Cooking Mama: PETA edition

[xannoside]

http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/index.asp?c=pcmgb08

You know, I rag on PETA a lot in person, but I have to give them major props here for doing something creative and impressively viral.

Thatm and the game is fun. I particularly like how eggs bleed and have

Comments

[chuckro]

Play controls are problematic, not terribly responsive. Also, the dead turkey looks comical, while the tofu loaf looks even less appetizing than the bleeding gravy, which is probably counter to their intentions.

Also, I can almost hear Majesco's lawyers firing off C&D letters...

[xannoside]

Oh, lordy yes.

Then again, Majesco has almost no money, so they might give it a pass since it might just skate in as within Fair Use.

[edgehopper]

Majesco would lose, too, on either trademark or copyright theories. The only argument they have is a false endorsement claim, since the website isn't very clear that Majesco didn't endorse or support the game. PETA could take care of that easily with a disclaimer.

But the rest of it...yeah, even their atrociously drawn turkey looks tastier than the tofu loaf. But if it convinces kids to learn to cook delicious meats, it's a good thing :)

[chuckro]

Wait, wait, wait: They use the Cooking Mama logo and character, they use the same game style (especially in the last section, where Mama makes the tofu loaf and the wording matches the games perfectly). They've essentially remade the game to endorse their view. How is this not infringement? Is there an argument for it as parody, or is this another of those long, complicated legal explanations that costs $400/hour because it totally goes against common sense?

[edgehopper]

No, it's simple parody and First Amendment. Specifically:

Copyright: Fair use applies; it's clearly a transformative use, not done for profit, and the major fair use factors favor PETA.

Trademark: The First Amendment applies; it's an artistic work, the use of the mark is artistically relevant to the work, and the question is whether the use of the mark explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work. This is where the lack of disclaimer could be a problem, and PETA really should have been clearer that this was their own parody that was not endorsed or supported by Majesco. The false endorsement question is essentially identical.

[chuckro]

So basically, Majesco sends a C&D, PETA puts up a big fat disclaimer, and that's that.

I actually feel much better knowing that parody/fair use is the defense. It implies that the system is still understandable to the layman.