Episode 47 - Gottlieb vs. Paramount Pictures

Wedgehead Pinball Podcast·podcast_episode·39m 36s·analyzed·Sep 9, 2024

Buzzsprout-15626336

Analysis

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 · $0.032

TL;DR

A forgotten Gottlieb machine in a Mel Gibson movie sparked a copyright lawsuit that reveals pinball industry legal struggles.

Summary

The Wedgehead Pinball Podcast discusses an obscure 1990 Gottlieb pinball machine called Silver Slugger that appeared in the background of the 2000 film 'What Women Want' starring Mel Gibson. Guest Nate Taylor, a law student, explains how Gottlieb's rights holders sued Paramount Pictures in 2008 for copyright and trademark infringement—eight years after the movie's release—and how the lawsuit was dismissed early on de minimis grounds (minimal use). The episode explores Gottlieb's decline, the legal doctrine of de minimis use, and broader questions about copyright, fair use, and right-to-repair in the pinball community.

Key Claims

Silver Slugger was released by Gottlieb (under trade name Premier) in 1990 as a cheaper, simpler alternative to modern pinball machines
high confidence · Alan, host of Wedgehead Pinball Podcast, introducing the episode
Silver Slugger appeared in a scene in the 2000 film 'What Women Want' starring Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt
high confidence · Alan, Wedgehead host, primary episode topic
Gottlieb's rights holders sued Paramount Pictures in 2008 for copyright and trademark infringement, eight years after the movie's release
high confidence · Nate Taylor, law student and guest
Gottlieb closed in 1996, six years after releasing Silver Slugger
high confidence · Alan, Wedgehead host
The lawsuit was dismissed early as a matter of law based on de minimis use doctrine
high confidence · Nate Taylor explaining the legal outcome
The de minimis and fair use doctrines are not codified in the copyright act but evolved from case law
high confidence · Nate Taylor, law student guest, explaining legal principles
Gottlieb's rights are currently held by Steve Young and Pinball Resource, who control access to Gottlieb manuals and parts
medium confidence · Alan and Nate discussing post-lawsuit Gottlieb IP ownership
Unlike other pinball manufacturers, Gottlieb machine manuals and schematics cannot be freely accessed through the Internet Pinball Database and must be purchased
high confidence · Alan, discussing restoration barriers for Gottlieb machines
Gottlieb had a prototype for a Brooks and Dunn game that was never manufactured before the company went out of business
high confidence · Alex (Waterboy) and Alan, mentioning unreleased final game

Notable Quotes

“Gottlieb, though, was just like the only, I don't know, I guess everybody was selling big units back then, but they were definitely the flagship. And it's just funny how the mighty fall.”
Alan, Wedgehead host @ early in episode — Establishes Gottlieb's historical dominance and the tragedy of its decline
“It's a little bit different than fair use, which I could get into the big differences. Fair use is a much broader, you're using it for specific purposes, or you've transformed it for a different means, like parody and all these other things. It's not quite that level. De minimis means it's just the car in the background.”
Nate Taylor, law student @ mid-episode legal explanation — Core explanation of de minimis use doctrine central to the lawsuit dismissal
“I just don't think anybody would look and be like, oh, yeah, Gottlieb, the company that went out of business at this point 12 years prior. It was paying to put their pinball machines in the movie.”
Alan @ discussing trademark implications — Highlights the absurdity of Gottlieb's claim that anyone would believe they endorsed the film
“If you look at a lot of these games that they were making at this time, it's kind of no... It's not surprising that they went out of business.”
Alex the Waterboy @ discussing Gottlieb's final games — Notes Gottlieb's poor market performance near the end
“So once again, the works of art thing, it does. There are both sides of it. And obviously, you can copyright these gorgeous, you know, pinball.”
Nate Taylor @ mid-episode — Acknowledges the artistic merit argument in Gottlieb's copyright claim
“De minimis means it's just the car in the background of what that's blurred out and you're not seeing it. It's not an artistic expression. It's just something to fill the background.”
Nate Taylor @ explaining de minimis — Clear definition of the doctrine that dismissed the case
“Unlike every other machine where you can go on and find a PDF file of a manual or a schematic into the Internet Pinball Database to help you out if you're trying to work on your games, with Gottlieb, you have to go on and you have to buy a manual.”

Entities

GottliebcompanyParamount PicturescompanySilver SluggergameWhat Women WantproductDavid GottliebpersonMel GibsonpersonHelen HuntpersonAlanpersonAlex the Waterboyperson

Signals

?
regulatory_signal: Gottlieb (or its rights holders) sued Paramount Pictures in 2008 for copyright and trademark infringement over Silver Slugger's appearance in 'What Women Want' (2000). Lawsuit dismissed early on de minimis use grounds.
high · Nate Taylor, law student guest, detailed the lawsuit, its timeline (8 years after film release), and dismissal. Confirmed de minimis use doctrine was basis for dismissal.
?
historical_signal: Gottlieb's decline from dominant pinball manufacturer (1927-1980s) to bankruptcy in 1996, punctuated by ownership changes (Columbia Pictures, Coca-Cola) and deteriorating product quality and market performance.
high · Alan outlined Gottlieb's history: founded 1927, bought/sold multiple times, released Silver Slugger in 1990 as low-margin product, closed 1996. Hosts noted poor sales of final games.
?
intellectual_property_signal: Gottlieb IP currently controlled by Steve Young/Pinball Resource. Manual and schematic access restricted compared to other manufacturers; parts unavailable through standard channels. Raises right-to-repair concerns.
high · Alan detailed inability to access Gottlieb manuals freely via Internet Pinball Database, requirement to purchase from Steve Young. Acknowledged parallels to Apple right-to-repair debates.
?
legal_precedent: De minimis use doctrine (not codified in copyright act, evolved from case law) established that minimal, unsubstantial use of copyrighted work in background/set dressing does not constitute infringement. Sandoval v. New Line Cinema (Se7en) key precedent.
high · Nate Taylor explained de minimis vs. fair use, cited Sandoval case where background photographs dismissed as de minimis, contrasted with Ringgold case where artwork was substantial portion of episode.

