# Status of White Wolf lawsuit against Underworld?



## Scaramanga (Oct 13, 2004)

I remember reading that White Wolf was suing the producers of _Underworld_ for copyright issues.  What became of this?  Have they settled out of court?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 13, 2004)

Scaramanga said:
			
		

> I remember reading that White Wolf was suing the producers of _Underworld_ for copyright issues. What became of this? Have they settled out of court?



I believe, to a point, that was _'resolved'_ behind _closed doors_...not in court.  Beyond that, who knows. Or the case was thrown out, again, it is not known on how it ended.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 13, 2004)

So in this undisclosed settlement, who is paying to whom? Gawd, I hope it's White Wolf that is paying Sony.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So in this undisclosed settlement, who is paying to whom? Gawd, I hope it's White [removed by mod] Wolf that is paying Sony.




One, very unlikely.

Two, would you care to explain that bracketed comment? As a frequent freelancer for WW, and friends with many of its staff, I'm finding it very difficult not to take that as a personal insult.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 13, 2004)

My bad. It's been removed. I just feel the company don't have a case, only the author stated as the plaintiff in the lawsuit.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> My bad. It's been removed. I just feel the company don't have a case, only the author stated as the plaintiff in the lawsuit.




Okay, that's fair. I know a lot of people who feel the way you do. Personally, having seen the portions of the papers that were (briefly) made public, I think the case was strong enough to warran the suit, though I can't say for sure if it was a _winning_ case or not.

I was just thrown by the specific term, since it has connotations that you (obviously) hadn't intended. It's all good, though.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 14, 2004)

Thanks for resolving the issue, gang. It's appreciated. The phrase that was being bandied about was definitely not the right one for here.

I'm editing quoted posts to remove it as well.


----------



## Scaramanga (Oct 14, 2004)

*Law suit*

Well, I guess perhaps we'll never know what became of this.  But when I heard today that a company was being sued over the Jennifer Lopez movie _Enough_, and another was being sued over Steve Martin's _Bringing Down the House_, I remembered that I never heard how the whole _Underworld _ thing was resolved.

Oh, and I also heard a rumor that M. Night's _The Village _ was stepping on someone's copyright toes.  I don't actually believe that all of these huge film studios go around ripping people off with such regularity, but rather that there are a lot of similar ideas out there, and sometimes one person's (unproduced) script ends up resembling someone else's (produced) script.  After all, there's nothing new under the sun . . .

Waiting with cringed shoulders for the next D&D movie,

S


----------



## Chun-tzu (Oct 14, 2004)

For what it's worth, they're moving ahead on a sequel to the movie (currently in pre-production). So I'm guessing it's been resolved somehow.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 14, 2004)

Scaramanga said:
			
		

> Well, I guess perhaps we'll never know what became of this. But when I heard today that a company was being sued over the Jennifer Lopez movie _Enough_, and another was being sued over Steve Martin's _Bringing Down the House_, I remembered that I never heard how the whole _Underworld _thing was resolved.
> 
> Oh, and I also heard a rumor that M. Night's _The Village _was stepping on someone's copyright toes. I don't actually believe that all of these huge film studios go around ripping people off with such regularity, but rather that there are a lot of similar ideas out there, and sometimes one person's (unproduced) script ends up resembling someone else's (produced) script. After all, there's nothing new under the sun . . .
> 
> ...




*WOW*...where you have been , the next...*cough* movie *cough*.....D&D2 is heading for video tape.

(check the News Section...the info is there)


----------



## nikolai (Oct 14, 2004)

I have heard nothing. Because of this, I presume the wheels of justice are still slowly in motion. I'm fairly sure if it had been resolved we would have seen a statement to that effect, what with the online activity of various WW employees. The best source for information for this is probably the rpg.net boards: perhaps someone could post a query there?


----------



## Fiery James (Oct 14, 2004)

From what I know, it's been resolved.  Evidently, Sony's lawyers did feel that there was enough of a case to settle and avoid a trial.

I believe all of the money was spent on my bar tab at the Vampire Release party! 

- James


----------



## nikolai (Oct 14, 2004)

Fiery James said:
			
		

> From what I know, it's been resolved.




Is there an online source for this? I'm not questioning anyone's word; it's just I'd be interested in reading the anouncement (and any discussion it's generated).


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Oct 14, 2004)

I'm honestly surprised there was a lawsuit.  After seeing Underworld, I would not want anyone thinking that my company or I had anything to do with that film.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Oct 14, 2004)

Keeper of Secrets said:
			
		

> I'm honestly surprised there was a lawsuit.  After seeing Underworld, I would not want anyone thinking that my company or I had anything to do with that film.





I would. I enjoyed the movie a good bit. Wasn't amazing or anything but still really fun. 

On topic, I read the pdf of all the lawsuit complaints and most of them were so superfluous to be crazy. But some came close so who knows?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 14, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Is there an online source for this? I'm not questioning anyone's word; it's just I'd be interested in reading the anouncement (and any discussion it's generated).



I did a web search on Yahoo, hit the_ first_ 3 pages with a 100 count each, and mostly found references only dealing with September of last year, beyond that...a virtual void.

Just like this case...a mystery.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 14, 2004)

It's not uncommon for settlements to include an NDA/gag order on all parties. It's entirely likely that the details, or even the fact that it's been resolved, will never be made public.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 14, 2004)

[ message deleted by poster. ]


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 14, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's not uncommon for settlements to include an NDA/gag order on all parties. It's entirely likely that the details, or even the fact that it's been resolved, will never be made public.



Yeah, but the idea that there is a settlement bugged me. I mean, if the author and only the author gotten the money, then -- and I mean no offense -- I'm relieved.

But ideally, I'd favor a dismissal of the lawsuit.


----------



## Zelgadas (Oct 15, 2004)

I always thought the whole thing was a little silly.  I've seen Underworld, and I've read Vampire and Werewolf books, and there's really not that much similarity there.  I mean, I can distinctly remember an old Ghostbusters cartoon where it was stated that vampires and werewolves hated each other; does that mean that White Wolf stole the idea from them?  Not only that, but whose toes, exactly, was Sony stepping on here?  Is the movie in direct competition with the White Wolf games?  If you go see Underworld and think, "Hey, cool, werewolves versus vampires", does that make you more or less likely to go out and buy White Wolf stuff?  I didn't see an official Vampire: The Masquerade move coming out at the same time.  Truth to be told, if I had, I'd probably have seen both movies.  I don't know; I'll stop ranting now I guess.  The whole thing just seemed plain silly and childish, to me.  It's not like either one of them is claiming to have invented vampires and werewolves, for Pete's sake.


----------



## Faraer (Oct 16, 2004)

My impression is that _Underworld_'s likeness to the Nancy Collins story "Love of Monsters" (the main point of the suit) was quite real and notable, but that it wasn't actually a causal influence on the screenwriters of the film. Did she retain copyright on her story or sell it to White Wolf? If the latter, obviously it would only be White Wolf who could sue Sony.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Oct 16, 2004)

I just feel sorry for all of Will Shakespeare's descendents that have gotten rooked out of trillions in royalties.


----------

