@Xagest: Good point. They are actually required to sue or their copyright/trademark could be ended.
This is of course my opinion as the professional lawyer I am not. But if everyone else is gonna put on their lawyer hats and talk out their asses why not me too.

AndroidKing

@Sorshha:

Expect this happened in Germany and the Plantiffs would be French and Japanese so our First Amendment doesn't mean jack.

Rbastid

@Brian Crecente: I'm not sure if this is protected speech, Brian. I remember a court case in my media law class where a guy took naked Barbie dolls and put them in blenders and martini glasses and then took pictures of them as art. Mattel sued, and he won with a claim of "parody," which is protected free speech. In that example, the intellectual property of the Barbie doll wasn't at risk because a reasonable person could assume it was a parody, and the average person wouldn't assume this guy's art was supported by Mattel. In addition, the Barbie dolls weren't being sold as a product.

In this case, Taito's intellectual property (i.e., game code) is being used in a way that a reasonable person might affiliate the work with Taito, thereby tarnishing Taito's reputation. In addition, it is being showcased at a game show, where products are promoted for sale. Also, this is not an obvious parody.

DugDawg

Fair Use! Fair Use!

It's a significant derivative work for non-commercial use and I don't think Taito is going to be able to prove significant harm to the Space Invaders franchise based on this work.

The only sticking point would be if the artist stole actual resources (code, images) from a version of the game instead of creating them himself/herself.

Logo

@Spoony Bard: I get that they don't like the connection being made-- however tenuously-- between Taito itself and this artwork, but they're not going to be able to selectively go after just this one guy for copyright infringement... particularly if the other installations used the Space Invaders IP without permission (which Taito have already conceded) even if in other, non-offensive ways. The artwork is protected speech-- so while Taito can't persecute the content, they can go after the copyright infringement angle. But only if they persecute all the infringement equally.

Personally, I don't think this winds up as anything more than a cautiously worded statement from Taito apologising for any incidental connection made between this artwork and their products.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

Game Over

ac2334

@Grumpz®:

Yeah Free speech isn't really protected outside of America (where this is) most countries despite being "Free" ban many ideas.

Rbastid

Taito, by corporate policy, pretty much has to persue a lawsuit concerning their IPs regardless of the context. It's just one of those things companies do to make sure they are protected. It's more or less an automated system within the company to pursue legal action whenever one of their IPs is used without permission.

Xagest

Many people on here seem to not understand at all the basic concepts of freedom of speech. I don't know how the precedent would relate to this case, but I do know that the whole point of the right of freedom on speech is to protect specifically controversial statements. The fact that people think this crosses a line of offensiveness actually should be support for it being protected. The whole idea of freedom of speech is to allow the little guy in the minority to say what he wants which would otherwise be suppressed by the majority. As far as I'm concerned, even if the legal precedent would say the owners of the IP have the right to sue over this, it should not be allowed because it does indeed infringe on freedom of speech.

Archaneus

@WPack911:
Just because you're offended by it doesn't mean it's not art.

Cyrian

Looking down the page I see you can actually play the game, this removes any attempt to put it under 'Fair Use" since it can be said that someone went to play that instead of going out and buying the game itself.

Rbastid

@Brian Crecente: Protected speech means the government won't censor it. However it's using Trademarked and copyrighted work. They have to determine if it's fair use. Is it a parody or satire? Is it for review purposes? Is it a significant derivative work?

kingmanic

I'm not taking any sides in this overall issue, but I do have a comment relating to the 'fair use' argument. Regardless of how 'complicated' the game art is from Space Invaders or it's 'ubiquitousness', I don't see how the artist using Space Invaders alien graphics would differ from him using the likeness of any other video game character.

Let's say the artist instead made a rendition of the Street Fighter 2 'car stage' with the Twin Towers instead of the car that still featured SF2 characters. Would Capcom be out of line or somehow infringing on someone's free speech (this isn't even in America, is it?) if they started a little lawyer-to-lawyer over it?

Zegridathes

Yeah he may have first amendment rights but Space Invaders and its likeness is the property of Taito so they could very much do this if they please. The act of putting this up isn't outlawed but the use of someone else' character to do so can be if said person chooses to do something.It will definitely come across as a very douche thing to do but they probably want to cover their asses.

Either way, the artist probably saw this coming and is fully accepting of it, and you know it.

Kiyosuki

I think their best bet could be misreprensentation of a product or the tarnishing of their name/image.

The artist can say using the images itself doesn't hurt Taito's base and he's not taken any money away from them. Theres so many different cases where that defense sadly works even though its stealing the other persons work.

@quadmonkey: What is and isn't art isn't whats at stake here. I can take images of say Final Fantasy and try to make a career off coloring them all blue or have them hump each other, but if I try and represent it as my own its then theft of work.

Rbastid

Too many people are sue happy... IT'S FUCKING ART.

Well, in retrospect he did accomplish what he set out to do, create an emotional piece for the masses.

MrMister

How incredibly asinine.

p0wd3rd

Karma is a bitch aint it.

Witzbold

Dunno what European laws are - but this sounds like it might be argued to be under Fair Use. Especially since it has already been recognized and established as a piece of art and not a commercial item.

