# White Wolf and author Nancy A. Collins sue Sony over Underworld



## Psychotic Dreamer (Sep 5, 2003)

Just thought I would share with everyone that White Wolf is suing Sony, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment over Underworld.

Here's a link to the press release:
http://www.white-wolf.com/News/underworldrelease.html


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 5, 2003)

Psychotic Dreamer said:
			
		

> Just thought I would share with everyone that White Wolf is suing Sony, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment over Underworld.
> 
> Here's a link to the press release:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/News/underworldrelease.html




Bah. I expected this, but I doubt it will go anywhere, and rightfully.

It's a concept, nothing more. White Wolf is hardly the first people to come up with the concept of a world with both vampires and werewolves go existing. While they might have made it popular, that isn't enough.

The only basis they might have is the claim that it's essentialy a stolen script... If they have any basis, they MIGHT have a claim... But I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Sep 5, 2003)

I'm not suprised either.  I just hope this doesn't end up delaying the movies release since it looks like a fun movie.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 5, 2003)

Abbot and Costello (or the people who hold those rights) should sue them both, they had the wolfman and Dracula in the same movie back in 48 (Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 5, 2003)

If it was just a suit based on "Hey, they have vampires and werewolves too!" then I doubt it would have made it to court. WW and Nancy Collins are claiming "17 points" of similarity/IP. Since nobody outside the suit knows what those points are, any conclusion we might reach as to the "validity" of the suit, positive or negative, would pretty much be the grossest example of uninformed guesswork.

Not that I don't want to follow this, see where it goes, see what people say--I just think it's silly to decide who's in the right or not.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 5, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> If it was just a suit based on "Hey, they have vampires and werewolves too!" then I doubt it would have made it to court. WW and Nancy Collins are claiming "17 points" of similarity/IP. Since nobody outside the suit knows what those points are, any conclusion we might reach as to the "validity" of the suit, positive or negative, would pretty much be the grossest example of uninformed guesswork.



The press release I saw said "over 60". Then again, TSR's lawsuit about Dangeorus Journeys claimed hundreds of points of similarity between Mythus and AD&D 1st ed, including such gems as:

"The method used in MYTHUS (page 9) of resolving game action by generating random numbers on a linear probability scale is derived from a similar method used in the AD&D game system in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 9-10)."

"The name of the main world, "Aerth", in MYTHUS (pages 5 and 7-8), is derived from the name of a world, "Oerth," in the AD&D WORLD OF GREYHAWK boxed set, specifically in the Glossography (page 2) and Guide (page 4)."

"The "Accomplishment Point" system in MYTHUS (pages 29, 40, 134-136 and 303-304) is derived from the "Experience Point" system in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 84-86 and 228) and the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 106-107)."

In other words, just because a press release says they've found X points of similarity it doesn't mean that the points in question are relevant.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 6, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> The press release I saw said "over 60". Then again, TSR's lawsuit about Dangeorus Journeys claimed hundreds of points of similarity between Mythus and AD&D 1st ed, including such gems as:
> 
> "The method used in MYTHUS (page 9) of resolving game action by generating random numbers on a linear probability scale is derived from a similar method used in the AD&D game system in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 9-10)."
> 
> ...




I don't think you can use the TSR suit as an example because of the Gygax connection.  WW has a very defined world, if they can show elements from their world (which many have been copy righted) then Sony may find itself paying.


----------



## Krug (Sep 6, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> In other words, just because a press release says they've found X points of similarity it doesn't mean that the points in question are relevant.




I'm sure there's classics like "Everyone is wearing black leather" and "the vampires have fangs".

Frankly the trailer doens't look that hot to me. *shruG*


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 6, 2003)

The press release mentions a "Love of Monsters" story published by WW.  Anyone read it?  Did it have a Romeo & Juliet vibe like Underworld is supposed to have?


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 6, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The press release mentions a "Love of Monsters" story published by WW.  Anyone read it?  Did it have a Romeo & Juliet vibe like Underworld is supposed to have?




And, if it does vibe like R & J, isn't a tad ironic that Collins, the allegedly wronged author, is basically accusing Sony of being unoriginal?


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2003)

Yes, but that can't be copyrighted, anymore than can, say, the idea of a flavour of ice cream. Said ice cream can't have the same name, but it could be the same.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 6, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's classics like "Everyone is wearing black leather" and "the vampires have fangs".
> 
> Frankly the trailer doens't look that hot to me. *shruG*



I'm interested because it rounds out a month where the only movies I am interested in are *Once Upon a Time in Mexico* & *Matchstick Men*.  After that I believe the only decent release in October is *Kill Bill volume one*.  *Bubba Ho-Tep* doesn't count because it's a limited release that most folks won't be able to see.

* runs off to start a new thread *


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 6, 2003)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Yes, but that can't be copyrighted, anymore than can, say, the idea of a flavour of ice cream. Said ice cream can't have the same name, but it could be the same.




Admittedly. Shakespeare's bad move being born before copyright laws. Of course, since the Bard ripped off other authors for much of his work....

Of course, the truth is that WW ripped off that awful Howling sequel in which (shocked gasp) werewolves were fighting vampires. And then, of course, there was the actual Wolfman versus Frankenstein versus Dracula movie before that.

Keeping in mind that I know nothing about the case other than what I've read here, it all still sounds like just so much cry-babying.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> And, if it does vibe like R & J, isn't a tad ironic that Collins, the allegedly wronged author, is basically accusing Sony of being unoriginal?



Hmmmm *smacksmack*

Does taste a bit like irony....


