Oh, geez. Look at what Guitar Hero CEO Dan Rosensweig told UK music site NME about the use of Kurt Cobain’s likeness in Guitar Hero 5:
“I do know that there’s absolutely a contract and we know that the cheque has been cashed. I can only deal with the facts. It’s very clear what the terms are. … We care about the artists more than anyone else and we would like to make artists happy in every circumstance. I’m disappointed in this case that there seems to be confusion between [ex-Nirvana members Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl] and [Cobain's] estate.”
Mr. Rosenweig, if I may be so bold, I don’t think you’re doing yourself any favors here. It’s not the legality of the issue people are questioning (well, aside from perhaps Courtney Love). Rather, it’s a question of taste, tact, and respect. If you’ve got a celebrity’s widow and former bandmates all but begging you to be more respectful to his memory, perhaps “Well, this is what you agreed to, so deal with it” isn’t the most beneficial response.
For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of Cobain’s likeness being used in the game. But the people who were closest to him do, and that changes things.
[Read]
Previously:
Kurt Cobain, Re-Animated
Kurt, Revisited
Courtney Love Threatens to Sue Activision
Activision Responds to Courtney Love Allegations
Kurtastrophe, Round 3: Grohl and Novoselic Weigh In
Kurtastrophe, Illustrated: The Law Behind the Mess
Jon Bon Jovi Shot Activision Down in a Blaze of Glory
I think his point is why did they (I guess Courtney Love or whoever has legal claim to Cobains likeness) wait until the game was released. They could have said no at negotiations. They could have said no at the contract signing. They could have said no when they received the check. They could have raised a fuss between signing the contract and the release of the game. Instead they waited until the game was on the shelves and in people’s hands. They want to make money off Cobain’s likeness without it looking like they are.
It’s obvious Activision acted legally and the correct people were compensated. But those same people have won the public perception by saying it was tacky to have Cobain in the game when it was them who agreed to it and gained financially from it.
Well, part of the problem seems to be that everyone’s claiming they weren’t aware that he’d be singing other people’s songs.
Honestly, I could see this being a genuine mistake: like, Activision included it in the contract, but it was either missed or misunderstood by whoever signed on behalf of Cobain’s estate. Or maybe Activision assumed the rights-holders would have seen how characters are used in GH games and didn’t think to point it out.
It also could have been something that wasn’t spelled out at all — just poor communication between the developers and Activision’s lawyers.
I think there’s a lot of possibilities where neither party is entirely in the wrong. But now that there’s such a big deal about it, it just seems to me to make sense for Activision to accede to the requests, no matter who’s at fault.
Hmm… good point. Lots of points for poor communication: Cobain estate & Cobain estate lawyers, Cobain estate lawayers & Activisions lawyers, Activisions lawyers & Activision, Activision & developers… Hell, it’s amazing anyone in real life is happy with their appearance in a video game.