Are there any legal ramifications in using or referencing someone (or an organization) in a game? For example, a game makes reference to or has an NPC named "George W. Bush", playing the role of President... Or, let's say I desire to reference the NAACP, or NASA, etc... and perhaps have the group as an ongoing entity in the game. Can this be done without worry? Perhaps it depends upon the degree to which the person/org is involved or referenced? Thanks in advance, -Razorguts

If it's a parody, it's ok.
If not, it's debatable (especially if used as a reference, not directly).

I'm not a lawyer, but if there were then wouldn't this guy (a book, not a game) be living in a cardboard box? He has Nike killing people as a marketing stunt, and other stuff like that.

Didn't read that book, but the author can also claim parody and fair use.
It always depends, but unless you are willing to fight in court with some multi million company, you should try to avoid using other company names in your product, at least not without their approval.

Quote: Original post by Raduprv
It always depends, but unless you are willing to fight in court with some multi million company, you should try to avoid using other company names in your product, at least not without their approval.

Sure, with for-profit company names, I can assume there may be some legal recourse. However, I suppose my question was more for organizations such as those I listed in the OP.

How many games have we seen with a tagline, "Play as a highly trained ex-Navy SEAL", or "Special Ops agent"... and games that frequently reference the CIA, or NYPD (think Max Payne). These types of references give rise to my question on legality of usage...

Thanks in advance for any further input.

-Razorguts

I am not a lawyer, but film makers can use the army 'trademarks' (costumes, equipement, etc.) without needing the army to approve it. However, if the army doesn't approve the movie, they won't provide the film makers with equipment, locations, and so on. So the film makers would have to obtain their own equipment.

Quote: Original post by Raduprv
I am not a lawyer, but film makers can use the army 'trademarks' (costumes, equipement, etc.) without needing the army to approve it. However, if the army doesn't approve the movie, they won't provide the film makers with equipment, locations, and so on. So the film makers would have to obtain their own equipment.

That's not quite true. There are plenty of rules and regulations concerning the usage of DOD assets, especially for commercial purposes. For the design of a brochure, my company wanted to photograph a few military IT trainees (actors) in a classroom setting for a client's technology product; however, we encountered a lot of red tape so we opted for civilian IT trainees. And that red tape wasn't even for a film. Some films are denied approval and so are usually filmed in Canada. I remember a Swedish TV ad which used German naval uniforms on actors playing American Navy officers because the film couldn't be approved due to the portrayal of the USN.

Army Making Movies Guide

Air Force Entertainment Liaison Office

Book review: Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon shapes and censors the movies by David L. Robb
The root site is a socialist site. I'm not a socialist. I just found the URL. That's all. The review is pretty good minus the biases.

[Edited by - Adraeus on May 23, 2005 7:45:50 PM]

If you need their COOPERATION, sure, they can refuse and stuff.
But if you use your own people/equipment/etc. then you should be ok.

Quote: Original post by Raduprv
If you need their COOPERATION, sure, they can refuse and stuff.
But if you use your own people/equipment/etc. then you should be ok.

Re-read my post.

Quote: Original post by Adraeus
Re-read my post.

Oh, ok, actors...
Hmm..
Doesn't the army (DoD) belong to the people? If so, everyone should have access to it.
Besides, what about Fahrenheit 911? I am sure the army didn't really like that movie, but they couldn't do anything to stop it.