Is this copyright infringement, or just foolishness?

[Don Maddox]

Wow, this is interesting. Do you think Epic's lawyers are going over-the-top?

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/gears-of-war/epic-lawyers-attack-again-244338.php

[Aries]

Hmm lets see.

Eric Weider of Armchair General is so utterly in my good books for instance, through his acts of generosity, that he has earned a near permanent subscription from me, and nearly absolute positive good will publicity.

That's an example of "good business".

The above example from Epic though, is what a company does, when they want to be given the finger by potential customers. With behaviour like that, I'd likely be more inclined to get their games for free off the internet, and let their business suck on my hind end for any genuine support.

It's amazing how some companies couldn't comprehend good PR if their corporate lives depended on it eh.

A wise move would have had them ask the artist if he would mind if they obtained his work in the future. Sometimes those artists have a lot of fans and fan support.

This will cost Epic more in bad PR then they will ever make in a court room.

[trauth116]

It could be the corporate lawyers out to maximize the bucks for the corporation -of what they might perceive to be a product with a limited shelf life.

Strangely enough I feel I have to state the following in as general of a sense as I can. Giving it a shot...

Other corporations like to use their attorneys to go after people making comments about their products that they don't like; these guys have been known use their wallets for "PR" -and it can be that possibility that prevents (intimidates - if you will) -dispassionate reviews of products. If something sucks- then you can get sued for saying that whatever it is - sucks - and God forbid you actually specify why a particular product sucks - unless you got more money for a lawyer team than the corporation -- is it really the risk normal people want to take? My guess is that it is not - and corporations use this to their advantage.


Anyway it reminds me of some sandwich restaurant in the Western Chicago suburbs called something like WeeDee's and the Wheaties people sued for a similar type of thing.

[Scott Tortorice]

It's not copyright infringement. For that to be the case, Epic would need to prove that there is something in that painting that is uniquely "Gears of War" (such as a distinctive weapon or creature). Unless they can prove that (and also prove that the artist is profiting off of their intellectual property), they cannot claim copyright infringement.

Of course, with the deep legal pockets of a major corporation, the point might be moot anyway.

This sort of reminds me of how Paramount went around shutting down all Star Trek-related websites. At least in that case, Paramount had some clearly trade marked property being displayed on non-Paramount sites....

[Redwolf]

The article linked to is not clear on whether the violation is the contents of the picture, or whether the problem is that the picture is advertised with Epic's trademarks in the text. The latter is clearly not allowed.

[Blackcloud6]

Well, I'll say that his painting sure looks like a copy of Epic's work.

[jayedub7423]

this is foolosh. if the painting was only meant for display, and not to make a profit, then i think Epic is going a little overboard. if the artist was trying to sell it as an authentic gears of war product, then i think Epic is well within their legal right to stop it.