Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Manuel Noriega Sues Activision Over Call of Duty

Soulskill posted about two weeks ago | from the good-luck-with-that dept.

The Courts 83

mrspoonsi sends this BBC report: Manuel Noriega, the former dictator of Panama, is suing Call of Duty's video games publisher. The ex-military ruler is seeking lost profits and damages after a character based on him featured in Activision's 2012 title Black Ops II. The 80-year-old is currently serving a jail sentence in Panama for crimes committed during his time in power, including the murder of critics. One lawyer said this was the latest in a growing trend of such lawsuits. "In the U.S., individuals have what's called the right to publicity, which gives them control over how their person is depicted in commerce including video games," explained Jas Purewal, an interactive entertainment lawyer. "There's also been a very well-known action by a whole series of college athletes against Electronic Arts, and the American band No Doubt took action against Activision over this issue among other cases. "It all focuses upon the American legal ability for an individual to be only depicted with their permission, which in practice means payment of a fee. "But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision."

cancel ×

83 comments

Go ahead and pay him the RIAA way (3, Funny)

halivar (535827) | about two weeks ago | (#47469343)

Send him truckloads of unsold "Panama" single cassettes.

Questionable? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469377)

But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision.

Emphasis mine.

I think we're done here.

Questionable? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469487)

Why is that? Do you think that US laws only protect US citizens? I don't think so, lest it would be legal to rob and murder tourists.

Activision, as US company, committed the act. They are bound by US laws. Therefore the law applies.

Re:Questionable? (1)

ichthus (72442) | about two weeks ago | (#47469629)

lest it would be legal to rob and murder tourists.

There's a difference between civil and criminal law.

Re:Questionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469709)

> There's a difference between civil and criminal law.

Sure there is, but unless the law in question specifically says that it only protects US citizens, then it applies to everyone.

Since you want to belabor this point, do you think that libel and slander laws only protect US citizens? What about torts due to negligence? Or breaches of contract? Those are all civil.

Re:Questionable? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about two weeks ago | (#47469753)

COD present a pretty accurate portrayal of that monster. So not libel or slander.

Re:Questionable? (2)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about two weeks ago | (#47470279)

That's why he's not suing under libel or slander, but under the publicity clause.

He doesn't want it removed, or reparations for damage to his reputation, He just wants to be paid for the too accurate representation of him. If EA had just mad it some random jungle military guy, they'd have been fine.

Re:Questionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47471897)

Public figure, blah, blah, blah.

Re:Questionable? (3, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about two weeks ago | (#47473145)

So, you think EA should switch the character to depict George Bush?

Re:Questionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47474209)

Make it Franklin D. Roosevelt and you have a deal!

Re:Questionable? (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about two weeks ago | (#47473647)

... but unless the law in question specifically says that it only protects US citizens, then it applies to everyone.

Even then, international treaties may force the issue. Do personality rights fall under copyrights? If so, The Berne Convention would forbid favourable treatment to US citizens over foreigners.

Re:Questionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470105)

Robbery and murder are crimes regardless of who the targets are. Malum in se, and all that.

Re:Questionable? (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about two weeks ago | (#47470711)

What's the difference between a tourist and a terrorist? A camera and the technicality who invades whose country.

Re:Questionable? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469639)

Are we? Since when do rights only apply to US citizens? It's the usual assumption by Americans, that without US Citizenship[tm][c][r] you are essentially without rights wherever you are, but do tell where it actually says that in the law.

Activision is an US company acting in the US, so US laws certainly apply to Activition. Since it's Activision that's doing the depicting, it's not unreasonable for anyone they depicted, wherever they are, whichever citizenship they have, to call Activision on having infringed that particular right granted to individuals. Unless the law somehow requires both parties to be in the US and/or have US citizenship. Does it?

Re:Questionable? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about two weeks ago | (#47474887)

Many of the bill of rights reference "the people" and their rights being protected. If you look to the preamble you can find a clue to the definition of people.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

At the very least, the people is a US centric term representing those who ordain and form the government of the United States. Therefore "the people" can be construed to mean voters.

Re:Questionable? (4, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about two weeks ago | (#47469877)

Odd, since the US has said that US laws do apply to Noriega [bc.edu] , even when the person and crime are not on US soil.

Re:Questionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470721)

Meh, that's only when convenient to the US.

Re:Questionable? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about two weeks ago | (#47471137)

Odd, since the US has said that US laws do apply to Noriega [bc.edu] , even when the person and crime are not on US soil.

