https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close...
Updated: 10/31/22, 12.00a.m. ET: Ikea UK got back to us this morning, providing the following statement:
While we think it’s flattering that others are inspired by the IKEA brand, we must be diligent to ensure that the IKEA trademarks and trade dress are not misapplied. Various elements of the video game currently correspond in appearance with the IKEA brand features. We’ve reached out to the creator of the video and asked them to make changes to those elements to ensure that this is no longer the case. They expressed that they understand our request and agreed to make those changes. This should all be well in time for the expected 2024 launch of the game.
From the site guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ziggygamedev/the-store-...
Fortunately, the letter in question lists the element IKEA finds objectionable: "Your game uses a blue and yellow sign with a Scandinavian name on the store, a blue box-like building, yellow vertical striped shirts identical to those worn by IKEA personnel, a gray path on the floor, furniture that looks like IKEA furniture, and product signage that looks like IKEA signage."
No question that the building exterior and signage are based on IKEA. They might actually violate a trademark. The shirts, sure, not sure that's trademarked, though. Some of the furniture designs might be.
It’s also fair use, no one in their right mind would ever think this is an IKEA product and it doesn’t compete with IKEA in any way
Edit: Apparently the Kickstarter says “Explore the underground SCP laboratories and build towers to the sky to find a way out”. Gee, wonder what company was directly mentioned in the corresponding SCP story
The risk for the developers is that they (probably) don't have the money to fight IKEA in court. Thus, placating them is a more reasonable approach, especially considering that IKEA seem to be good sports about it.
Anyone remembers about ikeahackers.net? IKEA initially shut it off on bogus trademark violation claims, then backed off only after public outcry.
https://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Site-that-broug...
Literally what they tried to do.
Could've blamed it on an over-zealous employee in the legal department, but instead ran with pretending it didn't happen.
I have no interest in the game, but I'd chip into a legal-defense fund for it.
Then again, the "parody" defense may require something more than "the setting is obviously a take on this trademark", something sufficient to label it "transformative". No clue what the legal standard for that is.
Even in US law, no, there's no scenario wherein the lawsuit against IKEA would be worth ~$50k in revenue (not profit).
[1] https://escapefromtarkov.fandom.com/wiki/IDEA_cash_register_...
2. This is not a copyright issue (trademark dilution)
Also re the ‘our hands are tied, we must protect our mark’ claims, it’s always an option to license the use.
https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2020/11/tradem...
If Weird Al did a song about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody.
If SNL did a skit about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody.
If The Onion wrote an article about being stuck in an IKEA, it would be parody.
Thus, if Jacob Shaw makes a game about being stuck in a (fictional) IKEA, it seems like parody.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33424587
IKEA sues indie game developer over survival horror game set in furniture store - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33424587 - Nov 2022 (16 comments)
IKEA Asks Horror Game to Change So Folks Stop IKEA Comparisons - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33407015 - Oct 2022 (13 comments)
IKEA issues cease and desist against indie developer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33405541 - Oct 2022 (7 comments)
IKEA's actions concern me a little. The sub-genre of Urban Fantasy will call in lots of real world elements and then blend in something supernatural. This might have chilling effects for certain kinds of story telling.
> Your game uses a blue and yellow sign with a Scandinavian name on the store, a blue box-like building, yellow vertical striped shirts identical to those worn by IKEA personnel, a gray path on the floor, furniture that looks like IKEA furniture, and product signage that looks like IKEA signage.
is truly, unmistakenly supposed to be a fictional totally-not-IKEA-but-yeah-its-IKEA store. If, instead of furniture, the store had been filled with TVs, large appliances, laptops, cell phones, and related merchandise, while the staff wore blue shirts with yellow name tags, I'm sure you'd have no trouble picking out which store I was describing, in spite of not saying the name, right?
I haven't read the full letter, but this smells like they might be going after a trademark infringement theory. If that's the case, corporations are obligated to do shit like bully video game developers, if they believe that the game's use of their branding would cause confusion or harm the identity of their mark. So, those who condemn IKEA here might just literally be condemning them for being vigorous participants in the capitalist marketplace.
