# White Wolf sues Sony over the movie "Underworld"



## MEG Hal (Sep 6, 2003)

WHITE WOLF, INC. and author NANCY A. COLLINS sue SONY PICTURES, SCREEN GEMS and LAKESHORE ENTERTAINMENT for "Underworld" copyright infringement

Atlanta, GA, 5 September 2003—White Wolf, Inc. and Nancy A. Collins yesterday filed suit in US District court in Atlanta, Georgia against defendants Sony Pictures, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment, alleging 17 counts of copyright infringement for the film Underworld, set for release on September 19. White Wolf alleges that Underworld characters, theme and setting are based on White Wolf’s award winning games Vampire: The Masquerade® and Werewolf: The Apocalypse™, both set in White Wolf’s fictional World of Darkness®.  Further, Collins alleges that Underworld’s script is based on her 1994 story Love of Monsters, published by White Wolf and also set in the World of Darkness.

Plaintiffs claim over 60 points of unique similarity between Underworld and their work.  "Ours is a huge fictional world, supported by over 200 volumes of fictional material," asserts Mike Tinney, White Wolf’s President. "It’s infuriating to see Underworld’s script riddled with our property." Plaintiffs also claim that Underworld’s entire plot is based on Collins’ short story Love of Monsters. "Apparently they are marketing this as a remake of Romeo and Juliet," comments Collins. "What I think they really mean is that it’s an on-screen adaptation of my story."  

White Wolf and Collins are seeking immediate injunctive relief and damages. "The volume of confusion in our marketplace is amazing," observes Tinney, "our fans think they’re going to be seeing our film. Of course, if the movie gets released, in a way they will be."

Please direct press inquiries to:
for White Wolf: R. Schaeffer, 404-292-1819 x200
for Collins: Pamela Koslyn, 310-271-1833; or Nancy A. Collins, 678-637-2407


----------



## Wombat (Sep 6, 2003)

Given how long I've been seeing info on this film...

...why are they just filing suit now?  Why not, say, four+ months ago?

Then again, I am not a huge fan of WoD and I am not planning to see the film, so it don't make no nevermind to me


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2003)

There's a thread in movies and TV forum about this.....


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2003)

And the movie looks so much better. Kate Beckinsale...yumm....


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 6, 2003)

Go get 'em, White Wolf. I'd be pissed too. Even from a 30 second TV commerical, I could see the elements of World of Darkness. 

That said, it looks like a cool movie.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 6, 2003)

If White Wolf wins, we won't see the movie and Kate Beckinsale.

Personally, I'd rather White Wolf ride on the movie's success rather than trying to impose an injunction if it goes to court, but I think they believe the movie won't be that great as _Kindred: The Embraced._

And as much as I want Sony to challenge the claim of infringement (we don't know if there is an actual infringement under the IP law), I think they're going to settle this out-of-court. That means, White Wolf gets richer.


----------



## Valiantheart (Sep 6, 2003)

So...what White Wolf was the first company to put Vampires against Werewolves?  Somebody better go round up Dracula vs the Wolfman and the Howling 5 quick before WW sues over their "original" idea.

This is like Bram Stoker suing Anne Rice for writing about vampires.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 6, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> ...why are they just filing suit now?  Why not, say, four+ months ago?




They may have gone the usual route. Lawyer sends a letter, waits for response. 30 days later, lawyer sends another letter, waits for response. In the interim, the studio lawyers open the file and fire off a letter back saying nothing. Rinse, repeat for two months.

But even if they didn't, say WW and the author draft and file their suit. Depending on jurisdiction, you have anywhere from 21 to 90 days to then serve the S&C. If you're giving it to a sheriff or a civil process server, they might take up to 5 weeks to perfect service. Then there's a variable length of time to file an answer and appearance. Four months is common. Now, I haven't read the article yet. I might be way off. 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm a litigation claims adjuster. This is not legal advice. Do not confuse legal advice with common sense either.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 6, 2003)

There is a really good reason for them to sue Sony now and not earlier. If they sued Sony when the movie was announced, before the marketing money was spent, Sony could delay the project indefinitely and bog this down in litigation. 

At this point, it's really too late for Sony to just cancel or delay the movie. They are going to have to cough up some money to White Wolf, most likely in the form of a settlement out of court. 

Cedric


----------



## AeroDm (Sep 6, 2003)

Sounds good to me.

Sony has already made the movie, so they'll pay out and send it to the theatres.  I'll see it, enjoy it.

Sony will make a lot of money from it.

White wolf will get some cash that sony thinks is nothing but matters to White Wolf.

Everyone wins.  I lose $7.50, Sony and White Wolf make a lot of money.


----------



## Jehosephat (Sep 6, 2003)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Go get 'em, White Wolf. I'd be pissed too. Even from a 30 second TV commerical, I could see the elements of World of Darkness.
> 
> That said, it looks like a cool movie.




IMO, every vampire movie made in the last 20 years has elements of World of Darkness.  Likewise, many of the stereotypes used in WOD aren't exactly WW originals.  I see alot of cliches being used.


----------



## reiella (Sep 6, 2003)

More or less, and the more I look at the sources/inspirations  lines in the WhiteWolf World of Darkness books, the more it becomes kinda oddly obvious that they are hardly unique.  That said, from what I've read so far, the suit is possibly more so on a story that practically mirrors on they had published beforehand.  Will wait to see more information come out though.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 6, 2003)

As unlikely as it is, I'd like to see Sony put the smackdown on White Wolf.  Frivolous lawsuits piss me off.


----------



## Corinth (Sep 6, 2003)

I want to see the public record document that White Wolf's laywers filed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 6, 2003)

Frankly, anyone who is leaping to the conclusion that this suit is frivolous--or to the opposite conclusion, that Sony is a bunch of thieves--needs to seriously slow down, take a deep breath, and try to gather some real information before drawing their lines in the sand.

WW isn't suing because the movie uses vampires and werewolves. That would be a no-brainer. They are claiming 17 specific counts of copyright infringement, and 60 specific points of overlapping details. To simply assume that their case is flawed or frivolous, _when none of us know what those details are_, is foolish. Ditto to assume that Sony knowingly stole the material. Even if it turns out to be plagiarized, odds are most of the Sony execs have never even _heard_ of White Wolf, and the responsible party is a screenwriter or three.

Until and unless we actually learn what the specific points of conention are--and all we know so far is they include, _among other things_, similarities to one of Nancy Collins' published stories--casting blame is just an exercise in futility.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 6, 2003)

If there are distinct "tribes" of Werewolves, "clans" of vampires, and werewolves have the least bit of eco-terrorism in them... not so frivolous...


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Sep 6, 2003)

Previous possibly frivolous lawsuits, which most probably know about were:

Viacom suing White Wolf because of the similarity between the Aeon RPG and Aeon Flux cartoon thus the namechange to Trinity.
Todd MacFarland suing Palladium Books because of the similarity between the Nightspawn RPG and Todd's Spawn thus the namechange to Nightbane. 
Shelton 'Spike' Lee suing Viacom for the name change of TNN to Spike TV. Settled out of court I think since Spike TV is on the air.

Now this lawsuit may be more legit unless there's a lot of coincidences. Like others have said, I'd want more concrete proof before deciding which side is in the wrong.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 6, 2003)

mouseferatu - that was a nice breath of fresh common sense and propriety thrown into this thread.
But don't you know? Internet message boards are not for guarded concerns and cautiousness -they're for disseminating wild statements and jumping to conclusions where there is very little facts.  

Here's my opinion:
IF.. I repeat  IF Underworld is as close in similarity to WW's world as it LOOKS like it is, than I say Good job, WW for standing up to Sony for not even bothering to give you any credit for something so shamelessly taken from your inspiration.

WW is not just "about vampires and werewolves" - there is a particular urban style and particular plot points about the relationships of the clans and vampires and werewolves that I'm shocked that Sony tried to (perhaps) lift without even so much as a hint of "based on" or "inspired by" and the like.

Almost every slightly-knowledegable gamer I can think of, after seeing the trailer to Underworld, IMMEDIATELY thought "White Wolf", or "Vampire: the Masquerade" etc. The similarity doesn't appear to be just surface, same-genre stuff.

In fact, (on the surface) I can't think of a more blatant-copyright infraction in major media source material in a long time...

I think it was colossaly arrogant of Sony to throw a movie like Underworld out there and not talk to WW about it, or expect everyone to look over to WW and say, Hey - you gonna do something about this?"

That all said, I am REALLY looking forward to Underworld and hope it's very successful.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 6, 2003)

You'd be suprised at how much of this stuff happens and gets caught before it becomes a mess. Just because every gamer saw the promo and thought White Wolf, I'm sure that most Sony executives didn't have a clue. You would have to go back to the actual screenplay writer to know for sure, as big as World of Darkness is in gaming it's just not all that big a deal in the general public, it's just that crazy game where people dress up like vampires. If they can produce a previously existing short story that is the same or very similar to the storyline of the movie then this isn't a frivolous lawsuit, being as the movie is not out yet it would be imposible for any of us to make that call yet.

As far as why it took them so long to sue, well how could they sue over "17 counts of copyright infringement" and "over 60 points of unique similarity" unless they had had time to review the film, if they have that many direct points then how could they get them unless they had reviewed the material, and how could they review the material before they knew it existed. Lets face it how would they have known if there was infringement before they were infringed upon? If they never saw the script before it was made then how would they know to check to see if it was a match for one of their old short stories? They probably saw the film preview like the rest of us and decided to look into it. Once again that's only speculation as we don't even know half the story here.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 6, 2003)

Just for a lark:
Here's the exact text for Underworld on my local paper's Entertainment page: http://www.sacticket.com/cgi-bin/ticketclub/ticketclub.cgi?app=4


> "Underworld" reimagines vampires as a secretive clan of modern, aristocratic sophisticates whose mortal enemies are the Lycans (werewolves), a shrewd gang of street thugs who prowl the city’s underbelly. The balance of power is upset when a beautiful young vampire and a nascent Lycan fall in love.



 Naw, that's not "reminiscent" of a particular game, is it?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 6, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> You'd be suprised at how much of this stuff happens and gets caught before it becomes a mess. Just because every gamer saw the promo and thought White Wolf, I'm sure that most Sony executives didn't have a clue. You would have to go back to the actual screenplay writer to know for sure, as big as World of Darkness is in gaming it's just not all that big a deal in the general public, it's just that crazy game where people dress up like vampires. If they can produce a previously existing short story that is the same or very similar to the storyline of the movie then this isn't a frivolous lawsuit, being as the movie is not out yet it would be imposible for any of us to make that call yet.
> 
> As far as why it took them so long to sue, well how could they sue over "17 counts of copyright infringement" and "over 60 points of unique similarity" unless they had had time to review the film, if they have that many direct points then how could they get them unless they had reviewed the material, and how could they review the material before they knew it existed. Lets face it how would they have known if there was infringement before they were infringed upon? If they never saw the script before it was made then how would they know to check to see if it was a match for one of their old short stories? They probably saw the film preview like the rest of us and decided to look into it. Once again that's only speculation as we don't even know half the story here.




Nor is it completely beyond the realms of possibility that there is some _accidental_ plagarism.

Two examples that come to mind: _Beast from 20,000 Fathoms _ stole a scene from Ray Bradbury's _The Lighthouse_... then hired Ray Bradbury to write the script. (Ray Bradbury thought that the producer had him and the story linked together in his mind, but coudn't remember why...)

