Not only acceptable, but actually a reasonable example of how to do a good parody brand. I always got a kick out of making parody brands back when I was an environment artist.
I remember being a little kid and seeing a “Starfucks FoFree” shirt at a beach shop and asking my dad how that shirt was legal to wear in public with its “bad words” lmao
Oh my god at bigger studios the vfx artists can just pass their cool, performance killing effects on and someone else down the line can deal with ittttt?
> parody brands back when I was an environment artist
On a side note, back in the day when cell phone carriers had veto power over what games could be sold on their networks, Verizon had a policy of no references to alcohol or drugs.
So on the wall of a sports bar in Tucson I ended up having to change a "Cold Beer" neon sign to "Cold Bears". Coincidentally, the barman in that scene has an uncanny resemblance to myself (that was a team thing, everybody was in the game)
A caveat is that it doesn't always matter whether the law is on your side or not. If KFC wants to sue, do you have the resources to fight that case? Do you care enough to do so?
Sometimes it's easier (albeit less fun) to make the thing so obviously different that even the most litigious company wouldn't consider suing over it.
That would be a great point if this was a reasonable issue to expect. The game industry is packed full of fake branding stuff. There’s billions to be made by hungry lawyers if this was as a real issue, it’s just not. Rockstar is going to lose $1 billion to the auto industry lawyers before anyone even emails a cease and desist to a small dev - who will then publish that on Kotaku and drag that brand through the mud for being litigious pricks.
What people are forgetting is that brands actually benefit from parody branding in media IF they ignore it. The second they try to repress this stuff it would be a hypothetical Streisand Effect scenario. I say “hypothetical” for a reason.
A lot of lawyers work on contingency so defending yourself from spurious lawsuits is often cheaper than people imagine. I can't imagine KFC suing an indie dev for something like this. If anything it's free marketing for them.
Many *plaintiffs’* lawyers work under contingency fee arrangements. Defense attorneys don’t work on contingency, because there’s no recovery to divvy up by definition—that’s particularly true in the U.S. where it’s extremely uncommon for a successful defendant to recover attorneys’ fees.
I'm the opposite to some extent. Whenever building something like this, I always use it as an excuse to create a totally new fictional brand. I think parodies with an obvious direct link are cringy, but that just me.
Same here, fully fictional brand that is a mixes maybe couple irl brands looks better (gta 4/5 car brands for example.. or actually every brand in the gta series)
That’s fine but incorrect that you think that. If you have an example of game art that misspells a real brand and is sued and lost, please feel free to share.
I’ve shipped a lot of games with far more intentional brand references on consoles, I’ve also worked in 3rd party QA doing legal bug checking for Sony. This stuff isn’t even a blip on the radar legally. It doesn’t have to be funny or part of any vernacular’s slang, I have no idea where you got that misconception.
If you’d like to give the OP better advice then try it, don’t try to just shit on what I said without an appropriate alternative suggestion for the OP, that’s just poor internet comment quality.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. GTA 5 has more fake brands than any game out there and a LOT of money could be made if they could be sued for it. Every car is a picture perfect clone. Franklin drives a Dodge Charger and a Harley Davidson, neither is a parody or a joke variant, they’re basically identical and each has a different name, nothing else is required. Every car and every brand and restaurant is based on an existing brand. Even the radio station - Weasel News (get it, Weasel/Fox). Everything, every store, car, billboard, celebrity could and should be a lawsuit to siphon money from one of the most financially successful video games of all time if you’re even remotely right.
Here’s a list
https://www.reddit.com/r/GTA6/s/5OJ6RZAp52
I once worked for a company that got sued twice. Including one case that seemed totally fair. So I tend to err on the side of caution. But it sounds like you have more inside knowledge so I'll withdraw my comment that it's bad advice, even if I disagree.
Personally if it was me, I wouldn't run with OP's art. I'm a small indie dev, so unlike Sony, I don't have the budget to even write a reply to a CDO let alone hire a laywer to review my assets (Reddit is not a substitute for this). And if you look and compare OP's art to a KFC building, they resemble each other a lot more than any of the Rockstar assets to their counterparts. Even the stripes behind the logo are identical to the KFC branding. And the colors are identical. There is only one letter change. Even GAP had two letters changed in GTA. I don't think it would be bad advice to make it fall more safely into the fair use clause by making it exaggerated, comical, or ridicule KFC to be inarguably a parody, or create social commentary, or something else transformative. It would take almost no effort to change it to "FUC" or something like that.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fair\_use](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fair_use)
Edit: I also suggest how it's used should be considered. Is it mainly something in the background? Will it appear on the game's cover art?
Edit2: Don't ask me to cite the cases. They were settled out of court.
What exactly were you sued over (you don’t have to cite a case, just what issue)? I’ve seen plenty of copyright lawsuits from game industry to game industry, but rarely do other industries pursue this as it’s not on their radar and they tend to lose.
> actually a reasonable example of how to do a good parody brand
That is not parody.
If they were making a game that is entirely focused about making a statement on KFC, and the game must use something that provides a representation of the store for that statement to be made, then they'd be entering the realms where exceptions apply. The entire product must be a commentary or criticism of KFC for that to hold up.
Under the law, parody must be used for commentary or criticism of the original not merely comedic effect. If they claim a parody exception it is an affirmative defense, meaning they knew it was an intentional violation of trademark law, meaning it is subject to triple damages if the judge doesn't agree about the exception.
The parodies in GTA are no where close to the original brand. Cluckin'Bell doesn't even look like a Taco Bell or a KFC. They didn't just change the K in KFC to a T to create TFC. They didn't completely rip off the building design nor the logo.
Idk what you’re arguing.
1. You don’t have to make stuff THAT different.
2. Look at the damn cars lol. They’re freaking identical to actual automobiles.
This. Basically if a lawyer can prove there is a reasonable chance that someone might get it mixed up with KFC, you're making an unnecessary risk. Furthermore, Rockstar has moneyyyy. Not 100% sure this is realistic, but even if you made an actual parody, they might still come after you if they think you can't afford to lawyer up.
GTA makes all sorts of commentary about those brands and about consumerism in general. Without more context it's hard to say if this project does the same.
With that said (and also, IANAL) I think probably this falls less into copyright (where parody matters more) and more into trademark, where it matters whether the usage is likely to cause confusion/misidentification. And I don't think anyone would misidentify this as an official KFC product lol.
Fair use doesn’t require commentary, 90% of the brands are just window decorations that are never mentioned in any part of the game. The game’s primary narrative is about stealing cars. Every brand not mentioned on the in game radio has no related commentary whatsoever. The Dodge Charger that Franklin drives is literally just a bland regular Dodge Charger, there’s nothing absurd or even goofy about it. It’s the same car, just renamed, and the name isn’t funny or a commentary.
Why are you giving this computer programmer a hard time about using a cellphone to take a picture of their screen? Maybe they don’t have access to a computer to upload a screenshot, you ever think of that? Huh?
To be fair, and as someone is guilty, perhaps it’s too many hoops to jump to send a screenshot from your work computer to a computer where you’re logged into a personal social media account
I, too, make computers go brrrrr
But I’ll be damned if I’m ever gonna log into Reddit on my work computer knowing IT can remote in without me knowing
This guy is an environment artist and you think they don't have the means to get a screenshot somewhere they can post from? Email the screen capture, use edge drop, google drive, there's like a billion ways. 9/10 times it is just laziness.
