Space Quest - Getting In Trouble.

[Tawmis]

So the folks of Space Quest often found themselves in some form of legal trouble... But what gets me - are they not safe from this under the Fair Use: Parody Law? So how could TOYS R US and/or Radio Shack or anyone else that Space Quest spoofed seriously come after them?

[DeadPoolX]

I guess I'm out of the loop, but what happened to Space Quest?

[MusicallyInspired]

Sierra was sued multiple times for spoofing stuff in Space Quest. It was famous for it. That's a fair point, though. I don't know why they weren't protected. I mean, if Family Guy can spoof anything they want, why couldn't Space Quest? Maybe it was just an earlier time...

[DeadPoolX]

Sierra was sued multiple times for spoofing stuff in Space Quest. It was famous for it. That's a fair point, though. I don't know why they weren't protected. I mean, if Family Guy can spoof anything they want, why couldn't Space Quest? Maybe it was just an earlier time...

I suspect the difference is that SQ1 was a video game sold in 1986. Most games at the time relied on relatively simple concepts more than anything else. Sierra was unique in that they were one of the very first companies to produce video games with a real sense of humor. Because SQ1 parodied real companies (whereas most games of that time period created their own material or got permission to use IP in a serious manner) it was something new and difficult for companies to comprehend.

The law hadn't dealt with video games yet (even now it still seems to have trouble) and so all anyone knew was there was a new form of media, that was interactive, and poked fun at real companies. Was it ignorance? Yes, but given the time period, it was completely understandable. Very few people had played video games at that point and those in charge of large companies, like Toys-R-Us and Radio Shack, probably weren't among those few individuals.

Family Guy, on the other hand, is a known entity. TV shows -- real or animated -- had been parodying places, people and things for decades. The concept is familiar and for the most part it's understood. That doesn't mean FG has gotten away with everything it's done (it was knocked off the air a couple of times, if I recall correctly), but CEOs are more likely to recognize parody in a TV show over that of a video game, especially when the latter took place 24 years ago.

[Datadog]

Family Guy kept getting knocked off the air simply because nobody was watching it ten years ago. They did have two episodes that were pulled from TV, but it was because the episodes themselves were controversial. Otherwise, they've been getting away pretty clean with the parodies.

Something I do notice was that the parody act isn't firmly protected. A couple years back, Weird Al was prohibited from selling his "Beautiful" parody ("Pitiful".) The artist himself approved of the song, but it was the record company that sent their lawyers to Al's door. All these years, I thought Al was protected against things like this, but I'm guessing fair use doesn't apply if someone somewhere is spending time and money to go against it. This only stopped Al from selling it on his album, however. He did continue performing the song at concerts (and wearing an "Altanta Records Sucks" t-shirt while he performed the song.)

[DeadPoolX]

Unfortunately, copyright law often falls under the umbrella of "I know it when I see it." It's a very subjective and you might get different rulings by different judges each time. Yes, there are specific guidelines, but the interpretation is ultimately up to the judge.

[MusicallyInspired]

It's interesting because Radio Shack was the primary distributor and supporter of Sierra adventure games. You'd think they'd be more understanding about it....or maybe that whole deal changed before that.

[Tawmis]

Unfortunately, copyright law often falls under the umbrella of "I know it when I see it." It's a very subjective and you might get different rulings by different judges each time. Yes, there are specific guidelines, but the interpretation is ultimately up to the judge.

But by that idea, how about things like "Scary Movie" where they parody about 10 different movies... and yet never get in trouble.

[DeadPoolX]

Unfortunately, copyright law often falls under the umbrella of "I know it when I see it." It's a very subjective and you might get different rulings by different judges each time. Yes, there are specific guidelines, but the interpretation is ultimately up to the judge.

But by that idea, how about things like "Scary Movie" where they parody about 10 different movies... and yet never get in trouble.

As I said, copyright law is often subject to multiple interpretations. That can lead to different outcomes. Hell, an appeals court can see the whole matter differently and change the ruling.

Plus we don't even know if the studios that own the movies parodied give permission to Scary Movie. Even if they didn't it's the medium itself that can also raise questions.

As I said before, the issue of copyright from within a game (not the game's subject matter itself) was a new experience in 1986. Movies have been parodying each other for a long, long time.

There's also a lot of confusion related to gaming, even nowadays. Because video games are interactive, this could give an IP holder the wrong impression. Watching a movie make fun of your company is one thing -- there are specific individuals pulling the strings. However, a video game could possibly give control to anyone to do whatever they wish with someone's IP.

We, as gamers, know that's not often the case. But most of the people in high power positions today (and back in 1986) probably have played very few games, if any at all.