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 6, 2003)

I predict Sonny gonna turn tail and settle, even before the court can determine if there is an actual infringement.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 6, 2003)

man feel the hate for White Wolf here...... Gee what if say the movie has clans of vampires and tribes of werewolves in it? would that make for a frivolous suit? what if one of the tribes was called Get of Fenris? would it still be frivolous? Maybe we should oh say wait till any of us have actually seen the movie before we crucify White Wolf for clogging up the court system with silly litigation? It's way way to early for any of us to make a judgement on this but you know what sometimes there are lawsuits that are justified and copyright infringement is a major problem in the movie industry,  most of the time it just gets caught in the script phase before the movie is actually made. We have no clue what points were in question and furthermore we cannot even speculate on them without actually seeing the movie in question or getting a copy of the actual suit and a copy of the actual script.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 6, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> man feel the hate for White Wolf here...... Gee what if say the movie has clans of vampires and tribes of werewolves in it? would that make for a frivolous suit? what if one of the tribes was called Get of Fenris? would it still be frivolous? Maybe we should oh say wait till any of us have actually seen the movie before we crucify White Wolf for clogging up the court system with silly litigation? It's way way to early for any of us to make a judgement on this but you know what sometimes there are lawsuits that are justified and copyright infringement is a major problem in the movie industry,  most of the time it just gets caught in the script phase before the movie is actually made. We have no clue what points were in question and furthermore we cannot even speculate on them without actually seeing the movie in question or getting a copy of the actual suit and a copy of the actual script.



I wonder if the WW folks have seen the movie since it hasn't come out yet and there haven't been all that many screenings for it from what I understand.  I have no contempt for either side.  If Sony is in the wrong, so be it - if not - the same applies.  I just want to see the movie.


----------



## Welverin (Sep 6, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Gee what if say the movie has clans of vampires?




Like Blade did?

What I wonder is why now two weeks before it opens? Did it actually take them this long to get eveything ready and make sure it was legitimate, or is just an attempt to get something from Sony with the threat of delaying the pening through legal means?


----------



## DMScott (Sep 6, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> What I wonder is why now two weeks before it opens? Did it actually take them this long to get eveything ready and make sure it was legitimate, or is just an attempt to get something from Sony with the threat of delaying the pening through legal means?




Almost certainly the latter - filing now gives the best chance of a quick settlement before it gets anywhere near a court. That's an honoured legal tradition.

Unless it basically copies out of the clanbooks and such, this is a suit that should go nowhere - the basic setup of the WoD isn't exactly original. Whether it will go nowhere depends on the lawyers involved, of course.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 6, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Like Blade did?
> 
> What I wonder is why now two weeks before it opens? Did it actually take them this long to get eveything ready and make sure it was legitimate, or is just an attempt to get something from Sony with the threat of delaying the pening through legal means?



Well were the vampire clans fighting werewolf tribes in Blade? The point here wasn't to point out the clan thing but to point out that we don't have one single actual clue as to what all these claimed points of copyright infringement are, we can speculate all we like but for all we know the points of infringement could be from extremely vague to obviously blatent. We just don't have any information except a three paragraph press release from White Wolf. A lot of people have condemned them as launching a frivolous suit here without actually knowing what the suit is about, we just don't know if it's frivolous or not and won't know until we can see the movie or the actual lawsuit papers. 

As far as why now, well that's been talked about in the other thread on the topic (getting harder to keep track of who said what where). For us to make a judgement on the "why now?" question we would have to know when White Wolf first found out there might be infringement, then they would have to review the material with a lawyer (did Sony send them the script on request or allow them to screen the movie?) and prepare a detailed lawsuit. If they just caught on when the first TV commercials started airing then this is a pretty quick turnaround to get the suit out there. It's obvious they had to of reviewed the movie in some manner if they have "17 counts of copyright infringement" and "over 60 points of unique similarity", that's not just saying "hey they got vampires fighting werewolfs, lets sue" that's a detailed list that could only of been made after reviewing the movie (or the screenplay).


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 6, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Well were the vampire clans fighting werewolf tribes in Blade? The point here wasn't to point out the clan thing but to point out that we don't have one single actual clue as to what all these claimed points of copyright infringement are,




Yes we do.  The author claimed it was based on her book, which was apparently a romeo and juliet take-off by itself.  If that's not frivilous, I don't know what is.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> If that's not frivilous, I don't know what is.




Be careful what you say.

I think jdavis' point is very simple.  We have only a very general description of what's going on. When copyright and IP are concerned, the devil is in the details.  We are not privy to those details.

This is a case where the Golden Rule applies, folks.  Remember that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" thing?  If you'd like other folks to make up their minds about you and what you do based upon a short press release, by all means condemn either side right now.  If you ever want to be given a fair shake, based upon the facts, wait and see.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 6, 2003)

damn well said, Umbran.

I am flabbergasted that on these boards, of all places (where usually IP of gamers is held to a ridiculously high principle), there are a myriad of people basically telling WW that there's no way Underworld could be a copy of their work, and that How Dare They defend their creative efforts?

Also, unless you have SOME familiarity with WW and the World of Dakness, than I firmly am of the opinion that you should shut your trap about things you know absolutely bupkiss about.

As jdavis reasonably said, why don't you wait until the movie comes out (get some education about WoD) and then decide for yourself how blatant the lifting of ideas is. And I guarantee you - there *are* ideas lifted from the WoD in Underworld - it permeates the trailer. It's just a matter of what degree Underworld copied WW.
So for anyone to say WW shouldn't defend themselves, when there's warning signs all around that a crime happened...  well, to be blunt, you're in the wrong to say that, and it's none of your business, AND you're not in the position to come to that conclusion yet (unless you've got a bootlegged copy of the movie already).

I swear, I haven't seen so much knee-jerk, uncalled-for pre-judging since before _A Knight's Tale_ came out, if anyone remembers how many board members made themselves look stupid for passing false judgment on something they *hadn't seen*.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 6, 2003)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I don't think you can use the TSR suit as an example because of the Gygax connection. WW has a very defined world, if they can show elements from their world (which many have been copy righted) then Sony may find itself paying.



I didn't mean that the suit was necessarily as frivolous as the TSR lawsuit. I'm just saying that just because someone claims points of similarity it doesn't mean that those points are actually covered by copyright law.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 6, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I didn't mean that the suit was necessarily as frivolous as the TSR lawsuit. I'm just saying that just because someone claims points of similarity it doesn't mean that those points are actually covered by copyright law.




True.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 7, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> damn well said, Umbran.
> 
> I am flabbergasted that on these boards, of all places (where usually IP of gamers is held to a ridiculously high principle), there are a myriad of people basically telling WW that there's no way Underworld could be a copy of their work, and that How Dare They defend their creative efforts?



Well, there is an old saying in the good ole' U.S. of A.:

*INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY*

If Sony, the defendant in this lawsuit, truly believes that they did not copy from White Wolf's actual copyrighted works, then they should challenge the accusation made by the plaintiff, White Wolf. In court, it is the plaintiff must prove that defendant did something wrong, not the defendant to prove they did nothing wrong.