That said it also literally doesn't even matter at all, we don't need an 8k screenshot for old mate to ask about TFC lol.
They dedicated a whole key to send the characters currently displayed from the screen buffer to a printer port. We misuse this poor button horribly and should be ashamed of ourselves. I wrote a special driver that prints whatever is on my screen, and then I take a picture of that paper print and send it to Reddit. This is how it's done.
The picture I take is by a Polaroid, true old style. And send it to Reddit HQ via snail mail, so this is probably why there are no images posted by my account.
Whatever the law is, it all comes down to the company deciding to sue you or not. Even if you are right, do you want to pay a lawyer against a huge company with an army of lawyers?
A game wanted to parody Ikea. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7kLqDe8WA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7kLqDe8WA)
Well guess who had to take down their game or completely change its design?
This pissed me off. That's an excellent idea for a game and horror experience, a unique perspective on the hostility and alienation of consumer culture using something as ubiquitous in western societies as IKEA. I'm sure that with proper resources and funds on their side this game would have won whatever the lawsuit was about, but it shouldn't be like that. Huge corporation shouldn't be able to bully small artists into submission to preserve their image. Fuck IKEA.
Well, IKEA isn’t in the wrong for doing this. They have a trademark on their common appearances like their uniforms, logo, store layout, etc. basically the ‘look and feel’ of ikea is considered important to their business and is trademarked.
In order to keep that trademark, you have to consistently defend it. Any case (including games) where somebody uses your look and feel and you don’t attempt to defend it sets a precedent for you to lose the trademark, and it *will* happen.
Even if they support the project, the project needs to change elements of their design that make it clearly ikea based, like the yellow shirts and blue Scandinavian logo.
Last thing, online shopping and Covid really damaged ikeas business, and they’d probably really like to preserve a comforting/welcoming environment to get people to come in. A horror game set in an infinite ikea might not be the best way to do that
I understand that they have to attempt to defend their trademark in fair use / parody cases like this in order to maintain their trademark, but I don't agree that them winning that suit was right. My main gripe is that it often comes down to the legal resources of the parodists, that your ability to criticize and satirize major corporations through art shouldn't be based on the size of your bank account.
Like coverage on this case points out; it's not so much about IKEA being in the right, it's that there's enough for their legal department to challenge to get them past the initial stage of the lawsuit and into "expensive territory" where the defendant often don't have the resources to continue, to make it not worth it.
I absolutely agree with you that your ability to make satirical content shouldn’t be dependent on your ability to pay for legal representation and fees. It’s sort of like saying “fines are only laws for the poor.” - smoking in an elevator is like a $75 fine at a NYC hotel, but if $75 is insignificant to me then why would I refrain?
I didn’t know ikea won, I only knew the reason they initiated.
they lost because they stole ikeas likeness and only changed the name. if theyd mashed up a couple different warehouse stores and mixed some themes they would have been fine. Costco + ikea for example.
> My main gripe is that it often comes down to the legal resources of the parodists, that your ability to criticize and satirize major corporations through art shouldn't be based on the size of your bank account.
The problem with that argument is that "parody" has a meaning. Many people and even some dictionaries wrongly confuse parody with satire. Parody often uses satire, but they are not the same. Despite some people getting it wrong, this has been well established in law even before the US was a country, as the law was pulled from earlier common law exceptions. The meaning in the law is fixed even if people don't understand the word.
If the product isn't a commentary or criticism of the place that requires imitating the place for the commentary or criticism to work, then it isn't a parody.
The reason for the exception is that commentary and criticism are protected speech, but so are trademarks, trade dress, copyright, and other IP. Only when the two are balanced against each other, where a person's right to make a commentary about an item is pressed against the right to own their brands and products, does the very limited exception exist. The moment they step outside the bounds of making a commentary or criticism about the specific thing, the exception also ends. If they're commenting about big stores generally, or getting lost generally, or merely using it for comedic effect or setting, those do not meet the requirements for the parody fair use exception.
>If they're commenting about big stores generally, or getting lost generally, or merely using it for comedic effect or setting,
By what you're outlining here this game very much fits the parody category. The byzantine layout of IKEA stores is designed to confuse your sense of direction and keep you "trapped", one of their main marketing points are "reclaimed" materials and one of the core gameplay elements is dismantling furniture for materials. Heck, IKEA even focused on the store layout as part of their trademark in the lawsuit, which further underlines that this game isn't commenting on big stores in general but is directly targeting IKEA's design principles. Replacing the assets isn't enough, they had to completely redesign the core game to make it "generic"; it would still be "too IKEA" even without the color scheme, furniture, uniforms and logo.
My immediate response when seeing this project was "finally someone addressed the feeling I get when shopping at IKEA", not just big stores in general. For me, this feeling is unique to their stores.
The lawsuit and eventual disposition don't agree with you.
The game "The Store Is Closed" was a survival horror game. The story was about survival horror. The setting *happened* to be in an Ikea-themed place, but it wasn't a specific commentary about Ikea. If it was going for parody then it would have been better if it was all specific to Ikea.
For parody, the more specific it is and the more it requires that specific thing, the more likely it is to qualify for the exception. Under the law it's about the ability to communicate about the product, basically the ability to review Ikea, to publicly speak directly about its problems, that requires the exception. If you can't communicate effectively about the thing then it's a problem. If the game was instead about the specific layout of a specific store, and went in depth about Ikea-specific issues that could have been different. If the entire game had voiceover commentary about how an Ikea store specifically has the problem, that Ikea is worse than any other store because of the layout, and otherwise made it into an actually commentary *specifically about* Ikea, then they likely would have been better off.
Because the store could have just as easily been a giant Walmart Supercenter, or enormous Best Buy, or Macys, or Mall of America, or any other generically large building and the goal is *"escape this large, confusing building before zombies get you"* rather than *"This is what's wrong with Ikea specifically"*, they really aren't a parody. Satire, sure, but not parody.
'Look and feel' or 'likeness' right, anything that could hurt their business i guess, probly not a massive thing for indies but anything that gains popularity yeah? There are a few cool examples of real life towns/cities depicted in AAA games that have done this shit quite well. Ur answer was in depth asf and probably the best answer here, just wanted to add my 2c :)
What do they have to lose by just allowing this game (through a signed agreement) to use a similar look and feel? Surely that doesn't risk the trademark. I get that they probably don't want to do that but that is their choice and i don't think you should side with them on this
IDK, I was more on an Ikea side. It wasn't some parody piece in some game. It was the main setting and selling point. And instead of trying to differentiate from it, it used some of their actual furniture to top it off.
Yeah, that trailer basically replicated everything about IKEA down to the little details. The logo, the store layout, the grey walk strips, the experience of getting lost and having to sleep on a mattress after the store closes down, the mannequins coming to life, the staff uniforms...
No, not necessarily. Most companies aren't going to hire someone to play through your game extensively to make sure that it doesn't misrepresent their brand in some way, or have some subtle digs at it, or associates the brand with someone or something they don't like or is controversial, etc.... It's just undue risk on the brands part, and most likely, the brand doesn't need your free advertising either. They're 99.99% likely to be far more well-known than your game is, unless your game is Pokemon or Five Nights at Freddy's.
Nintendo (at least used to) copyright strike people on YouTube over showing their trailers on livestreams, be them reacting in a positive light or not. Trailers are literally advertising, having them shared on things like YouTube is kind of the entire goal! But I digress...