David Gerrold admits to accidently pilfering the idea of Tribbles from Hienlen's _The Rolling Stones_

On the other hand people familiar with Harlan Ellison may recall his suit over the show _Future Cop_, in which case the plagarism was deliberate, and substantiated in court...

Myself, I haven't seen the movie, it is possible that both the studio and White Wolf pilfered from the same sources....

The Auld Grump


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Just for a lark:
> Here's the exact text for Underworld on my local paper's Entertainment page: http://www.sacticket.com/cgi-bin/ticketclub/ticketclub.cgi?app=4
> Naw, that's not "reminiscent" of a particular game, is it?




That blurb is just Romeo & Juliet with vampires & werewolves.  I'm sure there's a lot more to the suit than just 'it has competing gangs of vampires & werewolves', if they expect to get anywhere.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 6, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> You'd be suprised at how much of this stuff happens and gets caught before it becomes a mess. Just because every gamer saw the promo and thought White Wolf, I'm sure that most Sony executives didn't have a clue. You would have to go back to the actual screenplay writer to know for sure, as big as World of Darkness is in gaming it's just not all that big a deal in the general public, it's just that crazy game where people dress up like vampires. If they can produce a previously existing short story that is the same or very similar to the storyline of the movie then this isn't a frivolous lawsuit, being as the movie is not out yet it would be imposible for any of us to make that call yet.



Well, if that screenplay writer knowingly lifted elements from the pages of White Wolf's copyrighted work, then yeah, Sony is going to be in legal trouble. That's why such a thing should go to trial to determine by court rulling who is the guilty party: Sony for infringing on White Wolf's work, or White Wolf for bring this frivolus lawsuit to court and waste the judge's time?

Can't help but to remind folks about the legal debacle when FOX Cable Netowrk tried to sue Al Franken for infringement of their trademark -- "Fair and Balanced" -- which Al uses it as part of his book title: _Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right._


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 6, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Almost every slightly-knowledegable gamer I can think of, after seeing the trailer to Underworld, IMMEDIATELY thought "White Wolf", or "Vampire: the Masquerade" etc. The similarity doesn't appear to be just surface, same-genre stuff.




I think this is a good point. When I saw the trailer, I didn't think it was a blade sequel. I didn't think it was a buffy movie. It had some stylistic elements in common with xmen or LXG but clearly darker. I'm only peripherally aware of WOD, but even the peripheral feel is far more similar to the trailer vibe than any other vampire/pulp horror franchise I'm aware of.

Here's a comparison point. I hadn't heard starship troopers was being made into a movie before I saw the trailer in the theater. I realized within seconds what the movie was, well before any explicit IP was mentioned. (I'd read the book once several years before). Now even with the whole damn movie on display, if it had been named "Bug Squad" and changed a few minor details, there would be a parade of posters, likely on this very site, explaining that it had as much in common with aliens as troopers, that there were plot points from the book not recreated, that the love angle with the trooper and the spacer was drawn from romeo and juliet, that heinlien was just inspired by X Y and Z anyway...

So if enough people are getting the "vibe" from just the trailer, and can honestly say its not the exact same way they felt about Blade, or the teasers for Angel's new season, my instinct is to root for WW until further info emerges.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Villano (Sep 6, 2003)

Klaatu B. Nikto said:
			
		

> Previous possibly frivolous lawsuits, which most probably know about were:
> 
> Viacom suing White Wolf because of the similarity between the Aeon RPG and Aeon Flux cartoon thus the namechange to Trinity.
> Todd MacFarland suing Palladium Books because of the similarity between the Nightspawn RPG and Todd's Spawn thus the namechange to Nightbane.
> ...





To add to the list:

After Jim Shooter was forced out of Valient/Acclaim comics, he started another company.  I can't recall the name of it, but one of the books they released was a sci-fi title called Warriors Of Plasm.  

After several issues were already out, Marvel released a book called Plasmer and then sued Shooter.  I'm not sure how they managed to sue considering their book came after, but they did.  The whole thing was obviously aimed at crippling Shooter's company out of the gate (and the fact that people at Marvel who worked with Shooter hate his guts personally probably helped).  

Anyway, it got tossed out of court, but Shooter didn't have much time to celibrate as his company went under awhile later.  Marvel's Plasmer disappeared shortly thereafter and hasn't been seen since.  Odd that.  

Speaking of Marvel, they also sued Dark Horse comics over the comic X.  I can sort of understand Marvel being protective of the "X" being associated with the X-Men, but the case was thrown out due to the simple fact that you can't copyright a letter (and that they couldn't prove Dark Horse was aping X-Men since the character was so different).

Marvel also sued whomever is producing the Mutant X series.  Unlike the Dark Horse case, this one definitely has merit.  Dark Horse's X was a grim vigilante without any connection in any way, shape, or form to mutants.  The title, Mutant X, OTOH, just screams, "X-Men!".  And am I the only one who thinks they cast actors due to their resemblance to the cast of the film?

I believe they settled out of court and Marvel now has a credit in the series.

Another Marvel suit (I'm detecting a trend here ), occurred against wrestler Hulk Hogan.  Yes, Marvel claims that the word "hulk" is their property.  Hogan settled and has to pay royalties everytime he uses his name.  In fact, if you look at any wrestling video game he appears in, you can see that "Hulk Hogan" is the "property of Marvel Comics".

I doubt that Hogan is thrilled with this and has used other names on and off over the years ("Hollywood" Hogan and Mr. America).

DC probably filed the most famous comics-related lawsuit when they sued Fawcett.  They claimed that Captain Marvel was too similar to Superman.

For those who don't know, Superman is an alien from the planet Krypton who, disguised as Clark Kent, works for the newspaper, The Daily Planet.  Captain Marvel is a young boy named Billy Batson who says the magic word "Shazam" and is turned into an adult with the powers of the gods.

The similarities are mind boggling!  

Actually, the only things they have in common is that they both wear capes, fly, and have black hair.  Oh, and Billy works at a radio station (radio station, newspaper, the same thing).  And the fact that Capt. Marvel was outselling Superman probably had nothing to do with it. 

One final weird lawsuit was Mattel suing Todd MacFarlane over his toy company.  Originally, it was called Todd's Toys.  However, Barbie has a little brother named Todd and Mattel claimed that it would confuse children.

A line of gross, disfigured zombie and monster toys and Barbie's little brother?  Yeah, I can see how the little girls that collect Barbie wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two.

BTW, did anyone here even know that Barbie had a little brother or what his name was?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2003)

Hm.  Two threads.  To which does one go to post one's $0.02...?

We out here in the public don't have sufficient information about the movie to know if the suit is frivolous.  Making judgements now, based on so little data is.. well, it's dumb.  If and when you have to go into court, would you prefer the judge and jury make up their minds based upon a press release or two, or would you prefer them to work on the actual evidence?

As for why now?  I'd think that's pretty simple...

1)The legal proces takes time, as others have said.  WW must first learn the content of the movie to make their list of 60 items.  Then there are multiple hopps they have to jump through, as others have said.  This all takes time.

2)Advertising.  If you start the legal stuff to early on, people will forget it by the time the movie actually opens.  I'd expect the advertising angle is considerable.  From Sony's side, the extra press will tend to bring gamers to the movie to find out what all the hubbub was about. From WW's side, it will tend to increase awareness among the audience that there is a game in which one can play through such stories - not a bad way to sell off the old stock before having the Apocalypse, hm?  And that's before we consider if there's actual infringement on IP.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 6, 2003)

*leaping back into this thread*

Umbran - I was wondering if anyone else would go there (the advertising angle).
Yeah, ignoring the IP and timing issues, there is an aspect of this that could be beneficial to both sides. Especially since the only way to know whether there was infringement is to know about WW's products (presumably buying them) AND see the movie.

While I don't think that Sony is that subtle and ingenious to partner with WW in a promotional lawsuit to spur interest in both company's products, it is interesting to ponder.

I think it's WAY more likely that Sony just mined WW for the source material, and didn't want to pay for it, since they are WAY bigger than little WW.

And Occam's Razor cuts so deep...


----------



## Valiantheart (Sep 6, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> BTW, did anyone here even know that Barbie had a little brother or what his name was?




No....and your knowledge of it frightens me.


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 6, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> That blurb is just Romeo & Juliet with vampires & werewolves. I'm sure there's a lot more to the suit than just 'it has competing gangs of vampires & werewolves', if they expect to get anywhere.




That's what it sounds like to me. The Montagues and Capulets have been replaced by Vampires and Werewolves. I'm not a huge fan of WW or anything, so take this with a grain of salt, but I don't remember any deep underlying theme about star-crossed lovers or whatever. Then again, part of the suit apparently revolves around a writer who wrote such a story. But then again, how original is her story idea? I mean, really. Again, it hearkens back to Romeo & Juliet. Is the idea so original that no one else could have thought about it? Having vampires and werewolves at war, with a vampire in love with a werewolf? And in this case, they're Lycans, not Werewolves. From what I understand, aren't we talking about more than just Werewolves? If so, then that's different than White Wolf, which has different breeds of Werewolf, but not so much different breeds of Lycanthrope. 

Eh, I don't care either way whether Sony's right or White Wolf is. Just felt like pointing out that Romeo & Juliet isn't exactly the freshest plotline around. As they say, "there's nothing new under the sun".


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Sep 6, 2003)

What I'm surprised no one's brought up is that in the WoD, werewolves are hardly the archenemies of vampires as they are arranged in this movie.  Werewolves hate vampires, but they hate all things that are of the Wyrm.  And vampires are a little busy fighting each other.  Werewolves and Vampires generally fight each other when their paths cross, but it's not like there's a "Secret Lupine War Room" in Camarilla HQ or something.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but the impression I got from the previews was that, unless they have the whole Wyrm vs. Wyld angle, the conflict in Underworld seems to be quite different from the one in the WoD.


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 6, 2003)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> On the other hand people familiar with Harlan Ellison may recall his suit over the show _Future Cop_, in which case the plagarism was deliberate, and substantiated in court...




I hadn't heard of that one, but Harlan also had to go to court *twice* to get recognition for "Soldier" (his story not the movie) as the inspiration for _Terminator_, even though James Cameron admitted as much on the set to a reporter from _Starlog_. Mr. Ellison had to return to court because at one point, his credit at the end (way, way at the end) had been removed. Nice.


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Sep 6, 2003)

*Wandering offtopic now*

The Hulkster reminded me of another. WWE also had a 'blood drinking' vampire themed wrestler named Gangrel, which was licensed from White Wolf.

Since the World Wildlife Fund now has the rights to WWF, I think any wrestling game that had WWF now has to change or get sued (or something equally idiotic). 

IIRC, Stephen King sued those who made Lawnmower Man to have his name removed from the credits. 

Back to the topic, I bet that anyone with animosity towards White Wolf and the pretentiousness associated with them will have 'em going rabid. The White Wolf boards would probably be the opposite.


----------



## Villano (Sep 7, 2003)

QUOTE=Klaatu B. Nikto]The Hulkster reminded me of another. WWE also had a 'blood drinking' vampire themed wrestler named Gangrel, which was licensed from White Wolf.QUOTE]

I first heard of the wrestler before the White Wolf clan, but I honestly can't recall anyone at the WWF ever refer to White Wolf. It seems bizarre that that they would use the name as a cross-promotion without mentioning the source.



