Comments on: What The Romantics don't like about 'Guitar Hero'
New-wave band sues game publisher Activision, claiming the popular game infringes on its rights to its own image and likeness.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About News Blog
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
That aside, this is the most perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit I've ever seen!
That aside, this is the most perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit I've ever seen!
Romantics - Do our song on Guitar Hero!!! :)
Romantics - Oh no, it's too good :(
Romantics - We gonna sue your ***** >:(
Dear Romantics, please return to your graves and continue rotting.
Romantics - Do our song on Guitar Hero!!! :)
Romantics - Oh no, it's too good :(
Romantics - We gonna sue your ***** >:(
Dear Romantics, please return to your graves and continue rotting.
You are absolutely correct! They are trying to avoid having to purchase the full rights.
Romantics are indeed the victims.
Romantics to use a cover version of their song. The Romantics
knew what the song would be used for and knew Activision
would want the song to closely resemble the original so people
playing the game would recognize the song. Knowing all this
the Romantics licensed their song.
By definition a cover song is merely one originally recorded by
somebody else. Activision didn't use the Romantics recording,
but recorded their own version of the song. Just because a song
songs similar to the original doesn't stop it from being a cover
song. The Romantics could have easily asked for final approval
of the song in the contract, or have clarified that the song must
not song like the original. It doesn't sound like they did that to
me
Would they really rather that their song appeared in a form that did not sound like the song at all? Do they really want gamers to say "eww, that song sucks, I will not check out that band!"? And it|s only indistinguishable if the person playing completes the song without any errors.
Gift horse and all that... The Guitar Hero series is effectively MARKETING for the bands featured: That is why more and more of the melodies used are firt-party instead of covers.
You are absolutely correct! They are trying to avoid having to purchase the full rights.
Romantics are indeed the victims.
Romantics to use a cover version of their song. The Romantics
knew what the song would be used for and knew Activision
would want the song to closely resemble the original so people
playing the game would recognize the song. Knowing all this
the Romantics licensed their song.
By definition a cover song is merely one originally recorded by
somebody else. Activision didn't use the Romantics recording,
but recorded their own version of the song. Just because a song
songs similar to the original doesn't stop it from being a cover
song. The Romantics could have easily asked for final approval
of the song in the contract, or have clarified that the song must
not song like the original. It doesn't sound like they did that to
me
Would they really rather that their song appeared in a form that did not sound like the song at all? Do they really want gamers to say "eww, that song sucks, I will not check out that band!"? And it|s only indistinguishable if the person playing completes the song without any errors.
Gift horse and all that... The Guitar Hero series is effectively MARKETING for the bands featured: That is why more and more of the melodies used are firt-party instead of covers.
It was like a better band that played that song, and actually made improvements to it so it sounded a lot better than the original.
It was like a better band that played that song, and actually made improvements to it so it sounded a lot better than the original.
Are the on drugs!?
(wait, I withdraw the question.)
File this under the "Looking a gift horse in the mouth" department. They get all kinds of publicity and exposure, not to mention a free ride back into the public consciousness in a way that very, very few groups could ever dream of, are members of a now-exclusive fraternity of recording artists who have been enshrined in a Guitar Hero game...
...and they're MAD!? Because Wavegroup covered them TOO FAITHFULLY!?
Give me a big, fat, hairy break, man. Hey--open message to The Romantics: Get the $#&*%! over yourselves.
Are the on drugs!?
(wait, I withdraw the question.)
File this under the "Looking a gift horse in the mouth" department. They get all kinds of publicity and exposure, not to mention a free ride back into the public consciousness in a way that very, very few groups could ever dream of, are members of a now-exclusive fraternity of recording artists who have been enshrined in a Guitar Hero game...
...and they're MAD!? Because Wavegroup covered them TOO FAITHFULLY!?
Give me a big, fat, hairy break, man. Hey--open message to The Romantics: Get the $#&*%! over yourselves.
When making a Comic Book adaption of a movie or TV series, the artists are usually restricted so that they cannot make the drawn characters resemble the ACTORS too closely (because that would infringe upon the rights of the actors themselves who need to protect their IMAGE and LIKENESS).
An example; in the late 1970's, when Marvel Comics had drawn the characters within its adaptions of Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars too closely to the likeness of the ACTORS, they ran into trouble. Even though the likeness was only apparent on a few panels of the comics, it caused problems for the artists and Marvel, and warnings were issued.
That is only one example, and an old one at that. If activision wanted the ACTUAL "Romantics" (exact likeness and almost exact sound) then they would need to negotiate THAT arrangement with the group.
The song "What I Like about you" is one of the most SUCCESSFUL rock songs in the HISTORY of rock 'n roll and a true Cinderella story (since it also never charted in the top 40). The Romantics are a bunch of great, hard working musicians who have paid their dues 100 times over. They are not washed up, or poor by any means and this is not JUST about money. This is about protecting your IMAGE/LIKENESS and how (and when) it is used.
This is a legitimate case regarding LIKENESS. Any actor or musician needs to protect their own LIKENESS and this is not the first time such a case has happened.
I can't say if it's a case that they can win in court, but I can tell you that using the IMAGE and LIKNESS (visual and/or sound) must be properly negotiated. Example; If you were to negotiate the rights for a comic book adaption of the "Xena" TV series and then drew the character to look EXACTLY like Lucy Lawless, you would be sued by her in a quick second. Also, you can't sign a contract to create a "cover" of a song and then create something that sounds exatly like the original. That's an illegal way of not having to pay for the full rights to the REAL song.