Plus - what would the implications be to other artists doing this kind of media if he is indicted? Sure it would please the upset people to have him punished, but then this way of making artwork would be punished? Really? We want to start punishing art? Woo hoo fascists!

quadmonkey

@exolstice:
Should be? No Could they be? Yes,if the IP owners felt it was a infringement or portraying their Ip into a negative light which I imagine this artist is doing.While I imagine some might not have a problem with his work,most will find the association to the property and the events of 9/11 as insulting.

enewtabie(wants a job at Insomniac Games in NC)

While I think the exhibit is useful to get people talking, it's surprising the artist wouldn't have looked up who owns the IP and gotten permission. It's just inviting a lawsuit otherwise. I remember in another thread someone was blaming SQ/EN taito for this and apparently that guy was full of shit because they had nothing to do with it.

kingmanic

This is only going to bring attention to the art piece and make Taito/squeenix look out of touch.

For all the self plagarism and rehashing squeenix does, they don't have much room to bitch, sitting atop that pile of money for the last 13million sequels that tell the same story about an unlikely hero who saves the day by communing with ancient powers to stop some mega weapon's drawn out transformation animation from destroying the soul of the planet.

JoshReflek

@waywardchemist: Oh yeah, and what you said about german laws about IPs.

Kyolux

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: Well, many companies might look the other way when their products are being used in a favorable light.

I don't think Taito wants anything to do with this particular usage, however. Notice that many commenters have already assumed that Taito either gave their permission or endorsed this exhibit.

Spoony Bard

@Brian Crecente: Yeah, but the thing is, he's using Taito's little aliens, and I don't think he got permission to do that.

DukeOfPwn

I'm surprised it took them this long to disavow/ cover their ass from this guy. I'd be shocked if they did take legal action, they just need to make sure everyone knows they're thinking about it.

AndroidKing

good. this puts a really bad image on there intelectual property. hope the pretentious artist gets it bad.

DaveStampeed

@mrWalrus:
Taito needs to have registered their rights to Invaders in Germany for this to be valid. This piece wasn't exposed anywhere else.

But it's 99% likely that this is the case. So no worry there. Just stating as an employee of the Canadian IP office. (We don't deal with making laws, just registration and appeal boards though, and I'm online a webmaster on the Intranet, stuff I know comes from reading documents :P)

Kyolux

@.digiwalsh: I don't know. Most places are (rightly) fairly liberal on artistic expression (which this is, now matter how distasteful some find it). He doesn't seem to be selling (or even giving away) the work. He is just displaying it to make a statement. I don't think Taito will get far in the German courts and by the time they get anywhere, the show will be over. Trying to prevent the artist from exhibiting it later somewhere else runs into all kinds of free speech issues (along with likely needing to argue it in mutiple international jurisdictions).

Now, Taito might have an arguement against the organizer of the exhibition, but even that seems murky.

waywardchemist

what's the argument here? not only did Stanley use the exact creatures from Space Invaders, with the same intent as the original game, without asking Taito...Taito didn't even know about the whole damn show. this isn't about whether or not you approve of the installation, it's about copyright infringement, plain and simple.

geekgrrl

Ok, I am rarely offended, but this thing it offensive and whatever it takes to tear it down and prosecute it's creator do it. This guy's (I won't even call him an artist) 'art' is offensive trash.

WPack911

Crecente-- did McWhertor give you a heads-up about the other Anniversary installations? Did any of the others appropriate Invaders as well? If so, Taito are surely considering action against all of them-- and the museum that organised the display-- right? Because it's not about how their protected IP was used... just that it was used without permission, right? The article here doesn't seem clear enough on that point.

Ah, well. Cue the indignant commenters who like a sensation more than the truth. 3, 2, 1...

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

Regardless of whether or not this is protected speech, and regardless of whether or not Taito themselves finds this offensive or if it is art or whatever,

1 - There are indeed people outrated

2 - To the uninformed (most people), this connects Taito's IP and Taito's brand to what many perceive as a trivialization of 9/11

And as a result, Taito has to pursue legal action, whether it is successful or not, as a face saving measure. In truth, this exhibit damages their brand, and they are put in an unenviable position of having to protect their brand against art.

ihatepeterh

Wait, wait. Square-Enix? They bring the lawsuit pain down hard! No one wants to be in their crosshairs!

ReidP

@exolstice: While I wholeheartedly agree with your first point, I must disagree with your second point; I might actually play Paris Invaders... Or maybe you'd call it Frogger 2?

BabyInABlender

Who didn't see this coming?

taduman

I had no idea that Taito was owned by Square-Enix, must have been asleep that year. Given that Square-Enix is looking to have a strong 4th Qtr with games on the 360 and DS, it's a good thing that this is only an issue over IP. If they had approved this kind of usage, it would have hit them in the upcomming weeks as they were releasing Infinate Undiscovery. Although this shouldn't affect any of the fans, just the uninformed public who look to blame video games for all that is wrong with the world.

twitch21

@SAGA:
No using somebody intellectual property to push your own agenda or call it art is a douche move.Art should innovative sometimes.

enewtabie(wants a job at Insomniac Games in NC)

@CCCombobreaker: really? honestly if nobody (especially Taito) brought it up again, it would've just been another dumb long forgotten 9/11 joke that a few people happened to glance at once on a blog somewhere.

If I ever met anyone that I even slightly suspected had the possiblity of seeing this and saying "Ya, Taito probably had something to do with 9/11, and even if they didn't, they most definitely made a game glorifying it as a sequel to the original!" I would be fairly certain that their opinion/life had no merit.

BabyInABlender

So by this logic, does that mean all the artists who participated in the "I Am 8-Bit" should also be sued?

No.