> if they believe that the game's use of their branding would cause confusion or harm the identity of their mark
My understanding is "confusion" is centered around people trying to make similar products that seem like they are made by a famous brand. This would be more like if somebody opened a furniture store in a blue box-like building, yellow vertical striped shirts, Scandinavian themed, and named NOKEA[0].
"Harm the identity of their mark" is interesting. It seems intentionally vague, which makes sense[1]. I wouldn't be surprised if the word "harm" is used in the legalese, but it can't possibly cover all cases of potential harm, right? If so, I couldn't review any IKEA product as that arguably "harms the mark" [2].
Basically, I'm curious what "harms" are generally acceptable and which are not. I'm sure this is a really big subject, but in my non-lawyer opinion, it feels like IKEA has a weaker case here because it's a video game and not a furniture store[3].
[0]: Might actually be infringing on two for the price of one!
[1]: To the dismay of programmers everywhere, having hard and fast rules for trademark infringment doesn't really make sense. Those just become instructions for how to infringe legally.
[2]: Tying into previous parts, even if I don't use the word "IKEA", it could still (reasonably) be tied back to them.
[3]: Assuming the game maker removes the purported direct usage of the word "IKEA".
In many games you have cars or guns which are obvious lookalikes of real life cars and weapons but have their names changed to avoid copyright infringements.
Look at GTA. They can pretend it's taking place in Los Santos, Las Venturas and San Fierro, but we know what real life locations they are meant to represent. We know what that VINEWOOD letters on the hills are meant to represent, we know what "Area 69" military base is meant to represent.
IANAL, but AIUI they're only obligated to do something, but that something can be "tell the developers that they need to get approval to use trademarked stuff and then immediately hand them permission to use the trademark for free". It's all about controlling use of the trademark, not being obligated to be a bully about it.
So long as the game does not claim to be sponsored, supported or be acting in the name of Ikea, it should be allowed to do what it wants.
https://youtu.be/cPT6GlMWEjU?t=69
So...
"Check out the official reveal of the new Open-World Action Horror game that has you explore an infinite IKEA store and survive it's many different entities and discover it's secrets"
We need some kind of real, actual tort reform here that does allow individuals to take on corporations. Corporations won't like that, of course, but this is a "too damn bad" type scenario in my mind. The big, practical question in my mind is "How do you do something like this without running up against Citizens United?". I think we may have capitalism'ed ourselves into a corner here.
Video games are artwork, playable artwork, but still I thought art was protected in a way. How will VR worlds that resemble real structures be treated?
We did it because it's a maze of blind corners and weird little hidey-hole closets.
But oh boy did I learn about art protections through that process. They don't exist when it comes to violence of any kind, even perceived violence.
> How will VR worlds that resemble real structures be treated?
Probably just like anything else that falls under these laws; copyright laws and licenses. I can imagine a hotel would be OK to be in a virtual world, just as long as no people get virtually shot in there.
Not in that case. The game takes place in a amsterdam and they intentionally tried to make it as realistic as possible(just changing names). And in that map, you play inside that particular hotel and then part of the hotel gets destroyed.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/amsterdam-hotel-call-of...
So it is not really coincidence.
But is it worth doing a legal battle over it? I don't think so, but the hotel owners surely got attention.
step 1: Change the textures and make it possible for users to add their custom texture packs. (yea, it's more work but may help to build community)
step 2: Oh no some anonymous users have created texture packs with IKEA colors and sharing it with each other. They could go after the users but good luck going after all the file-sharing options.
When asked about it, they'll explain it's just corporate branding.
This Roblox version doesn't have weapons, but it's pretty fun, actually. Ask your kids -- they probably played it.
There is nothing special about Ikea furniture. its generic slop made of compressed wood like the stuff you find in office furniture at your local bank.
Their brand is recognizable, despite your objections to their product.