The court of public opinions varies, and that includes yours. It is the court of evidence I am most interested in, assuming there will be no settlement beforehand.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 7, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> . It is the court of evidence I am most interested in, assuming there will be no settlement beforehand.



Oh, I guarantee they'll settle.
After seeing the documents linked in the other thread, it's an open and shut case.
There are many plot points that are not at all obvious, or accidental that are direct copies from the WW material. I wonder how many things need to be copied before it becomes an obvious rip-off?

Again, Sony didn't HAVE to OK the production of the script as it was - they could have partnered with WW, and probably gotten some good press and publicity and more customers out of it.

But they didn't (I'm guessing). They actually put that story out there, and expect people not to connect the dots?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 7, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> They actually put that story out there, and expect people not to connect the dots?




To be fair, I don't think Sony, as a corporation, expected anything. I'd be willing to bet money that, until the papers were filed, most of the execs at Sony had never _heard_ of White Wolf. Much as we might like to think otherwise, the RPG industry barely registers as a blip on the radar to most entertainment folks.

If there was some plagiarism--and I think it's likely, but not certain, that there was--the guilty party would be a screenwriter or three, not the execs. The worst they're guilty of is, I think, ignorance.

It doesn't change the fact that, as captains of the ship, they're legally responsible for the actions of their crew, and if WW wins (or Sony decides to settle), it's the execs who will be held accountable. Nevertheless, I really don't think there was any ill intent on the part of most of the execs. (And it's rare for me to say that, given my opinion of large corporations in general.) I think they just didn't realize what it was they had.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 7, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Yes we do. The author claimed it was based on her book, which was apparently a romeo and juliet take-off by itself. If that's not frivilous, I don't know what is.



Haven't read the book so I can't say but if it was a Romeo and Juliet take off where vampires fall in love with werewolves then that does make it a lot more unique. Of course once again we really don't know what part of the story was used, maybe it's a unique twist the plot of the book had or maybe it was character backgrounds, give me a actual fact as to what exactly was called into question from the movie and the corresponding part of the book they claim was plagerized and then I will be more than happy to scream frivolous from every rooftop if it is, but we have so little information to go on here that it just makes all this crazy kneejerk reaction silly. I am not making any judgement one way or another I'm just pointing out it is way to early for the general public to chime in when Sony hasn't even made a darn statement yet. Do you know more about this than Sony does? For all we know they could be embarassed that they let something like this slide by them and will issue a formal apology (yes I doubt that too). Look copyright infringement in movies happens all the time, this isn't that outrageous or that uncommon of a thing, maybe we should at least wait till we have seen more of the movie than a 30 second commercial before we pass judgement here.

One thing that sort of does bother me is the complete lack of support for a gaming company here on the gaming messageboard. I mean people are really attacking White Wolf here and I just figured that gamers would be more inclined to root for the game company, guess you learn something new everyday.


----------



## Corinth (Sep 7, 2003)

Read the document, folks.  The movie is an outright ripoff of the book.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 7, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> To be fair, I don't think Sony, as a corporation, expected anything. I'd be willing to bet money that, until the papers were filed, most of the execs at Sony had never _heard_ of White Wolf. Much as we might like to think otherwise, the RPG industry barely registers as a blip on the radar to most entertainment folks.
> 
> If there was some plagiarism--and I think it's likely, but not certain, that there was--the guilty party would be a screenwriter or three, not the execs. The worst they're guilty of is, I think, ignorance.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that, as captains of the ship, they're legally responsible for the actions of their crew, and if WW wins (or Sony decides to settle), it's the execs who will be held accountable. Nevertheless, I really don't think there was any ill intent on the part of most of the execs. (And it's rare for me to say that, given my opinion of large corporations in general.) I think they just didn't realize what it was they had.



It happens a lot at the script level, it's just thhat most of the times it gets caught before they start production. I mean can you imagine just how many story ideas they hear everyday, it's very posible that Sony is just as suprised by this as White Wolf was. I doubt that most Sony Execs had ever even heard of White Wolf games before the suit was filed.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 7, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd be willing to bet money that, until the papers were filed, most of the execs at Sony had never _heard_ of White Wolf.



I used the word "they" meaning the corporation as a whole, not the execs.
Executives of Sony might be complketely detached from normal life - I don't know.
But I GUARANTEE you, that someone along the line has a clue, and they not only are aware of the biggest vampire RPG in history, but they also watch TV. They would have seen Kindred : The Embraced, and they should know that it clearly states that it's based on the novel.

I just fail to believe that WW is so fringe and niche that it is unknown outside of gaming circles. Many people know about a vampire game, not just gamers. It's not like V:tM is played only in dark basements - it's VERY public. Hell, law enforcements agencies know about the game - I doubt if entertainment companies are ignorant of it.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 7, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Read the document, folks.  The movie is an outright ripoff of the book.



Oh, on the contrary - there are apparently reasonable people that can read that black and white document and say "There's nothing to it"... "completely frivolous" "blah blah I let my distaste of WW blind me from what's in front of my face blah".


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 7, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Read the document, folks. The movie is an outright ripoff of the book.




Which document?  The press release?  I find it wholly unconvincing.  Given the idea of monster species who hate each other, the R&J storyline is obvious; I ran an R&J subplot in a Vampire/Werewolf LARP in 1993, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to whom the idea occurred.  Unless there are a lot more similarities, Ms. Collins probably doesn't have much of a case.

White Wolf's case sounds even more tenuous to me.  Could William Gibson sue the creators of the Matrix or of Blade Runner?  Can Tolkien's estate sue the makers of Dragonslayer?  Of course not.  Sure, WW codified a particular aesthetic, and they did a great job of it; but unless the similarities are much grosser than the press release suggests (seven clans of vampires joined in a society dedicated to keeping vampires secret, fighting another group of vampires who believe in the superiority of vampires over humans, and all engaged in a war against thirteen tribes of werewolves who live in cairns and are trying to fight their version of Satan, Lord of the Pollution), then I'm very skeptical.

Reapersaurus, what sort of guarantee are you offering that they'll settle out of court?  Color me skeptical.

