If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TMZ)   Lindsay Lohan suing the makers of Grand Theft Auto V in a vain attempt to prove that someone out there thinks her image is worth using in a video game   (tmz.com) divider line 91
    More: Silly, Lindsay Lohan, Grand Theft Auto, Chateau Marmont, West Hollywood, TMZ, Grand Theft Auto V, Kate Upton  
•       •       •

8924 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Dec 2013 at 2:04 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-01 10:49:12 AM
Seems like everything but the cell phone bikini girl would count as a fair use parody.
And let's be honest, Lohan does not look like that in a bikini.
 
2013-12-01 11:23:11 AM
Let's just remember the good old days

i286.photobucket.com

i286.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-01 12:01:14 PM
What else can she do...she can't find real work (unless she starts doing porn).  She's really out of options at this point because she'd have to establish herself as sober for awhile before anyone will give her a chance...and frankly, there are plenty of hot actresses out there.
 
2013-12-01 12:24:27 PM

serial_crusher: Seems like everything but the cell phone bikini girl would count as a fair use parody.


What I came to say. Don't all those shiatty satire movies do the same thing? Not that it even necessarily looks like her. If they really wanted to they could get closer to what she really looks like. But then the player would just shoot her for fear of catching something.
 
2013-12-01 12:42:38 PM
Lindsay Lohan will sue everybody by the time her fame ends.
 
2013-12-01 12:43:09 PM
After seeing the video, I'm not seeing the similarity.  Tough titty, Lindsay.
 
2013-12-01 12:47:34 PM
"Sue everybody!"

www.studentsoftheworld.info


/obscure?
 
2013-12-01 02:08:09 PM

Mugato: "Sue everybody!"

[www.studentsoftheworld.info image 437x554]


/obscure?


punitive damages here!

/nope
 
2013-12-01 02:08:22 PM
Uh, Lindsay? Hate to break it to you, but you're not even the best claim...
images.lazygamer.net
 
2013-12-01 02:09:16 PM
She's 28 on July 2nd, if she gets there.
 
2013-12-01 02:10:23 PM

Theaetetus: Uh, Lindsay? Hate to break it to you, but you're not even the best claim...
[images.lazygamer.net image 620x620]


This... they ripped off someones likeness, but it damn sure wasnt Lindsay Loan.
 
2013-12-01 02:11:12 PM
No way this is based on Lindsay. In the mission where this character takes it in the ass while you (as the paparazzi) film it, the acting was actually believable.
 
2013-12-01 02:14:34 PM

Alonjar: Theaetetus: Uh, Lindsay? Hate to break it to you, but you're not even the best claim...
[images.lazygamer.net image 620x620]

This... they ripped off someones likeness, but it damn sure wasnt Lindsay Loan.


They didn't, though. They used a model who happens to look like Upton, but there's nothing illegal about looking like someone else.
 
2013-12-01 02:17:29 PM

serial_crusher: Seems like everything but the cell phone bikini girl would count as a fair use parody.


Most likely. It's not a terribly unreasonable suit, in light of the recent suits over EA's NCAA Football.
 
2013-12-01 02:17:47 PM
Skinny crack ho and I don't care.
 
2013-12-01 02:20:04 PM
umm... so why's apple not suing for blatantly ripping the off iPhone? What about all the car manufacturers that have clones of their cars?

Oh, yeah, cause they don't have a case
 
2013-12-01 02:24:35 PM

uttertosh: umm... so why's apple not suing for blatantly ripping the off iPhone?


'Cause it doesn't look like an iPhone?

What about all the car manufacturers that have clones of their cars?
Oh, yeah, cause they don't have a case


It's true, but not it's not as slam dunk as you'd think. Consider the EA v. Textron suit over EA's use of Hueys and Ospreys (and other vehicles) in Battlefield 3 - EA  lost on summary judgement. The case ended up settling, but the sole distinction between EA's use and Rockstar's use is that EA used the actual vehicle names and had no chance at a parody argument.
 
2013-12-01 02:26:19 PM
I think she's just pissed because the vacuous coont in the game play video might have hit a little too close to home. If the character was an Academy Award winning philanthropist, she'd be bragging that they based a character on her.
 
2013-12-01 02:27:36 PM

Mugato: I think she's just pissed because the vacuous coont in the game play video might have hit a little too close to home. If the character was an Academy Award winning philanthropist, she'd be bragging that they based a character on her.


Uh, that's kind of the point of a suit over defamation of character. There's a reason it's not called infamation.

/aside from the fact that that's not a word
 
2013-12-01 02:28:04 PM
Sounds like that Freaky Friday money is drying up.