> Since the World Wildlife Fund now has the rights to WWF, I think any wrestling game that had WWF now has to change or get sued (or something equally idiotic).




They way I understood it, World Wildlife had the rights to WWF overseas (in Europe, I think). They made a deal with MacMahon that they wouldn't sue him as long as he didn't promote the World Wrestling Federation with the initials "WWF" there. MacMahon agreed and then turned around and did it anyway. I have no sympathy for him since he brought the lawsuit on himself.

The suit screwed up all the rebroadcasts that had the little "WWF" in the corner of the screen. If you see any old clips, they have to blur them out.

As a funny aside, I heard that someone was refused entrance to a WWE show because he had a World Wildlife shirt with "WWF" emblazened in huge letters on it. And they say Vince doesn't hold grudges. LOL

Anyway, he was eventually allowed in. I think they made him turn the shirt inside out or something. 



> IIRC, Stephen King sued those who made Lawnmower Man to have his name removed from the credits.




I think he got his name off Sleepwalkers, too.

And the woman who wrote the original Beastmast book sued to get her name removed. I read the novel and it is totally different. In fact, it's sci-fi with aliens and such.

If she was upset by the changes in the first movie, I wonder how she felt about the horrible sequels? 

I'm not sure if she did manage to get her name off, but her name was on the recent tv series. I guess she can't complain too much since she's getting royalties.


----------



## Villano (Sep 7, 2003)

Um...What the heck happened to my above post?  Seriously, I did not type in a bunch of smiley faces.  

I'm not going to edit it, though.  It just looks so weird, I love it!  LOL.

The only strange thing that happened is it took me 3 tries to post it.  I kept getting a "page cannot be found" message after I sent it.  I have no idea how that results in a million smiley faces...


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 7, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> That blurb is just Romeo & Juliet with vampires & werewolves.



Respectfully...   No, it isn't.

I'll post everything again, except the last sentence:
"Underworld" reimagines vampires as a secretive clan of modern, aristocratic sophisticates whose mortal enemies are the Lycans (werewolves), a shrewd gang of street thugs who prowl the city’s underbelly."

If you don't see how that infringes on WW's territory (not to mention the incredibly insulting "reimagines" aspect), than I'm afraid you haven't been seeing what WW's been doing for over 10 years.

BTW: Did any other writer before WW envision vampires as a "secretive clan of modern, aristocratic sophisticates"? along with clans that had certain characteristics, etc? Clans being the major aspect I'm wondering about, not the secretive part.


----------



## Corinth (Sep 7, 2003)

Here is your smoking gun.  White Wolf has Sony dead to rights.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Sep 7, 2003)

Over on RPG.net a member, Funksaw, went through and wrote up the main points of the PDF.  I have attached the list as a text file.  I have not read through them all, but there are a lot of things.  However some are... odd.  I would say it does look like White Wolf has a good chance of getting a settlement of some kind with all of this evidence.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 7, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Here is your smoking gun.  White Wolf has Sony dead to rights.




Interesting and while some of the points are just funny some are very notible.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 7, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Here is your smoking gun.  White Wolf has Sony dead to rights.




Yep. A lot of the claims are silly, since they come from mythology--vampires as superfast, silver against werewolves, etc. I'm guessing those were included to prop up the more viable claims.

And boy, some of those claims are pretty substantial. I saw several uses of exact terminology. "Abomination" and "embrace" are English words, sure, and so cannot be copyrighted in and of themselves. But their _specific use_, as (in order) a vampire-werewolf hybrid and the act of turning someone into a vampire, that particular use _can_ legally be declared IP.

I wouldn't begin to lay money on how this is going to turn out. WW has a case, but I couldn't begin to guess if it's a strong enough case to win. I will say, however, that the case is _easily_ strong enough to put the lie to any further claims of "frivolous lawsuits."


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Sep 7, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> BTW: Did any other writer before WW envision vampires as a "secretive clan of modern, aristocratic sophisticates"? along with clans that had certain characteristics, etc? Clans being the major aspect I'm wondering about, not the secretive part.




Possibly Blade from Marvel Comics. They did it in the movies, which may have been influenced by V:tM. 

Vampire clans with certain characteristics were also used in the Soul Reaver series as the 'offspring' of Kain specialized in certain powers like one clan was no longer harmed by water and became aquatic, etc. Again, that may have been influenced by V:tM.


----------



## Enforcer (Sep 7, 2003)

Alright, I'm not a lawyer, but I am currently in law school (for two whole weeks now!). If I were representing White Wolf, there's no way in hell I'd take on Sony with their gazillions of dollars unless I was pretty damn sure my client had a case. So, in my opinion, White Wolf probably has a pretty decent shot at this.

That being said, I'm sure that the end to all this will be Sony tossing some "go away" money at White Wolf and we'll never here anything else about it. Why fight a suit, even if you can win, if your legal fees will be more than the settlement?


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 7, 2003)

OTOH, do we have enough prior case rulings, or precedents, to better understand what infringement is, under the intellectual property law?


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 7, 2003)

Klaatu B. Nikto said:
			
		

> Possibly Blade from Marvel Comics. They did it in the movies, which may have been influenced by V:tM.



I didn't follow the Blade comic close at all, but I REALLY don't think they had anything remotely close to clans like WW does.

Anyone else know of vampires being portrayed in clans with certain characteristics (leaders...  beauty-lovers, etc) before WW came along and did it?

BTW: those documents are VERY interesting, and I agree that some are solely to pad the document (werewolves being hurt by silver), there are way more than enough to make it an open and shut case of copyright infringement. (IMO)

By the way - SPOILER!!!!!
There are spoilers in the legal documents - don't read if you don't want to know plot points of the movie.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 7, 2003)

The list of 'points of similarity' I just read (on the PDF) looks pretty weak to me.

I actually thought they may have a case before I read it. 

Now I'm just hoping a reasonable judge gets assigned to this case so it can be dismissed before too much money is wasted.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 7, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And boy, some of those claims are pretty substantial. I saw several uses of exact terminology. "Abomination" and "embrace" are English words, sure, and so cannot be copyrighted in and of themselves.



 <spoilers>
.
.

We still don't know the context in which those terms are used in the film.

For example, if the film specifically uses "Abomination" as a proper name for vamp/wolf hybrids, then WW scores a point. But if some character makes an off-handed remark like 'that thing is an abomination to our people', then WW is full of it.

The same may be said about the term "Embrace" (note that it is *not* capitalized in the compaint). If the filmmakers use "Embrace" as the accepted usage noun for vamping someone, then WW gets a point. But if 'embrace' is just a verb/stage-direction WW pulled out of the script, then it's just more weakness in their case.

Time will tell.


----------



## Corinth (Sep 7, 2003)

The film version of Blade doesn't resemble the comic much at all.  The film version really does come down to Blade vs. The Camarilla; the comic version is more like Blade-as-Van Helsing.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 7, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> QUOTE=Klaatu B. Nikto]The Hulkster reminded me of another. WWE also had a 'blood drinking' vampire themed wrestler named Gangrel, which was licensed from White Wolf.QUOTE]
> 
> I first heard of the wrestler before the White Wolf clan, but I honestly can't recall anyone at the WWF ever refer to White Wolf. It seems bizarre that that they would use the name as a cross-promotion without mentioning the source.
> 
> ...



WWF did pay for the name Gangrel, and in the videogames where he appeared White Wolf was given credit) I don't think it was ever intended to be a cross-promotional thing I just think the name sounded better than his old wrestling name of "Vampire Warrior". He's married to the female wrestler Luna Vashon if anybody actually cares (oh and he has been out of WWE for quite a while now).

The big World Wildlife thing had two big court cases, the first one is where world wrestling federation agreed to change their name to WWE after years of infighting with the World Wildlife Foundation. The second suit was for the WWF logo in old video games and it was tossed out (speaking of frivolous suits) and I do believe that WWE was actually awarded damages from the world wildlife federation on that one. There was a bunch of stuff and I don't remember the whole story but it basically came down to a certain person in the World Wildlife Federation tried to blackmale the WWE with the threat of forcing them to pull their video game library right before christmas shopping last year, of course all that was never actually proven but I do believe WWE was awarded damages in their countersuit. It's been a while since all that happened and I really don't remember any of the specifics off hand.

The first lawsuit was a blatent disregard for a agreement world wrestling federation had with the world wildlife federation and it was dragged out for years before they decided to just go ahead and change the name (like they should of done in the first place).


----------



## jdavis (Sep 7, 2003)

Psychotic Dreamer said:
			
		

> Over on RPG.net a member, Funksaw, went through and wrote up the main points of the PDF. I have attached the list as a text file. I have not read through them all, but there are a lot of things. However some are... odd. I would say it does look like White Wolf has a good chance of getting a settlement of some kind with all of this evidence.



I'd say about 50% crap and 50% actual evidence. Of course I would still say that without seeing the movie and reading the story it would be a hard call to just how blatent it is, but that does make for a very good case. Some of the points there (particularly the abomination stuff from the book) will be convincing enough to get this sent to trial (unless Sony settles). I went to look at the movie info at the Internet movie database and the people who wrote this movie have one other writing credit between the three of them and it was for a episode of "The Outer Limits" tv show. 
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0320691/fullcredits#writers


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 7, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Yep. A lot of the claims are silly, since they come from mythology--vampires as superfast, silver against werewolves, etc. I'm guessing those were included to prop up the more viable claims.




I don't think they were silly, but I think they needed to be more clearly contrasted with the mythology points that both worlds ignored. That is, silver hurts werewolves, but wood doesn't hurt vampires. Vampires are superfast, but they don't change shape or become clouds of mist. Werewolves fight in hybrid form but they change whenever they want to. Vampires have a relationship with their 'sire' but they are visible in mirrors. The matter of whether some points of similarity are shared with other works isn't as relevant, (imho) as a consistant pattern of sharing both similarities and dissimilarities with "common knowlege".

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Tratyn Runewind (Sep 7, 2003)

Hello, 

For a company that made its name on "Anne-Rice-with-the-serial-numbers-scratched-off" to be suing anyone for IP theft is irony on a nigh-cosmic scale.  The only game I've seen more blatant in its rip-offs is _Immortal_ (Connor and Duncan MacLeod, call your attorneys - and look at the "Immortality" Merit in WW's _Sorceror_, while you're at it).  The attitude comes straight from Rice and the Goth punk world, and the clans are a hodgepodge of historical vampire concepts and character class analogues - the Nosferatu are the original European conception of vampirism as disease and burial alive, mixed with a stealthy thief-like class, the Ventrue are the post-Stoker decadent and sensual nobles, Malkavians are modern horror-movie psycho killers with vampirism, Brujah are fighters, Gangrel rangers, and Tremere are wizards, and Toreador are bards styled to appeal to the drama-class types who wallow in the Goth sensibilities the game reeks with.  Not only are the clan concepts themselves hardly WW originals, but mixing various vampire types was not exactly an innovation, either - see the early-'70's film _Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter_, for one story of a man hunting vampires who were divided into several breeds with differing strengths and weaknesses.  The vampire-versus-werewolf conflict was also done in other forums;  the horror comics of the '70's spring first to my mind, though I also remember episodic cable-tv horror serials of the '80's using the concept as well, and the concept in broad terms can be traced back as far as Abbot and Costello, at least.  