Daniel


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> As jdavis reasonably said, why don't you wait until the movie comes out (get some education about WoD) and then decide for yourself how blatant the lifting of ideas is. And I guarantee you - there *are* ideas lifted from the WoD in Underworld - it permeates the trailer. It's just a matter of what degree Underworld copied WW.
> So for anyone to say WW shouldn't defend themselves, when there's warning signs all around that a crime happened... well, to be blunt, you're in the wrong to say that, and it's none of your business, AND you're not in the position to come to that conclusion yet (unless you've got a bootlegged copy of the movie already).



Ah! The legal keyword I was looking for in the intellectual property law: *IDEAS.* IIRC, IDEAS, whether they are original or based on another person's thoughts, cannot be copyrighted. Therefore they cannot claim copyright based on ideas.

You have to show hard evidence that they lifted copyrighted text, trademark (in exact likeness and image) from White Wolf's copyrighted work.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Corinth (Sep 8, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Which document?  The press release?  I find it wholly unconvincing.  Given the idea of monster species who hate each other, the R&J storyline is obvious; I ran an R&J subplot in a Vampire/Werewolf LARP in 1993, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to whom the idea occurred.  Unless there are a lot more similarities, Ms. Collins probably doesn't have much of a case.
> 
> White Wolf's case sounds even more tenuous to me.  Could William Gibson sue the creators of the Matrix or of Blade Runner?  Can Tolkien's estate sue the makers of Dragonslayer?  Of course not.  Sure, WW codified a particular aesthetic, and they did a great job of it; but unless the similarities are much grosser than the press release suggests (seven clans of vampires joined in a society dedicated to keeping vampires secret, fighting another group of vampires who believe in the superiority of vampires over humans, and all engaged in a war against thirteen tribes of werewolves who live in cairns and are trying to fight their version of Satan, Lord of the Pollution), then I'm very skeptical.
> 
> ...



 No, I mean the actual court papers filed by White Wolf's attourney last Thursday.  It's online in PDF format, and that document lays clear that Sony stole the stuff from Collins' story.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 9, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> No, I mean the actual court papers filed by White Wolf's attourney last Thursday.  It's online in PDF format, and that document lays clear that Sony stole the stuff from Collins' story.




That a noticeable number of people disagree even after reading the actual court papers, and that I'm still seeing commercials for Underworld seems to indicate that the case isn't quite so cut and dried.


----------



## Zub (Sep 9, 2003)

I've read the court papers and I think WW has made a good case.  I'm looking forward to seeing SONY's response.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 9, 2003)

Gotcha -- I only saw those papers after I went to the bigger thread on this subject.  Now that I've seen them, I'm even less convinced that WW has a case.  Indeed, I suspect it went down like this:

-Someone in WW saw previews of the movie, said, "No way!  They're stealing our ideas!  Sue!
-The WW legal team explained that you can't sue for theft of ideas, but rather for specific copying of passages, of trademarked terms, etc.
-The WW artists compelled their legal team to go forward with the lawsuit, based on ego and a vague sense of fair play rather than on the law.

I expect the case to get laughed out of court.
Daniel


----------



## Qlippoth (Sep 9, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Indeed, I suspect it went down like this:
> 
> -Someone in WW saw previews of the movie, said, "No way!  They're stealing our ideas!  Sue!
> -The WW legal team explained that you can't sue for theft of ideas, but rather for specific copying of passages, of trademarked terms, etc.
> ...



Is it at all possible that:

-Someone in WW saw previews of the movie, said, "Hmmm. That looks familiar. Wonder if the script is lurking somewhere out there"?

-The WW legal team explained that if you don't sue for theft of ideas OR specific copying of passages OR trademark terms, etc. the first time around, you are potentially opening floodgates with the potential to drown your products?

-The WW artists asked their legal team to go forward with the lawsuit, based on the intellectual property they've created over 13 years and the potential that another corporate entity stands to profit using essentially the same material, possibly cribbed from their own?

I expect to watch this case closely. And continue reading White Wolf material. And, perhaps, see the movie.

Edit: readability


----------



## jdavis (Sep 9, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> That a noticeable number of people disagree even after reading the actual court papers, and that I'm still seeing commercials for Underworld seems to indicate that the case isn't quite so cut and dried.



 That a noticable amount of people disagree with any post is a sure sign you are posting at EN World. 

Also you have to look at the fact that reading the papers changed nobody's mind here it's all the same people on one side or the other. Everybody has already prejudged the thing so there is no use in discussing it anymore, minds are made up and there is no new news on the topic. I guess we'll just have to see what the courts decide.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 9, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Also you have to look at the fact that reading the papers changed nobody's mind here it's all the same people on one side or the other.




Not so. When I initially read about the suit, my instinct was that WW was _probably_ blowing smoke, especially given how incredibly derivative so much of the WoD really is. After reading the suit, I am now certain WW is blowing smoke.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 10, 2003)

Well, there IS one major piece of information that can be used to help people make up their minds:

SEE THE MOVIE.
I will guarantee (again) that the movie will come out as advertised, and we can all see for ourselves how much we think it was or wasn't influenced by WW.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 10, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Well, there IS one major piece of information that can be used to help people make up their minds:
> 
> SEE THE MOVIE.
> I will guarantee (again) that the movie will come out as advertised, and we can all see for ourselves how much we think it was or wasn't influenced by WW.




Yeah, but then I'm out approximately $7 and lose 2 or so hours of my life. Doesn't seem like a fair trade.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 10, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem like a fair trade.




Oh, but you have to factor in that those $7 and two hours effectively pays for hours and hours of fun arguing about it here at EN World!  You gotta pay to play, y'know.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 10, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Oh, but you have to factor in that those $7 and two hours effectively pays for hours and hours of fun arguing about it here at EN World!  You gotta pay to play, y'know.




Nah. I'll just do what 95% of internet posters do: Talk out my arse.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 10, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Yeah, but then I'm out approximately $7 and lose 2 or so hours of my life. Doesn't seem like a fair trade.



How can you say "I told you so" if you don't see the movie?..... Well I'm sure you could but most of us will probably risk it on the off chance that it might not suck the life out of our existance (it could be good, I mean the guy has directed before, he did a Megadeth video).