Hey, Lindsay - Like almost everything else in the GTA games, those girls are amalgamations of several real life people, and used as parody. They're the embodiment of the self-obsessed Hollywood skank. The funny part is, until this lawsuit, I never thought the girl on the cover or the girl getting it at the Chateau Marmont had any resemblance to you. This is a desperate attempt at a quick settlement money-grab. I hope they tell you and your shameless lawyers to eff off.
 
2013-12-01 02:30:27 PM
I think the actress on Agents Of Shield who plays 'Skye" looks a lot like Lohan in her better days, something about the facial structure...
 
2013-12-01 02:30:55 PM
You're so vain, I bet you think this game is about you.
 
2013-12-01 02:31:28 PM

Theaetetus: Uh, that's kind of the point of a suit over defamation of character. There's a reason it's not called infamation.


I'd hate to break it to her but it would take a lot more than what I've seen of the game to defame her already defamated character.

/that's not a word either
 
2013-12-01 02:31:44 PM

Theaetetus: uttertosh: umm... so why's apple not suing for blatantly ripping the off iPhone?

'Cause it doesn't look like an iPhone?


Neither did the Samsung.

What about all the car manufacturers that have clones of their cars?
Oh, yeah, cause they don't have a case

It's true, but not it's not as slam dunk as you'd think. Consider the EA v. Textron suit over EA's use of Hueys and Ospreys (and other vehicles) in Battlefield 3 - EA  lost on summary judgement. The case ended up settling, but the sole distinction between EA's use and Rockstar's use is that EA used the actual vehicle names and had no chance at a parody argument.


so what you're saying is that R* better not have any of that artwork lying around in a folder marked 'lindsay'
 
2013-12-01 02:32:13 PM
so we gotta ask? thanksgiving break happen in the middle of writing that?
 
2013-12-01 02:34:12 PM

uttertosh: Theaetetus: uttertosh: umm... so why's apple not suing for blatantly ripping the off iPhone?

'Cause it doesn't look like an iPhone?

Neither did the Samsung.


Tell that to Samsung's lawyers, who couldn't tell them apart when asked by the judge. ;)

What about all the car manufacturers that have clones of their cars?
Oh, yeah, cause they don't have a case

It's true, but not it's not as slam dunk as you'd think. Consider the EA v. Textron suit over EA's use of Hueys and Ospreys (and other vehicles) in Battlefield 3 - EA  lost on summary judgement. The case ended up settling, but the sole distinction between EA's use and Rockstar's use is that EA used the actual vehicle names and had no chance at a parody argument.

so what you're saying is that R* better not have any of that artwork lying around in a folder marked 'lindsay'


It would look a lot worse.
 
2013-12-01 02:34:20 PM
Before just now reading about the lawsuit, I never thought it was her, just some blonde bimbos. Perhaps, Ms Lohan, not everything is about you.
 
2013-12-01 02:37:17 PM
Maybe these days it's just cheaper to pay her lawyer than to pay a publicist.
 
2013-12-01 02:51:42 PM
Game company should countersue that drug addicted skank just to drive her into bankruptcy.
 
2013-12-01 02:52:38 PM
Meanwhile, on Total Drama Island ...

yafh.com

/ they didn't even bother to change the spelling of her name
 
2013-12-01 02:53:35 PM

Bslim: Game company should countersue that drug addicted skank just to drive her into bankruptcy.


Contrary to popular belief, "you sued me! I'm outraged!" is not actually grounds for a countersuit.
 
2013-12-01 02:54:18 PM

Theaetetus: uttertosh: Theaetetus: uttertosh: umm... so why's apple not suing for blatantly ripping the off iPhone?

'Cause it doesn't look like an iPhone?

Neither did the Samsung.

Tell that to Samsung's lawyers, who couldn't tell them apart when asked by the judge. ;)

What about all the car manufacturers that have clones of their cars?
Oh, yeah, cause they don't have a case

It's true, but not it's not as slam dunk as you'd think. Consider the EA v. Textron suit over EA's use of Hueys and Ospreys (and other vehicles) in Battlefield 3 - EA  lost on summary judgement. The case ended up settling, but the sole distinction between EA's use and Rockstar's use is that EA used the actual vehicle names and had no chance at a parody argument.

so what you're saying is that R* better not have any of that artwork lying around in a folder marked 'lindsay'

It would look a lot worse.


Serious question: in my experience you do a great job of emphasizing why something does or did happen in patent/copyright cases; but you ignore or deflect questions and lines of discussion about whether what happened was actually just and sensible. Often, especially in cases that provoke a lot of discussion, the two are not the same thing--or at least there's a good case to be made that they aren't. It's like explaining why OJ was acquitted, not why he was actually innocent of the act. Is this intentional on your part?
 
