Tag: Netflix | Page 4

Private Prison Company Sues Netflix Over Use Of Logo In ‘Messiah’

June 3, 2020/in Internet Security

When we last talked about the Geo Group, a company making hundreds of millions of dollars running private prisons, one of its executives was attempting to improve the company’s reputation by constantly removing all the dirty from the Wikipedia page about the company. In trying to do this, of course, the company actually amplified the controversies listed on Wikipedia and, having been caught trying to scrub the internet of its own sins, found itself in headlines as a result. At present, the Wikipedia page still lists those controversies, but more on that in a moment.

Because the latest bit of news from Geo Group is that it is suing Netflix over the use of its logo in a fictional prison in Messiah.

The GEO Group, which operates private prisons and detention centers, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday alleging that it had been defamed in two episodes of the Netflix series “Messiah.”

The series depicts a mysterious figure who gains a following by performing miracles in the desert. In the third and fourth episodes, the character is detained at an immigration facility in Texas, which is identified with GEO Group logos.

The suit claims that the show depicts the facility in a defamatory light. The inmates do not have beds, are kept in overcrowded conditions and surrounded by chain-link fences.

In addition to the claim of defamation, the suit also claims that the Netflix shows use of Geo Group’s logos in two of its episodes constitutes trademark infringement. If all of this seems somewhat familiar, it’s because it’s quite similar to the spat between the infamous Pinkerton Consluting & Investigations company and Take Two Interactive over the latter’s Red Dead Redemption 2 game, which portrayed the Pinkertons fictionally in a way that jives with its historical reputation. While in that case the lawsuit was filed by the content producer seeking declaratory judgement that its use of all names and trademarks was protected free speech, it’s still the case that Pinkerton ran away from its threats. I would imagine Geo Group will need to do so as well, as this sort of fictional representation is indeed protected on First Amendment grounds.

As for the defamation claim, well, we’re back to those controversies from the Wikipedia page. Those list overcrowding of its prisons, poor conditions that led to multiple prison riots, and specifically some claims of poor conditions for immigrants awaiting deportation. You know, basically the sort of portrayal the suit itself alleges in Messiah.

“Unlike in ‘Messiah,’ GEO does not house people in overcrowded rooms with chainlink cages at its Facilities, but provides beds, bedding, air conditioning, indoor and outdoor recreational spaces, soccer fields, classrooms, libraries, and other amenities that rebut ‘Messiah’’s defamatory falsehoods,” the complaint states.

The suit includes colorful photographs of libraries, classrooms and recreation facilities at GEO detention centers.

Except that it has a reputation for all of the issues above, no matter how many pretty pictures the company includes in its filing. And trademark and defamation laws, whatever teeth they might have, can’t pierce the First Amendment’s protections on artistic representation in a work of fiction.

Netflix tends to be fairly good about fighting back on these sorts of things. Hopefully they’ll do so in this case as well.

Techdirt.

Free Netflix pass because of Coronavirus? It’s a scam

March 25, 2020/in Computer Security

The public is being warned about fraudulent messages being shared on social media platforms that Netflix is offering free passes to its platform because of the Coronavirus pandemic.

Read more in my article on the Hot for Security blog.

Graham Cluley

Netflix Seeks Cancellation Of “Choose Your Own Adventure” Trademark

February 28, 2020/in Internet Security

This really should happen more frequently than it does. You will hopefully recall the ongoing drama between Chooseco, the company behind the Choose Your Own Adventure series of books we all remember from the 80s and 90s, and Netflix, producer of the hit series Black Mirror and its recent iteration entitled Bandersnatch. To catch you up, Bandersnatch was an interactive streaming show that billed itself as a “choose your own adventure” show, allowing the viewer to influence the progression of the story via choice. Chooseco sued Netflix over this production, claiming trademark infringement. Chiefly at issue is the appearance of a book mockup in the series, trade dress and marketing surrounding the show, and the fact that a character in the show refers to his own video game creation as a “choose your own adventure” game.

Separately, wielding this trademark, Chooseco inked a lucrative deal with Amazon to develop CYOA stories for the Amazon Alexa (keep this in mind for later). Chooseco also separately went after other indie game developers for using the phrase in their own marketing (again, important for later). And while Netflix sought to have the case tossed on grounds that its use of the phrase and trade dress was protected by the First Amendment, and was not protectable for Chooseco, and that there was no chance of customer confusion. The court, somewhat predictably, decided that those were arguments better made at trial.

And so here we are, with Netflix setting forth those same affirmative defenses… but with one notable addition.

Netflix is asking for the cancellation of Chooseco’s ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ trademark, as the dispute between the two companies over a “Black Mirror” episode rumbles on.