So, the style predates WW, vampiric secrecy predates WW, varied vampire subtypes predate WW, the idea of mixing them predates WW, and the vampire-versus-werewolf conflict predates WW.  What are they going to sue on? Were they sneaky enough to get themselves a perpetual copyright on _Romeo and Juliet_ slipped into the DMCA?  Unless Sony was dim enough to use actual V:TM clan names, I hope WW gets laughed out of court and counter-sued until they can't afford better than Maybellene for their black mascara.  From the look of the movie so far, if anyone should be filing paper on Sony, it's Carrie-Anne Moss.



> Originally Posted by Kahuna Burger:
> *I think they needed to be more clearly contrasted with the mythology points that both worlds ignored. That is, silver hurts werewolves, but wood doesn't hurt vampires. Vampires are superfast, but they don't change shape or become clouds of mist. Werewolves fight in hybrid form but they change whenever they want to. Vampires have a relationship with their 'sire' but they are visible in mirrors. The matter of whether some points of similarity are shared with other works isn't as relevant, (imho) as a consistant pattern of sharing both similarities and dissimilarities with "common knowlege".*




The "mythology points" vary from region to region, and source to source.  In many original myths, for example, wood DIDN'T particularly hurt vampires - the stakes were not used to kill them, but simply to pin them to the earth so they couldn't rise from the grave (presumably these vampires couldn't turn to mist, either...).  And in _Dracula_, IIRC, sunlight didn't kill some vampires, but merely pained and weakened them a bit, and perhaps kept them from using certain of their powers.  There is a large array of vampiric concepts, powers, and weaknesses to choose from, and WW certainly seems to be hoping to make a quick buck off the fact that the ones they thought would appeal to their customers are similar in some ways to the ones that Sony thought would appeal to theirs.  

But hey, for those bored with folklore trivia and legal details, simply rent a copy of _Big Trouble in Little China_, watch it, read the section in WW's _Book of Chantries_ on the "House of the Jade Demon", and laugh yourself sick at the depths of this WW's hubris and hypocrisy...


----------



## Welverin (Sep 7, 2003)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> No....and your knowledge of it frightens me.




So did I, but only because of the lawsuit Villano mentioned.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 7, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> The list of 'points of similarity' I just read (on the PDF) looks pretty weak to me.




Quite weak. Every point of similiarity is either something that is from the "well duh" category (i.e., silver hurts werewolves), has been done before (i.e., werewolves changing form at will and fighting in hybrid form), has ample precedent in literature and other movies (i.e., vampires having the strength of 10 men [c.f., Bram Stoker] or a vampire's bite being linked to sensuality [c.f., just about everything other than Stoker]). The points of similiarity between the movie and Collins's work are easily explained by the fact that they both decided to rip-off the Bard.

It's copycats bringing suit against copycats. If I were Sony, I'd bury WW in years of legal tie-ups, crushing them into the ground with my millions and millions of dollars. Of course, I'm a bit mean-spirited at times. 

But, at most, Sony will settle out of court. The settlement will be sealed from the public. Nothing will come from this other than that. No one will prove anything. WW will trumpet about their "victory" while continuing the point away from the fact that their own products are equally derivative and just as open to criticism via long lists of points of similiarity.


----------



## DMScott (Sep 7, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> BTW: Did any other writer before WW envision vampires as a "secretive clan of modern, aristocratic sophisticates"? along with clans that had certain characteristics, etc? Clans being the major aspect I'm wondering about, not the secretive part.




A role-playing game called Chill, originally by a company called Pacesetter (which I believe went belly up several years before White Wolf were formed), had different types of vampires with different abilities and social structures dependent on type. I don't know if any Chill products called them clans, but I certainly did when I played. I doubt Chill was the first to do so, just one I remember off the top of my head.

Only had time to read the first thirty or so pages of the complaint this morning, but I didn't see anything that changes my opinion that it's a pretty frivolous lawsuit. Maybe there's a smoking gun in the last half of the complaint, I'll give the rest a read tonight. I wouldn't be at all shocked if Sony settles in order to get the movie out as advertised, but that's more a function of the timing than anything else.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 7, 2003)

The World of Darkness stuff is pretty weak but the the movie storyline and the book storyline are pretty much exactly the same thing and that is where they will get them, and don't give me the Romeo and & Juliet stuff as there was so much more going on in this that matches exactly. I mean you could go down the list and and the plot points for the movie matched the plot points for the book, they used several distinctive World of Darkness ideas such as the vampire coming out of torpor and the vampire/werewolf abomination (come on "a vampire/werewolf called a abomination which is hated by both sides" that's pretty much a sure give away it's been lifted from the book). I mean they pretty much went through and lifted the whole storyline from the book and just changed the genders of the two main characters.

I know that a lot of people seem to have some sort of grudge against White Wolf here by all the "I hope they get whats coming to them" type post but this really isn't something frivolous they have a pretty solid case as far as the book storyline goes, yes it's all a Romeo and Juliet spin but you could say the same for every movie ever made and every book ever written where two people fall in love but are not allowed to be with each other. And yes you can go into the fact that the whole World of Darkness is cobbled together with lots of previously existing material, but good grief what gaming system isn't. Just because they got bits and pieces from here and there doesn't take away from the fact that they put all these bits and pieces together and made a very compley vision out of it, it also doesn't take away the fact that it looks like every major plot point in the movie was taken from somebody elses published story.

The people who wrote the movie were not established screenwriters, this is their first script, it's a first time director and first time writers and they are also producing the movie and are also acting in the movie. This isn't some big budget Sony production, it's some under the radar production that Sony is involved in. Heck Kate Beckinsale is engaged to the director (whose past credits are: assistant props director for Independence Day and property assistant for Stargate). So these relatively unknown people show up with their first movie idea and want to write, direct, produce and act in the movie. Then the movie gets sued for stealing the storyline of a book as soon as ads for the movie start airing on TV, you got to wonder what exactly Sony's position on this will be?


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 7, 2003)

jdavis - good points, but I'd caution against going too far with it - It seems like you're pre-judging the case, the other way: you can't say they lifted "every plot point", because we've only read a sub-set of the plot points that happen to all be lifted from WW's material.

As for others: I can't believe that an intelligent fan of gaming and movies would look at that list, and go "eh - WW copied it all in the first place" or "there's nothing particularly there". I'd like to get some time to copy-paste some choice entries from the list (WITH SPOLIERS).
Basically, there are MANY dead-on copies and it's not even close to coincidental, or same-genre stuff.
Just one, for example - a childe pining for her Sire, who happens to be in something like "torpor"... IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. That is a blatant rip-off. It's never been done in movies before, and is not a hallmark of any material other than WW. And that's just one example. Anyone not seeing the ripoffs is actively trying not to for some personal reason or another.

About the WW "copying everything" issue:
Give me a break, and drop your prejudice against WW when posting about this, please.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen the obscure 70's movies you mentioned (I seriously doubt Captain Kronon and Vampire Hunter had clans recognizable as V:tM clans. I just don't believe it without more than anecdotal evidence, sorry), nor have I seen or heard of the obscure RPG reference to Chill. However, after a google search, the FAQ is here : http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/chfaq.html 
and it doesn't look similar at all. Chill is about a secret group of hunters going after supernatural (demonic) beasts.
That's not all WoD brought to the genre, please.

I also searched for any site that talked about V:tM copying from Chill, but couldn't find anyplace on the internet that suggested a connection at all.

But I thank you 2 for trying to find influences on WW in creating WoD.
But just because something's been somewhere before, doesn't mean WW stole WoD from anyone. They might have used some elements from classic literature, etc, but what they created went far beyond just using "werewolves vs vampires".  (<--edited)

And it's this World they made that was lifted, point after point, by Underworld. But it's worse - even the character relationships, conflicts, motivations, and actions were apparently copied, as well. Or at least it strongly appears that is the case.
But I'm reserving my final judgement until I see the movie myself.

That's a good point about the Carrie Anne Moss ripoff.
I thought she looked more like that girl from the Birds of Prey series, myself.


----------



## DMScott (Sep 7, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I also searched for any site that talked about V:tM copying from Chill, but couldn't find anyplace on the internet that suggested a connection at all.




I don't doubt it, because I doubt there's any connection. The question wasn't "Did White Wolf copy these ideas", it was "did White Wolf initiate these ideas". They'd have to do the latter to claim ownership.

You seem to have this weird idea that if any two products express the same idea, one must have copied from the other. That just ain't the way the world works. Lots of people have ideas, and quite often the same idea at the same time. When you're dealing with elements as basic as the ones here - Vampires, Werewolves, and star-crossed lovers from feuding factions - it's hard to imagine a treatment that wouldn't have substantial areas of similarity with what White Wolf has done.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 8, 2003)

I agree with jdavis:  Collins's case looks stronger than White Wolf's.  Are they claiming with a straight face that, because Underworld's vampires and werewolves fight with teeth and claws, they're copying White Wolf's vampires?  That because Underworld werewolves don't use stakes, there's copying going on?  That because both worlds have kickass women assassins, Underworld must have gotten the idea from WW?  They're absurd.

Collins's claims look marginally better.  Some of her claims are also goofy:  there's only so many ways to have an R&J story between vampires and werewolves go down.  But other elements look pretty similar.

It'll be interesting to see how it falls out.  I sort of expect to see a repeat of the Franken-Fox debacle, personally.

Daniel


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 8, 2003)

Didn't Scooby Doo have a village of werewolf-vampires?


----------



## Villano (Sep 8, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Didn't Scooby Doo have a village of werewolf-vampires?




I think your thinking of The Real Ghostbusters.   In the end, the wolves and the vamps fought.  Each time a vamp bit a wolf and vice versa, they infected each other, turning into bat-winged vampwolves.  Then the Ghostbusters blew up the dam or bridge of something which caused the town to be surrounded by running water, trapping all the vampwolves.

On the subject of werewolves and vamps being mortal enemies, you should check out the werewolf films of Paul Naschy.  He's a Spanish actor (and sometimes writer and director) who's done a series of movies (beginning in the '60s) based on his character Waldermar Daninsky, the werewolf.  In nearly all of them, his werewolf fights some kind of creature or another, most of them vampires.

Other monsters he's fought include other werewolves, a Frankenstein-like creature, a mummy, and a yeti.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2003)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> That being said, I'm sure that the end to all this will be Sony tossing some "go away" money at White Wolf and we'll never here anything else about it. Why fight a suit, even if you can win, if your legal fees will be more than the settlement?




More importantly - that's probably all WW wants.  If Sony had come to them, and asked to use some WW material in the movie, WW would probably have written up a license, set a price, and it would have been done.  

The issue at hand isn't whether or not Sony took someone else's material.  The real question is whether Sony took material _without paying for it_.  I know I sound the cynic on corporations these days, but it's true. If Sony ponies up some cash, WW will quiet down, of course.  

At best, it's a case of WW wanting reasonable payment for their material.  At worst, it's a case of WW taking advantage of Sony's stupidity in making a movie close enough to WW property to be vulnerable.


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 8, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> I think your thinking of The Real Ghostbusters.   In the end, the wolves and the vamps fought.  Each time a vamp bit a wolf and vice versa, they infected each other, turning into bat-winged vampwolves.  Then the Ghostbusters blew up the dam or bridge of something which caused the town to be surrounded by running water, trapping all the vampwolves.
> 
> On the subject of werewolves and vamps being mortal enemies, you should check out the werewolf films of Paul Naschy.  He's a Spanish actor (and sometimes writer and director) who's done a series of movies (beginning in the '60s) based on his character Waldermar Daninsky, the werewolf.  In nearly all of them, his werewolf fights some kind of creature or another, most of them vampires.
> 
> Other monsters he's fought include other werewolves, a Frankenstein-like creature, a mummy, and a yeti.