2013-12-01 02:59:21 PM

Theaetetus: Bslim: Game company should countersue that drug addicted skank just to drive her into bankruptcy.

Contrary to popular belief, "you sued me! I'm outraged!" is not actually grounds for a countersuit.


That's for the court to decide, she still has to respond.
 
2013-12-01 03:04:33 PM

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Serious question: in my experience you do a great job of emphasizing why something does or did happen in patent/copyright cases;


Aw, thanks.

... but you ignore or deflect questions and lines of discussion about whether what happened was actually just and sensible.Often, especially in cases that provoke a lot of discussion, the two are not the same thing--or at least there's a good case to be made that they aren't. It's like explaining why OJ was acquitted, not why he was actually innocent of the act. Is this intentional on your part?

No, I'm happy to have those discussions, but I only rarely ever get asked "do you think this outcome was just" or "do you think that software should be patent eligible generally". The trouble is that people tend to confuse or conflate the two: "I think the decision was unjust,  therefore the judge disobeyed the law" or "I think this patent should never have been granted,  therefore the Examiner is stupid and all patent law should be abolished."

And in some ways, the latter discussions are more navel-gazing than anything else... We can talk about why OJ was acquitted using transcripts and exhibits of wrongdoing by the cops, or we can talk about whether OJ did the act based on hypotheticals or could-have-beens that we have no direct knowledge of. Did he do it? Probably... Can we really prove that? Not really.

To move that analogy to patent law... Take the infamous Amazon one-click patent. We can talk about whether the USPTO did their job properly and whether the patent should have been granted or should have survived re-examination, and we can use evidence that's in the record. Or, we can talk about whether the patent is obvious and should never have been granted based on "well,  everyone knows..." and gut feelings about whether prior art exists, but that's a little less interesting.
 
2013-12-01 03:06:19 PM

Bslim: Theaetetus: Bslim: Game company should countersue that drug addicted skank just to drive her into bankruptcy.

Contrary to popular belief, "you sued me! I'm outraged!" is not actually grounds for a countersuit.

That's for the court to decide, she still has to respond.


Yes, but she responds with a request for sanctions, costs, and a prejudicial inference in the main case, and the court says yes.

I mean, sure, you technically can sue anyone for anything. And you technically can eat poison. But you go first.
 
2013-12-01 03:13:15 PM
You know, when a star spends so much time on an almost ahab-like quest to harpoon the white whale known as their own PR image, do they really have a right to complain when someone else joins the hunt?
 
2013-12-01 03:24:35 PM
"trashy, generic, zero-dimensional characters??  How dare they use my likeness!"  I think she has a point.  She's worked so hard to cultivate her "no-talent attention whore" persona that any stereotypical use of a female character now constitutes infringement on her image.
 
2013-12-01 03:24:36 PM

eddievercetti: Lindsay Lohan will sue everybody by the time her fame ends.


She is the female Tom Cruise
 
2013-12-01 03:24:57 PM

slayer199: What else can she do...she can't find real work (unless she starts doing porn).  She's really out of options at this point because she'd have to establish herself as sober for awhile before anyone will give her a chance...and frankly, there are plenty of hot actresses out there.


Very true.  In fact, why is Lohan considered a great actress, anyway?  Her career has been nothing but Disney movies and rancid horror flicks.  She's been coasting on the starlet thing for a very, very long time, and it will just never happen.  She's been a never-was for quite a number of years, and would have been completely forgotten about if her parents weren't drama-whore trainwrecks.

As for suing anybody, she doesn't have the pull.  Any company will drag it out in court until she runs out of money or she dies.
 
2013-12-01 03:29:31 PM
Don't be surprised if they cave (I'd say there's a 50/50 chance they do).  She's actually pulled this shiat several times already and walked away with settlements which undoubtedly went right up her nose.   Our legal system is so farked that defending a bullshiat case like this is more expensive than cutting a check and saying 'fark off' to the plaintiff.

Maybe it'll get tossed out early by a judge with a modicum of sanity, but if it goes to trial, they'll pay her off to shut her up.


The 1st Amendment only exists insofar as you're able to legally fight off assholes who want to deprive you of it.
 
2013-12-01 03:33:35 PM
Not Lohan. Even her blathering in the video wasn't closely related to her in specifics. I don't ever recall anyone saying that she needed to eat a sammich (if anything it was the opposite as she has a naturally curvy body type, that comment was closer to Paris Hilton than Lindsey Lohan). I don't recall her being in a cheerleader movie either, much less typecast in that type of a role (that might be better attributed to Kirsten Dunst than Lohan). There were other things in there as well but those stuck in my head for whatever reason.