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 10, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> How can you say "I told you so" if you don't see the movie?..... Well I'm sure you could but most of us will probably risk it on the off chance that it might not suck the life out of our existance (it could be good, I mean the guy has directed before, he did a Megadeth video).




Oh, well, if he did a Megadeth video....   

I saw Megadeth open for Aerosmith many years ago. It was one of the worst opening acts I've ever seen, and I saw Gene Loves Jezebel. I almost died laughing when Megadeth did a cover of Anarchy in the U.K. right after claiming that their next song (the aforesaid cover) was the reason they were more than a band; they were a movement.

Buncha idjits.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 10, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Gotcha -- I only saw those papers after I went to the bigger thread on this subject.  Now that I've seen them, I'm even less convinced that WW has a case.  Indeed, I suspect it went down like this:
> 
> -Someone in WW saw previews of the movie, said, "No way!  They're stealing our ideas!  Sue!
> -The WW legal team explained that you can't sue for theft of ideas, but rather for specific copying of passages, of trademarked terms, etc.
> ...




After reading over the stuff, I'm thinking the video game had as much to do with the lawsuit as anything. I'm sure a vamp movie wouldn't be really that important, but a video game that directly competes with WW's video game (I believe being released soon enough) IS a hit to them directly.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 12, 2003)

So, anyone care to clarify this?  White Wolf posted the initial judge ruling, but I'm confusing all of the 'injunctions' and 'restraining orders'. Does it look like the movie will come out on time?  

(I ask because I have advance tickets for next Monday    )

----------------------------------------

Judge J. Owen Forrester did not grant the requested temporary restraining order, citing a handful of mitigating circumstances, most notably the plaintiff's inability to post a bond in excess of ten million dollars. Judge Forrester, however, did call for an expedited discovery period (lasting 30 days) and enabled the plaintiffs to have a preliminary injunction hearing thereafter. Judge Forrester also outlined his policy on fairness in his courtroom and cautioned Sony Pictures against using "big business" delay tactics.

If the injunction is granted, defendants risk their ability to proliferate the Underworld brand in video, licenses and merchandising. "I believe our attorney presented a strong case yesterday," said Mike Tinney, President of White Wolf. "The Judge had done his homework, asked a lot of smart questions, and commented that plaintiffs appeared to have made a valid argument for copyright infringement. For a small company like White Wolf and an individual plaintiff like Ms. Collins, this acknowledgement is very heartening."


----------



## PowerWordDumb (Sep 12, 2003)

The movie is coming out on schedule, and despite the WW PR department's rosy press release spinning, there is no particularly great news for them in the judge's declaration.

All the judge has declared is that there appears to be enough of a case to actually proceed to trial (as opposed to him declaring it to be completely without merit and a waste of the court's time - nothing is proven or won yet).  It's not an obvious enough case despite some posters opinions that he would approve WW's request for an injunction against the movie release without them putting up $10 million in bonds against the eventuality of them losing the case.

In essence he's said "You've convinced me to listen to you in more detail, but I don't agree that what you're saying is clearly true".

Of course, in PR world that means you're free to claim you've as good as won, since nobody actually reads or thinks any more.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 13, 2003)

PowerWordDumb said:
			
		

> The movie is coming out on schedule, and despite the WW PR department's rosy press release spinning, there is no particularly great news for them in the judge's declaration.
> 
> All the judge has declared is that there appears to be enough of a case to actually proceed to trial (as opposed to him declaring it to be completely without merit and a waste of the court's time - nothing is proven or won yet). It's not an obvious enough case despite some posters opinions that he would approve WW's request for an injunction against the movie release without them putting up $10 million in bonds against the eventuality of them losing the case.
> 
> ...



Good grief White Wolf got what they wanted except they didn't have the funds to put up the bond (which is pretty standard). In a hearing to see whether this case should go to court they got a yes, that's the end of it, it was a YES or NO answer and they got a yes. If I can go back to the Spike Lee thing he got a similar deal (his security bond was raised to $2.5 million which was probably a big reason he settled). The security bond is pretty standard stuff when millions are involved. The only thing the statement means is that there is enough evidence for this to go to trial, although I must admit you managed to slant it into a resounding defeat for the evil empire. Just a little bit of bias there, White Wolf kill your puppy or something?


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 15, 2003)

Just pulled this response to the lawsuit hub-bub from MArk Tinney himself from the WW newsgroup. The statement was originally posted on the WW Developer Journal Forum, apparently.
__________________________________________

"There's been a tremendous amount of discussion on our boards (and many others)
about the merits of our suit against Sony Pictures, Screen Gems and Lakeshore
Entertainment. We're very flattered by the many words of support from well
wishers. We're also a little surprised by the knee jerk reaction some folks are
having to this legal action that we're taking to protect what we believe to be
infringements of our copyrights. While I won't be engaging in a lengthy forum
debate, I do want to address some of the key concerns than many people have
expressed. Please understand that while we're in pre trial, it's difficult for
me to be entirely candid. Certain phrases and words must be used, or I'll
compromise our greater legal efforts. I take a mild risk by posting a letter
like this, but I want to shed a little light on the events and information that
lead us to the decision to prosecute.

"First of all, White Wolf is not an overly litigious company. We enter lawsuits
only rarely, and then, only when we feel we have no other choice and a
likelihood of prevailing. There have been a few instances where we've sued, and
a few instances where we've been sued. Our track record is pretty good, and we
generally don't start something we don't feel capable of finishing. In the case
of Underworld I did contact Sony in the Spring of this year and advised them
that based on the initial Underworld trailer we believed that Underworld may
contain some of our intellectual property (IP from here on out). I requested a
copy of the script so we could review it in more detail and get a clearer
picture of the situation. Sony moved me around to a couple of different people
and a few emails and voice mails later I found myself ignored. Now we had to be
careful, because when a big company like Sony thinks they're going to get sued,
there's a bunch of legal precautions they can take to make a lawsuit
ridiculously expensive for a small company like White Wolf. So rather than start
shaking spears we waited patiently for the requested screenplay but it never
came. Two months later we got the screen play from the Copyright Office and
began reading. What we saw in that screen play was a overwhelming similarity to
both our *expression* of the World of Darkness and to Nancy Collins' short story
The Love of Monsters.