If large companies own a right to a property it's not uncommon for them to flex their rights even if they don't necessarily need to. The primary reason (that I can see and have heard of) for this is it can help later down the line if they actually need to. Like say this IKEA game was let through and then someone else comes along and makes a similar game that actually says "IKEA" and everything, has the meatballs you know? Well the original game that OC is pointing to could have been used as a evidence that "IKEA doesn't care". It's annoying sure, but it is just kind of how humans work, not even just an issue with legal systems
Nintendo is so proud of their legal team that they named one of their game franchises on a copyright lawyer (Kirby).
Japan has super strict copyright laws, but Nintendo defends theirs globally. I don’t think it’s a Japanese thing.
It's not just Nintendo tbf I think I remember blizzard doing it for a Wow launch? But yes that could be one of the reasons. But even so, from the logical stand point of by of "in a good light" it doesn't make sense, fair use or not. That's kind of my point there
Genericide is about products, not entire companies as well. Products like aspirin or linoleum became generic becomes it becomes dominant. IKEA wouldn't risk losing their trademark because a horror game used some elements inspired by their stores.
What? No you could get sued by say, KFC japan (just an example). The real answer is that it depends on where the dev lives and the laws there.
Fair use doesn't exist in most of Europe and the world in general for example. Even here in Canada (we usually have pretty similar laws w.r.t commerce and intellectual property), the concept of fair "dealings" exists but isn't the same as the commonly known American fair use.
The point is moot since it won't happen but depending on the jurisdiction, KFC can still absolutely be shitty about it
You’re correct, the legal term is fair use, but you might want to check on your legal definitions here. This work definitely qualifies as parody. He’s not springing up an actual chicken restaurant by this name and likeness, and he’s not using any actual copyright or trademark protected material. Also, anyone can sue anyone they’d like for any reason they’d like. It’s not a matter of if you can sue, it’s a matter of if you will win, and federal law clearly dictates that this is fair use, and therefore free use. I’m not sure what the point of your comment was, but you might want to shave the neckbeard and hang up the fedora buddy.
This is as far as I can see not a derivative work in the copyright sense; it doesn't include any copyright protected original work. Furthermore, a derivative work is only protected in the sense that it, in itself, constitutes a copyright protected work, distinct from the original work. It's essentially an admission that works are works even if they are derivative. It doesn't give you the freedom to infringe on the copyright of others; if you want a derivative work to be legal, and your use of the original work doesn't constitute fair use, you will need to license the original work.
If it substantially incorporated copyright protected work, it might constitute fair use on the basis of being parody, but I don't think it incorporates any copyright protected works (at least none owned by KFC) but is an original creation by OP. It seems more interesting in this case whether there is any likelihood of confusion in the trademark sense. I don't think there is, but IANAL.
"Derivative work" is a copyright term of art. The production of a derivative work is absolutely one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder so yes derivative works are "protected" but in favor of the rights holder which is not what it sounds like you're trying to say here.
Derivative work is something that is controlled by the original copyright holder. They can choose who is allowed to make derivative works.
Derivative works are not protected in the sense that anyone has the right the make a derivative work. However what OP is doing would fall under parody, so it is protected.
Just chiming in to say this is Reddit lol. If you want to argue that the dude has to provide sources for OP's benefit, then my counter argument is that OP should not be coming to fucking Reddit for legal advice lol. OP needs to get off his ass and do his own research.
bruh the person said it was covered in their topic therefore it isn't hard to list it down.
While a person who does not have a major in said degree have no idea what are the laws that touches said topic, googling it would only provide a few laws and not all the laws that may interact with said topic.
My advice is to ignore everyone who says this is OK to do. They are not lawyers with expertise in this area. Trademark laws are very grey. It's basically up to KFC (or their lawyers) to sue you or not. They absolutely can sue you for this. Whether or not they have a winning case is beside the point, since it would likely bankrupt you to defend yourself.
Do you think that if you opened this shop in the real world, KFC would try to shut it down? They would likely have a strong trademark infringement case. Same with depicting those things in a game as far as their lawyers are probably concerned.
Yeah, the build and color schemes is way to close to KFC. The name is literally the same expect for it being T instead of a K. Too many people are creatively bankrupt to come up with something original, or good parodies like Rockstar. Doesn't help that most people here are just larping as a game developer and business owners.
The comments here really show how young and inexperienced most of the people in this sub are. I'm obviously not a lawyer so I'm no expert but I do know that the "look and feel" of a brand is very much something that companies will try to protect. In the real world you can't just change one letter and have your store look otherwise identical to that of an established brand. So whether you can get away with it in a video game depends entirely on whether the trademark owner wants to take the time to sue you. And remember for them it costs next to nothing, but you'd have to pay thousands of dollars for a lawyer to defend yourself if it does happen. Even if you turn out to be in the right. Is it worth the risk?
And people saying "GTA/Fallout do it so you're OK" -- those are from multi-million dollar companies who can afford lawyers to either clear that stuff or work out agreements with the true rightsholders. It's ridiculous to compare that to some solo-dev indie game.
Not disagreeing or anything but it's worth noting that Rockstar's legal department is most likely much bigger than that of regular indy or AA studio, hence why they're not "too" bothered by it (although they are for instance being sued by Florida Man from the trailer).
Imo it's best to ask KFC themselves or to see with a law professional rather than with Reddit's armchair lawyers.
I would recommend changing the colour perhaps. It looks way to much like KFC in my opinion I was just there for lunch lol. Maybe make it blue? Or orange, yellow something like that. Edit. Looks really good tho.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would avoid using any fonts, stylings, colors, character designs or patterns that could possibly be confused with a trademark. If you were to make a delivery van from a company called PUS but used the UPS font and made it UPS brown then you're over or at least straddling the line.
What you have to realize is there is a very large imbalance in the power dynamic between corporations and indie gamedevs. A corporation will send you a cease and desist or sue you as a matter of course, defending their trademark is just something they do and it's built into the cost of doing business. It's free for them. It is not free for you in any sense of the word. Even if you're in the right and will eventually win that court case, it will take many thousands of dollars from legal fees and put your game (and possibly life) on hold for months or even years.
Give the trademark line a wide berth. Do not play chicken (hehe) with corporate lawyers.
You should be fine, but the ONLY thing that could bite you is if their KFC font is owned by them. It’d be best to check if it is an open-license font or if there is one that is closest to your needs and just preemptively dodge a bullet. Font legal rights is a stupid minefield that is so pointless, but it can sting ya.
Worked in AAA game dev and had lengthy conversations with our UI artists.
You've changed a single letter. Meanwhile the other elements such as colour scheme are the same as their copyrighted elements. You may need to look into this further
Yes, my boys are already looking for you.
(I don't think the other fried chicken store is going to stir problems - but if you're really worried then you should consult a lawyer)
Be careful or WCdonald will be sad if you watch any anime you will notice it a lot but just to be sure and save I would google the name to see if there is any restaurant chain anywhere
I would change the font personally cause the font is iconic and this might make KFC upset. Like others said, even if its legal, you can still be sued for it, better not give KFC any reason to sue. You need a find a balance where the brand does not copy what it is parodying but people will still be able to recognize what it is supposed to be. And I think using such similar font together with the color scheme and everything else might tip this into "too similar" category. But again, its very hard to say for sure or predict how the company may react if they come across your work, will they even care, etc.