This is just a knee-jerk reaction. If the guy had made an art exhibit with the space invaders attacking Paris. No one would've cared.

exolstice

@Grumpz®:

yes, it's called using property without consent and in a slanderous way such as this it's completely warranted.

mrWalrus

suing an artist because their art offends you is a total douche move.

SAGA

@Brian Crecente:
First Amendments of the United states!
i agree

Sorshha

Much like the Space Invaders depicted in the exhibition, this story is never gonna die!

Kavatar

Awesome!

Normally I hate litigation, and don't like to wish people ill will, but this is sweet justice ringing true.

Karma is alive and well.

mrWalrus

lol..I posted this in the original one earlier.Probably should check with the company that you using their ips on.

enewtabie(wants a job at Insomniac Games in NC)

they should sue namco for galaxian as well while they're at it. This is art and free speech, what are you going to sue?

Grumpz®

Good.

themadman123

@.digiwalsh:

Agreed.

SIlentStrife

@interstate78:
or a simple.. "my bad"

Sorshha

I'm pretty sure this would be considered protected speech.

Brian Crecente

... I don't speak lawyer though it seems like quite a common language. Does everything need to be settled in court?

How about the good old phone-a-roo?

interstate78

good job Taito - save your name and the game.

Awoken

It's about damn time!

DukeOfPwn

Glad to see this happening. As a creative myself, If i woke up one mnorning to see my work being used like that, I'd be spitting acid. "Artist" or not, I hope this guy learns that hardway about IP theft and copyright infringement. I.e. They're no laughing matter.

.digiwalsh

Its not like anyone should be surprised that someone is suing about this. However I oddly didn't expect the the makers of space invaders to sue them. I expected some family of a victim of 9/11 to sue the artist for emotional damage or something.

Shykin

Taito doen't really need to address this outside of the IP issue (although it is kind of a home-run for them as long as they denounce the artist.) He used a very powerful brand without permission - that is serious enough for action on it's own.

wild_world_girl

If I was Square enix/Taito I would also be a bit worried about people connecting the 9/11 space invaders game with the holders of the space invaders IP.

CCCombobreaker

I saw this coming a mile away.

Kiyosuki

uh-oh

ac2334

I didn't realize this exhibition was done without the permission of the IP holder of Space Invaders. At a commercial convention where it costs money to display and see this stuff as well as a presence of major worldwide press, Taito has absolutely every right to protect their IP in a situation where someone is misusing it without permission or licensing. This clearly isn't fair use of the Space Invader's IP (if Germany even has fair use).

@interstate78: "Does everything need to be settled in court?"

Yes, because in our modern business world, nothing is illegal until a court says it's illegal...or that's the way a lot of people think.

BigDragon

@Brian Crecente: Freedom of speech does not entitle someone to illegally use licensed IP's and damage a company's reputation and good name. I'm an artist for Disney and I can't do what I want with their characters and just say "it's Art" and be protected.

Besides the fact that the first amendment does not apply to a non-American or can be used against a foreign owned company. Not to mention the fact that this was displayed in a foreign country. I really hope Taito sues him into poverty for this tasteless "Art". His "Art" did damage their reputation and their IP and during their 30th anniversary when they are hoping to get a new generation interested in Space Invaders.

Damage has most definitely been done.

coyote12

@.digiwalsh: Modern art often deals largely-- if not wholly-- with pop culture and how it reflects our human responses to the world around us. Your same criticisms could be applied to artists as diverse as Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp, and Jenny Holzer. Damien Hirst cut up animals and called it installation art. Exhibited pints of blood and called it art. Alexander McQueen sewed dead insects into the hems of his clothing line and called it art. And they werent wrong to do so. Art is as simple or as elaborate as you want to make it. It can be pastoral or utterly banal. But this installation-- simplistic as it might be-- is definitely art.

I've got to stop following this stupid discussion. Have to go, now. Be good, little childrens.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

this is making me upset now. not the artwork, the fact that everyone wants to censor this guy, and in the first post about it, people were saying he should be killed n the like.

scary world we live in i guess...

pandafresh

@Ecks: You can make whatever you want. If you distributed it, you'd be in trouble.

It's an art installation. You can only see it in that one location. He isn't selling it or even giving it away.

tentaclesex

@Ecks: Agreed. This isn't a free-speech issue. It's a copyright infringement issue.

Robotube

Fairly sure this isn't "protected" free speech, just a misuse of someone else's copyright - it's the ENTIRE Space Invaders game.

If I took God of War and made my own version where he swings around a giant wang "to be artistic" I'm fairly sure I'd be sued out the wazoo.

Ecks

I can't believe so many of you are supporting the lawsuit. It's frivolous and absurd, and it makes Taito look like a bunch of reactionary jerks.

It's a cool project, and it's art, even if you don't like it.

It isn't a commercial product competing with Space Invaders. Space Invaders is a pop-culture icon.

Complaining about it connecting Taito to the horrors of 9/11 is insane. I don't think anyone is going to start blaming a video game from 1978 for a terrorist attack in 2001.

tentaclesex

Clearly this guy know that it was going to piss people off and went and did it anyway. He deserves whatever punishment from TAITO...

karateka

This is ridiculous. I can't believe people are happy the guy is getting sued. Call the exhibit what you want, but advocating limitations on free speech just because it offended you isn't something to cheer about.

rimaa

The whole "Its Art!" excuse is SO abused, it makes a mockery of real artists. There are laws that need to be recognized, first and foremost with anything that anyone says or does.