"Now before those well meaning JR lawyers out there begin screaming again that
White Wolf doesn't own Vampires and Werewolves... we're not claiming to. No one
can copyright an idea - only the *expression* of an idea. We do feel that the
World of Darkness, Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse contain
unique expressions of these subjects. When we read the Underworld screenplay we
found what we believed to be a nearly identical expression of our unique kinds
of Vampires and a nearly identical expression of our kind of social dynamics
between these two opposed societies. People have pointed to Wolfman VS Dracula
recently. That's fine, but it misses our point. We're claiming that we created a
complex world that supports advanced social structures of both Vampire and
Werewolf societies. That each of these creature types have a unique blend of
common myths and new ideas and that Underworld hues too closely to these same
unique blends. Some of our elements were inspired by folklore, some by more
modern offerings and still others of these elements are wholly original
contributions by our creative staff. It is our combination of these elements
that is unique, and that expression is protectable, we believe, under copyright
law. We also found a few special game terms, like Abomination, showing up in
both our books and their screenplay, and we feel very strongly that the screen
writers were exposed to, inspired by and actively incorporating elements of our
IP into their movie. We feel our case is further strengthened by what we
perceive to be overwhelming similarities between the Underworld script and
Nancy's short story, The Love of Monsters, which is also set in the World of
Darkness. The movie switches the genders of the characters, but otherwise we
found the sequence of events to be almost identical between her story and their
screenplay.

"The merits of our case are (in our opinion) fair and reasonable, and we
wouldn't be in litigation if we didn't sincerely believe that this film borrows
heavily... too heavily... from our unique expression of these popular ideas. We
have a responsibility to ourselves, our freelance community and, yes, this
fanbase to protect our intellectual property from third parties who would
attempt to usurp those unique qualities and represent them as independently
created works. Our livelihood as a publisher and rights owner depends on it. I
sat in court yesterday and listened to their attorney assert that the writers
had never heard of the World of Darkness, and then we showed the judge an
article from the San Diego comicon where the creators admitted that they were
aware of White Wolf's games from their internet research. Well... which is it? I
suppose time and legal discovery will tell the truer tale.

"Fortunately the Judge felt that our case had enough merit that he's expediting
the discovery process and shortening it to 30 days. This is very good for us.
That will allow us to get a hearing, and hopefully an injunction before the
larger portions of Underworld's merchandising roll out, and help to protect many
of the areas we've already taken, or plan to take, the World of Darkness brands
into.
Many forums were ablaze with similarities between the trailer and our
properties. Well, now the little guy has stepped up to defend his rights. I do
thank those of you who have shown us so much support these last few days. For
those of you who asked the tough questions, I hope this discourse sheds some
helpful light on where we're coming from and why.

"Thanks and be well,
Mike Tinney
President
White Wolf, Inc"
__________________________

Personally, I think this is a very impressive statement, and kudos to WW for protecting their IP from Sony's arrogant actions and deeds ("They'd never heard of WoD"?!? They're gonna have to do better than that...).


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 15, 2003)

Reapersaurus, that statement is the most compelling thing I've heard yet about the case.  Thanks for posting it!  I still reserve judgement (except to suspect that WW will lose the case), but the case no longer seems as absurd as it did.

Daniel


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 15, 2003)

"Small company"? Their business is worth five times the asking bond payment ($10 mil), and with several publishinghouse/subsidiaries to boots (Arthaus, Sword & Sorcery Studios, etc.). On principle, they should have posted bond payment and get the temporary restraining order, so why didn't they do that?


----------



## jdavis (Sep 16, 2003)

Sci Fi is doing a show on Underworld Thursday at 9

http://www.scifi.com/inside/


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 16, 2003)

theRuinedOne said:
			
		

> So, anyone care to clarify this?  White Wolf posted the initial judge ruling, but I'm confusing all of the 'injunctions' and 'restraining orders'. Does it look like the movie will come out on time?




Yes it will. The judge refused the request to stop the movie comming out.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 16, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Yes it will. The judge refused the request to stop the movie comming out.



Well he didn't refuse the request he just told them they needed a security bond of $10 million. You got $10 million to loan them and they can delay the movie.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 16, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> "Small company"? Their business is worth five times the asking bond payment ($10 mil), and with several publishinghouse/subsidiaries to boots (Arthaus, Sword & Sorcery Studios, etc.). On principle, they should have posted bond payment and get the temporary restraining order, so why didn't they do that?




The amount your company is worth is not the same as cash on hand. Just ask any farmer...  Principles don't fix the roof. Seriously, like most publishers White Wolf probably has much less working capital than you seem to think. Sony on the other hand...

My own suspicion: This will be settled out of court, with Sony paying a modest amount. (More than they want, less than what WWGS wants.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 16, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> "Small company"? Their business is worth five times the asking bond payment ($10 mil), and with several publishinghouse/subsidiaries to boots (Arthaus, Sword & Sorcery Studios, etc.). On principle, they should have posted bond payment and get the temporary restraining order, so why didn't they do that?




The amount your company is worth is not the same as cash on hand. Just ask any farmer...  Principles don't fix the roof. Seriously, like most publishers White Wolf probably has much less working capital than you seem to think. Sony on the other hand...

My own suspicion: This will be settled out of court, with Sony paying a modest amount. (More than they want, less than what WWGS wants.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Stormfalcon (Sep 21, 2003)

I hate to dredge up a somewhat old thread, but I think the folks at Penny Arcade have pretty much nailed it.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 22, 2003)

Stormfalcon said:
			
		

> I hate to dredge up a somewhat old thread, but I think the folks at Penny Arcade have pretty much nailed it.



It's ironic that you think a 4 or 5 day old thread is "old", yet you link to a ridiculously-simplistic comic from Sept 8th..... almost 2 weeks old!

It was lazy and irresponsible then... I guess its inapplicableness to this case only gets better with age, eh?


----------



## jdavis (Sep 22, 2003)

Stormfalcon said:
			
		

> I hate to dredge up a somewhat old thread, but I think the folks at Penny Arcade have pretty much nailed it.