Since when has Justice become a bidirectional thing? Justice as practiced today is a pass-through function for the rich and connected to subject others to their judgement.

Re:Questionable? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about two weeks ago | (#47470935)

But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision.

Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.

That's great news! The Beatles never got their US citizenship since they were convicted of drug possessions. Their IP and images are obviously up for grabs, since they were just a bunch of foreigners. What about the Queen of England, she doesn't have a US Passport. Plus, she's so old, her copyright must have expired by now.

Re:Questionable? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about two weeks ago | (#47470969)

But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision.

Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.

That's great news! The Beatles never got their US citizenship since they were convicted of drug possessions. Their IP and images are obviously up for grabs, since they were just a bunch of foreigners. What about the Queen of England, she isn't a US citizen. Am I right? Plus, she's so old, her copyright must have expired by now.

Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.

I hope Noriega wins. (1, Troll)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about two weeks ago | (#47469403)

As much as everyone has reason to hate Manuel Noriega, I want to see him win this, including punitive damages. Activision is that bad of a company.

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (3, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about two weeks ago | (#47469479)

>As much as everyone has reason to hate Manuel Noriega

Yep


> I want to see him win this, including punitive damages. Activision is that bad of a company.

That's a poor reason to want someone to win a lawsuit. If he wins it should be because his suit has merit.

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about two weeks ago | (#47470735)

Merit? Now since when has that mattered in lawsuits?

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469483)

You root for a murderer and drug dealer over a software company because they're "bad"?
 
Somehow Slashdot doesn't surprise me anymore with the human trash they dredge up and call their user base. Pray that you never have to face some of the horrors that people lived and died with under the thumb of this petty thug.

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about two weeks ago | (#47469595)

in this context does it matter he's still in jail for crimes against humanity for ever the money will do nothing for him, but it could hurt Activision.

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (4, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | about two weeks ago | (#47469959)

It would be amusing if the suit is thrown out under the Son of Sam law... (He wouldn't be a celebrity if not for his crimes).

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (2)

maliqua (1316471) | about two weeks ago | (#47470635)

actually imho that seems like the most reasonable outcome

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about two weeks ago | (#47472829)

They may say he's in jail for crimes against humanity, but what he's really in jail for is pissing off the US.

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47473363)

he's still in jail for crimes against humanity for ever the money will do nothing for him

You've obviously never been in jail, good for you.

For anyone else and the people who have seen enough documentaries about prisonlife you would know that, just like anywhere else in the world -- including outside such prison walls -- money can gain you many "privileges", like your own bodyguards, a nice private double (or more) size cell, TV, food, male/female company and whatever else you might like. Though the latter few items seem only to be applicable in the "less civilized" (read: more open to bribing) countries.

So yes, having a stash of money available could lighten his term quite considerably -- without it he would just be another peon, subject to the wishes (demands) of people with more brains and/or harder fists.

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (2)

maliqua (1316471) | about two weeks ago | (#47469515)

If he was suing EA I'd donate to his legal fund

Activision i don't hate so i hope he loses for no reason other than its a silly claim how is he losing money? lol prison laundry is not paying him the full wage he deserves?

Could you imagine if Hitler was still alive? he'd make a killing on law suits!

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469677)

You're human garbage too.

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (2)

maliqua (1316471) | about two weeks ago | (#47470659)

agreed

Re:I hope Noriega wins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470215)

I don't hate noriega. He has as much relevance to me as paris hilton. But since the parent was modded troll by some asshat, I thought I'd play along.
Seriously, you have no idea how much the average american cares less about this kind of stuff. We don't mean to be mean about it. But we view the rest of the world as ants. We even think Alaska is inconsequential, but we like the t.v. show. Also don't believe what americans say to you about "climate change". We just like making the chinese nervous. Oh, and by the way China, - we're not paying you back. But if you would like to buy our real estate, like the Japanese did in the 80's, go for it. How's that for troll? Did i miss anything?
oh yeah, beta sucks.

Did not know... (1)

jzarling (600712) | about two weeks ago | (#47469437)

he was still alive.

Re:Did not know... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about two weeks ago | (#47470741)

Probably Activision didn't either...

How the mighty have fallen (3, Funny)

jandrese (485) | about two weeks ago | (#47469451)

Manuel Noriega can't even have some nobody VP at Activision eliminated anymore. Back in the 80s he could have had trained assassins at their doorstep within a week.