I remember that episode. DAMN, I loved that series!


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 8, 2003)

Reading through the linked PDF document about the similarities... I think there might be some similarities but _Blade_ had many of the same similarities that seem most pointed (the governing body, the distinction of age/bloodlines). Others are utterly silly (like saying that both works say that silver harms werewolves, or that both works have vampires that are strong and fast). Only the use of _'Abomination'_ could, I think, be really taken as derivative. So much of WW's core vampire book is a derivation itself from compiled souces that I don't think they have a leg to stand on, myself, but I'm no lawyer. I guess we'll know more after the film's release in a couple weeks.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 8, 2003)

Originally Posted by Villano
I think your thinking of The Real Ghostbusters. In the end, the wolves and the vamps fought. Each time a vamp bit a wolf and vice versa, they infected each other, turning into bat-winged vampwolves. Then the Ghostbusters blew up the dam or bridge of something which caused the town to be surrounded by running water, trapping all the vampwolves.



			
				Green Knight said:
			
		

> I remember that episode. DAMN, I loved that series!




RGB Ruled. one of the best american cartoons of all time. I am enjoying a DL of 'the collect call of cathulhu' right now.

Blade's vampire clan situation smelled a little like white wolf's stuff. Underworld so far has a visable miasma of WW funk.


----------



## Tratyn Runewind (Sep 8, 2003)

Hi again, 



> Posted by reapersaurus:
> *Basically, there are MANY dead-on copies and it's not even close to coincidental, or same-genre stuff.
> Just one, for example - a childe pining for her Sire, who happens to be in something like "torpor"... IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. That is a blatant rip-off. It's never been done in movies before, and is not a hallmark of any material other than WW. And that's just one example. Anyone not seeing the ripoffs is actively trying not to for some personal reason or another.
> *




Man, it must be cool to be able to read minds.  Sure you don't have a little Auspex yourself?  A movie company rips off from the same literary sources that a game company does, takes Goth-flavored words that have been in the dictionary for centuries as its terms, and because the game company used the some of the same non-copyrighted words with the same meanings in similar ways in its rip-offs, the movie producers are suddenly a devious crew of IP pirates?  "Childe" in particular is right out of Lord Byron, patron saint of Goth hipster arrogance, but Heaven forbid you use it anywhere near a vampire, or the lawyers will come a-knocking.  Now, some of the plot points being similar is indeed not a coincidence.  Perhaps Baz Luhrmann, Leonardo di Caprio, and Clare Danes should be suing Sony as well...

Incidentally, the first decadent, aristocratic, highly organized clan of vampires I ever saw in an RPG was the House of Igorov, in Glantri.  They kept their vampirism secret but regularly used their vampiric powers to interfere in mortal politics and carry on depraved affairs with members of other noble houses.  They were also considered oppressive among non-noble vampires, leading to conflict and rebellion, because their prince ruthlessly forbade the uncontrolled spreading of vampirism in order to keep his own profile low.  Among Igorov's political enemies was Malachie du Marais, a werewolf noble (known as "the White Wolf"!) who led an underground faction of that agitated for equal rights for lycanthropes.  GAZ3, _The Principalities of Glantri_, was published in 1987 (drawing on material, including Malachie, from Module X2, which was out even earlier), and I'm pretty sure V:TM wasn't out before about 1990, give or take a year or two.  Given that WW "obviously" ripped off their very name from TSR, how much $$$ do you think WW owes them?



> Posted by reapersaurus:
> *Unfortunately, I haven't seen the obscure 70's movies you mentioned (I seriously doubt Captain Kronon and Vampire Hunter had clans recognizable as V:tM clans. I just don't believe it without more than anecdotal evidence, sorry), nor have I seen or heard of the obscure RPG reference to Chill.*




You're not a professional movie maker or critic (so far as you've revealed, anyway ), so I would hardly expect you to have seen every old horror film that has helped form the modern conception of the vampire.  But _Captain Kronos_, while not a big-studio American blockbuster, is one of the last of the famous Hammer Films horror releases, and is considered by many to be one of their best.  Hammer is the British studio that made Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee famous.  Incidentally, the circumstances of the film itself sound like something that might come out of a quirky RPG campaign, as the main character is an itinerant European swashbuckler of the post-Napoleonic era, wielding a katana (!?).  

And no, I don't believe the vampire subtypes were called "clans", nor were they as a group aristocratic or Gothy (though individuals were), nor did they represent RPG character class archetypes.  But they did have varying powers (the ones being hunted in the movie drained life force and youth, rather than drinking blood - an obvious IP theft from D&D!) and varying weaknesses (there's a humorous scene with the leads trying various traditional methods to destroy one unfortunate vampire).  That seems closer than _Underworld_'s "clans" come to those of WW, if the legal rigamarole can be believed.  



> Posted by Umbran:
> *At best, it's a case of WW wanting reasonable payment for their material. At worst, it's a case of WW taking advantage of Sony's stupidity in making a movie close enough to WW property to be vulnerable.*




Nicely put, Umbran, though at times I'd consider ignorance of WW and its products to be more blessing than stupidity.  WW's own free borrowing habits, and their laughable list of "evidence", inclines me to the latter theory.  



> Posted by Green Knight:
> *DAMN, I loved that series!*




Yes, it was a worthy follow-on to one of the best comedies of the '80s - most episodes I've seen were, alas, better than _Ghostbusters II_.  Any series that can produce an episode like "Collect Call of Cthulhu" has got to get some props from me!  



> Posted by WayneLigon:
> *Only the use of 'Abomination' could, I think, be really taken as derivative.*




Yeah, the abominations are superhumanly strong and can be grotesquely ugly.  A clear infringement on Marvel Comics copyright!  At least as good a claim as some of the other stuff on that list...

By the way, Villano, your name sounds kinda DC Comics-like.  Perhaps I'm noticing this because Amazo, Despero, and Eclipso came out in the last DC HeroClix set.  But you might want to keep a weather eye open for the lawyers yourself...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Reading through the linked PDF document about the similarities... I think there might be some similarities but _Blade_ had many of the same similarities that seem most pointed (the governing body, the distinction of age/bloodlines). Others are utterly silly (like saying that both works say that silver harms werewolves, or that both works have vampires that are strong and fast). Only the use of _'Abomination'_ could, I think, be really taken as derivative. So much of WW's core vampire book is a derivation itself from compiled souces that I don't think they have a leg to stand on, myself, but I'm no lawyer. I guess we'll know more after the film's release in a couple weeks.



Hmm. That brings up a legal question: Aren't Derivative Work also qualified for copyright?


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 8, 2003)

Tratyn Runewind said:
			
		

> Nicely put, Umbran, though at times I'd consider ignorance of WW and its products to be more blessing than stupidity.  WW's own free borrowing habits, and their laughable list of "evidence", inclines me to the latter theory.




Of course, we must remember that those who find WW's suit dubious at best are motivated solely by a hatred of WW. Therefore, people who criticize WW can be safely discounted as irrational cranks.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 8, 2003)

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3 

Here is my take, after reading the complaints.

The first chunk of them WW is wasting it's time with... "Vampires and werewolves fight each other with claws and teeth", "Silver harms werewolves", "werewolves and vampires hate each other"... All of those aren't going to get them anywhere, IMO.

The last chunk, those dealing with the novel, those might have a chance of doing something. 

Now, I fully believe that the producers and scripwriters of Underworld were AWARE of White Wolf. I'll even go so far as to say I fully believe they did draw from White Wolf for the movie. What I'm not sure about is White Wolf having a valid legal case... particulrly with them not having done anything over Blade.

The ones related to that novel might get them somewhere, though, I don't know.


----------



## Villano (Sep 8, 2003)

Tratyn Runewind said:
			
		

> Hi again,
> 
> And no, I don't believe the vampire subtypes were called "clans", nor were they as a group aristocratic or Gothy (though individuals were), nor did they represent RPG character class archetypes.  But they did have varying powers (the ones being hunted in the movie drained life force and youth, rather than drinking blood - an obvious IP theft from D&D!) and varying weaknesses (there's a humorous scene with the leads trying various traditional methods to destroy one unfortunate vampire).  That seems closer than _Underworld_'s "clans" come to those of WW, if the legal rigamarole can be believed.
> 
> ...





I'm a big fan of Hammer and Capt. Kronos in particular.  I believe there's a dvd of this due out soon and I recommend picking it up as the movie is great.

Anyway, the different types of vamps in that film was a nod to all the various legends dealing with them.  Nothing about clans, just different species.  The one in this film sucked youth (ususally by biting on the mouth like a kiss), was immune to sunlight, holy symbols, wooden stakes, etc.  I'll keep what is was vulnerable to a secret so as not to ruin the "how do we kill him?" scene.  

It's a shame that they didn't continue on with the series, I would have loved to have seen Kronos battling nosferatu and chinese hopping vampires.  Script ideas even had him meeting up with Dr. Frankenstein and Dracula (most likely played by Cushing and Lee).

And I admit my name is a direct rip-off, not of comics, but of the family (or "clan" if you will ) of Mexican wrestlers.  The father was Ray Mendoza (a name which should be familiar to fans of El Santo movies since he appeared in the wrestling scenes in some of them).  His children continued the tradition of wrestling, but under masks and the names Villano I, II, III, IV, and V.  II was supposedly the most skilled, but I believe he died in a car accident (I know he's dead, but can't quite remember the cause).  I just passed away of, I think, a stroke.  And their father died not too long ago (I'm pretty sure he headed up the whole Mexican wrestling commission for a time).

III is still hanging on, but he lost his mask in a match with Atlantis.  IV and V will probably be best know in America since they were with WCW for many years.

Villano V is my personal favorite. 

Children of these wrestlers have picked up the hood, but totally screwed up the names by not continuing with VI and VII, instead calling themselves Villano 2000 and Villano, Jr.  Bah, kids today!   

I don't have to worry about being sued, btw, since "villano" is simply Spanish for "villain".   So there.


----------



## BOZ (Sep 8, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> ...why are they just filing suit now?  Why not, say, four+ months ago?




my guess is, it takes time to build a case.  if you go running off screaming "but, but hey, they stolded my idear!" no one's really going to take you seriously are they?

normally i'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but i'd say WW probably has a good case here.


----------



## Ghostwind (Sep 8, 2003)

Without being a lawyer, I would say that WW has made an attempt to use the 60 points of similarities to back up their 17 specific instances. From what it looks like to me, those 17 incidents have more bearing on the Nancy Collins story than actual WW property or concepts. The fact that it was filed in Atlanta rather than Hollywood means it will at least get hearing (although when will be anyone's guess) assuming it goes that far and isn't settled.

As an aside, when I saw the very first trailer, my thoughts were "Oh, they've finally come out with Crow III." (Crow III was supposed to feature a female Crow). There wasn't anything in that trailer that made you think vampires and werewolves that I saw. But then, I don't play WW's WoD. The reason I bring this point up is that the casual person who is not familiar with WW and what it represents will likely look upon this suit as frivolous regardless of what the facts are. Most folks don't have a clue who WW is and have never heard of V:tM.


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 8, 2003)

Hmmm. Thorny issue, this.

