Jack acts like he doesn't understand copyright laws and fair use, but I think he does. If he could use those laws to hurt Take-Two I think he would suddenly remember them. He's not a stupid lawyer, he's an irresponsible one. He'll ignore anything that isn't convenient.

Jack just has a "thing" for going after Rockstar and Take Two. That's why all the other violent games and the GTA clones are pretty much left alone these days. Becuase he wants Rockstar/Take Two destroyed.

And it will never happen unless they do it to themselves.

- Warren Lewis

Jack acted like an immature brat when someone gave him a taste of his own medicine...

In other news, David Lee Roth decided to leave Van Halen.

Ten bucks that he's going to back out at the last moment. He can't oppose the people in this debate. He's out of his league.

Will he ever give up!?

It's pretty obvious to me that in this instance, like many others, Jack's action has been specifically tailored to provoke the kind of response from his No. 1 target that gives him room to make yet another "they're only about their own free speech, no one else's" comment.

What I don't get is how he manages to miss the fact that this kind of thing makes him look like an ignorant fool who does the very thing[s] he often accuses others of.

Or maybe it's not lost on him, and he's just so full of hate that he doesn't care? That's about the only explanation I can come up with.

"Allegedly" protected trademark? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Take 2 ran this through the Patent and Trademark Office, so there's nothing alleged about it.
Or is he saying that trademarks are only "allegedly" protected. Kind of defeats the point of them if they're not.
Of course, this coming from the guy who felt Take Two was mocking him because they had a character named Jack in one of their ingame radio comercials, or whatever it was he was crying about.

I wonder if JT and Wolfman will realise that JT is in high demand on college campuses so he can be egged into the stone age

That's less than entertaining. Oooo, the guy from Spin. I want Jack to debate college kids so we can watch him being beaten by someone 20 or 30 years younger than he is.

Jack still hasn't figured out that his "strawman" approach to this debate is the exact reason he looks like such a psycho.

Poor Jack, he can give it, but he just can't take it can he? He challenges people to meet him on 'his own ground' and then throws a tantrum when they do.

Can you imagine the email when he loses?

"Y'all be trippin if ya be thinkin i'd pay tuh use dose images to prahmote mah commershul produkt!"

LEARN ENGLISH OR GTFO Jack. So sad he doesn't understand law. Maybe he should hire a lawyer.

"… I am going to have am absolute ball pointing out to the world that Take-Two, the self-righteous, great defenders of “freedom of expression,” simply CANNOT abide Jack Thompson’s agent using allegedly protected trademarks of Take-Two. Freedom of expression my butt. "

Surely a great lawyer like yourself has heard of copyright laws. A company protecting their creative property worse than a lawyer stepping on the Constitution? I'd pat you on the back, but then you'd probably sue me.

I stopped reading his letter after he said "y'all". I'm sorry, but unless you are from the midwest or southern United States there is no reason for you to say "y'all" especally in written form.

Take Two did the right thing here, to put it simply, JT is selling a product and using the Trademarked GTA San Andreas logo (and others) to do it. I say phooey on JT for cheating.

-Auto

Look, this is fairly cut and dry. There is no free-speech arguement to be had on Mr. Thompson's part. For example, if there was a debate on the effects football violence on today's youth, and the NFL was NOT involved, the sponsor/promotor of said debate could NOT use the NFL logo. They could debate the issue using NFL football's specific issues, but the trademarked logo is ALWAYS used with permission. Or if the debate was about the dangers of high fructose corn syrup in soft drinks, they couldn't use the Coca-Cola trademarked logo, but still could debate the effects of Coke.

Bad-mouthing TTWO and R* is open season, but logos are used only with permission.

Try reading trademark laws there, buddy.

they can mention the name as part of the topics for debate, but they can't use copyrighted imagery. it may seem like a small distinction, but it's not.

anytime people see that san andreas logo or that style of art that they use an immediate connection is made, and that connection for some people would mean that the copyright holders are involved in some way. if you see a take two logo and take two isn't involved in this "debate tour" then it gives a skewed representation of what's going to be happening at the event

@Thabor,

You're not quite right on this. Using someone else's trademark or logo without permission to promote yourself for profit does not fall under "fair use." At this point, I'm wondering if Eidos and Microsoft are aware of the violations occurring against their trademarked properties.

Rockstar and Take Two were well within their rights to ask to have the logo removed, and Wolfman Productions was smart to remove it to avoid a court battle.

This also proves, once again, that Jack Thomson does not, nor has he ever, understood what the First Amendment actually means.

Actually I am surprised Jack didn't fight this at all. Chances are it would be fair use still, as the debate is sure to incorporate references to GTA, and trademark wise it isn't likely to cause any confusion. I think this is just another example of a corporation attempting to quash speech from someone they find particularly disagreeable. I despise Jack, but I support freedom of speech even for people I will never agree with.

@Marshie

Fair use laws. Rolling Stone & GamePolitics can use the logo when reporting on news about the game or the company, reviewing the games, etc.