Disclaimer: I am not, nor will ever be, a lawyer
Weird Al actually secures permission and never relies on parody protection, but if he didn't then "Fat" would fail, Michael Jackson was many things but notably fat was not one of them, whereas his "Smells Like Nirvana" is a parody because it's about Cobain's incomprehensible singing and other aspects of the Nirvana song.
So what's the commentary here for IKEA?
Saying that something is a parody isn't exactly hard.
That it's a dystopian hellhole inhabited by zombies?
This is technically true, but according to an interview he said he doesn't actually have to do it by law, but rather by goodwill. That's because "parody" encompasses more than only direct commentary, and actually is just a detail under "fair use" which is a whole lot more general.
Seems pretty clear to me. IKEA is known for being mazelike and easy to get lost in. The game is an exaggerated horror take on that.
Honestly I don't understand their move as it is free advertising to them.
I would probably invert the colors. Having a yellow store and blue shirts would not look like IKEA at all.
If anything should have been working with them on an official version of it using real Ikea 3D models. Like make it even more accurate if anything.
Marketing wise would have been crazy good.
https://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/19/ikea-backs-down-in-legal-k...
I cannot do a horror movie that passes in a public place of sales?
Please this should be thrown out in a second in court and damages paid to the author for his sufferings and worrying
1. Ikea sent a C&D to a small indie developer alleging trademark infringement or trademark dilution (NOT copyright). Seems like this has been lost a bit, and most articles are reporting on other articles.
2. If go to the Kickstarter page, the Ikea branding features prominently in the promotional materials for the game. It LOOKS like blatant trademark infringement or dilution to me. It’s not like you fire up the game and find out that it’s set in an Ikea. The game is marketed as a game set in Ikea, except for the term “Ikea” itself, which is scrubbed out.
3. I can’t see any parody angle here. It seems like it’s a horror game which is supposed to be set in an Ikea, but it’s not making any kind of commentary on Ikea. Like, how is this supposed to be some kind of protected speech? As far as I can tell, it’s “What if you were trapped inside an Ikea, and there were monsters?”
People seem to like it for the David vs. Goliath angle. However, nothing about this needs to be set in Ikea. Just like how SCP-173 didn’t need to use that particular artwork. If you think it was right for SCP-173 to change artwork, but it’s wrong for this SCP-derived game to change the branding for its setting… why?
Edit: For context:
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14469202/announcement-r...
> However, as authors (and staff) didn't know much about licensing originally (nor did SCP have the significance at the time for it to be as big of a deal), they would often grab images from the Internet at random, including images that their creators would not allow the use of.
> […]
> Izumi Kato has extremely graciously allowed us to use Untitled 2004 on our site, on the condition that Untitled 2004's itself or its likeness would not be used for commercial purposes. Nonetheless, we cannot indefinitely keep the image on SCP-173's page, especially since it has become increasingly difficult for us to prevent Untitled 2004's likeness from being used for commercial purposes by others as SCP grows.
> Licensing aside, Untitled 2004's usage on the Wiki is also an ethical issue. Izumi Kato did not intend nor ask for his art to be used as an SCP, and the meaning and purpose of Untitled 2004 has been, in some ways, permanently tainted by its use in the article. Kato kindly and retroactively allowed its use for SCP-173 in 2014 on condition, but it was clear he was not happy with the situation. Additionally, his art's been exploited by third parties trying to profit off of SCP, which has likely caused him much distress.
> As such, we believe the most correct course of action in this situation is to remove Untitled 2004 from SCP-173. Although this process has been delayed significantly, the longer we wait, the more harm is done to Izumi Kato's creative vision and the risk of legal issues becomes greater.
Sure it does. IKEA either invented or popularized the concept of designing a store in a maze-like structure, to _force_ customers to walk through aisles of product to entice them to buy something, even if they're not looking for anything in particular. If you walk into an IKEA store, the only way out is to walk through the entire store. It's why they have one-way arrows to guide the traffic.
This layout is particular to IKEA, and no other store evokes the sense of dread of being forcefully locked in a retail environment. This is why having a horror game set in an environment that parodies IKEA specifically makes a lot of sense, and would connect far more with players than if it was set in some random store.