If I want to slaughter a pack of house cats and nail them to my house to make a political statement, I could easily call that art, and I think a lot of others would call it art as well. But the law doesn't give a fuck what you think is art when you've broken a law to create it. That's just reality.

"Art" cannot be allowed to become a canopy safe-haven for people that break the law. This example seems innocuous enough, but where do you draw the line? If some dude broke into your house and spray painted a mural on your wall, wouldn't you feel frustrated that you wouldn't be allowed to press charges because he's protected by calling this artistic expression?

Robotube

@Rbastid:

I agree there's things here that can be questionable - is he making money off of it? Are people charged to play it? Is he selling copies of it? In that case, Taito probably can make a case. But I don't know if just "interactivity" itself disqualifies something as a piece of art that shares the same rights and protection of other works of art.

Music rights (and licensing) are an entirely different beast on their own. George Harrison, the great artist that he is, is also in the profession of making music. He is expecting to earn income from his art - that's the intent. I can see how the gracenote case had the conclusion that it did (fucked up as it is). Is the intent of Invaders to make money? Again, I don't know but I feel unlikely given the context of the museum exhibit it was in.

quadmonkey

If I were the guy being sued, I'd definitely hit up the satire/parody laws for my defense. Taito has no grounds when going up against that. Especially as the guy didn't call it "Space Invaders", which is the only copyrighted part of the product. Also, remember, free speech is protected because of the kind of knee jerk reactions that people are having to this issue. It's protected especially if it offends you, because that's the time that you're going to dislike the protection.

masterdingo

@Rbastid: How so? Having people play and watch is the same thing. As long as people are not paying explicitely to play this of course. This isn't a commercial product.

Kyolux

Why is everyone calling this guy an artist? The people who designed okami are artists, johnathan blow is an artist.

This guy just took someone else's concept, recoded it and mocked up some pixel art of the twin towers (hardly artistic), and all for some "message" that quite frankly didn't need to be said.

If he wanted to say something powerful, what about a poem, or theater?

This is just someone with an itch to scratch playing with pop culture references.

He didn't think twice about taito or anyone involved in the space invaders brand (co-incidentally a brand associated with fun, not massacres). So why should they think twice about his side of the story.

I know art is open to interpretation and can't be "defined". But I have a hard time applying the label to this guy.

.digiwalsh

@Xagest: Good point. I didn't notice any reference to monetary gain by the creator of this, but if indeed this person is profiting off this, then it is a bit fuzzier. Unless they can prove one of the three motivations, which I can't think of to name at the moment, which allow for use even if there is some sort of profit involved. I know at least some of those reasons have been referenced in other people's comments, but for the life of me I can't recall the three terms, at the moment. Anyway, this is all very difficult to speculate about anyway because as others have pointed out this is another country whose laws with whom most of us are not familiar.

Archaneus

@Brian Crecente: True, but this is not the United States we're talking about.

Robotube

@quadmonkey:

If it was just a video you can say this. Once he allowed players to play the game he lost any chance of using it as a defence.

Cases like this are hard to judge. You can look at the George Harrison gracenote case where he got sued because he used two notes in succession which sounded like they were from another song, he lost.

He has 3 major flaws to say he's not copying a Taito property, the game mechanics, the images and the playability.

Rbastid

@WPack911: You have every right to be offended, but your response is overwrought in the extreme. Whatever Taito's course of action, this man was exercising his right to free speech. That's something we all have to honor and protect, even when we hate some of the speech it shields.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

@Archaneus:
But it's not quite as simple as that. Once money enters the picture, a lot of things about free speech goes out the window. The artist may be able to protect himself through arguments of parody and such, but I think Taito is in the right for looking into the issue deeper to make sure that people are not making money off of their intellectual property without first being approved for a license.

If I were to build a custom life-size statue of Cloud Strife and made a good chunk of money of it, I don't think SE would be too happy about that. The statue doesn't even have to be controversial, but SE would look towards legal action anyway.

Xagest

@Rbastid:

Except not Expect

Rbastid

@Zegridathes:

They would be but fact is, is if they -chose- to they could argue the similarity to their owned property. In most cases they won't because it's you know, inconsequential. In this case of course, like most big companies Taito may probably want to simply avoid the drama seeing it as bad press. It's asinine but it's not like it's unfounded either, there's a lot of people out there that see everything video games as all the same thing. I mean if it were up to me I'd just leave it alone and if someone put some stupid court case against Taito just easilly argue that it has as much to do with the company as a grafitti image of Bart Simpson shooting someone in some New York underbelly has to do with Matt Greoning. But it's their property and they'll do with it as they see fit.

Kiyosuki

@Rbastid:

I feel this qualifies as found object art - taking a pre-existing object/idea(s) and placing it(them) into a context that illicits a meaning or thought.

In this instance, he is not saying Space Invaders is his, nor the design of the twin towers, he is making a statement by putting the two together.

This has been happening for decades in the art world - it is recognized art. And true, a lot of the time the creators of the original objects/ideas that are used get very pissed off at the new meaning or context that is created.

quadmonkey

@ashman512: Copyright infringement is obvious. The question is, does Taito/Squenix have a case here to stand on? What are the specifications of their IPs registration related to Space Invaders in Germany? This has nothing to do with Free speech. That part is of another issue.

Anyone actually knows answer to these questions? (Taking into account Germany's laws, not anywhere else?) I'd like to know.