On the one hand, WW appears to have some very strong consequential evidence. Individually not very compelling, but en masse (which presumably is part of their strategey for listing all those attributes) is starts to form (or try to form) a pattern. How much chance of success they have will be determined by a jury, the presentation of the case, and possibly even the facts. 

Is it a widely-acknowledged fact that White Wolf's core line is, at the least, influenced by Anne Rice's Vampire series and Lumley's Necroscope? I think that it is. But so is D&D clearly taken from Tolkien, Lieber, Andreson, Howard and Vance. But the question is, how original are the ideas, and does White Wolf legitimately have a right to claim ownership of them? And therein lies the problem.

Many of the points listed serve two functions: to clarify how both properties are dissimilar to the wide-spread 'knowledge' of vampires and wereloves, and to establish a pattern of possible plagarism. Let's remember, outside of gaming and even further outside of fandom in general, many people hold very generalized 'Halloween' type ideas about vamps and werewolves.

But at the same time, many of these ideas aren't exactly revolutionary. It didn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision vampires, as they've been represented for a long time in western culture, as a collection of aristocratic sophisticates. That was, after all, what Dracula _was._ Formation of vampire clans isn't that much of stretch, especially with the idea of characters like Dracula again, who was already a member of the nobility....it's simply a matter of redefinition.  And consider films like Wolfen, the Howling, The Crow and more....White Wolf didn't originate these ideas, by any stretch.

At issue is really the confluence of sources, and the depth of the material. Is it coincidence (albeit an extreme one) or sloppy behavior? If Underground stole it's visual look from The Matrix, and The Matrix stole it's look from somewhere else, who in turn did the same...how do you determine where the Worm Ourborous of cultural referential loop began?

I honestly don't know.

In Harlan Ellison's case(s), there was clear and substantial unacknowledged IP theft. And Harlan Ellison is a maniac when it comes to asserting his rights legally or otherwise, regardless of the amount of money involved. He is an intellectual pit bull, and has proven time and again that he'll bankrupt himself, if necessary, to prove his point. Corporations FEAR THIS.

Circumstantially, it looks like WW might have an actual case...or at least enough of one that they may get Sony to settle with them. Or Sony might fight them tooth-and-nail, to discourage exactly such lawsuits. Someone, somewhere within Sony's organization was familiar with White Wolf, I have no doubt. Either for potential cross-marketing opportunities, or for simply looking at a potential audience. That doesn't mean that the major decision makers did, or that it got that high up the chain. That doesn't remove them from liability, but it does explain some things, if they are found guilty.

To use Captain Marvel as an example, as Villano mentioned above, he doesn't look too similar, when comparing his minutae of details. But look at them from a broader picture, especially in light of a jury of non-comic book readers. They both wear costumes. They both have capes. They both have secret identities. They both fly, have super strength and speed, have 'families' of other similar characters (supergirl/mary marvel, superboy/Captain Marvel Jr.), have mad scientist arch-villians, have secret identities as journalists...and so on and so forth. You might say: "_But Superboy was superman as a young boy in Smallville, and Captain Marvel Jr. was a different kid entirely in the present!_" To which I would reply: "_Yes, that's true. But in the context of many stories, that's just plain irrelevant to the reader. A solo story of either character would look very similar if you ignored the minor differences. And to someone with no emotional investment in either character, it would be irrelevant._" Of course, a better argument would be that most of Superman's 'family' didn't really appear until after Marvel was effectively banned...but that's another story entirely. (_Bonus question: who possessed the 'Shazambago'?_)

And that's really what this is all about, is a question of reasonable doubt. The deciding factor for the jury will be the credibility of Sony and it's writers over whether or not it was known and intentional. For example, if Sony made overtures prior to the film of licensing rights, and then didn't...they've got a problem. If the movie uses a lot of very similar, even if not copyrighted, terms and elements, then they have a problem.

On the whole, it doesn't look frivolous to me, but it's far from ironclad, either. And having sat on the jury of a frivolous lawsuit, I can tell you that this ain't it, from what we're seeing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 8, 2003)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> As an aside, when I saw the very first trailer, my thoughts were "Oh, they've finally come out with Crow III." (Crow III was supposed to feature a female Crow). There wasn't anything in that trailer that made you think vampires and werewolves that I saw. But then, I don't play WW's WoD. The reason I bring this point up is that the casual person who is not familiar with WW and what it represents will likely look upon this suit as frivolous regardless of what the facts are. Most folks don't have a clue who WW is and have never heard of V:tM.




As a brief aside, I think you mean Crow IV. Crow III has been out (straight to video) for over two years now. 

(It wasn't nearly as good as the first, but _far_ better than the second. Then again, a two-hour of movie of watching an actual crow build a nest and poop in the park would have been better than the second. )


----------



## Enforcer (Sep 8, 2003)

I'll say it again: there's no frickin' way White Wolf would sue Sony unless they had a legitimate case. If White Wolf's lawyers thought the case was frivolous, there's no way they'd want to take it up against a gigantor corporation like Sony. Sony probably earns more revenue in a couple of days than White Wolf makes in as many years--White Wolf knows they'll be outclassed attorney-wise. 

Thus, do you really think they'd be dumb enough to try this unless they were legitimately pissed off?


----------



## Ghostwind (Sep 8, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As a brief aside, I think you mean Crow IV. Crow III has been out (straight to video) for over two years now.
> 
> (It wasn't nearly as good as the first, but _far_ better than the second. Then again, a two-hour of movie of watching an actual crow build a nest and poop in the park would have been better than the second. )




I wasn't even aware of Crow III's existence. I only knew about the short-lived and equally-as-bad-as-the-second-movie television series.


----------



## heirodule (Sep 8, 2003)

Vampires - public domain
Werewolves - public domain
gangs - public domain
Romeo and Juliet - Public Domain

I think the problem is WW has created a generic public domain universe (except for the names of things, like Ventrue, etc) and doesn't know it.

Theres no reason a movie based off WW with the serial numbers filed off wouldn't be totally legal.

Its like the first Terminator movie. If Cameron hadn't SAID "we ripped off some Outer Limits episodes", Ellison wouldn't have had a case, because its compeltely plausible that the terminatro could have been made from existing SF tropes.


----------



## Liquid Snake (Sep 8, 2003)

*Videogames*

You've got to be freaking kidding me.

From the PDF :



> A second _Vampire:The Masquerade_ inspired videogame, titled _Vampire:The Masquerade - Bloodlines_, is in development using Valve Software's technology and game engine first used in its videogame _Half-Life II_.






> Defendant Sony Picture has also announced on its _Underworld_ website (www.sonypictures.com/movies/underworld) the upcoming release of a related video game - _Underworld : Bloodlines_, which is based on the game engine of Valve's Software videogame _Half-Life_ .




Talk about coincidences, huh?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 8, 2003)




----------



## DanMcS (Sep 8, 2003)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> I'll say it again: there's no frickin' way White Wolf would sue Sony unless they had a legitimate case. If White Wolf's lawyers thought the case was frivolous, there's no way they'd want to take it up against a gigantor corporation like Sony. Sony probably earns more revenue in a couple of days than White Wolf makes in as many years--White Wolf knows they'll be outclassed attorney-wise.
> 
> Thus, do you really think they'd be dumb enough to try this unless they were legitimately pissed off?




They don't have to be dumb.  They just have to count on Sony having better things to do.  If the lawsuit goes forward, it might delay the movie release, or get bad press for sony, or any number of bad things- heck, WW might find a judge who dislikes big corporations and actually win.  So it would be easier and quite possibly cheaper for sony to say "here's a couple million, sign this NDA, never speak of this again."

_64: In the World of Darkness, vampires are described as "alien". In Underworld, vampires are described as "alien."_

_95: In the World of Darkness, werewolves and vampires can injure or kill each other with their teeth and claws. In Underworld, werewolves and vampires can injure or kill each other with their teeth and claws._

Speaking of frivolous.  Some of the other claims look like they might have something, but werewolves have claws?  You don't say.

In a fair world, including crap like this as a claim would invalidate the entire lawsuit.  But lawyers like to just throw as much crap against the wall as they can and see what sticks, and the system as it stands lets them.  Barratry should be a capital offense.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 8, 2003)

I was wondering if anyone was going to talk about the videogame angle.
While reading the pdf, I noticed 2 other clear properties WW was defending:
the upcoming videogame, and Lucita.

The videogame angle seems like another reason why Sony is forcing WW's hand in filing this lawsuit.
But the Lucita character "infringement"?
Come on - I don't see how they can reasonably expect to copyright an ass-kicking, werewolf-hunting female character. It's not like they've cornered the market on ass-kicking females.
(Now, I'm not that familiar with the character of Lucita, and if anyone has any info as to how Underworld ripped off Lucita particularly, and not a generic AKF character, please let me know).

About the Penny-Arcade comic - 
it was sloppy.
Just like many comments about WW's lawsuit - sloppy and lazy.
If you do the homework and read the lawsuit, you'd see that WW's argument doesn't come down to "We invented vampires and werewolves". That's simplistic and misleading and insulting, and anyone that parrots that approach is just throwing mud into the discussion.

BTW: personally, the strongest parts of the lawsuit are the shared differences from traditional vampires, as well as character actions and relationships (torpor, what the childe and sire are doing, etc) as well as the conceit that there are 2 "groups" in Underworld: a ruling group (Ventrue in WW) and a group that is concerned with beauty (Toreador in WW).

Put all the points together and it certainly is not a frivolous case.
Upon close enough examination, even identical twins can be made to look as being very different from each other, if you ignore the obvious and start going into minutia...


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I think this is a good point. When I saw the trailer, I didn't think it was a blade sequel. I didn't think it was a buffy movie.




From the ads I saw, it sounded more like a remake of "Innocent Blood" than a pilfering of WW.

I find very little about WW that wasn't pilfered from other media monster literature and movies; unless it is REALLY FREAKIN CLOSE to the story that they allege was stolen from, this move to me seems to display some major chutzpah.


----------



## Xeriar (Sep 8, 2003)

It is a common legal practice to bring as much as you possibly can to a lawsuit, which is why many of the points seem 'frivolous'.  Of course they are frivolous alone - but everything taken together...


----------



## nikolai (Sep 8, 2003)

My opinion:

I really don't buy the "if you take all the points together it looks like they have something" arguement. Can people really claim rights over a collection of motifs they collect together from different places? White Wolf's just trying to assert property rights over a loose genre they didn't invent.

There's a whole morass of vampire literature, just because both sources  deviates from Dracula in a way that has _some_ similarities doesn't mean one's copied from the other. There's a range of variant literature both before and after Dracula that can be drawn on.

The use of terms drawn from noblity (sire, clan), horror (abomination, coven) and blood/bat/romance metaphors (bloods, embrace, torpor) doesn't demonstrate anything. These things have been used by writers again and again, they're obvious extensions of the vampire concept.

This isn't a statement on the validity of the suit, I can't comment on US law. But, if this is a just world it will fail. Does anyone think the world would be a better place it lawsuits like this succeeded? Frankly, we could all easily draw up similar documents to the pdf (and in many cases a damn sight more substantial than it) with a copy of Lord of the Rings, Gone with the Wind, a Raymond Chandler novel and respective works inspired by them.

nikolai.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 8, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Does anyone think the world would be a better place it lawsuits like this succeeded?



umm...  YES! Absolutely, without a doubt.