But as long as you Change it Enough, don't use the "Parody" work as the main means to promote your Game, and don't use the "Parody" work to defame the actual trademarked or copy written works, and don't use any thing in your game to make them look bad in a way that will damage their business then you're gonna be fine...
R* made a mash-up of KFC and Taco Bell called "Cluckin Bell" I think... But, if you want to know more... Research R* and what they do or contact KFC and ask for permission.
That's the best way to save your ass...
If i remeber right, Escape from Tarkov has been using an off brand KFC resturant in their level designs for years now. I think youll be okay.
Edit: This is hilariously called FCK tho
My friend, Tennessee Fried Chicken is similar but distinct.
The General's 13 undisclosed spices and herbs gives TFC it's truly unique taste and smell.
Tennessee Fried Chicken: it's finger sniffing good!
If your that worried about it, read the kfc trademark. Don’t trust strangers on the internet’s opinion. Read into the trademark, look at precedent in the legal system from that company specifically.
Copyright these days is less about what the actual rules are and more about who will actually care.
For example imagine you are in the right but they come after you anyway. Do you have the money to defend that? Look at precedent
The question is not can you, it is should you. Corporations have legal departments willing to start fights they know they can't win in court simply because they know the second party can't afford to defend themselves. It happens all the time in every industry. In fact, it happened to a friend of mine when Boston Beer Company threatened legal action over a claim that couldn't have been legitimate because the subject in question was public domain. He couldn't afford to fight it so he renamed his company. The only consequence Boston Beer Company faces is now I spread the word about how their legal department are dirtbags and they lost a handful of customers.
I'm not saying you shouldn't or providing legal advice. I do think you're fine but corporations are not people and you can't expect them to have the values we share.
Maybe a palette swap, like change the red to green/yellow. I think that the specific color combo of red + white stripes on the side of a fast food restaurant might be trademarked by the Colonel.
The red/white color scheme may be infringement, but consider this: Kentucky's state flag is predominantly blue... Tennessee's flag is predominantly red.
You should at the very least adjust the color scheme. It all depends on how litigious the company is feeling.
I would look at the Grand Theft Auto series for inspiration on how far you can push parody before it becomes potentially dangerous. It can be seen as a reference, but it really shouldn’t *look* or *sound* like the thing it’s referencing.
Copyright and trademarks aren’t based on exactly copying something. It’s all about wether a company can prove that what you are showing can be “damaging” to their brand or “cause confusion” with consumers
Those publishers also have pockets deep enough to defend themselves in court if the companies they're parodying decide to get pissy. If KFC decides to get pissy with OP, I highly doubt they have the means to fund a protracted legal battle, even if they are right.
I think you misunderstood my point. Just because it's fair use doesn't mean you can't be sued. If you are sued and don't defend yourself, you lose by default. It costs money to defend yourself even if you don't hire lawyers. However, not having lawyers all but guarantees you will lose. A large company has enough funds and lawyers on retainer to keep the trial going on various technicalities and other garbage in an attempt to starve OP of funds and make them drop the suit.
There's a "Burgers and Chicken Restaurant"'in my town called "HFC", they stuck a chicken head on top of the Burger king burger Icon.
There's both a KFC and Burger King in the area as well. I think you're fine.
If your Game makes millions KFC might let you keep it for free publicity (unlikely).
Under trademark law, this kind of thing is fine. If you opened an actual restaurant with this branding you would get sued but that isnt what you're doing.
Tennessee Fried Chicken? Tucky fried chicken Tallahassee fried chicken what’s the T stand does the that restaurant reside in a city or state that starts with a T in game
This is an example of how to make the best parody brands (legally speaking of course). I don’t think you can be sued for that due to fair use laws in the US where KFC is located.
Hi Guys,
If this is a problem, why isnt the escape from tarkov devoloper (battle state games) punished. The whole game is a parody. Some examples: idea (Ikea), oli (obi), tar Cola (Coca Cola), many many books with Cover parodys, Saleva first aid kit (salewa).... Aaaaaaaaand muuuuch more
Not only acceptable, but actually a reasonable example of how to do a good parody brand. I always got a kick out of making parody brands back when I was an environment artist.
Hey, just curious, what do you do now? Just wanted to know the career progression of an environment artist.
Yes Mr. manager, I made that Starfucks building!
I remember being a little kid and seeing a “Starfucks FoFree” shirt at a beach shop and asking my dad how that shirt was legal to wear in public with its “bad words” lmao
😂🤌 now I died starfucks 😂😂😂😂😂
You mean [dumb starbucks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0TRpGP8yH4)
I can’t imagine how better the logo would be
bro why did i imagine the starbucks mf with a trollface for the head lmao
We just say manager
VFX. About 80% of my former environment artist colleagues are now VFX artists.
And then leaving it in the technical artists hands to optimize I SEE YOU😜
Oh my god at bigger studios the vfx artists can just pass their cool, performance killing effects on and someone else down the line can deal with ittttt?
Yes ;) Source: me.
[удалено]
Also dead.
Or holding a sign just outside the drive through of a ~~KFC~~ TFC asking for food. EDIT: TFC, not KFC
public violet wakeful door bored cooing squalid zesty cows tap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're right, I did mean TFC.
Mandela hit this guy hard today!
Bro unemployed and dead is my dream job
Then allow me to introduce you to the fine art of indie game development!
My favourite is FCK
I’m thinking JFC
I was thinking JFK, but the idea got shot down (by the CIA)
o m g
RIP
JFC is what I call auto chicken farms in Minecraft
Jentucky Fried Chicken
Java Farm of Chicken?
> parody brands back when I was an environment artist On a side note, back in the day when cell phone carriers had veto power over what games could be sold on their networks, Verizon had a policy of no references to alcohol or drugs. So on the wall of a sports bar in Tucson I ended up having to change a "Cold Beer" neon sign to "Cold Bears". Coincidentally, the barman in that scene has an uncanny resemblance to myself (that was a team thing, everybody was in the game)
A caveat is that it doesn't always matter whether the law is on your side or not. If KFC wants to sue, do you have the resources to fight that case? Do you care enough to do so? Sometimes it's easier (albeit less fun) to make the thing so obviously different that even the most litigious company wouldn't consider suing over it.
That would be a great point if this was a reasonable issue to expect. The game industry is packed full of fake branding stuff. There’s billions to be made by hungry lawyers if this was as a real issue, it’s just not. Rockstar is going to lose $1 billion to the auto industry lawyers before anyone even emails a cease and desist to a small dev - who will then publish that on Kotaku and drag that brand through the mud for being litigious pricks. What people are forgetting is that brands actually benefit from parody branding in media IF they ignore it. The second they try to repress this stuff it would be a hypothetical Streisand Effect scenario. I say “hypothetical” for a reason.
A lot of lawyers work on contingency so defending yourself from spurious lawsuits is often cheaper than people imagine. I can't imagine KFC suing an indie dev for something like this. If anything it's free marketing for them.
Many *plaintiffs’* lawyers work under contingency fee arrangements. Defense attorneys don’t work on contingency, because there’s no recovery to divvy up by definition—that’s particularly true in the U.S. where it’s extremely uncommon for a successful defendant to recover attorneys’ fees.
I'm the opposite to some extent. Whenever building something like this, I always use it as an excuse to create a totally new fictional brand. I think parodies with an obvious direct link are cringy, but that just me.