Kyolux

I am American, and I know how self-important my average neighbor is =)

ca36gtp

Going to have to go with copyright infringement. Also, the majority of people are forgetting that this is Germany, and I'd be willing to bet that they have much stricter free speech laws.

ashman512

@Regulus: And the cycle never ends! :P JK

Kyolux

@ca36gtp: Unless of course you're American, too. Then feel free to generalize.

Regulus

@ca36gtp: I noticed that too, but with this statement, you just proved that you're just as bad as anyone like that.

Regulus

@Ecks: In that case this is a mod of space invaders. Someone gave the scout a giant black floppy dildo in team fortress 2 and they didn't get sued. So feel feel to give Kratos the Cocks of Chaos.
And someone mentioned Disney characters, why don't you hit up Google with "Disney sex" to see what gets by.

AndroidKing

I'm not really offended by it, to each his own. I just don't see any artistic point to it other than to be "shocking" for the sake of being shocking.. That's just being an attention whore.

PlasmaMachine

Self-centered Americans in this comment thread banging on about the First Amendment when no part of this situation took place in the United States? How surprising...

ca36gtp

@Robotube: A horrifying mischaracterisation of my comment. See my last. I'm not in any way against art being held to the standard of the law. Never in any way implied otherwise. But even if this is copyright infringement, it's still artwork. They're two wholly seperate considerations. But if you'd like to continue the outlandish hyperbole, feel free. I have to go do things. Cheers!

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

As far as I'm aware, Germany has some very strict copyright laws. For example, an artist can essentially veto a song they wrote from being used in an advertisement they disapprove of, regardless of whether they still even own the rights to the song.

My guess would be the same thing would apply in this case, except that it's protecting Taito.

tzaketh

i hope taito doesnt sue the exhibit but just stanley himself. sueing the exhibit will bring alot of bad press, unlike sueing the dood.

maraxusofk

ugh 1 word, parody. Taito needs to brush up on constitutional rights

DasKonstruct

@Robotube: I don't see anyone saying that works of art should be exempted from the law. If there is a valid copyright infringement suit that Taito should pursue-- well, have at it. The yes, it's art defense is only being used against people who arguing the opposite.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

@Robotube:

Unfortunately, things are more complicated than the way you are making them to be. There are laws, or should I say precedents, that protect art from being considered illegal or punished. Of course if you break a law to create something deemed art, you risk of having to defend why it should be allowed and showing precedents that support your case.

There is no precedent or rule that would allow killing of animals, or anything, in the depiction of art you described - so your right, the law would come down hard on that person.

In this case, there ARE precedents and laws that arguably protect what he is doing. Nobody is being killed, robbed, or hurt....except for peoples feelings.

quadmonkey

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: So by that reasoning, Adolf Hitler made one major mistake: he didn't call it art.

Robotube

shit, posted twice without realizing it, sorry.

tentaclesex

@Ecks: You could make that if you wanted, and nobody would sue you if you didn't distribute it.

This guy isn't selling or even giving away his creation. It's an art installation. That means it's being shown in that one location, and that's it.

tentaclesex

@SAGA:

Agreed.

@Robotube:

"If some dude broke into your house and spray painted a mural on your wall, wouldn't you feel frustrated that you wouldn't be allowed to press charges because he's protected by calling this artistic expression?"

I really don't think your example has anything to do with this. You're talking about breaking and entering whereas this has to deal with infringement.

If the reporter didn't tell the families about this, would it have really been an issue? If the artist said it wasn't the WTC but different buildings, would it have been ok then?

I'm not saying its ok, but this all sort of silly. Taito wants to save face so they're gonna come out with guns blazing. They should just denounce his art and be done with it.

If they sue on this, you might as well sue all the artists who contributed to I am 8 bit because they're infringing like crazy.

HoxtonHero

It would have been more appropriate if every mention of the word artist in that article had quotation marks.

Kenny

Hard to believe that many years ago, you could make a picture about a battle, seeing your loved ones dying on the canvas in front of you, and it is later called a mastery of art.

NeonLight

@Anarchist_Gamer: As a follow-up and perhaps final point: Mario and Space Invaders belong to us now. They're part of the culture. Our culture. You can't own culture. That's my foot firmly planted.

And, okay, maybe I'm just a little hungover still.

Anarchist_Gamer

They'll sue him in England!

lumpi

How about this: Fuck you, Taito.

Unfortunately, I'm not above that kind of behavior, not even on Kotaku.

If companies didn't have people utilizing their (let's be honest: dead) brands in new and thought-provoking ways, then their precious IP would become obsolete, forgotten, and useless.

Here's looking at you Disney, you ass clown.

Anarchist_Gamer

For those claiming First Amendment rights need to re-read our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. Non-governmental entities may restrict speech; otherwise, the Kotaku overlords could be sued or jailed for using the ban and disemvoweling hammers. What would it look like of anyone could post anything in this comment section? Also, certain governmental agencies may restrict speech as well (i.e.: law enforcement personnel, healthcare workers, etc.).

Also, this didn't take place in the US.

Daemonstar

@ashman512:

Much stricter everything.

Nesagwa

@Robotube: please shut the hell up because you are making us look bad. 1 acts of violence are not protected by constitutional rights. 2 copyright and trademark laws are there to protect intellectual property, ideas. 3 freedom of speech laws allow for creativity and vocal expression without the fear of having to curb their vision. This is for the betterment of all society because the moment you stifle creativity you stifle people.

DasKonstruct

I love America. This county is my home and no other country will ever replace it in my heart. What was done cannot be undone and I will never forget or forgive those responsible for what happened.