 Yes If White Wolf had clamed they invented vampires, of course that has absolutely nothing to do with this suit so it pretty much misses the point entirely. It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published, if you wrote a book and somebody changed around some of the details but kept the same storyline then you would be upset too. It also doesn't take into account that this is a legal case not a satirical cartoon, you know the kind of thing done by lawyers not cartoonist. There is a lot more to this case than "who made up vampires?" heck that really has nothing to do with the case at all.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 22, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Yes If White Wolf had clamed they invented vampires, of course that has absolutely nothing to do with this suit so it pretty much misses the point entirely. It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published, if you wrote a book and somebody changed around some of the details but kept the same storyline then you would be upset too. It also doesn't take into account that this is a legal case not a satirical cartoon, you know the kind of thing done by lawyers not cartoonist. There is a lot more to this case than "who made up vampires?" heck that really has nothing to do with the case at all.




I can't speak to the plagerism charge from the short story as I havn't read it, but WW was claiming infringements as well on its general World of Darkness vampire/werewolf themes. In this respect they are fighting a losing battle since the movie did not take anything from the game world, but rather from the goth subculture, the Matrix, and many other vampire/werewolf legends and stories while creating a unique origin story. Unless of course the Goth subculture was invented by White Wolf . If anyone has a claim to Underworld ripping off the general feel of something it is the Matrix, but then they seem to be letting everyone rip them off in this respect. Now if the movie used a plotline from a book that is another story but it better be more than just a vampire falling in love with a werewolf. If you want real plagerism look at what Enterprise gets away with.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 22, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I can't speak to the plagerism charge from the short story as I havn't read it, but WW was claiming infringements as well on its general World of Darkness vampire/werewolf themes. In this respect they are fighting a losing battle since the movie did not take anything from the game world, but rather from the goth subculture, the Matrix, and many other vampire/werewolf legends and stories while creating a unique origin story. Unless of course the Goth subculture was invented by White Wolf . If anyone has a claim to Underworld ripping off the general feel of something it is the Matrix, but then they seem to be letting everyone rip them off in this respect. Now if the movie used a plotline from a book that is another story but it better be more than just a vampire falling in love with a werewolf. If you want real plagerism look at what Enterprise gets away with.



Yes exactly. My point I was making was that the comic strip from the link was just a comic strip and really did not get anything right about the lawsuit (nor did it try to it was trying to be funny as that is what comic strips do). I have not read the short story myself but I have been told by somebody who did read it that the movie was pretty blatent in it's copy of the story. I don't think White Wolf would of sued if they didn't have the short story and this is not a open and shut case either way as is, but every point White Wolf listed did corespond to the movie so they didn't lie about anything and when I watched the movie I saw a lot of stuff that reminded me of the games (much of which also corresponds to the short story too). I will have to find and read the short story myself I guess but I really doubt White Wolf would of gone to court against Sony unless they felt they had a pretty good chance of winning (lawsuits are expensive).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 23, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> but I really doubt White Wolf would of gone to court against Sony unless they felt they had a pretty good chance of winning (lawsuits are expensive).




I am not sure anymore that they do have a good chance of winning or neccesarily ever thought they did. After seeing how wrong they were about the WoD elements in thier suit I don't neccesarily believe the other part anymore. Lawsuits are expensive but so is marketing. What WW is getting is free publicity and by bringing this suit they might be thinking that some people who like this movie might decide to check out the game since WW is claiming they are the same thing.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 23, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I will have to find and read the short story myself I guess but I really doubt White Wolf would of gone to court against Sony unless they felt they had a pretty good chance of winning (lawsuits are expensive).




You mean you haven't already read the short story?


----------



## nikolai (Sep 23, 2003)

> It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published, if you wrote a book and somebody changed around some of the details but kept the same storyline then you would be upset too.




It's totally legitimate to adapt/borrow from/steal other people's plots. It's done all the time. Plots can't be copyrighted and borrowing like that has been going on for ages. White Wolf is upset - but so what? There's a world of difference between hurt feeling and a legitimate case. It doesn't mean they've a right to sue Sony or to their claim of ownership.

And they're not just suing because of the story, if anything that's just added to bolster the rest of their case, they think:



> we found what we believed to be a nearly identical expression of our unique kinds of Vampires and a nearly identical expression of our kind of social dynamics between these two opposed societies"




So they're not claiming to own "vampires". But are claiming to own concepts of "vampires" and "werewolves" which are sufficiently similar to their versions. A subset of "vampires" and "werewolves" if you like.

The fact that their version is cobbled together from various sources, created by others, makes no difference. The fact that the claim stems from them producing a vast range of material and then engaging in highly selective quoting, makes no difference. WWs whole case (from what I've heard so far) boils down to artificially conflating an "idea" and an "expression" of an idea. With any luck they'll get it handed to them.

nikolai.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 23, 2003)

nikolai - are you saying that WW should not be able to defend their property, since they didn't invent the ideas of vampires, etc?

That any writer or director can just scour their catalog and nab anything they want, since they didn't originate the idea of vampires, or that they have powers and relationships with other creatures and themselves?

They could just take any power and clan they wanted from WW, and as long as they don't use the name, than it would be OK with you?

I doubt that WW is smoking crack when they talk about "expressions" of ideas - if it wasn't a protected property in legal circles, than I doubt if they're trying to establish precendent in this case.

BTW: Next post, I'd suggest/request that you not tie your entire point to a word (conflating) that is not even in a Pocket Books' Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary. I had to go to www.m-w.com to see that it basically means "join."


----------



## nikolai (Sep 23, 2003)

Thanks very much for the reply. I'm just going to clarify what I meant and leave it at that. We both disagree and since we disagree in our opinions rather than on anything concrete; I don't think any good will come of pushing it any more.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> nikolai - are you saying that WW should not be able to defend their property, since they didn't invent the ideas of vampires, etc?




WW should be able to defend their property. I'm just saying "their" version of vampires shouldn't be (and hopefully isn't) their property. It's the public's; which, morally, makes what they are trying to do theft. Sony's not printing their books, using their trademarks or dressing this up as the world of darkness. The film's not even a competitor for them (not that I think they would be able to stop competitors). I do think what is effectively the commercial sabotage of the computer game is very, very, very iffy; and can see why WW would be fuming. But immoral isn't neccessarily illegal and it's difficult to see a way to deal with a situation like that.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> That any writer or director can just scour their catalog and nab anything they want, since they didn't originate the idea of vampires, or that they have powers and relationships with other creatures and themselves?
> 
> They could just take any power and clan they wanted from WW, and as long as they don't use the name, than it would be OK with you?