Netflix, in a new filing at the US District Court for the District of Vermont on Tuesday, February 25, argued that not only has the term “choose your own adventure” become generic (and available under principles of fair usage), but also that characters and storylines from its 2018 interactive episode “Bandersnatch” differs from other interactive productions.

Yup. In addition to the affirmative defenses laid out in its motion for dismissal, Netflix is now asking that Chooseco’s trademark be cancelled entirely. This is going to have a ripple effect across all of the other actions Chooseco has taken as set forth above. Those indie game threats? Those go away if Chooseco doesn’t have a trademark to wield. Future lucrative deals such as that struck with Amazon? Nope, those are gone, too, potentially. By picking this wholly unnecessary fight, Chooseco has potentially given Netflix the ability to yank away the one poker chip it had left to play.

From the filing:

The alleged “Choose Your Own Adventure” marks that are the subject of Registration Nos. 2,913,403; 4,682,357; 5,651,588; 2,807,473; and 3,234,147 lack distinctiveness, are generic, and therefore are unprotectable. As detailed herein, the phrase “Choose Your Own Adventure” no longer denotes a single source or origin. Instead, it is a common phrase used by the general public to refer (a) to any situation that requires making a series of unguided choices, or that provides an opportunity to go back and re-make a series of choices that turned out badly, or (b) to any interactive fictional work that employs a “branching” narrative style, regardless of the source or origin of the work.

As used in the context of fictional works, the phrase “Choose Your Own Adventure” encompasses the entire genre of interactive-narrative fiction, a genus of media of which Chooseco’s book series is just one species.

Anyone really want to argue that the above isn’t true? It sure seems to be. I have long known what a CYOA book was. I, until covering this story, had zero idea that there was a single company with a registered trademark behind those books. Because, really, there isn’t. CYOA is essentially a genre. And somewhat descriptive. And not particularly identifying as to a source of a product.

There are legions of interactive novels, for instance, that are self-described as CYOA. And, yet, here we are in 2020, the year of our lord, first seeing legal action by Chooseco over it? Come on.

Again, I wish we saw this more often. Trademark bullies looking for a payday should more often have to at least face the risk of losing their trademarks entirely. While there is no guarantee that this will work in Netflix’s favor at trial, at least this threat would deter more bullying in general.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

Netflix, Which Has Previously Touted Its Ability To Compete With Piracy, Joins Australian Antipiracy Efforts

June 6, 2019/in Internet Security

We have for some time been covering the rapid expansion of antipiracy and site-blocking efforts in Australia. Between the movie and music spaces, these efforts have been spearheaded by a couple of local entertainment groups, such as Village Roadshow and Music Rights Australia, and the typical suspects from the US, such as the MPAA, RIAA, and various movie and music studios. The ramping up of those efforts continues to date, with recently updated copyright laws being used by those groups to request massive site-blocking for torrent and streaming sites, with the courts generally rubber-stamping all of them.

To date, a glaring non-combatant in all of this has been Netflix. And that hasn’t been some huge surprise, either, given that Netflix has long had a history of touting its own ability to both compete with piracy and make use of its cultural effects, and the rest of the entertainment industry painting Netflix as some kind of problem for the industry itself. And, while Netflix’s tone on piracy has certainly begun to change, that made it somewhat jarring to learn that the company was suddenly diving into the Australia anti-piracy fray with both feet.

Over the past two years, many of the world’s largest torrent and streaming sites have already been blocked, but the work is far from done. A new application recently submitted at the Federal Court of Australia requests ISPs to block dozens of websites.

The complaint comes from Village Roadshow as well as several other prominent movie companies such as Disney Enterprises and Universal City Studios. For the first time, Netflix Studios has joined in as well, as Computerworld notes.

As stated, Netflix is now a part of the MPAA, which perhaps explains why it is now in on these enforcement efforts. This appears to be something of a move of solidarity with the industry, as the focus of this particular complaint is pretty heavy on sites accused of distributing Asian content.

Interestingly, the court order has a strong focus on Asian content. Several of the targeted sites, such as BTBTT and 123kubo.org, are predominantly popular in Asian countries. In addition, the list also includes many anime sites such as Animeultima.to and Ryuanime.com.

The latter is likely due to the fact that the Australian distribution group Madman Anime Group is listed as one of the applicants as well.

So, again, there’s something of a all-for-one and one-for-all flavor to all of this. Still, being a member of the MPAA doesn’t require Netflix to join in on these legal efforts at site-blocking. As is typical in these complaints, the torrent and streaming sites are painted as having only one purpose: to commit copyright infringement. On that basis, the complaint seeks the blocking of 86 websites.

But the new part of this is Netflix’s involvement. Why it suddenly feels the need to join the ranks of those seeking site-blocking is an open question, particularly when it has built a business model out of being more convenient and reasonable an option than piracy itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

Tag Archive for: Netflix