Re:How the mighty have fallen (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469477)

paid CIA assassins. FTFY.

Re:How the mighty have fallen (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about two weeks ago | (#47469691)

Back in the '80s, Activision was one of his primary consumers of funny cigarettes.

Illegal to profit from your crimes. (3, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | about two weeks ago | (#47469489)

Doesn't the US have a law that makes it illegal for a criminal to profit from their crimes in this manner? I know serial killers can't sell their life story rights for a movie or a book.

Doesn't that same law apply here?

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (3, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about two weeks ago | (#47469571)

Some jurisdictions do have Son of Sam laws [wikipedia.org] that are designed to keep criminals from profiting from their criminal pursuits, but from the Wikipedia entry, it sounds like they may be of questionable constitutionality (and that the court has been willing to throw them out), depending on how they are phrased and enforced.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (3, Informative)

Shoten (260439) | about two weeks ago | (#47469931)

Doesn't the US have a law that makes it illegal for a criminal to profit from their crimes in this manner? I know serial killers can't sell their life story rights for a movie or a book.

Doesn't that same law apply here?

No, it doesn't. In this case, what he'd be getting paid for has nothing to do with his crimes whatsoever. This isn't about him having sold the rights to his life story, it's about a video game using his likeness and name in a fictitional manner without paying for the right to leverage his public image. Also, it can also be posited (debate whether it's valid or not) that some may believe that some components of the video game have a basis in real life, and thus it would be a form of libel as well. Though, speaking for myself, I'm not sure what about the game was so bad that it'd be worse than what the truth was.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (2)

barc0001 (173002) | about two weeks ago | (#47470393)

The problem with that argument is that Noriega is a public historical figure. That's like saying every author ever has to get it cleared to use Reagan, Bush, Obama or Palin in some context in their stories.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about two weeks ago | (#47470547)

Books are different than movies. You might be able to use someone's name and story if they are a public figure in a book but film is treated differently. The courts have basically said you need to pay someone to show them in movies (including even some cases where that applied to their likeness, this is the reason for disclaimers at the end of the movie that all the characters are fictional and not based on real people). This is similar to the reason in a lot of movies the bad guys are masked, the studios get to pay the actors less if their face doesn't appear in the picture (though this could be an actors guild rule and not a legal precedent, that I'm not sure of).

Now whether a video game is like a movie is another question that I don't believe the courts have really explored but if they treat it like a movie the person has to get paid if someone uses their likeness. I don't think public figures should need to be paid personally.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (1)

barc0001 (173002) | about two weeks ago | (#47470787)

>The courts have basically said you need to pay someone to show them in movies

I don't recall hearing anything about George W Bush getting a paycheck from Oliver Stone's 2008 movie W:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/

Or for that matter, him being shown in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Nor do I recall the Mercury astronauts getting any compensation for their being portrayed in The Right Stuff, or Apollo 13's astronauts for the movie of the same name. Or Patton for Patton, etc. etc.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47473125)

Stop it with the faggy "I don't recall" and the "Last time I checked" stuff, mmmkay? It is SO fucking gay.

You know the facts you claim to "not recall".... just state the fucking facts and don't be such a passive-agressive homo.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47471031)

the reason for disclaimers at the end of the movie that all the characters are fictional and not based on real people

(.... living or dead, etc.)

Yeah, I have not trusted those statements at all for a long time, ever since I saw that at the end of some movie that had Abraham Lincoln in the movie. This wasn't just some random person with the same name; the character was the President of the United States.
Really? Abraham Lincoln is not based on a real person? I found that conclusion to be incredibly insightless.

Onto another topic:

I don't think public figures should need to be paid personally.

Right, because once they are famously rich (as defined by whatever criteria you personally may have in mind), then suddenly these people should no longer have any rights.
I'm sorry, but if poor people shouldn't be discriminated against, logic kinda does apply the other way, too.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47473083)

That's like saying every author ever has to get it cleared to use Reagan, Bush, Obama or Palin in some context in their stories.

Well, quite possibly Bush, Obama, Palin and lots of other powerful people wouldn't be so unhappy about such a regime. I guess that's what Noriega is hoping, anyway.

Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470361)

We have laws for everything. We even have different sets of laws depending on how much money you have, or what government beuracracy you work for. For the rest of us schleps though, we just have the constitution and the bill of rights. We like the part about our right to a speedy trial. But sometimes the police get carried away and execute you on the street. All in all it works well. I hear Hillary is going to make it even better.

