jjstraka34: There is no way the band had any actual chance of winning this case. A play on words is not copyright infringment, nor is there even a scintila of evidence anything in the game is based on Eddie. Is Iron Maiden now the sole proprieter of those words?? Do history textbooks dealing with torture now have to pay residuals to the band?? Ridiculous nonsense, and makes me lose all respect for the band.
The only people who would have won would have been the lawyers, and I don't imagine that 3D Realms makes as much money as Iron Maiden.
Green_Shade: Oh good, so it is proper to blame them personally for it.
TheMonkofDestiny: Not really. Obviously the band themselves don't personally oversee such a thing but a team of lawyers and employees do.
I mean, if you want to hate the band, that's your buisness and I or anyone else would be an ass to try to stop you - but in this case it really does seem like the legal side jumped on the lawsuit choo-choo vs. someone in the band spending time out of their day to land on a video game's page and go "Well damn, people might think we made this and we won't get the money for it!"
It's not unlike those people buying one letter off URLs and other crud tactics that are clearly done to try and make quick cash when they know the entity behind the genuine article is flush with the moolah. Unfortunately the legal team made way too many assumptions against the game in this particular example, since it seems far fetched to think Voidpoint set out to stick it up Iron Maiden's tailpipe by siphoning what is ultimately going to amount to a drop in the bucket as far as total sales are concerned away from any money the band makes through their endeavors.
Yeah, I agree, just meant that since they own the company, they are responsible for what happens in it, at least in my eyes, though I know CEOs and stuff often get away with blaming their underlings. (Who very well may be at fault.)
I mean I'm not going to go around hating the band because of this, I mean it's just another of an endless supply of silly lawsuits. If I were to hate on Iron Maiden I'd also have to hate on Zenimax and most AAA devs.
Karahandras: I'm curious, am I the only one that bothered to look the story up?
It turns out it isn't just the name but name and logo are similar(don't know if this was done on purpose).
Also this is not the only lawsuit concerning this game as this was originally going to be a duke nukem game and not that long before they'd sold the rights to make further duke nukem games.
So not sure whose side i fall on this time, maybe 50/50.
link incase anyone wants it Well Shelly Harrison is a character originally cut from Duke Nukem back in the day, so that's not a big leap. And the lawsuit claimed a lot more things, such as how it's a copy of Iron Maiden: Legacy of the Beast (and that effectively a PC FPS is directly competing and stealing revenue from a mobile battler), how Shelly Harrison's name sounds too much like Steve Harris, despite her name having been made in a previous game. Or how there's a skull on the bombs (also from Bombshell), and Eddie has a skull too. I mean their case started sounding moderately strong when they were talking about how the name is similar, but the further into the arguments one gets, the clearer it is that they're grasping at straws more along the lines of King suing The Banner Saga for being a clone of Candy Crush Saga.
Also the font isn't very similar unless you really squint, and the font hasn't changed at all, probably because fonts can look similar without being copies.
