• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rockstar Games in Legal Battle with the Pinkertons Over Red Dead Redemption 2.

IbizaPocholo

NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
https://theblast.com/rockstar-games-red-dead-redemption-pinkerton-lawsuit/

Red Dead Redemption 2” fans are used to dealing with the Pinkertons but Rockstar Games is locked in a legal battle with the actual company over using their name in the hit video game.

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations sent a cease and desist letter on December 13, 2018 to Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive.

The company claims they have been around for 165 years “and in the 1870s the agency worked with law enforcement to apprehend famous criminals across the country.”

Pinkerton claims that Rockstar used their trademarks, featuring the Pinkerton Detective badge, without permission in “Red Dead Redemption 2.” They claim the Pinkerton National Detective Agency characters “are used as villains, hunting the game’s protagonists.”

In their legal letter, Pinkerton says the game makes it seem like they are somehow connected to “Red Dead” when they never gave their authorization. They believe the game “is likely to blur the distinctive character and tarnish the reputation of Pinkerton’s famous trademarks.”

Pinkerton makes it clear in the letter that they are “willing to discuss a lump sum figure” to settle the dispute, otherwise they are prepared to sue for trademark infringement, among other claims.

But Rockstar decided to fight back and filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction against Pinkerton and ruling that their use of the Pinkertons in the game is covered by the First Amendment.

Rockstar argues that “Red Dead Redemption 2” is a “historically accurate videogame set in the Wild West in the late 1800s.” They claim that “historical references are woven into the fabric of the game at every level.”

“The game’s reference to the historical Pinkerton National Detective Agency and its agents is but one of a myriad of ways that Red Dead 2 accurately portrays the historical Nineteenth Century American landscape,” Rockstar claims.

The company argues that the Pinkertons are not overly featured in the game — of the 106 “missions” in the 60-hour game, only 10 feature Pinkerton characters. They also claim the term Pinkertons has “long been a staple in works of historical fiction about the Wild West,” including films like “The Long Riders,” the television show “Deadwood,” and songs like Elton John’s “Ballad of a Well-Known Gun.”

Rockstar claims their references to the “Pinkerton Detective Agency” and “Pinkerton” in “Red Dead Redemption 2” are protected by the First Amendment and do not infringe on any rights held by Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations.

They are asking a judge to rule in their favor and declare they are not infringing on any Pinkerton trademarks.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Pinkerton claims that Rockstar used their trademarks, featuring the Pinkerton Detective badge, without permission in “Red Dead Redemption 2.” They claim the Pinkerton National Detective Agency characters “are used as villains, hunting the game’s protagonists.”

Is the villain of a villain not a hero?
 
1C3CB9A800000578-0-image-m-20_1546863586407.jpg
 

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Is the villain of a villain not a hero?
Dunno, Stalin was not exactly good friends with Hitler...

That aside, putting them as the anatonists to the player characters (potentially) associates them with negative emotions from the player.
 

Shifty

Member
See, this is what happens when you have a corporate entity that's existed for 100+ years. They start getting grabby with history.

Unless they can get their hands on some of that sweet payola of course, then it's all good.

tenor.gif


At what point, if any, does this kind of thing become public domain? Because the longer we exist as a culture the more shit like this is going to start happening.
 
Last edited:

TacosNSalsa

Member
"As you can see your honor, the testes of this particular equine is indicative of the time period as the creases and marks on the left side of scrotum were common place inn the 1800s denoting the historical accuracy of our product. "
 

CeeJay

Member
I don't get why using the trademarked Pinkerton name and using recognisable Pinkerton badges is any different to putting something in the game like say Coca-Cola? To me this seems like Pinkertons have a case.
 

ultrazilla

Gold Member
If Take 2 and Rockstar are smart, they'll settle this out of court. Just from reading the OP, Pinkerton seems to have a pretty solid case. Rockstar using the 1st Amendment as a defense is laughable. You can't violate someone's trademark and claim 1st amendment protections.
 

rockyt

Member
I don't get why using the trademarked Pinkerton name and using recognisable Pinkerton badges is any different to putting something in the game like say Coca-Cola? To me this seems like Pinkertons have a case.
Yeah I think Pinkerton has a case.

I would like to also add that in movies the studios do have to pay FBI, Military, states name and so on if they are featured in the movies. Cannot use or reference an organization name or emblem without paying them or face legal action.
 

rockyt

Member
See, this is what happens when you have a corporate entity that's existed for 100+ years. They start getting grabby with history.