Settlement Offer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469493)

Here is your settlement, one copy of Black Ops 2.

We did a study and found out that no one has ever heard of you, because no one played single player.

Good thing we didn't include it in multiplayer, or you might have a valid case.

Re:Settlement Offer (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about two weeks ago | (#47470201)

oddly, i can believe that of the COD playerbase.

i just want COD to suffer... the FPS genre has followed them so far down it feels like they're the Rock, and we're his bottom.

double law standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469509)

"But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable"

Then how come punitive US law do applies to him?

Re:double law standards (4, Insightful)

just_another_sean (919159) | about two weeks ago | (#47469643)

He's in prison under Panamanian law. Sure, we helped put him there (and profited from his crimes before that became unfashionable and he became less willing to be controlled) but he's in prison for violating Panamanian law and was put there by the Panamanian judiciary.

Re:double law standards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470947)

He's in prison under Panamanian law. Sure, we helped put him there (and profited from his crimes before that became unfashionable and he became less willing to be controlled) but he's in prison for violating Panamanian law and was put there by the Panamanian judiciary.

The canal was about to revert to Panamanian control. Seems it was time to replace him with a friendlier ruler. Without the canal, the US would probably still be supporting him.

His lawyers are on retainer still... (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about two weeks ago | (#47469513)

...and clearly they are American. I wonder if they'll settle out of court with a few kilos?

That's always worked in the past with U.S. deal makers...

Turnabout (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about two weeks ago | (#47469543)

This is a great ruling. Panamanian companies can release games with characters based on Jennifer Aniston, OJ Simpson, Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh, without legal consequences.

Turnabout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470471)

This is a great ruling. Panamanian companies can release games with characters based on Jennifer Aniston, OJ Simpson, Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh, without legal consequences.

Sure, but I doubt anyone wants to play that game. How about a nice game of chess?

Re:Turnabout (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about two weeks ago | (#47470757)

I would. I could see a cool rail shooter featuring them.

Re:Turnabout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47473385)

Battle chess with characters based on Jennifer Aniston, OJ Simpson, Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh? im game

Re:Turnabout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475153)

I'd prefer a simpler, flash animation game based on the "Will it blend" video series featuring the lot of them.

Re:Turnabout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47472443)

This is a great ruling. Panamanian companies can release games with characters based on Jennifer Aniston, OJ Simpson, Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh, without legal consequences.

OJ Simpson's Low Speed Racing. Sounds like it would be a blast (or maybe something a bit smaller).

Huh? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about two weeks ago | (#47469645)

I find it very strange if I wouldn't have the same standing to sue anyone abusing my likeness in a US court for violation of US law in US jurisdiction as anyone else. For example, if you slander me in a US newspaper why shouldn't I have standing to sue you? If those laws didn't apply to literally everyone, any foreigner would be totally without the protection of the law in every country but their own and there's plenty crimes that can be conducted remotely.

Re:Huh? (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about two weeks ago | (#47470375)

Did activation slander him? He was portrayed as a kidnapper, murder, and enemy of the state, and is currently serving time for murder and kidnapping in Panama after spending two decades in a US jail for drug trafficking so those claims are not false. Noriega may have a case in that Activision used his likeness to sell Call of Doodie and he should be compensated for it.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470383)

You can't necessarily be "slandered" in the written word ("a US newspaper"). In a lot of places, that's called "libel": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Trey Parker and Matt Stone could be liable... (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about two weeks ago | (#47469735)

If Noriega prevails, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wuld likely owe damanges to the estate of Kim Jong Il, for their unflattering depiction of him in Team America: World Police.

Re:Trey Parker and Matt Stone could be liable... (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about two weeks ago | (#47469955)

I'd say Trey and Matt would have lines that rival Apple fans lining up for new iStuff of people ready to sue them. But I think in their case parody and satire protects them where Activision is going for gritty and realistic.

But IANAL and all that. I really don't know what to think here; Noriega is scum but laws should apply equally to all, regardless of how much of a dick they are. I know I wouldn't want people profiting off my depiction without my permission. Lucky me, I'm a nobody and don't really have to worry about! :-)

Re:Trey Parker and Matt Stone could be liable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47471045)

"don't really have [anything] to worry about"

Re:Trey Parker and Matt Stone could be liable... (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | about two weeks ago | (#47471163)

Oops. Was actually going for "don't really have to worry about [it]"

Have you seen Weird Al's Word Crimes? It's hilarious. [youtube.com]

Re:Trey Parker and Matt Stone could be liable... (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about two weeks ago | (#47473701)

Hahaha. He used "there's" with a plural in a song about bad English. That's irony, not coincidence.

