Former Mayor Giuliani To Defend Activision In Odd Noriega Publicity Rights Lawsuit

from the public-defense dept

We recently sneered at the publicity rights law suit brought against video game maker Activision by dictatorship-maker Manuel Noriega over his portrayal in the Call of Duty game series. The idea of a foreign historical/public figure filing suit against an American company for publicity rights, which tend to be quite localized to individual states, seemed silly on its face. Add to the mix the dastardly acts by the plaintiff and there was a great deal of room for eye-rolling at this fight.

Well, now a new combatant has emerged to defend Activision, and there's a small chance you'll recognize his face.

Is it...Derek Jeter?

No, it's former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has decided to take up the sword for Activision and defend them in court against Noriega. It turns out that America's Mayor has since gone back to practicing law and he's asking for a dismissal of the case for the exact reasons I outlined in the previous post.

Giuiliani told The Associated Press he took the case because he doesn't want the imprisoned Noriega to profit from his crimes, which include convictions for murder, drug trafficking and money laundering. Also, Giuiliani said that if the lawsuit is upheld, it could give historical figures and their heirs veto power over their depiction in books, television, movies and video games.
The entire point here is that the First Amendment provides protection in fictional depictions of historical figures. That those depictions are so close in describing the criminal actions of Noriega, in this case as a kidnapper and murderer, doesn't relieve Activision of those protections. Opening the door to more suits by public and historical figures would be absolutely horrific for the areas of historical fiction, whether in games, novels or movies. Noreiga, by the way, is serving prison time for murder and corruption.
"Noriega going after 'Call of Duty,' you should think of it as Osama bin Laden's family going after 'Zero Dark Thirty,'" [Giuliani] said.
Hopefully the court will dismiss this nonsense quickly. On a related note, it's always nice to see a former politician come to the aid of new entertainment companies, video games in particular. Too often it's the other way around.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    John William Nelson (profile), 25 Sep 2014 @ 11:02pm

    You should invoice Giuliani for your research

    You laid out all the arguments for him. I'd say at least $150 an hour.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    zip, 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:05am

    drinking the Kool Aid

    " ... describing the criminal actions of Noriega, in this case as a kidnapper and murderer ... Noreiga, by the way, is serving prison time for murder and corruption."

    Tim, I would respectfully suggest that you try to restrain yourself from 'educating' people about international politics, wars, and other historical events that are tangential to the news article. You've demonstrated, time after time, that your knowledge in that area tends to be shallow at best, and in many instances is not even consistent with the dumbed-down, official (US government propaganda) version of events that so many gullible, flag-waving Americans uncritically accept as the Gospel truth.

    The US military invasion of Panama and installation of a puppet government might in itself be shocking, if not for the unprecedented railroading of it's president Noriega in order to try to create some sort of mirage of legitimacy to an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

    Panama is to the United States what Crimea is to Russia, a critical strategic asset that simply couldn't be allowed to fall into hostile hands. The original pretext of the US invasion was to "protect American lives" -- it had nothing to do with any specific "crimes" of Noriega or anyone else. This was all manufactured later, I strongly suspect because Noriega ended up having to be taken alive because he had sheltered in an embassy, which thwarted the original plan of having him conveniently killed in combat.

    Which brings up another point ... if Noriega had been found 'not guilty' of all charges, does anyone really believe that the US government would have simply released him -- if not turned back the clock and re-installed him as president of Panama? Of course more charges would have been tacked on, and another show-trial begun, for as many times as necessary, as there was only one acceptable outcome.

    In the usual slippery slope, the then-novel concept of jailing a foreign national under the laws of a nation he had never set foot in did not end with Noriega. It's now become standard policy, with countries such as Australia and the UK regularly extraditing their citizens to the US to stand trial on copyright offenses that don't exist (or are much more stringent than) under their own country's laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:48am

    Re: drinking the Kool Aid're suggesting Manuel Noriega DIDN'T murder anyone or promote the drug trade? REALLY!?!?!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    zip, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid

    The world is full of repressive dictators, but the US government routinely turns a blind eye to most of the worst, and in fact openly supports and defends many of them. As long as they remain loyal to Washington, that is.

    For instance, notorious dictators such as Chile's Pinochet, Iran's Shah, and Philippines' Marcos did far worse things than Noriega ever did, but no US-enforced "rules of conduct" ever applied to them. Even after they were overthrown and basically lived as fugitives on the run.

    Even assuming that we should accept the concept of the US military policing the world and invading countries and enacting "regime change" at will, it's this hypocritical double-standard that's the most galling.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    mmrtnt (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:26am

    The Real Reason Guiliani is Defending Activision

    He got a late-night visit from this guy

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid

    Mexico is another example, white slavery ,extortion ,drugs of all varieties , but nothing , no boots on the ground nothing , how long must people keep making excuses for our nations leaders bullshit policies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 2:21pm

    Re: drinking the Kool Aid

    Oh you want to go there? Look up Mike Harari and what that person might have had to do with Noriega.

    Hope you see the light there brah.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid

    Fuck that noise, Panama is now an army-less country, like Costa Rica. Costa Rica is paradise on earth (been there so many times now I don't know the exact number of times), so maybe Panama now caught up. Costa Rica has about 500 cops which are the "Army" heh.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 11:43am

    Why don't they include Barack Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize liar?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid

    This is how the US was supposed to be as well. The founders wrote at length about how having a standing military in peacetime is dangerous to the nation. They envisioned a nation that raised an army only when needed, not having one all the time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 28 Apr 2016 @ 7:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: drinking the Kool Aid

    I believe this is also the reason underlying the wording of the Second Amendment.

    "Because we need to be able to raise an army from the population at short notice, the government may not place restrictions on people owning and carrying weapons" - so that the people can practice with those weapons in peacetime, on their own and for their own purposes, and thereby be experienced with them when it comes time to be called up into a regimented military force.

    Once you abandon the no-standing-military principle, this basis for the Second Amendment largely disappears. Whether this is a good thing or not is a worthy subject for much debate, but as far as I can see it doesn't even seem to be recognized by most of the people who want to argue over the Second Amendment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.