Yes. Similarly I think WW should be able to take stuff from elsewhere and use it in the world of darkness (as they have done; and some would say their business is founded upon).



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I doubt that WW is smoking crack when they talk about "expressions" of ideas - if it wasn't a protected property in legal circles, than I doubt if they're trying to establish precendent in this case.




I'm afraid they may be on to something. But then again misguided legal cases are made all the time (I don't think this is a "frivolous" suit - or anything other than sincere on the part of WW - just wrongheaded).

Their point is that *"Vampires"* (garlic, stakes, mirrors, crucifixes, holy wavers, beheading, bats, wolves, mist, blood drinking) is an *idea*. However, *"Vampires"* (minus: garlic, stakes, mirrors, crucifixes, holy wavers, beheading, bats, wolves, mist; plus: "elders", torpor, "amazing speed", "fighting with guns") is an *expression*; so let's break out the lawyers. I find this hard to fathom.



> BTW: Next post, I'd suggest/request that you not tie your entire point to a word (conflating) that is not even in a Pocket Books' Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary. I had to go to www.m-w.com to see that it basically means "join."




Sorry, I didn't mean to be abstruse or recondite.

nikolai.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 26, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Sorry, I didn't mean to be abstruse or recondite.
> 
> nikolai.



Enough already with the prolixity!
Daniel


----------



## jdavis (Sep 26, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> You mean you haven't already read the short story?



Having a hard time finding it, it appears the book it was in is now out of print. Has anybody around here actually read the short story? Has anybody even seen it? It would clear up a lot of stuff on this topic but I can't find a copy of the silly thing.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 26, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Having a hard time finding it, it appears the book it was in is now out of print. Has anybody around here actually read the short story? Has anybody even seen it? It would clear up a lot of stuff on this topic but I can't find a copy of the silly thing.




Odd. I just assumed since you wrote, _"It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published"_, that you surely had read the story. Could it be the glossed over fact isn't a fact at all?


----------



## jdavis (Sep 27, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Odd. I just assumed since you wrote, _"It sort of glosses over the fact that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published"_, that you surely had read the story. Could it be the glossed over fact isn't a fact at all?



you are absolutly right, My point was that the cartoon hadn't "actually nailed it", the cartoon was about suing because they said they invented vampires and werewolves, which has nothing to do with the case. My wording was improper and poorly thought out, what I should of typed was _"It sort of glosses over the *claim* that the storyline of the movie almost directly mirrors a short story they published"._ The "_facts of the case_" are something that will be decided in a court of law not by me on a messageboard. I consider myself duly corrected and chastised.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 27, 2003)

Lawsuit, shmawsuit.

All I know is that I dug the Vampire/Werewolf origin story in Underworld a lot more than the murky WW canon stuff.

Very creative, and immediately *yoinked* into an upcoming game (if I ever get the chance).


----------



## Dimenhydrinate (Sep 27, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Lawsuit, shmawsuit.
> 
> All I know is that I dug the Vampire/Werewolf origin story in Underworld a lot more than the murky WW canon stuff.




Good thing too they just got green lighted for 2 sequels.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Sep 28, 2003)

*The Review....*

Well, just saw it today...

As a former White Wolf player...the undertones are all there(themes of White Wolf)...plain and simple.

As the movie itself....   ...that is my rating.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 28, 2003)

Dimenhydrinate said:
			
		

> Good thing too they just got green lighted for 2 sequels.




That amazes me.  It's doing okay at the box office but not anyting that would suggest two sequals.


----------



## jaldaen (Sep 29, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That amazes me.  It's doing okay at the box office but not anyting that would suggest two sequals.




It does if you consider the cost to make it was only 22 mil versus the 37 mil in revenue... When you can double your money on a movie its well worth a sequel and perhaps even a budget increase... One should also consider that with its performance this weekend it'll be in the top 25 gross income movies this year... pretty nice ;-)

Good Night!
Joseph


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 29, 2003)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Well, just saw it today...
> 
> As a former White Wolf player...the undertones are all there(themes of White Wolf)...plain and simple.




I think for every similarity specific to the World of Darkness (and not vampire/werewolf legends or movies in general, which is what 90% of the complaint was made of) you could come up with a much larger dissimilarity.  At what point does it stop being 'White Wolf'-ish?

J


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 30, 2003)

drnuncheon - please don't be so inaccurate in your numbers.

I just re-read the suit, point-by-point, and found only 9 out of 61 that could be attributed to vampire/werewolf legends. 
All the rest were different from the classic legends. (like WW vamps cast a reflection is DIFFERENT from what one would expect, if they'd only been familiar with the legends.)

But your general question about "at what point does something stop being derivative/plagiarist, and start becoming its own creation/interpretation" is a very tough question, and one I asked over a week ago, but haven't gotten much discussion on.  

For my part, I think that if a majority of the theme and implementations of an idea are present in another work, than it is plagiarist.
Underworld qualifies for me as having a majority of what it presents as being from WW source material, EVEN THOUGH it had a minority of aspects that were unique from WW.
Only having a few differences doesn't make something unique, or protected as a work, in my eyes.

Oh! - I've been meaning to post this realization for awhile:
I wrote a back-story for a V:tM character that did homage (i.e. blatantly stole inspiration from) to 2 sources:
Dream Theater's Scenes From a Memory album, and V:tM.
When I read my story, when I use the same criteria for "copying" that many people have done who have bashed WW here, I honestly can't claim that my story is a copy.
If I took out the names for the things I stole, I don't think that anyone could 'prove' my story is plagiarist any more than I can 'prove' Underworld stole from WW.


----------



## Kai Lord (Oct 5, 2003)

Sony reported today that in an effort to distance themselves from the lawsuit plagued first film, the sequel, Underworld 2: Rattle and Hum, will drop all mention of the word "abomination."  They said they also might slightly abbreviate the title to sound more hip.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 5, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Sony reported today that in an effort to distance themselves from the lawsuit plagued first film, the sequel, Underworld 2: Rattle and Hum, will drop all mention of the word "abomination."  They said they also might slightly abbreviate the title to sound more hip.




Now U2 will have to sue them for stealing the name of thier concert film.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Now U2 will have to sue them for stealing the name of thier concert film.




That was the joke.


----------

