well, you’d be wrong :). That section also specifies that:
[T]he person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by the injured party or parties, as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.
If you make money off of someone’s likeness you have to pay them, or their estate if they’re dead.
I’d also note that the post-mortem right of publicity was created in response to the studios screwing over the heirs of deceased stars. Specifically, it was Bela Lugosi’s heirs trying (and losing on appeal) to get money out of Universal for all of their Dracula merchandise.