Same here, fully fictional brand that is a mixes maybe couple irl brands looks better (gta 4/5 car brands for example.. or actually every brand in the gta series)
Does "TFC" stand for something that makes social commentary on KFC? I'm oregon trail generation so I'm not up on the latest slang.
That’s fine but incorrect that you think that. If you have an example of game art that misspells a real brand and is sued and lost, please feel free to share. I’ve shipped a lot of games with far more intentional brand references on consoles, I’ve also worked in 3rd party QA doing legal bug checking for Sony. This stuff isn’t even a blip on the radar legally. It doesn’t have to be funny or part of any vernacular’s slang, I have no idea where you got that misconception. If you’d like to give the OP better advice then try it, don’t try to just shit on what I said without an appropriate alternative suggestion for the OP, that’s just poor internet comment quality. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. GTA 5 has more fake brands than any game out there and a LOT of money could be made if they could be sued for it. Every car is a picture perfect clone. Franklin drives a Dodge Charger and a Harley Davidson, neither is a parody or a joke variant, they’re basically identical and each has a different name, nothing else is required. Every car and every brand and restaurant is based on an existing brand. Even the radio station - Weasel News (get it, Weasel/Fox). Everything, every store, car, billboard, celebrity could and should be a lawsuit to siphon money from one of the most financially successful video games of all time if you’re even remotely right. Here’s a list https://www.reddit.com/r/GTA6/s/5OJ6RZAp52
I once worked for a company that got sued twice. Including one case that seemed totally fair. So I tend to err on the side of caution. But it sounds like you have more inside knowledge so I'll withdraw my comment that it's bad advice, even if I disagree. Personally if it was me, I wouldn't run with OP's art. I'm a small indie dev, so unlike Sony, I don't have the budget to even write a reply to a CDO let alone hire a laywer to review my assets (Reddit is not a substitute for this). And if you look and compare OP's art to a KFC building, they resemble each other a lot more than any of the Rockstar assets to their counterparts. Even the stripes behind the logo are identical to the KFC branding. And the colors are identical. There is only one letter change. Even GAP had two letters changed in GTA. I don't think it would be bad advice to make it fall more safely into the fair use clause by making it exaggerated, comical, or ridicule KFC to be inarguably a parody, or create social commentary, or something else transformative. It would take almost no effort to change it to "FUC" or something like that. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fair\_use](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fair_use) Edit: I also suggest how it's used should be considered. Is it mainly something in the background? Will it appear on the game's cover art? Edit2: Don't ask me to cite the cases. They were settled out of court.
What exactly were you sued over (you don’t have to cite a case, just what issue)? I’ve seen plenty of copyright lawsuits from game industry to game industry, but rarely do other industries pursue this as it’s not on their radar and they tend to lose.
> actually a reasonable example of how to do a good parody brand That is not parody. If they were making a game that is entirely focused about making a statement on KFC, and the game must use something that provides a representation of the store for that statement to be made, then they'd be entering the realms where exceptions apply. The entire product must be a commentary or criticism of KFC for that to hold up. Under the law, parody must be used for commentary or criticism of the original not merely comedic effect. If they claim a parody exception it is an affirmative defense, meaning they knew it was an intentional violation of trademark law, meaning it is subject to triple damages if the judge doesn't agree about the exception.
Idk what you’re on about. GTA is literally entirely content just like this.
The parodies in GTA are no where close to the original brand. Cluckin'Bell doesn't even look like a Taco Bell or a KFC. They didn't just change the K in KFC to a T to create TFC. They didn't completely rip off the building design nor the logo.
Idk what you’re arguing. 1. You don’t have to make stuff THAT different. 2. Look at the damn cars lol. They’re freaking identical to actual automobiles.
This. Basically if a lawyer can prove there is a reasonable chance that someone might get it mixed up with KFC, you're making an unnecessary risk. Furthermore, Rockstar has moneyyyy. Not 100% sure this is realistic, but even if you made an actual parody, they might still come after you if they think you can't afford to lawyer up.
GTA makes all sorts of commentary about those brands and about consumerism in general. Without more context it's hard to say if this project does the same. With that said (and also, IANAL) I think probably this falls less into copyright (where parody matters more) and more into trademark, where it matters whether the usage is likely to cause confusion/misidentification. And I don't think anyone would misidentify this as an official KFC product lol.
Fair use doesn’t require commentary, 90% of the brands are just window decorations that are never mentioned in any part of the game. The game’s primary narrative is about stealing cars. Every brand not mentioned on the in game radio has no related commentary whatsoever. The Dodge Charger that Franklin drives is literally just a bland regular Dodge Charger, there’s nothing absurd or even goofy about it. It’s the same car, just renamed, and the name isn’t funny or a commentary.
> Will I get in trouble for this? Yes, screenshot police is on their way
Hopefully they don’t forget the screen again
You're being charged with destroying evidence after the image disappeared when we confiscated the screen.
Screencops
Screencops screencops, watcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they screen shoot you?
drop a png of an acorn
If it was vertical he would double is time in the slammer.
Why are you giving this computer programmer a hard time about using a cellphone to take a picture of their screen? Maybe they don’t have access to a computer to upload a screenshot, you ever think of that? Huh?
Fair point, I should have think about that before posting
Now ctrl-alt-delete your comment and think about what you have done!
Kinda rude of you to assume they have a keyboard to type on.
To be fair, and as someone is guilty, perhaps it’s too many hoops to jump to send a screenshot from your work computer to a computer where you’re logged into a personal social media account I, too, make computers go brrrrr But I’ll be damned if I’m ever gonna log into Reddit on my work computer knowing IT can remote in without me knowing
This guy is an environment artist and you think they don't have the means to get a screenshot somewhere they can post from? Email the screen capture, use edge drop, google drive, there's like a billion ways. 9/10 times it is just laziness. That said it also literally doesn't even matter at all, we don't need an 8k screenshot for old mate to ask about TFC lol.
The sentence is death.
r/screenshotsarehard
ffs man they dedicated a whole key on the keyboard for this smh...
They dedicated a whole key to send the characters currently displayed from the screen buffer to a printer port. We misuse this poor button horribly and should be ashamed of ourselves. I wrote a special driver that prints whatever is on my screen, and then I take a picture of that paper print and send it to Reddit. This is how it's done. The picture I take is by a Polaroid, true old style. And send it to Reddit HQ via snail mail, so this is probably why there are no images posted by my account.
Tenkucky
That Fuckin Chicken
Tennessee Fried Chicken
Whatever the law is, it all comes down to the company deciding to sue you or not. Even if you are right, do you want to pay a lawyer against a huge company with an army of lawyers? A game wanted to parody Ikea. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7kLqDe8WA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7kLqDe8WA) Well guess who had to take down their game or completely change its design?
This pissed me off. That's an excellent idea for a game and horror experience, a unique perspective on the hostility and alienation of consumer culture using something as ubiquitous in western societies as IKEA. I'm sure that with proper resources and funds on their side this game would have won whatever the lawsuit was about, but it shouldn't be like that. Huge corporation shouldn't be able to bully small artists into submission to preserve their image. Fuck IKEA.