With that said, I say big deal. All those in agreement with this 'legal action' and that it's 'tasteless' need to get over yourselves. Crawl out of your cave and think about life from another point of view for a change.

I am over the 9/11 crying. It's time we, as people, got over it. The event, I mean. The people who lost those dear, remember those people, but don't bellyache because someone has a different point of view than yours. It's your right to complain, but it's not your right to judge.

Taito is only in this now because of the complaining about the 9/11 piece. They want to save some kind of face to someone, I imagine. They should just tell them to pack it up and go home. Legal action will only blow it more out of proportion than it already is.

If there is one thing I know, though, it's that modern art loves publicity, and Taito dragging it out might only make those artists, including this guy who is getting his 9/11 piece talked about in a lot of places, very happy.

TheAbsoluteJay

some people are taking this to seriously.. I mean... Cmon, its game! -_-

Shad0X

what a stupid idea...what do aliens have to do with 9/11? I guess going for shock value is all they could do, to get their point across...if they have a point. Hopefully they get sued and we never hear from them again. Although like they say, any press is good press

JohnnyV12

This is honestly some great News...I hope they take it to court and I hope it blows out of proportion. Why? I think this will add a small amount of fuel the "Games are not Art " debate, if games become accepted as Art (like Hollywood), developers can actually make parodies of other games, among having the same creative freedom that Movies have.

lordnovas

Legal action on this would be a mistake.

I can understand Taito wanting to distance themselves from this -- but if they sue, they'll lose in all ways. First, at least in the US, this would be protected speech, so they'd lose the court fight. Second, Taito would come out sounding like a company that wants to squash freedom of speech. And, finally, it would do exactly what they did NOT want by drawing attention to the exhibit.

In this particular case, if they ignore it, it will either go away or remain in the subculture.

jayntampa

@bobtheduck: unless those generalizations are about the US itself, for some reason, anyhow. Still don't get that one... It's ok for every country on earth to have national pride... Except the US.

bobtheduck

@ca36gtp: Speaking of America, if you were to make a comment like "all germans are such and such" IN the US in public, you'd get reamed... You'd be called a Bigot, and you may get some laughs from some, but you'd get thrown down so hard by most people, it wouldn't matter. It's really difficult to make generalizations like that in the US because there are people from so many cultures here with so many influences, and you can piss off so many people that may know better than you about the way things work in their home country.

I've heard people blast the US for its bigotry... The US is only made of people from the rest of the world who just happen to occasionally hate each other.

bobtheduck

You cannot copyright ideas or design in Germany. That's why one of Germany's biggest electronics retailer of the time, Quelle, legally produced and sold Atari 2600 rip-off cartridges in the 1980s.

So if you wanna make your own Space Invaders which looks like Space Invaders you are allowed to do so as long as it isn't called Space Invaders.

RealityCheckKH

Bye bye freedom of expression.

munkah

@DasKonstruct: "please shut the hell up"

How ironic.

Robotube

@Bokusatsu_Tenshi: First off, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Next, art has been doing "tasteless" things way before some guy came along and made Space Invaders attack the WTC buildings.

"For the sake of it" is a fairly uneducated statement, all things considered. Having something to say is what art is about, and the piece is what you are saying. Even the most abstract or random artist don't just do it "for the sake of it".

Since the towers always fall in the piece, it could be the artist's way of saying that not only is there no way for us to change what happened, it could also represent the never ending battle against terrorism, be it a native or "alien" attacker.

I am certainly not against you having your opinion, I just wanted to perhaps sway you into looking at it from the other point of view.

TheAbsoluteJay

Too many people reads too much in this.

So, art now is doing tasteless stuff just for the sake of it? If so, I have a different idea of what Art is.

Noone never did something like this before not because the guy is a genius, but because it's just bad.

I'm glad Taito is taking legal action, not only because the whole thing DESERVES it, but also because it shows Taito doesn't support bad publicity.

Maybe they already got what they wanted with all this and are posing now as the good guys, but it's nice they aren't supporting or defending it nevertheless.

But I guess people have different views on art. You know, some people might thing that making a cow sculpture made of dog feces and vomit would be good art. I don't.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Sorry guys - it's protected speech. There's nothing Taito can do about it except publicly disapprove.

LongDarkBlues

Soooo they are going to try and censure a form of art now?

Whatever that piece of art may be, is an expression and it shall not be silenced! A basic human freedom this is.

We all have a right to speak our mind, even if we are dicks.

Herodito

@wild_world_girl: Yeah Campbel's soup should start suing Andy Warhol too... The point of art is exactly that, to make a point, not even an obvious one and sometime not even a point, what a point that is.

One thing's sure art and drama don't mix together, oh they do? Maybe there shouldn't have been an Apocalypse Now movie about Vietnam, but does anyone care today? Nope. No matter how much you like/diskike/agree/hate it Art might shake your sense or morals today but in time it will change and not be a hot issue like any current tragedies or events. After all no one would care if you painted something on a touchy subject like the Black Plague of 1348 where half of Europe was wiped.

Copyright entitles you to exactly that, the right to control copying of what you have produced (in this case a video game), it's not made to prevent art.

As for intelectual property, it is highly debated and not a lot of persons (beside IP lawyers) think it actually exists.

Trademark, yes the trade mark is Space Invaders, but the exhibit is named just Invaders! so it might as well be based on other clones like TI Invaders or Chicken Invaders.