Unless they can get their hands on some of that sweet payola of course, then it's all good.

tenor.gif


At what point, if any, does this kind of thing become public domain? Because the longer we exist as a culture the more shit like this is going to start happening.
The company names, emblem, and logo still exist. It's different than a normal IP. For example in movies they do not use a police badge and so on without having paying the organization their fee. Small indie studio get around this by using fake unrealistic badges, fake uniforms, and made up law enforcement, but in movies especially big budget ones they usually reference real organizations. They have to pay all these organizations and even the states if the states name and location is used. Games get away with a lot of stuff but the closer they get to realism and use actual references and location the more they will have to pay.
 
Last edited:
Does the modern Pinkerton company really want to dredge up their old shenanigans over a game set during the time said shenanigans took place?

Which will hurt their PR worse, a videogame, or the historically state-sanctioned murders they participated in being blasted all over the media?
 

Shin

Banned
The name Pinkerton have been used in so many other forms/medium I don't see them going after those.
 

Lucumo

Member
Wow! How is that a general lack of knowledge because I don’t know about your poncy agency??
Mine? I'm not even American. And yes, it's general knowledge. Heck, the agency is even featured in some pretty famous British book "series".
 

Hudo

Member
I honestly didn't know that the Pinkertons were still a thing. I thought that the company folded after the era of the wild west and frontiersmen came to an end. But then again, I am not from the US.
 
I didn’t even realise they were real. U.K. here so don’t judge.

It's all good. Wikipedia has you covered on this if you're interested--they're a not-so-good part of Westward Expansion and the labor rights movements in the United States, often being employed as thugs/muscle by the Federal Government to break strikes or intimidate citizens.

As for using Pinkertons, considering that the Pinkterton Consulting and Investigations hasn't gone after other works that use the Pinkertons, and that the Pinktertons have been referenced/used as a historical foil for decades...they really don't have much of a case.
 
"They're portraying us as villains"

"Well accept a lump sum"

So you don't care about been portrayed as villains you just want money?
 
Last edited:

ph33rknot

Banned
If Take 2 and Rockstar are smart, they'll settle this out of court. Just from reading the OP, Pinkerton seems to have a pretty solid case. Rockstar using the 1st Amendment as a defense is laughable. You can't violate someone's trademark and claim 1st amendment protections.
Patch it out make it the purpletons
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
It's free publicity and possibly free money for the Pinks. Win-win.

I think they have a valid lawsuit. The historical bit would only hold water if Rockstar were depicting an actual documented historical event involving the Pinkertons. As this is fiction, I have a feeling they will be paying up.
 
Last edited:

Von Hugh

Member
If Take 2 and Rockstar are smart, they'll settle this out of court. Just from reading the OP, Pinkerton seems to have a pretty solid case. Rockstar using the 1st Amendment as a defense is laughable. You can't violate someone's trademark and claim 1st amendment protections.

Are you pretending to be a news website author, or why are you using bolded names?

Funny to see Pinkertons still being massive douchebags even over 100 years later.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
I don't get why using the trademarked Pinkerton name and using recognisable Pinkerton badges is any different to putting something in the game like say Coca-Cola? To me this seems like Pinkertons have a case.

Things change a bit given that the Pinkertons played a major historical role at the time.

For analogies: imagine if Coca-Cola had fielded a famous company of soldiers in World War II. If you made a game depicting a major battle where the Coca-Cola company fought and were striving for historical realism, you'd have to mention the fizzy drink brand regardless of its copyright.
 

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
I wonder if they could call it a parody of the actual Pinkertons and thereby be under fair use. Considering how extensive they want to make their case. Who is to say RDR isn't a parody of the old west (in some areas at least).
 

ScHlAuChi

Member
It's free publicity and possibly free money for the Pinks. Win-win.
I think they have a valid lawsuit. The historical bit would only hold water if Rockstar were depicting an actual documented historical event involving the Pinkertons. As this is fiction, I have a feeling they will be paying up.

Why did the never sue Lucky Luke then?
1850081-achde4.jpg
 
Last edited:

OldBoyGamer

Banned
I don't know if they did or not, but it's their prerogative to sue whoever they want. Obviously there is more money in the case of Rockstar so it is worth the effort.

My understanding is that this does make a big difference because prescedence is a massive thing in law.