J. McDonald
"Romantics Fan"
Are you privy to all the contractual details between Activision and The Romantics? Were you able to obtain the contract? How do YOU know exactly WHAT the terms were based on a short, vague CNet article?
I dig the fact that you like The Romantics. Understand, however, that the appearance of "What I Like About You" on Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s" was the first exposure in anything mainstream I've seen of The Romantics in decades, other than the odd plays of "What I Like About You" and "Talking In Your Sleep" on the '80s on 8 on XM Radio.
They should be damn grateful that Guitar Hero is wildly popular and that one of their songs is a part of that success. If they were smart, rather than giving themselves a huge black eye and a bunch of really bad press, they would be focusing they energies on how to parlay the success of their appearance on Guitar Hero into ticket sales for their gigs.
This lawsuit is a ridiculous waste of time and does nothing to broaden their fan base. In fact, the twenty-somethings whose first exposure to The Romantics is from Guitar Hero are sure to get a mighty sour taste in their mouths from this bull$#!+ crybaby act. How likely then will they be to attend a Romantics gig or pick up an album?
Not bloody, I say.
tracks are very good imitations of the original. And the track has
to be re-recorded because of the different levels of difficulty can
also bring about slight re-arrangements of the guitar tracks to
make them easy or complex according to the level chosen. The
Romantics HAVE seen this game: they know how it works, and
their attitude just reflects some money-grabbing issue. They
shouldn't have given the rights away if they didn't like their
music being copied to the last note.
When making a Comic Book adaption of a movie or TV series, the artists are usually restricted so that they cannot make the drawn characters resemble the ACTORS too closely (because that would infringe upon the rights of the actors themselves who need to protect their IMAGE and LIKENESS).
An example; in the late 1970's, when Marvel Comics had drawn the characters within its adaptions of Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars too closely to the likeness of the ACTORS, they ran into trouble. Even though the likeness was only apparent on a few panels of the comics, it caused problems for the artists and Marvel, and warnings were issued.
That is only one example, and an old one at that. If activision wanted the ACTUAL "Romantics" (exact likeness and almost exact sound) then they would need to negotiate THAT arrangement with the group.
The song "What I Like about you" is one of the most SUCCESSFUL rock songs in the HISTORY of rock 'n roll and a true Cinderella story (since it also never charted in the top 40). The Romantics are a bunch of great, hard working musicians who have paid their dues 100 times over. They are not washed up, or poor by any means and this is not JUST about money. This is about protecting your IMAGE/LIKENESS and how (and when) it is used.
This is a legitimate case regarding LIKENESS. Any actor or musician needs to protect their own LIKENESS and this is not the first time such a case has happened.
I can't say if it's a case that they can win in court, but I can tell you that using the IMAGE and LIKNESS (visual and/or sound) must be properly negotiated. Example; If you were to negotiate the rights for a comic book adaption of the "Xena" TV series and then drew the character to look EXACTLY like Lucy Lawless, you would be sued by her in a quick second. Also, you can't sign a contract to create a "cover" of a song and then create something that sounds exatly like the original. That's an illegal way of not having to pay for the full rights to the REAL song.
J. McDonald
"Romantics Fan"
Are you privy to all the contractual details between Activision and The Romantics? Were you able to obtain the contract? How do YOU know exactly WHAT the terms were based on a short, vague CNet article?
I dig the fact that you like The Romantics. Understand, however, that the appearance of "What I Like About You" on Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s" was the first exposure in anything mainstream I've seen of The Romantics in decades, other than the odd plays of "What I Like About You" and "Talking In Your Sleep" on the '80s on 8 on XM Radio.
They should be damn grateful that Guitar Hero is wildly popular and that one of their songs is a part of that success. If they were smart, rather than giving themselves a huge black eye and a bunch of really bad press, they would be focusing they energies on how to parlay the success of their appearance on Guitar Hero into ticket sales for their gigs.
This lawsuit is a ridiculous waste of time and does nothing to broaden their fan base. In fact, the twenty-somethings whose first exposure to The Romantics is from Guitar Hero are sure to get a mighty sour taste in their mouths from this bull$#!+ crybaby act. How likely then will they be to attend a Romantics gig or pick up an album?
Not bloody, I say.
tracks are very good imitations of the original. And the track has
to be re-recorded because of the different levels of difficulty can
also bring about slight re-arrangements of the guitar tracks to
make them easy or complex according to the level chosen. The
Romantics HAVE seen this game: they know how it works, and
their attitude just reflects some money-grabbing issue. They
shouldn't have given the rights away if they didn't like their
music being copied to the last note.
Activision/Harmonix got license to do a COVER. They did a COVER. They give The Romantics credit for the COVER they did every time the level starts playing, for Christ's sake!
With Activision having a signed contract in-hand, The Romantics have a shaky legal footing at best from which to launch this ridiculous suit.
- Maybe if they'd have poined up the original tracks...
- by piusg November 23, 2007 10:24 PM PST
- Well maybe if they'd ponied up the original tracks for the game like Scandal did, then they'd have gotten a master license out of Activision/Harmonix now, wouldn't they have?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (108 Comments)Activision/Harmonix got license to do a COVER. They did a COVER. They give The Romantics credit for the COVER they did every time the level starts playing, for Christ's sake!
With Activision having a signed contract in-hand, The Romantics have a shaky legal footing at best from which to launch this ridiculous suit.