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.
This is most likely based on SCP-3008 , which parodies the hard-to-navigate nature of Ikea (and adds some horror elements based on it). A generic store will not have the same impact.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
Also, Ikea path isn't actually unicursal, there are shortcuts (famously hard to spot but otherwise accessible for all shoppers).
So long as the state also makes frequent use of this disparity the loophole will remain open. The state would rather let corporations run over individuals then give up the power to do so themselves.
So, sure, if I opened up a Swedish-themed store that sold cheap furniture and Swedish meatballs, then called it MyKEA or something, and had the employees wear shirts with yellow vertical stripes on them, I'd be an idiot not to expect a nastygram from IKEA legal regarding my infringing use of their mark in commerce. The question seems to be "Does depicting a store and using recognizable elements of its brand identity in a commercial video game count as 'use of the mark in commerce?'" To that question, you & I may answer "no," but IKEA, and possibly the law, might answer the other way.
I'm certain that same building is in Google Maps. And it might be in Flight Simulator, give that it's built from satellite images.
[1] https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close...
Branding is a thing. Recognizable brands are the essence of trademark. This day and age is not new.
Like, in 1990 you could imagine a Wal-Mart moving into an old K-Mart's location and not tearing the building down and starting over, and probably not even doing a ton of façade work. Now? Only 3rd-tier sorts of chains go into storefronts without extensive renovation, at least, and the top-tier brands all seem to want to start with an empty slab. You only see the old style in rural small towns that haven't caught up yet (and maybe never will—perhaps there's no way to make a decent ROI on tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra branding in those places). Or, oddly, in places that have really strict building codes for commercial storefronts that forbid breaking from a certain style, so you tend to see the more muted branding in both very-well-off places, and very poor ones, though expressed differently.
You mean franchised. And while perhaps not the dictionary definition, in practice it is the literal definition of a franchise that every instance looks the same as every other one.
Copying the arches is basically copying a logo, and I'm pretty sure nothing like that happened here?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ziggygamedev/the-store-...
If you asked me to describe it from the first picture, I might say, “It’s a picture of a monster in front of an Ikea store,” and I might not even notice that it’s not an Ikea store.
I don’t understand the “this isn’t infringement” argument, since it looks super obvious like it is supposed to be an Ikea store. I have a hard time imagining someone looking at the picture and saying, “That’s definitely not an Ikea store.”
True, but none of those names are owned by a corporation as trademarks. If there was a store that with white/minimalist decor that sold similarly designed cell phones, laptops, and tablets and had a name and logo referencing a fruit, what you have to ask yourself is if Apple would care.
Honestly, I am not sure. If Fight Club can literally have an actual Starbucks cup in every scene and the production company not get sued, I don't even know what that's about. Everybody knows that movie isn't about Brad Pitt beating the crap out of a bunch of other guys for funsies, right? I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess, I'd bet they didn't license the cup or the logo from Starbucks, either.
Trademark protections only come into play when there's risk of customer confusion. So even without the parity claim GTA and the game in the OP are almost certainly fine. No one is going to be confused and think that Ikea has put out an Indie computer game.
Apparently they did not, because GTA V references "iFruit phones" with not just the in-game phones but also branded merchandise for the characters, an Internet radio station, and even a separate downloadable iFruit app for your real world smartphone.
Or there are darker truths and IKEA DOES have products that the horror is competing with
Yeah, it does. This isn’t a traditional parody on the surface, but IKEA being a labyrinth of horrors can pretty clearly be read as a parody on their unorthodox store design (no one’s making a horror game about being trapped in a Best Buy lmao). The Creative Commons horror story this is ripped off of is officially named “A Perfectly Normal, Regular Old IKEA” on the site (although no one uses the names of SCPs), which adds to that.
I know of at least one horror movie made about a supermarket [0], so it's not unprecedented. The IKEA-like aspect here is less "big store after dark" and more of the seemingly infinite maze, which at this point is pretty much a trademark for the brand...
----
So Weird Al could have made all his songs without permission (but he gets it to be polite) - though he’d still have to pay licensing to use the music iirc.
There’s case law about it. Barbie Girl may be involved. Snoopy vs the Red Baron also.
But this response comic was parody of the subject matter, so it is fine: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/04/28/read-it-before...
If you are really doing this check with a lawyer who works in the area (admittedly few).
Compare to Carl & Phil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJEN1pvZ60 - that's clearly a Costco/Sam's Club parody (and they also have FedUPS as a delivery company) but it's not being used to "sell".
It's very complicated and involves trademark AND copyright law, so it could go either way.
Also see Sosumi and BHA ;)
Well I wouldn't.
> since it looks super obvious like it is supposed to be an Ikea store
It's supposed to be similar. But trademark isn't an issue unless there's real potential for confusion, and a single glance at a photo where the building is 80% blocked doesn't count.
When someone has a pear phone, it's obvious what that compares to, and it's also obvious that it's not the same brand.
I think it really depends on jurisdiction. If it was adjudicated somewhere with the Roger’s test, I think it would have a very decent chance. For example, take Seuss v Comicmix, in which Comicmix didn’t sufficiently meet the bar for parody on copyright grounds but cleared trademark fair use.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ebdcd5aa-17b1...
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-3008
Still, IKEA should chill out and be happy that they are a part of popculture.
I'm not saying IKEA has a fool-proof case, or even is really worth the effort, but if people are looking at a thing that looks like IKEA and saying, hey, that's an IKEA, then that's probably enough to get it heard in court.
IKEA should just embrace it.
Consumers of Weird Al and SNL know that the original artist isn't advertising. Consumers of games might not know that the original company isn't advertising?