That was clearly a parody of several modern day (going back probably about a decade) Hollywood "Starlet's" all rolled into one annoyingly stereotypical character. As to the "look" of the character and box art that's also a very common look that many SoCal women actively try to achieve, famous or not. That's why it's a stereotype.
 
2013-12-01 03:37:57 PM

Theaetetus: Bslim: Theaetetus: Bslim: Game company should countersue that drug addicted skank just to drive her into bankruptcy.

Contrary to popular belief, "you sued me! I'm outraged!" is not actually grounds for a countersuit.

That's for the court to decide, she still has to respond.

Yes, but she responds with a request for sanctions, costs, and a prejudicial inference in the main case, and the court says yes.

I mean, sure, you technically can sue anyone for anything. And you technically can eat poison. But you go first.


I respectfully submit that the same applies to her original suit.
 
2013-12-01 03:39:21 PM

Radioactive Ass: That was clearly a parody of several modern day (going back probably about a decade) Hollywood "Starlet's" all rolled into one annoyingly stereotypical character.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
...amazinnnnnnggggg!
 
2013-12-01 03:40:49 PM

Bslim: Theaetetus: Bslim: Theaetetus: Bslim: Game company should countersue that drug addicted skank just to drive her into bankruptcy.

Contrary to popular belief, "you sued me! I'm outraged!" is not actually grounds for a countersuit.

That's for the court to decide, she still has to respond.

Yes, but she responds with a request for sanctions, costs, and a prejudicial inference in the main case, and the court says yes.

I mean, sure, you technically can sue anyone for anything. And you technically can eat poison. But you go first.

I respectfully submit that the same applies to her original suit.


As I said above, with the NCAA Football likeness suits, she's got a not-unreasonable argument. She may well be wrong, but she's not sanction-worthy.
 
2013-12-01 03:43:03 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: Her career has been nothing but Disney movies and rancid horror flicks


I think the media still refers to her as "the Mean Girls star" (2004).
 
2013-12-01 03:46:55 PM
cdn.evilbeetgossip.com

/Oblig
 
2013-12-01 03:47:54 PM

Theaetetus: Yankees Team Gynecologist: Serious question: in my experience you do a great job of emphasizing why something does or did happen in patent/copyright cases;

Aw, thanks.

... but you ignore or deflect questions and lines of discussion about whether what happened was actually just and sensible.Often, especially in cases that provoke a lot of discussion, the two are not the same thing--or at least there's a good case to be made that they aren't. It's like explaining why OJ was acquitted, not why he was actually innocent of the act. Is this intentional on your part?

No, I'm happy to have those discussions, but I only rarely ever get asked "do you think this outcome was just" or "do you think that software should be patent eligible generally". The trouble is that people tend to confuse or conflate the two: "I think the decision was unjust,  therefore the judge disobeyed the law" or "I think this patent should never have been granted,  therefore the Examiner is stupid and all patent law should be abolished."

And in some ways, the latter discussions are more navel-gazing than anything else... We can talk about why OJ was acquitted using transcripts and exhibits of wrongdoing by the cops, or we can talk about whether OJ did the act based on hypotheticals or could-have-beens that we have no direct knowledge of. Did he do it? Probably... Can we really prove that? Not really.

To move that analogy to patent law... Take the infamous Amazon one-click patent. We can talk about whether the USPTO did their job properly and whether the patent should have been granted or should have survived re-examination, and we can use evidence that's in the record. Or, we can talk about whether the patent is obvious and should never have been granted based on "well,  everyone knows..." and gut feelings about whether prior art exists, but that's a little less interesting.


I think your answer to my question is "yes," and I respect that, seriously. However, I do think it makes for a lot of mishandling of your points (not your fault). People usually aren't interested in whether this judge or lawyer did their job, or whether the correct procedure was adhered to; they're usually just stepping back and talking about whether or not the outcome is ultimately a good thing. Even if we can't "prove" anything, as you said regarding OJ, we do have information--it's not all just blind shots in the dark--and we still might be able to learn from such a discussion.
 
2013-12-01 04:18:50 PM

Pokey.Clyde: Let's just remember the good old days

[i286.photobucket.com image 850x637]

[i286.photobucket.com image 850x637]


Why? There are better looking women (to masterbate to) RIGHT NOW.
 
2013-12-01 04:24:59 PM

wildcardjack: She's 28 on July 2nd, if she gets there.


Seriously? That's a hard 28...I mean, I'm 28 and I imagine more people would want to see me in a sextape.

/No, you really don't want that.
 
2013-12-01 04:29:36 PM
Looks nothing like her. No duck lips.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report