FredQC

@LongDarkBlues: Have you seriously not been reading the thread?

The case isn't going to be about whether the speech is protected or not. It's going to be about violation of copyright and intellectual property.

If this had been a picture on display somewhere, yes it would be protected and immune from issues of copyright. People would have been offended, blah blah blah, but it would have been a form of artwork protected in almost every major democracy as freedom of expression.

But it's not a picture.
It's a playable game that uses the Space Invaders models, the Space Invaders mechanics, and generally everything else owned by Taito. The only thing the guy did was throw a computerized WTC in the background and added some WTC ambiance.

It's not a derivative work - it's the exact same work only with a different background. So unless he can prove that the work should be exempted for parody or satire (which, by the way, would devalue the whole concept of it being art because if he's trying to deliver a serious message it wouldn't be a parody or satirical). These rules aren't just implemented in the U.S. See: WIPO.

In short, if taken to court it's not about the expression, it's about the violation of copyright. And he doesn't have a leg to stand on since he took almost the entire Space Invaders IP for this little project.

Captiosus

Why not just hang the "artist" on a cross and flog him until he cries us a river of blood?

Do I agree with what he did? Fuck no. Do I feel that he has the right to express himself in any way he sees fit, provided it doesn't harm anyone or anything? Damned straight I do.

Freedom of speech is a double edged sword...

Even idiots should have it.

troyalan1970

@MrMister:

Emotional piece for the masses? Sorry... not buying that. As I said in the other thread, there's no such thing as BAD press, and this moron was hoping to get noticed with this garbage.

Kudos to Taito for the lawsuits. Hope this guy is enjoying his attention now.

MerlynNY

@WPack911: Prosecuted for not being sensitive ? Coming from someone that uses 911 in their name that is quite gutsy.

I don't personally like painting, I prefer music as an art form, but I don't go in museums (be it modern or classical) insulting painters. 'Yo fukin Picasso, you make mee puke!'

That is so insensitive toward artists.

FredQC

@Sorshha:

this was Germany, the US's First Amendment does not apply outside the US

duh

Gutter_Trash

@Captiosus:

Um, actually, this IS a derivative work. The code HAS been changed so you cannot win and you don't gain points, you lose points. That in-itself supports the notion that he is trying to express an idea or emotion rather than just emulate or copy a game.

If you want to make a strong point, don't oversimplify the thing your arguing against - it will deflate any strength your argument has.

As for the copyright issue, who knows, as an artist myself I would hope there is some kind of protection for creating this style of art (no matter the subject matter). Perhaps it may just be limited to show and not sale - but that is enough for many of a creative types.

quadmonkey

@Ryodestined: You got that right. They should issue a press release saying they were not involved and regret the choice the artist has done. The really hot topic here for me is 'Can you sue artists because you don't agree with their message?'.

FredQC

I think it's time Taito got the kudos and artistic admiration they deserve for their rocking game library. This piece is currently untitled:

D-Lish

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: I am gonna use my freedom of speech to call this non-artist an attention whoring asshole. If I take a shit and wipe it on a piece of paper and try to call it 'art' it's not, it just shit on a paper, not everything that people intend as art actully turns out to be art.

Believe me I am not some freak out about anything and everything type either, I am a very easy going person, but this is a slap in the face to each and every family of someone who died on 9/11, and it does not have anything going for it but shock value. For the fact that that he not only commited copyrite infringement, but did it in such a blantantly offensive and inconsidorate way, he deserves to be prosucuted to the full extent of the law.

WPack911

@Captiosus: Check your sources, there is also a TI Invaders game which has NEVER been sued even though that was a 100% commercial project. If Taito has not been enforcing or defending it's trademark actively it may not even retain the right to keep its ownership.

The game play mechanics cannot be protected in any way under the current laws, the code and the art can be protected against copyright infringement and that is all there is to it. The day corporate america starts suing artists like that it will be very sad.

FredQC

The 9/11 thing is what made this an issue. I really hope Square/Taito doesn't go too much farther than stating that they were not involved in the creation or approval of the exhibition. Art is all about making a statement, and even though I personally don't agree with the artist using 9/11 in that format, I don't feel they should be persecuted (legally) for it.

Ryodestined

Good. Those idiots should be sued into homelessness. They have no respect for the people that were brutally murdered that day.

Dalren

Of course this guy is French, hardly surprising. I love how non-Americans can insult, mock, and make light of our country, and it's OK - but don't dare retaliate in a similar fashion because that would be ignorant and discriminatory. Double standards.

TheDaftPunk

@Dalren: Those people are already dead they don't care about some piece of art. This has nothing to do with harming living humans. If you wanna live somewhere that your rights are trampled feel free but give me liberty or give me death and all that jazz.

AndroidKing

Why is everybody taking this as "Taito suing the artist"?
No. This is Taito suing a display celebrating the 30th Anniversary of Space Invaders that they neither put up, nor endorsed.

Imagine if you had created an original character or comic. Now, imagine if a "Fan" decided to put up a tribute display to your creation, but claim it's official, and put as the centerpiece a scene depicting your character destroying the Twin Towers.
Not only is the concept of destroying the Twin Towers offensive, you essentially slandered them by pretending to be them.

Ad-hominem

They have every right too... his artwork pretty much ruined the space invaders 30th anniversary game for those who believed it was done by the artist.

Shockadin

@rimaa: I care more about respecting those innocent people who lost their lives than the constitution. Human life>a country.