The reason why some IP holders use litigious means to stop people using their dead IP's is exactly so that at no point can anyone using that IP can claim a prescedence was set by allowing someone else to use it.
 

Domisto

Member
Patch it out make it the purpletons
I vote Pimpletons. There should be a poll.

Those kind of names are great, RockStar should be doing it anyway. Nuka Cola. Or all those weird ass names in Wrestling Revolution, Hank Slogan?

Due to my serious deficit of general knowledge I never heard of these cowboys anyway so their non existent reputation has now been elevated to 'money grubbers'.
 

ultrazilla

Gold Member
Are you pretending to be a news website author, or why are you using bolded names?

Funny to see Pinkertons still being massive douchebags even over 100 years later.

There's a bunch of posting options and I like to bold company names. I do this with all my posts.
 

A.Romero

Member
I bet they know it's reaching but decided that it's worth a try.

I hope they lose. It's a dangerous precedent for copyright.
 

CeeJay

Member
Things change a bit given that the Pinkertons played a major historical role at the time.

For analogies: imagine if Coca-Cola had fielded a famous company of soldiers in World War II. If you made a game depicting a major battle where the Coca-Cola company fought and were striving for historical realism, you'd have to mention the fizzy drink brand regardless of its copyright.
In the scenario you describe, yes I do agree with you, it would be difficult to tell the story without mentioning the copyrighted material. However, the locations and events in RDR2 are fictitious so a more accurate scenario would be something more like;

A game depicting fictitious events in fictitious locations taking place during world war II while also using the Coca-Cola company name and branding. Coca-Cola was associated with some actual real events that happened at the time that it cannot be untangled from by telling THAT story but not related to the story that this game is telling. The large fiction element puts the historical accuracy argument on shaky ground and it becomes something more like unauthorised use of an other company's trademark to give your own fictitious story legitimacy. It's like telling the story of Micheal Jordan and using the Nike trademark only it's not Michael Jordan or his story, it's someone else but still using the Nike trademark.
 

Petrae

Member
Somebody at TTWO Legal fucked up. 2K Games/Irrational got away with a mention of the Pinkertons in Bioshock Infinite, but Red Dead 2 is a much higher-profile game, raking in Scrooge McDuck-like cash. That got the attention of the trademark holder, and... POOF! Lawsuit!

Passing mention of the Pinkertons is one thing. Use of the badge, as alleged, without an agreement? Yeah, I’m pulling for the trademark holder here. TTWO can afford to share some of that pyramid of cash the game has made.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
In the scenario you describe, yes I do agree with you, it would be difficult to tell the story without mentioning the copyrighted material. However, the locations and events in RDR2 are fictitious so a more accurate scenario would be something more like;

A game depicting fictitious events in fictitious locations taking place during world war II while also using the Coca-Cola company name and branding. Coca-Cola was associated with some actual real events that happened at the time that it cannot be untangled from by telling THAT story but not related to the story that this game is telling. The large fiction element puts the historical accuracy argument on shaky ground and it becomes something more like unauthorised use of an other company's trademark to give your own fictitious story legitimacy. It's like telling the story of Micheal Jordan and using the Nike trademark only it's not Michael Jordan or his story, it's someone else but still using the Nike trademark.

Well, it is tricky -- the point, I'd say, is that it's not as simple as Pinkerton makes it out to be. RDR2 may not be completely realistic, but it is striving to recreate the American cultural climate at the time... and that means law enforcement contracted out to a company like Pinkerton.
 

Petrae

Member
Well, it is tricky -- the point, I'd say, is that it's not as simple as Pinkerton makes it out to be. RDR2 may not be completely realistic, but it is striving to recreate the American cultural climate at the time... and that means law enforcement contracted out to a company like Pinkerton.

So why not change the name instead of stealing a real trademark without consent or agreement? It’s not a history textbook. It’s a form of entertainment— and most other mediums are smart enough to work this stuff out with trademark holders before releasing said movie/game.
 
And just like that Pinkerton tarnished their own brand themselves more than anyone else and from now on will be viewed as cheap beggars and nothing else. Well done.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
My understanding is that this does make a big difference because prescedence is a massive thing in law.

The reason why some IP holders use litigious means to stop people using their dead IP's is exactly so that at no point can anyone using that IP can claim a prescedence was set by allowing someone else to use it.
That's a good point. I'm not a lawyer, but that's the excuse Bethesda always uses.
 
Top Bottom