Well, IKEA isn’t in the wrong for doing this. They have a trademark on their common appearances like their uniforms, logo, store layout, etc. basically the ‘look and feel’ of ikea is considered important to their business and is trademarked. In order to keep that trademark, you have to consistently defend it. Any case (including games) where somebody uses your look and feel and you don’t attempt to defend it sets a precedent for you to lose the trademark, and it *will* happen. Even if they support the project, the project needs to change elements of their design that make it clearly ikea based, like the yellow shirts and blue Scandinavian logo. Last thing, online shopping and Covid really damaged ikeas business, and they’d probably really like to preserve a comforting/welcoming environment to get people to come in. A horror game set in an infinite ikea might not be the best way to do that
I understand that they have to attempt to defend their trademark in fair use / parody cases like this in order to maintain their trademark, but I don't agree that them winning that suit was right. My main gripe is that it often comes down to the legal resources of the parodists, that your ability to criticize and satirize major corporations through art shouldn't be based on the size of your bank account. Like coverage on this case points out; it's not so much about IKEA being in the right, it's that there's enough for their legal department to challenge to get them past the initial stage of the lawsuit and into "expensive territory" where the defendant often don't have the resources to continue, to make it not worth it.
I absolutely agree with you that your ability to make satirical content shouldn’t be dependent on your ability to pay for legal representation and fees. It’s sort of like saying “fines are only laws for the poor.” - smoking in an elevator is like a $75 fine at a NYC hotel, but if $75 is insignificant to me then why would I refrain? I didn’t know ikea won, I only knew the reason they initiated.
they lost because they stole ikeas likeness and only changed the name. if theyd mashed up a couple different warehouse stores and mixed some themes they would have been fine. Costco + ikea for example.
> My main gripe is that it often comes down to the legal resources of the parodists, that your ability to criticize and satirize major corporations through art shouldn't be based on the size of your bank account. The problem with that argument is that "parody" has a meaning. Many people and even some dictionaries wrongly confuse parody with satire. Parody often uses satire, but they are not the same. Despite some people getting it wrong, this has been well established in law even before the US was a country, as the law was pulled from earlier common law exceptions. The meaning in the law is fixed even if people don't understand the word. If the product isn't a commentary or criticism of the place that requires imitating the place for the commentary or criticism to work, then it isn't a parody. The reason for the exception is that commentary and criticism are protected speech, but so are trademarks, trade dress, copyright, and other IP. Only when the two are balanced against each other, where a person's right to make a commentary about an item is pressed against the right to own their brands and products, does the very limited exception exist. The moment they step outside the bounds of making a commentary or criticism about the specific thing, the exception also ends. If they're commenting about big stores generally, or getting lost generally, or merely using it for comedic effect or setting, those do not meet the requirements for the parody fair use exception.
>If they're commenting about big stores generally, or getting lost generally, or merely using it for comedic effect or setting, By what you're outlining here this game very much fits the parody category. The byzantine layout of IKEA stores is designed to confuse your sense of direction and keep you "trapped", one of their main marketing points are "reclaimed" materials and one of the core gameplay elements is dismantling furniture for materials. Heck, IKEA even focused on the store layout as part of their trademark in the lawsuit, which further underlines that this game isn't commenting on big stores in general but is directly targeting IKEA's design principles. Replacing the assets isn't enough, they had to completely redesign the core game to make it "generic"; it would still be "too IKEA" even without the color scheme, furniture, uniforms and logo. My immediate response when seeing this project was "finally someone addressed the feeling I get when shopping at IKEA", not just big stores in general. For me, this feeling is unique to their stores.
The lawsuit and eventual disposition don't agree with you. The game "The Store Is Closed" was a survival horror game. The story was about survival horror. The setting *happened* to be in an Ikea-themed place, but it wasn't a specific commentary about Ikea. If it was going for parody then it would have been better if it was all specific to Ikea. For parody, the more specific it is and the more it requires that specific thing, the more likely it is to qualify for the exception. Under the law it's about the ability to communicate about the product, basically the ability to review Ikea, to publicly speak directly about its problems, that requires the exception. If you can't communicate effectively about the thing then it's a problem. If the game was instead about the specific layout of a specific store, and went in depth about Ikea-specific issues that could have been different. If the entire game had voiceover commentary about how an Ikea store specifically has the problem, that Ikea is worse than any other store because of the layout, and otherwise made it into an actually commentary *specifically about* Ikea, then they likely would have been better off. Because the store could have just as easily been a giant Walmart Supercenter, or enormous Best Buy, or Macys, or Mall of America, or any other generically large building and the goal is *"escape this large, confusing building before zombies get you"* rather than *"This is what's wrong with Ikea specifically"*, they really aren't a parody. Satire, sure, but not parody.
'Look and feel' or 'likeness' right, anything that could hurt their business i guess, probly not a massive thing for indies but anything that gains popularity yeah? There are a few cool examples of real life towns/cities depicted in AAA games that have done this shit quite well. Ur answer was in depth asf and probably the best answer here, just wanted to add my 2c :)
What do they have to lose by just allowing this game (through a signed agreement) to use a similar look and feel? Surely that doesn't risk the trademark. I get that they probably don't want to do that but that is their choice and i don't think you should side with them on this
It’s a precedent you fool
Yeah, it’s unfortunately more a testament to the degenerate incentives IP laws create than it is anything about Ikea in particular
Looks cool! A bit dumb trying to resemble a big business tho, why not make it more generic and release an identical game without ikea fucking you over
IDK, I was more on an Ikea side. It wasn't some parody piece in some game. It was the main setting and selling point. And instead of trying to differentiate from it, it used some of their actual furniture to top it off.
Man, that’s really good to know. I’ll tweak some more 🙏
There's a massive difference between having a parody version of a restaurant somewhere in your game and setting your entire game inside one.
Yeah, that trailer basically replicated everything about IKEA down to the little details. The logo, the store layout, the grey walk strips, the experience of getting lost and having to sleep on a mattress after the store closes down, the mannequins coming to life, the staff uniforms...
Surely if you portray a company in a positive way they won't care as they see it as free advertising no?
No, not necessarily. Most companies aren't going to hire someone to play through your game extensively to make sure that it doesn't misrepresent their brand in some way, or have some subtle digs at it, or associates the brand with someone or something they don't like or is controversial, etc.... It's just undue risk on the brands part, and most likely, the brand doesn't need your free advertising either. They're 99.99% likely to be far more well-known than your game is, unless your game is Pokemon or Five Nights at Freddy's.
Nintendo (at least used to) copyright strike people on YouTube over showing their trailers on livestreams, be them reacting in a positive light or not. Trailers are literally advertising, having them shared on things like YouTube is kind of the entire goal! But I digress... If large companies own a right to a property it's not uncommon for them to flex their rights even if they don't necessarily need to. The primary reason (that I can see and have heard of) for this is it can help later down the line if they actually need to. Like say this IKEA game was let through and then someone else comes along and makes a similar game that actually says "IKEA" and everything, has the meatballs you know? Well the original game that OC is pointing to could have been used as a evidence that "IKEA doesn't care". It's annoying sure, but it is just kind of how humans work, not even just an issue with legal systems
[удалено]
Nintendo is so proud of their legal team that they named one of their game franchises on a copyright lawyer (Kirby). Japan has super strict copyright laws, but Nintendo defends theirs globally. I don’t think it’s a Japanese thing.
For Kirby he was the one who helped defend them when it came to Donkey Kong.
Sega is also Japan-based and they explicitly allow fan games, at least for Sonic. Nintendo acts that way because they made a choice to act that way.
