Dead Rising, Dawn of the Dead similarities spark legal filings

Yeah, but Dead Rising is set in a mall like the film, the zombies follow the same rules as the zombies in Romero's films, and Capcom even added that disclaimer that Romero has nothing to do with it, which is pretty much admitting they knew how close they were treading.

Close call. You see, if MKR decides to make a 'Dawn of The Dead/Day of The Dead' game, all they could do is try to make something as good as Dead Rising, and even if they were successful, the entire game community would just say 'It's the same as DEAD RISING!' and the thing could be a bust, because Dead Rising was based on the concepts in the films and already did it, thus it's damaged MKR's possibilities to make a unique game.

Dead Rising is essentially a playable version of Romero's films, and if you refuse to see it, you're just being a hater because you saw the word 'lawsuit.'

I've never seen the films. There is legal precedent for this kind of issue though.

White Wolf Publishing, makers of the World of Darkness tabletop roleplaying books attempted to block the release of Underworld, due to the fact that they had Vampires and Werewolves battling in a modern setting. Also the tone was very similar to what WoD sets up. Well obviously, they lost, because you can't copyright the concept of vampires and werewolves, or any general setting thereof.

I think that case could be used to get this suit thrown out. Sure, there's a movie about zombies in a mall. Was that movie about a photographer trying to get a scoop? Are any of the characters similar or the same? Is there some sort of government cover up? If the answers are no, then Dead Rising has a pretty good chance of being declared either fair use or unrelated property.

At least, thats how I see it, and I'm not a lawyer.

Well the thing is that if you love Dead Rising you probably love zombie movies as well, so by mere logic you must love Dawn of the dead.

If a dawn of the dead game existed it would be probably crap because is would be a game based in a movie but if it was almost as good as Dead Rising hell I would buy it.

If you ask me the whole situation is ridiculous especially because we are talking about a game that was released 2 years ago unless of course Capcom is already developing the sequel :D

By the way have anyone else played Infected in the PSP?, That game was awesome I would kill for a sequel.

This just in: Members of the Tolkien family suing everyone that's ever made a fantasy game involving elves, dwarves, humans, and hobbits in a setting with magic, magick or any derivation thereof.

For a second I thought you were going to dip into The Bible to back up your Jaws claim.

If there's a sequel, I hope they go with (I think it was one of the 1up guys' idea) an amusement park setting. I can't even begin to imagine how glorious that would be...

An amusement park? Well it kind of work for “Silent hill”.

In my opinion the next setting should be Washington D.C or some other mayor world capital, it could be Paris.

Paris would be a good setting too. You could visit Euro Disney, that place is already crawling with zombies.

When the article says "both Dawn of the Dead films", I presume that they mean the original and the remake.

But the point still stands... zombie movies date back as far as 1932 (presuming that we count mummies and Frankenstein's monster merely as "reanimated dead" rather than "zombies"). Most of the movies that broke ground in the zombie movie arena are probably public domain by now, but that just makes this case more idiotic, as it should all count under "prior art". If zombies are public domain, and the concept of zombies attacking people is public domain, and the concept of people defending themselves against attacking zombies is public domain, it shouldn't matter *where* the attacking and defending happens.

Just in case, though, dibs on zombies in space, zombies underwater, and zombies vs. the Harlem Globetrotters.

Dibs on Zombies in Space!?

Careful my friend, lest Bioware sue you for stealing intellectual property from Mass Effect.

Zombies vs. Harlem Globetrotters sounds like a winner on all counts.

I voted for the first one, because it was the funniest. I guess I kind of screwed up the results then, because I don't give a damn about the lawsuit or the result.

In that MKR is fighting an uphill battle against a giant gorilla throwing barrels at them with no end in sight? Yeah, I definitely get that vibe.

No, in that Nintendo got sued by Universal because they claimed "Donkey Kong" was infringing on "King Kong" rights, in that it was an Ape kidnapping a woman and carrying her to the top of a tower.

They lost, Nintendo won.

It was a joke, Crono.

Sorry, sarcasm detector broken. Also is somewhat obscure Nintendo history.

The whole reason Nintendo won was because King Kong had become public domain.
Universal Studios was just trying to bully a company trying to get its roots in America.

Also, Kirby was not named after the vaccum, but the laywer for Nintendo who brought that fact up and saved the company.

And frankly, I thought zombies are public domain too. Or would you be attempting to contest this?

I don't think MKR owns the rights to Day of the Dead.

I watched the remake; zombies should not be able crawl on ceilings or be vegetarians....

World War Z, and it's already been written. I'm staring at a copy of it on my desk right now. Pretty damn dark writing, but quite well-done.

Fair enough, but I wasn't really talking about the origin of the zombies, I simply meant the rules of 1) wanting to eat the protagonist, and 2) how they trudge forward slowly in an undead manner.

And I think you're being selective in what you call 'similar': there are many similarities in the two worlds. (You have two 'only similarities' in your argument, by the way, so somewhere in your subconscious you know there's more than 'a mall' making these entities similar).

Clincher for me was the mention of George Romero in the opening sequence to the game: that's enough to tell us that Capcom knew they were close enough to warrant reminding people that they aren't experiencing anything related to the movies.

On a side note, it's interesting to see people quick to dispel Dead Rising's similarities with 'Dawn of the Dead', et al, but remembering how people went totally 'judge and jury' and deemed Sony's Sixaxis as a rip- off Nintendo's Wii controller, something NOT even as related as this situation. Seems like sometimes people are really quick to give what they like and enjoy the benefit of the doubt, but anything else is a 'retarded lawsuit,' 'total rip-off,' etc. Just a thought.