But JT & Wolfman cannot use the logo to promote their own product (the debate tours) without permission.

JT amazes me on a daily basis as to how little he actually knows about law. And I majored in Computer Science. Maybe I should write the bar exam in Florida. It seems to easy to pass... ;)

Ah, this was just the laugh I needed to start my day.

How delusional is Jacky Boy? Everyone knows that you have to get permission from a company to use their copyrighted trademarks and images. Errrrr.

What a crybaby.

For someone who claims to have forgotten more about the first amendment than me or any other gamer will ever know, his spelling sucks, and he doesn't understand that copyrighted materials don't fall under the use of free speech, especially when it's for profit.

also: finally T2 is stepping it up. FINALLY.

@~the1jeffy

I wouldn't post without reading the letter- did you read the same letter I did?

The attorneys are claiming both copyright and trademark infringement. Copyright and trademark are both "IP" issues. The term "intellectual property" generally covers copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets/"know how." Paragraphs 2 and 4 mention copyright. Paragraph 5 mentions violation of 17 USC, the Copyright Act.

Trademarks are not used by permission only. The Lanham Act specifically lists fair uses (15 USC 1125(c)(4)), and court cases also set precedent for other fair uses not explicitly mentioned by the Lanham Act.

Trademark logos in and of themselves are not "tricky," determining whether or not a use of a trademark is a fair use can be tricky. The attorneys are claims are debatable (and really, almost all claims are, which is why we have our legal system. :P). I would think that the use of the copyrighted material is fair. Trademark dilution, false designation of origin, etc., are standard trademark claims which might be arguable, but in this case the hosts found it not worth arguing. They are often misused and overused by trademark holders, in my humble opinion, but it doesn't matter in this case because it wasn't fought. It is difficult to determine if it wasn't fought because they believe they'd definitely lose, or they didn't want to use whatever resources would be needed to fight it. (This is, as a related aside, one of my biggest problems with the use of trademark law and parts of copyright law, notably the DMCA.) We'd have to hear from their attorneys. I primarily study copyright law, and although I encounter trademark law as a result I am by no means familiar with the statutes and court cases, so I am uncomfortable making a broader statement than I think we can't dismiss free speech concerns because of the person pointing them out, although there's certainly hypocrisy there.

I'm not saying Jack is right about the use of logos. His examples certainly aren't of the same type as his uses; news commentaries are statutory fair uses of trademarks. However, I believe that he is correct in that freedom of expression in some way is being affected, and I believe he is correct in pointing out that irony. I also believe it's hypocritical, but I'm sure reasonable people can disagree. ^_^

@automancer

Jack lives in Miami, and I'm pretty sure they use y'all there all the time.

They were using copyrighted images to make money.
The representation of the trademarks was not positive.

Take Two was right

End of story

@ Prof Ding Dong

Great comment! He's a loser, a golddiger and an ambulance chaser! It's lawyers like him that give lawyers a bad name. The state of Florida has to take away his license to practice law.

[...] Link to GamePolitics.com » Blog Archive » Take-Two Tells Jack Thompson Debate Promoter to Stop Using GTA Images [...]

don't you guys understand, he just wants to destroy rockstar for jesus so he can get into heaven

Rockstar should put him into the next gta game, and you can put a code in and bang this guy's ass in an alleyway, or someone should make a mod for sa, film it and then slap it on youtube

unamerican bastard, somebody strap him to a rocket and launch him over to iraq, maybe his mouth will divert their hate away

I still fail to understand why those popular characters are used in the first place, they have no text... they're just there. they represent absolutely nothing at their current position, it's almost as though they want to treat these characters as un-official poster boys/girls. It's annoying as hell, and perhaps it's just to get a rise out of the gaming community, and possibly spur violence on it's part. And ultimately furthering THEIR cause. Furthermore, Mister JT is going the way of an annoying blister, just give it some ointment and it will eventually go away right? WRONG!! JT here is a bit more annoying than the other blisters, instead of just oozing pus, this one likes to yell and make fun of your mother (Figuratively of course). And like some of the more annoying of blisters, this one likes to re-appear from time to time just to make your life a living hell. The pain might be unbearable right now. But from what I can see it is far from un-endurable, for the time-being. So remain steadfast gamers.

--Fox out--

My Name has been invoked again.

I feel loved. :p

Anyway, Yes, jack has a long history of such actions. Gamespot for example was threatened by him for not reporting his death threat claim without proof. Tom Busgilla, I think thats how it's spelled, was to debate jack and jack backed out in fear.

Liberty City Stories is another example. Mortal Kombat most recently to.

Jacks A loud mouth loser who hates losing, It's a shame thats all he's been doing for the past 12 months.

Regardless, odds are this debate tour will rapidly fall apart on itself no that someone who knows what the hell there talking about is lined up to debate jack. considering that jack was afraid to debate our buddy Tom, It's doubtful that he'd have a prayer against Gerard Jones either.

Oh what i'd give to be there with a bag of popcorn.