[ad_1]
A jury has smacked down a lawsuit by WWE legend Booker T Huffman in opposition to Activision the place the professional wrestler argued a Name of Responsibility character was modeled after him.
Activision has gained their copyright infringement go well with in opposition to Booker T, with a jury discovering the WWE Corridor of Famer’s likeness wasn’t used for the Black Ops 4 character David ‘Prophet’ Wilkes.
Based on a report by Video games Trade, Huffman claimed that his professional wrestling persona and comedian character G.I. Bro was used as a mannequin for Wilkes.
The lawsuit was based mostly on a poster of G.I. Bro holding a gun, which Huffman claimed was infringed upon by Activision once they created the character of Prophet.

Nevertheless, in a weird twist, Activison had been capable of efficiently argue that the G.I. Bro poster was truly copied from fellow wrestling sensation Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson from the neck down.
“The undisputed testimony reveals that nothing about Plaintiff’s work from the neck down was authentic compared to the picture of The Rock, and actually, the our bodies of the 2 works are strikingly related,” court docket paperwork state.
Moreover, they argued that Booker T didn’t “personal the thought of an offended man with a scowling look” and {that a} copyright declare over a “facial features” or “angle” must be rejected.

Activision was capable of win the lawsuit.
Again in 2019, Huffman’s lawyer, Micah Dortch claimed that when each photos had been seen side-by-side, there was “no query that this character was copied from G.I. Bro.”
“From the hair, physique sort and clothes, proper right down to facial expressions, the similarities are too profound to be an accident,” he added.
Booker T isn’t the primary individual in current reminiscence to accuse Activision of stealing their likeness. Again in February, author and photographer Clayton Haugen claimed Activision dedicated copyright infringement with the Fashionable Warfare and Warzone Operator Mara.
The retired wrestler has but to touch upon the results of the lawsuit and it’s unclear what his subsequent plan is following the jury’s determination.
[ad_2]
Source link