Let's assume that it succeeds.
Let's further assume that it succeeds because there is enough burden of proof to show that Underworld did copy enough things from WoD to justify slapping Sony on the wrists.

If that's the case, than why would anyone not think this was a Good Thing?

Defending Intellectual Property, and protecting your creative efforts suddenly became something Bad on these boards?

That is NOT the common approach taken on these boards - not even CLOSE.
What explains this aberration from the normal board approach here?


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 8, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> BTW: personally, the strongest parts of the lawsuit are the shared differences from traditional vampires, as well as character actions and relationships (torpor, what the childe and sire are doing, etc) as well as the conceit that there are 2 "groups" in Underworld: a ruling group (Ventrue in WW) and a group that is concerned with beauty (Toreador in WW).




Actually, I think these are great examples of the weakest part of the suit.  Vampires entering torpor was certainly an Anne Rice trope long before it was a White Wolf trope, as was the relationship between sire and child (I'm assuming the spelling of "child" is immaterial in the movie, so I'll use conventional, rather than WW, spelling).  If such things are anyone's IP, they'd be Anne Rice's; WW's use of them without giving Rice royalties is implicit acknowledgement that such tropes are NOT IP.

As for the two groups in Underworld -- this is very weak.  Does underworld include as well the violent revolutionary punk vampires (the brujah)?  What about the wizard vampires (the tremere)?  Or the incredibly ugly sewer-dwelling Nosferatu, or the bestial Gangrel, or the insane Malkavians?  They bring up the Assamites in the lawsuit, but where are the Tzimisce, the Ahrimane, the Lasombra, the (forget the name) Gypsy-vampires?  The serpentine Settites?

Surely there are only so many stereotypes of different Western vampires, and White Wolf has, as a sensible gaming company, come up with clans allowing players to take on just about any stereotype, from the ugly monstrous vamps to the beautiful effete vamps.  If the movie Underworld were to differentiate their vampires from one another in any way at all, they were bound to run into one or another of the stereotypes that White Wolf also mined.

And let's look again at the werewolves.  The heart of the WW Werewolf game is a battle against encroaching civilization.  While there are urban werewolves in WW's setting, they generally fall into one of two groups:  homeless people, and computer geeks.  "Street thugs" is most certainly not a WW werewolf stereotype; while there are occasional Get of Fenris street thugs (implied, I believe), they're definitely an exception to the general image.

Again, White Wolf has a huge variety of stereotypes all over their materials.  As well they should:  they've published literally dozens of books on the mythos, and they've tried to draw out every existing vampire stereotype somewhere or antoehr.  For that reason, whatever choices Underworld made when describing their werewolves and vampires, they were bound to run into ideas that WW had incorporated.

The lawsuit mentions that Underworld vampires reflect in mirrors, as do WW vampires.  But what if Underworld vampires didn't reflect in mirrors?  Why, neither do LaSombra vampires in White Wolf!  Look at the blatant plagiarism!

You see what I'm saying?  By virtue of entering this genre (modern goth-punk vampires), whichever way they turn, they'll be running into images White Wolf has worked with.  That doesn't mean they're borrowing from WW, much less illegally copying from them.

Daniel


----------



## nikolai (Sep 8, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Does anyone think the world would be a better place it lawsuits like this succeeded?




To which reapersaurus replied (and thanks for the spirited response): 



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> umm...  YES! Absolutely, without a doubt.
> 
> Let's assume that it succeeds.
> Let's further assume that it succeeds because there is enough burden of proof to show that Underworld did copy enough things from WoD to justify slapping Sony on the wrists.
> ...




There's a lot of unknowns there, what is "enough" copying to "justify" WW winning?

I've no problem with intellectual property, or it being defended. The question is should WW have ownership of the IP they claim to? Rephrased, should they be able to stop people from creating works as similar to the WoD as they claim Underworld to be? I don't think they should.

I don't think giving WW ownership of the vampires, werewolves etc as seen in WoD does any good. (For that matter I don't think they're the results of the creative talent at WW, the ideas presented there are adapted from somewhere and I think that perfectly legitimate - though WW don't appear to). As long as setting specific points and characters aren't plagerised, I've no problem with other people having a bash at the sort of story that was in _Love of Monster_.

Creating this movie isn't in the same league as other issues on the boards - it's not mp3ing or OCRing something or fanfiction in the same world. I tend to think it should be allowed.

yours,

nikolai.


----------



## Villano (Sep 8, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Hmmm. Thorny issue, this.
> To use Captain Marvel as an example, as Villano mentioned above, he doesn't look too similar, when comparing his minutae of details. But look at them from a broader picture, especially in light of a jury of non-comic book readers. They both wear costumes. They both have capes. They both have secret identities. They both fly, have super strength and speed, have 'families' of other similar characters (supergirl/mary marvel, superboy/Captain Marvel Jr.), have mad scientist arch-villians, have secret identities as journalists...and so on and so forth. You might say: "_But Superboy was superman as a young boy in Smallville, and Captain Marvel Jr. was a different kid entirely in the present!_" To which I would reply: "_Yes, that's true. But in the context of many stories, that's just plain irrelevant to the reader. A solo story of either character would look very similar if you ignored the minor differences. And to someone with no emotional investment in either character, it would be irrelevant._" Of course, a better argument would be that most of Superman's 'family' didn't really appear until after Marvel was effectively banned...but that's another story entirely. (_Bonus question: who possessed the 'Shazambago'?_)





Too true.  Lawsuits like this rely on the ignorance of the jury.  The Superman/Capt. Marvel points make them seem virtually identical.  It's only a comic fan that would recognize the above points describe half the superhero population.  Drop the part about flying and wearing a cape, and you've just described Spider-Man.

They both wear costumes?  Check.

They both have secret identities?  Check.

They both have super strength and speed?  Check.

They both have 'families' of other similar characters?  Check.  Spider-Woman and Spider-Girl, not to mention Venom and Carnage if you want to stretch it. 

They bot have mad scientist arch-villians?  Check.  Dr. Octopus and/or Green Goblin.

They both have secret identities as journalists?  Check.

DC should sue!


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 8, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> You see what I'm saying?  By virtue of entering this genre (modern goth-punk vampires), whichever way they turn, they'll be running into images White Wolf has worked with.  That doesn't mean they're borrowing from WW, much less illegally copying from them.




An excellent point, though as I've said before, I'm perfectly willing to accept that they did copy from WW, for lack of proof one way or another, it's a valid theory.

And if not WW, then someone else. Vampires not being "true to the legends" in terms of what kills them is hardly a new concept... in fact, it's sort of chic right now... Every vampire flic introduces new concepts of what kills vampires and what doesn't.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 8, 2003)

NOW we're getting to some good points about this suit.

I'd have to agree with where Pielorinho and nikolai are going.
I'd have to say, WW's incredibly-voluminous output for the WoD over the last decade+ HAS made it pretty damn hard to have anyone else create a vampire story that wouldn't be stepping on the toes of some WW content.
They have put SO many ideas and character types in their World, I doubt if there's any non-fringe idea that hasn't been used.

What does this mean for any Vampire material from here on out?

Personally, I think it's a case-by-case basis.
While I recongized the inclusion in the movie Blade of blatantly V:tM ideas, I thought the main thrust of the movie, and by far the lion's share of the movie was concentrating on non-WW material.

With Underworld, I'd have to guess (and that's all I can do at this point) that the main thrust of the movie IS infringing on WW material. It LOOKS like the inspiration for the movie-world came directly from WW's ideas, not in Blade when it was used as window dressing.

P.S. gads, it's ironic that my only V:tM character, one I'm using in the In-Character board, is named Nikolai. It's tough using the name in any way other than in reference to my character....


----------



## Jhamin (Sep 8, 2003)

Alot of folks are talking about this movie vs. why White Wolf didn't sue over "Blade".

While I'm not sure about White Wolf vs. Blade, didn't one of the White Wolf artists sue the producers of Blade over Blade's Tatoos?  I seem to recall that they were a little too close to some tatoos on a vampire in one of the Vampire Players guides.

So this isn't exactly unprecedented.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 8, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> P.S. gads, it's ironic that my only V:tM character, one I'm using in the In-Character board, is named Nikolai. It's tough using the name in any way other than in reference to my character....




Looks to me like someone's copying you.  Have you considered a lawsuit? 

I actually like WW games a lot:  while the rules systems are wonky, I really enjoy the flavor, and they're second in my gaming heart only to D&D.  However, from the little I know about copyright law, they're not going to come close to meeting the standard of IP theft in this case.  Even if the producers of Undeworld openly acknowledge a debt to WW's universe, that's not grounds for a lawsuit; people are inspired by the works of others all the time, and an aesthetic, a general idea, a mood, a theme, a dynamic -- none of this is protected IP.

I remember in college knowing a woman who categorically refused to play WW games because, she claimed, she'd sent them a proposal for a game based around ghosts, and they'd rejected it; when Wraith: the Oblivion came out, it was identical to her proposal (she said).  In that case, I defended WW against charges of copyright infringement on grounds very similar to what I'm doing now.

Daniel


----------



## Black Omega (Sep 9, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> To add to the list:
> 
> 
> Another Marvel suit (I'm detecting a trend here ), occurred against wrestler Hulk Hogan.  Yes, Marvel claims that the word "hulk" is their property.  Hogan settled and has to pay royalties everytime he uses his name.  In fact, if you look at any wrestling video game he appears in, you can see that "Hulk Hogan" is the "property of Marvel Comics".
> ...




Actually, Hogan got sued for being announced as "The Incredible Hulk Hogan", and quite rightfully so.  He did try to change to Hollywood Hogan but that failed since even announcers called him Hollywood Hulk Hogan.


----------



## Jhamin (Sep 9, 2003)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> Actually, Hogan got sued for being announced as "The Incredible Hulk Hogan", and quite rightfully so.  He did try to change to Hollywood Hogan but that failed since even announcers called him Hollywood Hulk Hogan.





I remember seeing an interview with him where they asked him where he got the name "Hulk Hogan".

He answered that he used to train at the same Gym as Lou Ferrigno (sp?) who at the time was playing The Incredible Hulk on TV.  He said people used to say he was even bigger than the Hulk.  Somewhere Even Bigger than the Hulk Hogan got shortended to Hulk Hogan.

Given that the name actually originated with the green skinned one, I don't think infringement is too much of a reach.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 9, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> My opinion:
> 
> I really don't buy the "if you take all the points together it looks like they have something" arguement. Can people really claim rights over a collection of motifs they collect together from different places? White Wolf's just trying to assert property rights over a loose genre they didn't invent.




Sure, there are some 'frivolous' elements of the lawsuit that haven't exactly originated with WW. But there are some pretty close parallels that could nail Sony.

Paragraph 84. In the World of Darkness, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves. In Underworld, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves.

Now, silver bullets have been a staple of werewolf films since their beginning. But silver nitrate?

I think the addition of the somewhat weaker elements of the complaint are partly the lawyers trying the shotgun approach. Something will hit the target eventually. But I also think that all of these other similarities can help them perhaps claim a higher level of IP infringement and perhaps call for more damages than if they just stuck to the more specific and important similarities. It's one thing to steal one or two elements from someone elses IP, but if you whole work parallels the other in so MANY ways, then it's harder to say that you were ignorant of it or didn't swipe it or came up with it independently.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 9, 2003)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Paragraph 84. In the World of Darkness, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves. In Underworld, the vampires created Silver Nitrate bullets specifically for fighting werewolves.




