Mary-Kate and Ashley in ACTION! // The Olsen Twins Vs. Acclaim

Mary-Kate and Ashley: Magical Mystery Mall

Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen,also known as the Olsen Twins collectively, are fashion designers and former child actresses. These fraternal twins made their acting debut as Michelle Tanner on the television series Full House. At the age of six, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen began starring together in TV, film, and video projects, which continued to their teenage years. Through their company Dualstar, the Olsens joined the ranks of the wealthiest women in the entertainment industry at a young age.

Facts:


In 2004, twin celebrities Mary-Kate sued video game publisher Acclaim over $177,966.32 in bank royalties after their company Dualstar Entertainment split from Acclaim a year earlier. Acclaim was to pay back royalties plus "maximum interest" and an additional $300,000 over the cancelation of the title Mary-Kate and Ashley in ACTION! for the GameCube, Game Boy Advance, PlayStation 2, and PC in 2003.

A letter from the Olsen twin’s lawyer to Acclaim asserted that the video game publisher “blatantly abandoned the Mary-Kate and Ashley brand and has taken the Mary-Kate and Ashley brand in video games, which had flourished, and has now run it into the ground.” Acclaim and the twins settled out of the court

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pong // Magnavox Vs. Atari

Image
Gameplay screenshot of the arcade game Pong(1972) In 1972, Atari’s electronic table tennis game  Pong  became a bonafide craze—and Ralph Baer, inventor of the Magnavox Odyssey gaming console, sought legal action against Atari. Baer claimed that Atari co-founder Nolan Bushnell had copied Magnavox’s version of electronic Ping-Pong after Bushnell played the game at a Magnavox dealership demo a few months before  Pong  was released. Facts: In 1975 Ralph Baer and Magnavox, creators of the first home console system – the Magnavox Odyssey – sued Atari (and many other companies) for their clones of the Magnavox Odyssey’s ‘Tennis’ game. The Atari game in question was ‘Pong.’ Due to the patents held by Baer and Magnavox parent company Sanders Associates, and coupled with the fact that there was ample evidence of Atari founder Nolan Bushnell having played ‘Tennis’ at a product exhibition, Atari decided to settle the case outside of the courts. Other companies were also forced
Read more

Pac-Man and K.C. Munchkin // Atari Vs. Philips

Image
Gameplay screenshot for the arcade game Pac-man(1980) In the early 1980s,  Pac-Man  was the most popular video game in the world, and its manufacturers, Namco and Midway, were developing a home version port of it for the Atari 2600. But a year before Atari’s release, Magnavox and Philips Electronics debuted the video game  K.C. Munchkin , which resembled Pac-Man’s gameplay, for the Philips Videopac home console. While  K.C. Munchkin  was not a direct clone of  Pac-Man , its winding levels and its ghost-like monsters bore an uncanny resemblance to the Atari game. In 1982, Atari sued Philips for copyright infringement and an appellate court found that Philips had copied  Pac-Man . The Court’s ruling was the first to recognize how copyright law would apply to the look and feel of computer software. Facts: The court noted many differences and similarities between PAC-MAN and K.C. Munchkin, which are reproduced in their entireties below. However, what is interesting in this ca
Read more

New Super Mario Bros Wii // Nintendo Vs. Burt

Image
Artwork For New Super Mario Bros.Wii For Nintendo Wii New Super Mario Bros. Wii  is a  2D side-scrolling   platform video game  developed and published by  Nintendo  for the  Wii .    It is a sequel to  New Super Mario Bros.  for the  Nintendo DS  and a part of the  New Super Mario Bros.  series. It was released in 2009. In November 2009, 24-year-old Australian James Burt purchased a copy of  New Super Mario Bros. Wii  several days before its release, as the store had mistakenly put it up for sale early, and ripped and uploaded the game disk online. Nintendo took down the game and sued Burt shortly afterwards, accusing him of violating copyright laws and depriving Nintendo of potential sales. The case was ultimately settled in January 2010, with Burt receiving a fine of AU$1.5 million as compensation for lost sales, as well as an additional fine of AU$100,000 as a part of Nintendo's legal fine.  The file was downloaded more than 50,000 times over the course of five d
Read more