Dalren

I think it's in extremely poor taste, and frankly just rude that someone would do this. It's not art at all. I give my good wishes to Taito.

TheDaftPunk

The IP has been so diluted at this point that I'm not sure Taito is going to have much of a case. There were so many Space Invaders clones in the 1980s that it's hard to tell just where the line of copyright infringement can be drawn.

ManekiNeko

@SAGA: I agree. This should be covered under parody law in the US anyway.

afrosheen

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: As an artist myself, I have serious qualms with the percecption that art can be anything, I find it an excuse for those without the skill or willingness to put "pen to paper" to go ahead and make "art".

I know this is my oppinion, and many think otherwise. However, to me, that school of thought is just something for those who cannot create to hide behind.

If you view art as a profession, as a skill... then it just doesn't make any sense.

I can't put a floppy disc on top of 4 match sticks and claim i'm a builder or an architect, why should i be able to stick the twin towers in space invaders and be called an artist?

Hope I don't sound to bitter here, But I also hope people can see my prespective somewhat.

Peace.

.digiwalsh

Too bad. I thought it was a great piece of art.

UltimatePancakeSensation

in my opinion, there should be NO legal action. but perhaps the museum shouldn't in fact be displaying it. but thats just my take.

joeloliol

This is all getting a bit out of hand. Nobody died because of this thing, right?

I go to the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD) studying industrial design. Last semester, we had an art student do a performance piece about setting a bomb-looking thing out front near the Royal Ontario Museum, which had just had a new building completed designed by Daniel Libeskind (the guy who did the new World Trade Centre). This thing happened during the opening ceremony/AIDS benefit, and it was all called off because the authorities interpreted it as a bomb threat. It was unfortunate, and the student's message has been lost in the shuffle.

Now, we had a student doing a (in hindsight) stupid thing that disrupted an AIDS benefit, and nobody went to jail. The fact that Taito is even CONSIDERING legal action against the artist is shocking. I mean, artists DO this. He MEANT to make us think. Sure, it was stupid, but that was the point. His message should be the message, not the image.

PlayerX

@FredQC: I will have you know that I have been using this name LONG before 9/11 2001. I started using this name (it's one of the only screen names I ever use) in honor of the NWO Wolfpack (WCW wrestling group) way back in 1997. The 911 is for emergency, the meaning of the screen name is basically 'Wolfpack Emergency'.

Plus, I am not insulting an artist, I will not dignify this man by calling him an artist, I do not consider that art. IMO he is just a wannabe artist attention whore.

WPack911

At least Taito takeing the right steps.

N15PCA

@AndroidKing: Your freedom is meaningless when you begin using it to be as horrible a person as possible.

Dalren

@WPack911: I am sorry about picking that reference, I should be more careful about my posts.

As for your second comment well that is a cheap shot, check out that guy, he has a blog and he is also shocked even though he took down his display willingly. He has caused quite a stir and he does realize that.

Read my post there if you want. I will stop fueling the debate here.

FredQC

@Dalren: "Your freedom is meaningless when you begin using it to be as horrible a person as possible. "

See this is the problem. Most people don't understand what freedom is yet they claim they're all for it. You opinion doesn't matter because if we take your opinion that he's a horrible person then we must take someone else's opinion that video games as pointless and evil and ban those.

Or are you trying to imply god has given you a gift of knowing everything and had given the job of setting the laws of earth?

The whole point of freedom is that if it's not being forced on you then then it should be allowed. There is nothing making you view his exhibit. There wasn't even anything that made you click this new item about his exhibit so there is no reason he shouldn't have the right to create 9/11 based art.

I would even argue the copyright argument could be fought since there are about 9 million space invader clones already.

toadwarrior

Why do people get bothered about this? This is the reason no one believe in Americans being freedom loving because they don't actually stand up for freedom and have willingly lost a lot of freedom since 9/11.

No one has to look at his art so if you don't like it then don't look at it.

toadwarrior

Hooray for artistic freedom... oh wait

loempiavreter

Leipzig is a privately run and organized event. If he doesn't like it, he can hold his own event. It's hard to argue that we're a "sensitive" society when people asking a private organization to respect the thoughts of people when it doesn't legally have to.

Ensui

Well it is nice to see that throughout the history of man, artists are still being persecuted and bullied by the powerful and the uninformed.

I understand from TAITO's *business* point of view, trying to protect there property from ill perception. But I don't agree with the primitive ideals everybody is enforcing upon the poor dude. Art is meaning and the portrayal of emotion/thought. That is what this is.

He is not benefiting from the use of TAITO property from a financial standpoint, nor is he using their property as his own. He is altering that property and he is putting on display an idea. Andy Warhol did it with many "found objects" as did many other famous artists. It is freedom of speech and SHOULD be protected, no matter how offensive.

on a moral non-ip related side note*
As for the victims of the 9/11 tragedy. I am truly sorry for the horrific loss of life. But the man wasn't dogging the victims, he was dogging the system that was supposed to protect them....you know that fucker, BUSH. He was sending a "sign of the times message" to the "youth" of our society. I guess we should take down every piece of art that depicts some form of historical tragedy and persecute it, too. I mean since we are all trying to be fair, right?

yhummo

sweet, sweet justice.

furianboy

I'm suprised that the GC organisation let the game be shown in the first place considering how stringent copyright laws have become.

affenvampir

off topic but check out this exclusive TMOBILE SIDEKICK XBOX model!

[uk]

+ Watch video

WTF? where can i get one?!?

wow321