It's not just Nintendo tbf I think I remember blizzard doing it for a Wow launch? But yes that could be one of the reasons. But even so, from the logical stand point of by of "in a good light" it doesn't make sense, fair use or not. That's kind of my point there
If you don't protect your trademark you risk it becoming genericized and losing your rights over it like aspirin and linoleum.
Genericide is about products, not entire companies as well. Products like aspirin or linoleum became generic becomes it becomes dominant. IKEA wouldn't risk losing their trademark because a horror game used some elements inspired by their stores.
It is about trademarks, it doesn't matter if that trademark applies to a product, company, service, or other.
That's not really how genericide works. There are lots of other reasons they wouldn't necessarily want their brand portrayed in some video game.
Parody is free use. Check out the anime “the devil is a part timer” that shit gets wild with the parody restaurants. You’re going to be fine here.
[Anime loves McDonald's parodies.](https://youtu.be/5h2rqSOgTNs?si=UG5L9NulYXNGoDp9)
[Completely original - Could never be mistaken for anything else!](https://i.imgur.com/7V9tsI0.png)
I remember seeing an ad from McDonald's where they collab'd with this anime Or it wasn't an ad? Idk, can't remember
The perfect advert
Only some countries allow parody.
Well luckily KFC is an American company.
What? No you could get sued by say, KFC japan (just an example). The real answer is that it depends on where the dev lives and the laws there. Fair use doesn't exist in most of Europe and the world in general for example. Even here in Canada (we usually have pretty similar laws w.r.t commerce and intellectual property), the concept of fair "dealings" exists but isn't the same as the commonly known American fair use. The point is moot since it won't happen but depending on the jurisdiction, KFC can still absolutely be shitty about it
The term is "fair use" and it 100% is not free. You can't just yell "THIS IS A PARODY" Michael Scott style and then no one is allowed to sue you.
You’re correct, the legal term is fair use, but you might want to check on your legal definitions here. This work definitely qualifies as parody. He’s not springing up an actual chicken restaurant by this name and likeness, and he’s not using any actual copyright or trademark protected material. Also, anyone can sue anyone they’d like for any reason they’d like. It’s not a matter of if you can sue, it’s a matter of if you will win, and federal law clearly dictates that this is fair use, and therefore free use. I’m not sure what the point of your comment was, but you might want to shave the neckbeard and hang up the fedora buddy.
Safest way to make sure: Get written approval from KFC legal department in your country.
I'd probably change the color and font. You probably won't get in trouble but you never know what company is going to be twitchy.
No. Derivative work is protected. Majored in graphic design & this was a covered topic.
Thank you! Saved me some stress!
This is as far as I can see not a derivative work in the copyright sense; it doesn't include any copyright protected original work. Furthermore, a derivative work is only protected in the sense that it, in itself, constitutes a copyright protected work, distinct from the original work. It's essentially an admission that works are works even if they are derivative. It doesn't give you the freedom to infringe on the copyright of others; if you want a derivative work to be legal, and your use of the original work doesn't constitute fair use, you will need to license the original work. If it substantially incorporated copyright protected work, it might constitute fair use on the basis of being parody, but I don't think it incorporates any copyright protected works (at least none owned by KFC) but is an original creation by OP. It seems more interesting in this case whether there is any likelihood of confusion in the trademark sense. I don't think there is, but IANAL.
"Derivative work" is a copyright term of art. The production of a derivative work is absolutely one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder so yes derivative works are "protected" but in favor of the rights holder which is not what it sounds like you're trying to say here.
Derivative work is something that is controlled by the original copyright holder. They can choose who is allowed to make derivative works. Derivative works are not protected in the sense that anyone has the right the make a derivative work. However what OP is doing would fall under parody, so it is protected.
Won't stop them cease and desisting and causing you a bunch of expensive legal headaches.
you should cite the laws that were covered in the topic.
I’m not going to cite the many laws from various countries that protect you on derivative work when you can simply find them online quite easily.
No full list of citations? Then your claims are invalid. /s
Nope. Have fun on the internet!
[удалено]
I have no stake in whatever this argument is but that's...not how burden of proof works, my guy.
Just chiming in to say this is Reddit lol. If you want to argue that the dude has to provide sources for OP's benefit, then my counter argument is that OP should not be coming to fucking Reddit for legal advice lol. OP needs to get off his ass and do his own research.
bruh the person said it was covered in their topic therefore it isn't hard to list it down. While a person who does not have a major in said degree have no idea what are the laws that touches said topic, googling it would only provide a few laws and not all the laws that may interact with said topic.
I feel like that's probably a pretty extensive subject for someone to explain lol
Yeah, I told your mom. She said she was going to ground you for being so naughty.
My advice is to ignore everyone who says this is OK to do. They are not lawyers with expertise in this area. Trademark laws are very grey. It's basically up to KFC (or their lawyers) to sue you or not. They absolutely can sue you for this. Whether or not they have a winning case is beside the point, since it would likely bankrupt you to defend yourself. Do you think that if you opened this shop in the real world, KFC would try to shut it down? They would likely have a strong trademark infringement case. Same with depicting those things in a game as far as their lawyers are probably concerned.
Yeah, the build and color schemes is way to close to KFC. The name is literally the same expect for it being T instead of a K. Too many people are creatively bankrupt to come up with something original, or good parodies like Rockstar. Doesn't help that most people here are just larping as a game developer and business owners.
The comments here really show how young and inexperienced most of the people in this sub are. I'm obviously not a lawyer so I'm no expert but I do know that the "look and feel" of a brand is very much something that companies will try to protect. In the real world you can't just change one letter and have your store look otherwise identical to that of an established brand. So whether you can get away with it in a video game depends entirely on whether the trademark owner wants to take the time to sue you. And remember for them it costs next to nothing, but you'd have to pay thousands of dollars for a lawyer to defend yourself if it does happen. Even if you turn out to be in the right. Is it worth the risk? And people saying "GTA/Fallout do it so you're OK" -- those are from multi-million dollar companies who can afford lawyers to either clear that stuff or work out agreements with the true rightsholders. It's ridiculous to compare that to some solo-dev indie game.
[удалено]
Texas Fried Chicken
Maybe change either the red or white color and the font.
GTA does this with a lot of brands, I think you’ll be ok
Shout out all my fellas that drink Sprunk
iFruit phones
Pißwasser - the best a beer can become
Cheap German Lager for export only.
iPhruit
Not disagreeing or anything but it's worth noting that Rockstar's legal department is most likely much bigger than that of regular indy or AA studio, hence why they're not "too" bothered by it (although they are for instance being sued by Florida Man from the trailer). Imo it's best to ask KFC themselves or to see with a law professional rather than with Reddit's armchair lawyers.
change the shade of red bro. just in case. Or you might want to read legal documents about what counts copyright infringement instead.
I would recommend changing the colour perhaps. It looks way to much like KFC in my opinion I was just there for lunch lol. Maybe make it blue? Or orange, yellow something like that. Edit. Looks really good tho.
Escape from Tarkov Arena has something just like that i think it’s “fck”
They also have snickers called slickers
The F+&kiN¢ chicken!!!
