Read more."Absurd lawsuit" concerning Call of Duty royalties was tossed out.
Read more."Absurd lawsuit" concerning Call of Duty royalties was tossed out.
Good, as quite rightly said in the article, if he had won it would have opened up a whole new can of worms on top of all the worms wriggling around our feet!
Not only stopping a nasty can of worms from creaking open, but claiming that the game damaged an already almost terminally damaged reputation was simply nuts, IMHO!
I personally think this is messed up. Can you imagine the poo-storm if someone wrote a fictitious story involving...damnit I dunno who's popular, Cheryl Cole will do, yeah. Anyway they wrote a story saying Cheryl Cole was a person of interest in a terrorist attack on the Hague which the very best soldier in the Call Of Duty world had to solve (that scottish git with the epic beard, naturally, mctavish was it?), and he had no option but to put a hole in her throat, meaning every album she did from there on in meant she sounded like Nat King Cole (in my opinion a marked improvement, but I digress), you can bet your bumcheek that she would sue Activision SO quickly they'd be forced to cut back on costs and only release mediocre shooting titles every 3 years instead of every 2.
It shouldn't matter if the person is a monster, if he was an angel, or if he was a dictator funded by the CIA so you're not quite sure what he was, people shouldn't be allowed to use your likeness without your permission to create bull**** backstories that an idiotic 13 year old will take as fact because they spend more time on COD than they do on Wikipedia
Did they actually use his name? I genuinely don't know, as I don't buy CoD any more. The image looks a bit like him, I suppose. I think this comes down to the parody laws. As a political figure, he puts himself up there for parody, so it's fair game. Margaret Thatcher did not hold a chicken in the air, but she doesn't get a cut of the profits from Spitting Image...
I played BOps2 and to be honest if I had noticed it was Noriega then it would have been a couple of seconds of "oh it's him", otherwise it's made a non-impression. And personally, I don't think any less of Noriega as a result of his "appearance" in the game.
Law suit was horribly ill-conceived. Personally if I was in his position I'd be looking to see if they (Activision) want to stump up some money for a guest appearance in the next CoD. As the cliche says, all publicity is good publicity.
(And yes, I know that there's that other cliche that says that 'there is such a thing as bad publicity').
Yes they mention him by name and he plays an important role in the story, albeit a small one
I think the verdict is insane, we should live in a world where despotic, ruthless dictators are able to live their lives free from the burden of having their reputations tarnished by video games when they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves without help from others such as Activision.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)