Re:Trey Parker and Matt Stone could be liable... (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about two weeks ago | (#47470559)

I don't think North Korea wants to abrogate sovereign power and put themselves under the jurisdiction of a US court, even if it's a civil trial. Most countries go out of their way to avoid giving jurisdiction to foreign courts by filing court cases in those courts.

Hope he's successful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47469769)

>But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision

Sounds weak. I'm not a US citizen or even a resident either, but US companies would love to sue me for any number of things.

Sorry: public figure (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about two weeks ago | (#47470013)

If I'm Activision, I'm claiming that this is Constitutionally protected political speech. If you're the public figure in charge of a country, I feel you lose the right to control how you're depicted in media.

No endorsement implied. Jim Brown v EA, Tiger Wood (5, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about two weeks ago | (#47470079)

This has come up before in similar cases and the celebrity loses unless their image is used in a way that misleads consumers by implying endorsement of the product.
For a video game example, see James "Jim" Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc. Also, Tiger Woods' agent sued regard a painting featuring the golfer, and lost, in ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing. Alyssa Milano's mom, Lin Milano, contacted us about her daughter's "right of publicity" 20 years ago and we found we could tell her to take a hike.

Absent defamation, the celebrity's name and image is protected in a way very similar to a trademark. (In common law jurisdictions, almost _exactly_ like a trademark). You can't sell "Britney Spears" brand headphones without permission, because that would imply that the singer endorses the product, misleading consumers. You CAN sell a comic book titled "Britney Spears is a stupid slut" because nobody will think Ms. Spears endorsed that.

Of course there can be other causes of action if someone does something else bad and also happens to be using a celebrity's image as well, but it usually comes down to implied endorsement. Laws do vary from one state to another.

Re:No endorsement implied. Jim Brown v EA, Tiger W (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470305)

Mod parent up. He's totally correct. Slander of character would also be a difficult prosecution as Noriega is in jail for acts he committed due to flaws in his character. The Son of Sam laws are all BS anyway, as the criminal can make the contract for the story when they go in and profit when they get out, or designate a surrogate to profit and send you money under the table. Regardless of their Constitutional status, they can be easily worked around.

Perhaps he should (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about two weeks ago | (#47470465)

Team up with Lindsey Lohan and collectively sue the entire videogame industry...

Oh really Motherfuckers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47470733)

Freedom of Speech and Expression exist in America as well, this is a joke.

Has he been harmed, or defamed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47471173)

I wonder if he can show any actual damages. Was he going to sell his likeliness himself, and now the value of that has been lessened by Activision's actions? Has his reputation been made less good by Activision's depictions? His position behind bars may have something to say about that.

Recipricality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47471895)

You should all know by now, US has global jurisdiction, but no global liability.
The US can apply it's own laws anywhere, but you cant use those same laws if your not already an American. Case dismissed.

Not likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47472411)

He'll be a dead piece of trash a jail cell floor before he sees a penny.

Even if he had a case, Activision would drag it out to such a degree that he won't live to see the end of it.

Troll (1)

Cervantes Columbus (3751645) | about two weeks ago | (#47473451)

He had put his image and likeness out there, not Activision. Videogames often depict reality. But they are videogames, not movies or biographies. Putin belongs in the next Call of Duty.

Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47473721)

"The 80-year-old is currently serving a jail sentence in Panama for crimes committed during his time in power, including the murder of critics"

Does this mean Activision should be watching their backs?

He was a resident, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47474019)

Im not sure of his actual exit date but Noriega WAS a resident of the US for around 20 years until he was extradited. Noriega was a resident of FCI Miami, a low security federal prison camp...http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bop.gov%2Flocations%2Finstitutions%2Fmia%2F&ei=zsrHU82RIcmD8QGWyIDoBg&usg=AFQjCNHdqlMSKAv82RRlOiUKEkxS2SliPQ&bvm=bv.71198958,d.b2U

Right to publicity should be abolished (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a week ago | (#47495471)

Individuals shouldn't have a right to publicity or a right to privacy, it gets abused because they use these legal rights to prevent street photographers from including people in their photos. It's censorship by another name. Absinthia Stacy Anastasia Rousaki

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...