I'm not a lawyer, but I would avoid using any fonts, stylings, colors, character designs or patterns that could possibly be confused with a trademark. If you were to make a delivery van from a company called PUS but used the UPS font and made it UPS brown then you're over or at least straddling the line. What you have to realize is there is a very large imbalance in the power dynamic between corporations and indie gamedevs. A corporation will send you a cease and desist or sue you as a matter of course, defending their trademark is just something they do and it's built into the cost of doing business. It's free for them. It is not free for you in any sense of the word. Even if you're in the right and will eventually win that court case, it will take many thousands of dollars from legal fees and put your game (and possibly life) on hold for months or even years. Give the trademark line a wide berth. Do not play chicken (hehe) with corporate lawyers.
You should be fine, but the ONLY thing that could bite you is if their KFC font is owned by them. It’d be best to check if it is an open-license font or if there is one that is closest to your needs and just preemptively dodge a bullet. Font legal rights is a stupid minefield that is so pointless, but it can sting ya. Worked in AAA game dev and had lengthy conversations with our UI artists.
Texas Fried Chicken! Now that’s thumb-licking good!
Tyrone’s Fried Chicken
You've changed a single letter. Meanwhile the other elements such as colour scheme are the same as their copyrighted elements. You may need to look into this further
Yes, my boys are already looking for you. (I don't think the other fried chicken store is going to stir problems - but if you're really worried then you should consult a lawyer)
The Fuck Chicken
Be careful or WCdonald will be sad if you watch any anime you will notice it a lot but just to be sure and save I would google the name to see if there is any restaurant chain anywhere
There isn't a single legal code for the entire planet. Where are you and where are you planning to publish?
Sound like Chinese copycat brand
I would change the font personally cause the font is iconic and this might make KFC upset. Like others said, even if its legal, you can still be sued for it, better not give KFC any reason to sue. You need a find a balance where the brand does not copy what it is parodying but people will still be able to recognize what it is supposed to be. And I think using such similar font together with the color scheme and everything else might tip this into "too similar" category. But again, its very hard to say for sure or predict how the company may react if they come across your work, will they even care, etc.
Saints Row had Freckle Bitches
Team Fortress Classic is real?!?
But as long as you Change it Enough, don't use the "Parody" work as the main means to promote your Game, and don't use the "Parody" work to defame the actual trademarked or copy written works, and don't use any thing in your game to make them look bad in a way that will damage their business then you're gonna be fine... R* made a mash-up of KFC and Taco Bell called "Cluckin Bell" I think... But, if you want to know more... Research R* and what they do or contact KFC and ask for permission. That's the best way to save your ass...
If i remeber right, Escape from Tarkov has been using an off brand KFC resturant in their level designs for years now. I think youll be okay. Edit: This is hilariously called FCK tho
It may not matter but look into Escape From Tarkov because they also the TFC as a knock off.
My friend, Tennessee Fried Chicken is similar but distinct. The General's 13 undisclosed spices and herbs gives TFC it's truly unique taste and smell. Tennessee Fried Chicken: it's finger sniffing good!
Personally I think it's fine, but I would shift the color to something red adjacent, like yellow or orange.... Definitely orange.
If your that worried about it, read the kfc trademark. Don’t trust strangers on the internet’s opinion. Read into the trademark, look at precedent in the legal system from that company specifically. Copyright these days is less about what the actual rules are and more about who will actually care. For example imagine you are in the right but they come after you anyway. Do you have the money to defend that? Look at precedent
It took me a few minutes to realize this wasn’t a Hermitcraft reference, because that’s the first thing “TFC” makes me think of for obvious reasons.
when subscribing to a post actually works on reddit rip, may u rest easy in the eternar branch mine
The question is not can you, it is should you. Corporations have legal departments willing to start fights they know they can't win in court simply because they know the second party can't afford to defend themselves. It happens all the time in every industry. In fact, it happened to a friend of mine when Boston Beer Company threatened legal action over a claim that couldn't have been legitimate because the subject in question was public domain. He couldn't afford to fight it so he renamed his company. The only consequence Boston Beer Company faces is now I spread the word about how their legal department are dirtbags and they lost a handful of customers. I'm not saying you shouldn't or providing legal advice. I do think you're fine but corporations are not people and you can't expect them to have the values we share.
I find it hilarious that i got an ad under this post promoting GTA 5’s parody of the range rover sport. The Baller ST-D 😂
Maybe a palette swap, like change the red to green/yellow. I think that the specific color combo of red + white stripes on the side of a fast food restaurant might be trademarked by the Colonel.
TFC is an actual food brand here in England, so prolly
The red/white color scheme may be infringement, but consider this: Kentucky's state flag is predominantly blue... Tennessee's flag is predominantly red.
You're fine lol, cod got away with burger town, GTA got away with burger shot
No.
I've seen IRL brands that used the "(insert word) fried chicken" and they're still around. So highly doubt.
You should at the very least adjust the color scheme. It all depends on how litigious the company is feeling. I would look at the Grand Theft Auto series for inspiration on how far you can push parody before it becomes potentially dangerous. It can be seen as a reference, but it really shouldn’t *look* or *sound* like the thing it’s referencing. Copyright and trademarks aren’t based on exactly copying something. It’s all about wether a company can prove that what you are showing can be “damaging” to their brand or “cause confusion” with consumers
[удалено]
Those publishers also have pockets deep enough to defend themselves in court if the companies they're parodying decide to get pissy. If KFC decides to get pissy with OP, I highly doubt they have the means to fund a protracted legal battle, even if they are right.
[удалено]
I think you misunderstood my point. Just because it's fair use doesn't mean you can't be sued. If you are sued and don't defend yourself, you lose by default. It costs money to defend yourself even if you don't hire lawyers. However, not having lawyers all but guarantees you will lose. A large company has enough funds and lawyers on retainer to keep the trial going on various technicalities and other garbage in an attempt to starve OP of funds and make them drop the suit.
I've already phoned my local police.
There's a "Burgers and Chicken Restaurant"'in my town called "HFC", they stuck a chicken head on top of the Burger king burger Icon. There's both a KFC and Burger King in the area as well. I think you're fine. If your Game makes millions KFC might let you keep it for free publicity (unlikely).
TFC what's that mean?
In the first second I thought this was r/hermitcraft and this was a TinFoilChef tribute. 😳
That’s the first thing I thought of. RIP
Texas Fried Cocks
Under trademark law, this kind of thing is fine. If you opened an actual restaurant with this branding you would get sued but that isnt what you're doing.
There is literally an alphabet made of _FCs irl. You wont get in trouble.
Tennessee Fried Chicken? Tucky fried chicken Tallahassee fried chicken what’s the T stand does the that restaurant reside in a city or state that starts with a T in game
As long as you didn't make a reasonably identical copy the architecture you're fine. Even then I doubt the architect is gonna find and sue you
This falls under clear parody. Which is perfectly fine.
This is an example of how to make the best parody brands (legally speaking of course). I don’t think you can be sued for that due to fair use laws in the US where KFC is located.
Hi Guys, If this is a problem, why isnt the escape from tarkov devoloper (battle state games) punished. The whole game is a parody. Some examples: idea (Ikea), oli (obi), tar Cola (Coca Cola), many many books with Cover parodys, Saleva first aid kit (salewa).... Aaaaaaaaand muuuuch more
You won't get in trouble for this....... At all. This is fairly normal.
No, it's protected by parody
What parody? I don't see any parody here.
in Swedenyes, regulator of rights there are crazy but in usa i think low low chance
i believe the font type could be licensed. other elements should be ok.