George signs copy of dead rising, has no idea what it is

[MinionZombie]

1) A "nod" doesn't necessarily mean copyright infringement. If it did, Shaun of the Dead would be F*CKED. 2) What about the disclaimer? I can't see you arguing that one down - that was there as a way to create an assosciation, no single doubt about it. There's no other reason for it to be there, if the disclaimer was absent, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. I blame that. Actually I have addressed this issue at least once already. The disclaimer is there, like most disclaimers, for idiots. It's there for people who live in a world where "mall + zombies = Dawn of the Dead ONLY" and look no deeper than that. Because of the sheer lack of similarity between Dead Rising and Dawn of the Dead, there's no law against using a mall as a setting - which you can't copyright - nor using zombies - which aren't copyright, evident in the fact that there are so many non-GAR zed flicks out there. It's like Friday 13th and Sleepaway Camp - both set at summer camps, both about serial killers, but both different movies and the latter not in breach of copyright over the other. Same with Dawn/Dead Rising. Look beyond the simple "mall + zombies" equation, folks...

[MikePizzoff]

Come on, guys, this argument just took place 2 weeks ago in another thread.

[SymphonicX]

1) A "nod" doesn't necessarily mean copyright infringement. If it did, Shaun of the Dead would be F*CKED. 2) Actually I have addressed this issue at least once already. The disclaimer is there, like most disclaimers, for idiots. It's there for people who live in a world where "mall + zombies = Dawn of the Dead ONLY" and look no deeper than that. Because of the sheer lack of similarity between Dead Rising and Dawn of the Dead, there's no law against using a mall as a setting - which you can't copyright - nor using zombies - which aren't copyright, evident in the fact that there are so many non-GAR zed flicks out there. It's like Friday 13th and Sleepaway Camp - both set at summer camps, both about serial killers, but both different movies and the latter not in breach of copyright over the other. Same with Dawn/Dead Rising. Look beyond the simple "mall + zombies" equation, folks... I've already said that I think copyright fraud isn't the issue here. Plenty of times. What i *am* saying though, is that disclaimer isn't there for idiots...no way...I think it's bizarre to assume that. I also mentioned Shaun of the Dead in the same vein as you, so we pretty much agree - but I do and would have a problem with that disclaimer, especially if I owned the rights to Dawn, mind you, I probably take it on the chin and no further if it was me, but obv Rubinstein isn't like that... If I made a game about a machette weilding guy in a hockey mask who's gotta kill kids in a campsite and put "this has nothing to do with friday the 13th" on the box, I'd be making that assosciation, if I left it off, it could just be classed as a generic nod to slasher movies.(ie: afforementioned ****ty slashed flick, The Burning etc etc) But if I take some of the characterisations (ie: the mall = Jason) and the outfit (zombies), and then make that claim, would you expect me to be sued? I would!!! If I took all that and made a point to distance myself from the original franchise I'd be more likely to get away with it. Putting that on the box is a pretend way of distancing themselves, but in reality it brought it closer. It's like TCM's opening line about the movie being real, it's a sort of false claim with hints of truth....too close to the line if you ask me. What I'm ultimately saying, which really has not much to do with anything in ways or arguing with people, is that Capcom were ****ing idiots for doing that. But they did it for a reason, and came unstuck. If they'd left it off the box, I reckon they'd be OK.