Again, a passing familiarity with the setting makes the claim look very suspect.  While I do remember a sourcebook for the Werewolf igame in which evil scientists experimented with silver-nitrate-solution weapons for fighting werewolves, I don't ever remember reading of vampires using silver-nitrate bullets.  Chances are that somewhere, in one of teh two-dozen plus sourcebooks WW pulbished on the vampire game alone, there's a mention of some scientific vampire who uses these weapons. It is *far* from a central point of their game, far from a normal weapon for vampires to use.  

If the movie involved vampries stealing silver salad forks form a department store to fight werewolves, they could probably cite some Malkavian in some product somewhere who fought werewolves with a silver salad fork.

It may look good at first, but I challenge anyone here to show us WHERE in the WOD vampires use silver nitrate bullets.  Once we see the reference, we can evaluate it.

Daniel


----------



## Black Omega (Sep 9, 2003)

Considering how much WW 'borrowed' from Anne Rice..

We'll see how it works out though.  I never heard of silver nitrate bullets in the WoD books, but I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere in literature, probably Laurell K. Hamilton since her work combines vampires, werewolves, and bullets with some type of liquid silver solution. (since they work on both vampires and lycantropes, to a degree.)


----------



## jdavis (Sep 9, 2003)

I've already given up on the conversation at hand (I guess we will just have to wait and see what the court says), but I have noticed that this story has not appeared on many of the big movie news sites yet (Dark Horizons had a paragraph on it yesterday, that's about it). It's really not stirring up that much interest in the media at all. 

The movie got a very bad review on Harry Knowles site too: http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=16037

And for those who actually care about Hulk Hogan here is a link to his early history: http://www.cooldudesandhotbabes.com/hoganbio.html 
He started using the name Hulk Hogan in 1980 (although he had used the term hulk before), he didn't use Hollywood Hogan till the mid 90's and that had to do with the NWO wrestling gimmick.


----------



## ElMorte (Sep 9, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> It may look good at first, but I challenge anyone here to show us WHERE in the WOD vampires use silver nitrate bullets.  Once we see the reference, we can evaluate it.
> 
> Daniel




I accept the challenge. *g*

In the "Freak Legion: A Players Guide to Fomori" Book.

Page 25. Silver Nitrate Hollow Point.

Edit:

Ok, that are not Vampires, but it's still White Wolf property.


----------



## buzzard (Sep 9, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> Too true.  Lawsuits like this rely on the ignorance of the jury.  The Superman/Capt. Marvel points make them seem virtually identical.  It's only a comic fan that would recognize the above points describe half the superhero population.  Drop the part about flying and wearing a cape, and you've just described Spider-Man.




How about we approach this from a stat based point of view. Let's look just at the super powers used by Supes and Captain Marvel. 

Super Strength
Super Speed
Invulnerability
Flight
Super Intelligence

Superman adds heat and x-ray vision, but if I made each up using a point buy game system, the two would look damned similar. Spiderman is not even remotely similar. Sure we have super speed and strength, but that's it. He does the web thing both swinging and shooting. He climbs walls and has a 
'spider sense'.All of which are quite different. Captain Marvel has a majority subset of Supes powers, and nothing else. 
Much of what you list as commonality between Supes and Spiderman are core to the genre (secret identities, costumes). 

Now of course the origins, dispositions, and motivations are all quite different. I guess it just depends on what is the more important stuff. The court decided that there was too much in common. Tough luck for Fawcett. 


buzzard


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 9, 2003)

ElMorte said:
			
		

> I accept the challenge. *g*
> 
> In the "Freak Legion: A Players Guide to Fomori" Book.
> 
> ...




No, not really. I know that silver nitrate, or something similar to it, was used to kill vampires in Those Who Hunt the Night by Barbara Hambly, for example. Just about everything silver except the kitchen sink was used in both Blade movies. The idea is hardly original.


----------



## buzzard (Sep 9, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> No, not really. I know that silver nitrate, or something similar to it, was used to kill vampires in Those Who Hunt the Night by Barbara Hambly, for example. Just about everything silver except the kitchen sink was used in both Blade movies. The idea is hardly original.




Yeah I think Iremember them using silver nitrate as  a poison in Blade. I may be wrong though. 

buzzard


----------



## Black Omega (Sep 9, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> And for those who actually care about Hulk Hogan here is a link to his early history: http://www.cooldudesandhotbabes.com/hoganbio.html
> He started using the name Hulk Hogan in 1980 (although he had used the term hulk before), he didn't use Hollywood Hogan till the mid 90's and that had to do with the NWO wrestling gimmick.




Yep, after his heel turn in 1996 he started using the Hollywood Hogan name, to play up his movie 'career', and in the hope he could quit paying Marvel for the Hulk name.  It didn't work out for him, though.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 9, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Yeah I think Iremember them using silver nitrate as  a poison in Blade. I may be wrong though.




Therein lies part of the problem: Who can remember?

Suppose I decide to write a vampire movie. I pull out, let's say, a half dozen other works as references:

1. Stoker's Dracula, the book, not the awful Winona Ryder movie.
2. Hambly's Those Who Hunt the Night.
3. Near Dark, that wonderful film with Lance Henriksen as the father of a family of vampire drifters.
4 and 5. King's Salem's Lot, both the book and the TV movie.
6. Rice's Interview with a Vampire, even though I loathe the book.

I carefully review each book for _ideas_ about how to portray vampires. To avoid charges of plagiarism, I tweak this, fiddle with that, liberally apply synonyms, et cetera. Once I'm done, I've completed a screenplay that, while hardly original in all of its parts, does reflect an honest effort not to plagiarize.

Now, the burning question: How many points of similiarity can WW still manage to claim even when not a single source is WW?


----------



## Villano (Sep 9, 2003)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Superman adds heat and x-ray vision, but if I made each up using a point buy game system, the two would look damned similar. Spiderman is not even remotely similar. Sure we have super speed and strength, but that's it. He does the web thing both swinging and shooting. He climbs walls and has a
> 'spider sense'.All of which are quite different. Captain Marvel has a majority subset of Supes powers, and nothing else.
> Much of what you list as commonality between Supes and Spiderman are core to the genre (secret identities, costumes).





That was my whole point.  When DC argued things like having a cape, superstrength, and flying, they were covering things that described virtually all superheroes.  What I was saying was that if you lay out your similarities to a jury that has never read a comic, you could make a case that Spider-Man is a rip-off of Superman.  

Most of us laugh off WW's points about vampires being fast and strong and werewolves being hurt by silver, but to someone that's never been to a horror movie, that may seem like "evidence" to them.

It'd be like WotC suing another RPG company because their games have dungeons and dragons and magic.  Everyone here would laugh at that, but what does the 65 yr old woman sitting on the jury know?

BTW, I'm not saying that WW's case is baseless since I haven't seen the movie or read the book.  I'm just making a point about frivilous lawsuits in general.  After all, Spike Lee got money out of Spike TV even though his real name isn't even Spike.  I wonder if he sued the video game company called Spike, too.  




> Now of course the origins, dispositions, and motivations are all quite different. I guess it just depends on what is the more important stuff. The court decided that there was too much in common. Tough luck for Fawcett.





I'm not sure of the exact final outcome of the case, but I don't believe the court ruled for DC.  IIRC, Fawcett eventually settled with DC and ceased Capt. Marvel publications.  I don't recall the reasons.  I assume the legal bills piled up and/or Capt. Marvel sales went down to the point that keeping the battle up wasn't worth it.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 10, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Therein lies part of the problem: Who can remember?
> 
> Suppose I decide to write a vampire movie. I pull out, let's say, a half dozen other works as references:
> 
> ...



I don't think they would have any chance at a lawsuit here except for the book, and that gives them a pretty good chance. The plot of the book being so similar to the plot of the movie is the case, the other stuff is just to provide a weight of similarities (60 bad points are still 60 points and the large amount carries a lot of weight even if many of the points are goofy). This is a civil case not a criminal one, they don't have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. OJ won his criminal trial but still lost the civil case. They have enough evidence to have a good shot at convincing an average jury. Heck they got 10 times the case Spike Lee had.

A question on Sony. Did they produce this movie or are they just distributing it? That makes a big diffference in how much they should of known (sombody dropped the ball somewhere or this would of never come up).


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Sep 10, 2003)

I decided to do some 'research' and rewatch the first Blade movie.   

They changed Blade's origin from the comic some but not noticeably AFAIK. In the comic, Deacon Frost was an old man for example. 

A member of 'vampire board of directors' refers to the vampire nation. Since each board member's appearance has little in common with each other, the vampire nation may be divided into vampire 'tribes' or clans. Also at the end, during the La Magra ceremony, each of the born vamps stands under a glyph, arguably representing each 'clan'. 

The serum that Blade used to keep his vampire side in check probably had garlic since that sent vamps into anaphylactic shock. The vampire mace Whistler gave the doc was silver nitrate and essence of garlic, possibly the poison someone spoke of earlier.

Before the doc and Blade crash the Japanese nightclub, he gives her a pistol loaded with 'silver hollowpoints filled with garlic' which is backed up when he's prepping for his assault on Frost. The stakes are probably similar design. It wouldn't be surprising if the shotgun had garlic or a silver compound mixed in with the shot. 

There's also the manuscript Frost was deciphering that had vampire history. Quite similar to the Book of Nod from Vampire: the Masquerade.

Considering the movie came out in '98 and V:tM came out earlier, chances are the game had some influence. But I'm just muddying the water.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 10, 2003)

Here's a point to consider...

In the computer industry, "look and feel" is occasionally viewed as a valid basis for suit.  Even if you cannot prove the code is stolen, having something look and feel enough like another product is occasionally seen as actionable.   

The complaint's laundry list of items might be in part intended to establish "look and feel" for White Wolf.  The whole is more than the sum of it's parts, so to speak.


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Sep 10, 2003)

I can't believe I didn't think of this before.

Evercrack, er, Everquest is a product of Sony Online Entertainment while the Everquest RPG is produced by Sword & Sorcery Studios. Admittedly EQ RPG isn't near the cashcow that the WoD is but doesn't that seem kinda strange?


----------



## jdavis (Sep 10, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Here's a point to consider...
> 
> In the computer industry, "look and feel" is occasionally viewed as a valid basis for suit.  Even if you cannot prove the code is stolen, having something look and feel enough like another product is occasionally seen as actionable.
> 
> The complaint's laundry list of items might be in part intended to establish "look and feel" for White Wolf.  The whole is more than the sum of it's parts, so to speak.



 Makes sense. Sounds like they could be trying to focus on the big picture instead of all the little points. That's still a hard one to prove in court (hard to put a exact value on how similar is too similar). Of course the book similarities would also add to that (and the book is probably their best evidence) as the book is set in the World of Darkness.


----------



## DMScott (Sep 10, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Now, the burning question: How many points of similiarity can WW still manage to claim even when not a single source is WW?




You can get even closer to this case: create a story that includes vampires, werewolves, and star-crossed lovers from feuding factions set in urban club culture ('cause if it's cool enough for the Matrix, it's cool enough for this). Now imagine how many "points of similarity" from the suit WW filed would still apply.

That in a nutshell is why I consider this a frivolous lawsuit - it'd be pretty much impossible to use the given plot elements without inviting a White Wolf lawsuit. It would be like the Tolkien estate claiming ownership of any medieval fantasy work that includes Elves, Dwarves, and a great enemy.


----------