Transcript

groq_whisper · $0.119

0:00

I was gambling in Havana, I took a little risk, sent lawyers, guns and money, dad get me out of there, ha! Hello everybody and welcome to another episode of the Wedgehead Pinball Podcast. My name is Alan, your host of this podcast. Today I'm joined by my normal co-host in the basement studio, Alex the Waterboy. How you doing? I'm doing pretty good, Alan. How about yourself?

0:40

Pretty good. We got a good show tonight because we're going to talk about a very interesting subject that I don't think a lot of people know of. It was brought to our attention by a great regular who's going to be our guest this evening. But in 1990, Gottlieb, under the trade name Premier at the time, released a pretty unremarkable pinball machine called Silver Slugger. It was one of their kind of series of what they called street-level games that they were marketing as a cheaper and easier-to-maintain type of throwback pinball machine without all those newfangled ramps and mechanical doohickeys that were coming out. Yeah, it's kind of a good idea in theory. something that we love in theory and some of the games are really good some of the games are good actually they sold fairly well i think so it was a meager success but the theme of silver slugger was a weird kind of futuristic baseball not too futuristic like it still looks like a baseball game at first glance but like the players are like kind of robots but it's still it's still like on green grass yeah but it's a game that is mostly forgotten about most listeners probably have never even heard about it, but it was released by Gottlieb, who by this time was just a shell of their former selves, that they had been bought and sold and repackaged so many times by the time they released this game that they were hard to even recognize as the same company that was founded by David Gottlieb all the way back in 1927. Columbia Pictures bought them at one point, Coca-Cola bought them. They were kind of like shopped around as like a shiny new toy and then thrown away. But by the time they released Silver Slugger in 1990, this completely unassuming pinball machine they had been on life support for almost a decade and sadly they closed up shop for good six years later in 1996 you might be wondering why are we talking about silver slugger what is this a whole episode of a podcast well for some reason this game was chosen to be in a very small scene in the 2000 movie what women want starring mel gibson and helen hunt and we look for any excuse to bring up mel gibson on this podcast it only has a brief appearance in the background of a scene, but it clearly caused a stir with the Gottlieb rights holders as they chose to sue Paramount Pictures, alleging copyright and trademark infringement. Today, our guest Nate Taylor is here to tell us this story that he first heard when he was in law school. So welcome to the show, Nate. How are you? I'm doing pretty good. Thanks for having me. Yeah, we're happy to have you here. Nate's a longtime regular of Wedgehead. Like you mentioned, he's in law school. And most importantly, he's only one degree removed from, you know, local legend Campbell, who we're going to land that fish for the show one day. Oh, yeah. We're going to get him tied down one day. Got to get him quick. Nate, I would just want to talk briefly about this is a weird out of left field lawsuit that we're going to dive deep into. You found out about it through, you know, when you were in law school, this was just something that sort of landed in your studies and you had to like put two and two together and you're like, wait, what? The pinball company got leave? Yeah, so I kind of got into pinball while I was into law school. Of course, we had it growing up, and it's everywhere back in the 90s. But, you know, kind of fell out. I'm from the middle of nowhere in Virginia, so they just kind of started disappearing. I can't get anywhere back home. Move out here, I get back into pinball. Such a great relief, you know, law school, pound, pound, pound. And then I'm in copyright class. Gottlieb Pinball pops up. I'm super excited. And spoiler alert, Gottlieb just gets dunked, completely dunked on this entire. It's only a couple pages. It's short. It's sad because it's one of the last things we really, you know, see from Gottlieb. Yeah. This was a death spiral of Gottlieb for sure. They never got to make that Brooks and Dunn game they were working on. Yeah. This is it. So for the listener, Alex is mentioning the last game that was set to be in production that they never made out of prototype was Brooks and Dunn got cancelled because the company went out of business. If you look at a lot of these games that they were making at this time, it's kind of no... It's not surprising that they went out of business. Barbed wire is sick. We got a lot of world. Very cool. Frank Thomas' Big Hurt. Got on the floor right now, Wedgehead. Actually pretty fun. Some of these games are fun, but they didn't do well. They certainly weren't selling big numbers. But I think we should rewind back a little bit just for the listener that may not fully understand there's a lot of people that only think about Gottlieb as a punchline to a joke in pinball but really like I said in the intro David Gottlieb started the company in 1927 he and they were the name in pinball for at least three maybe four decades they were driving the bus yeah a longer run than any company has had including Stern which has you know been a monstrous run since like the 2000s or whatever they've been dominating. Gottlieb, though, was just like the only, I don't know, I guess everybody was selling big units back then, but they were definitely the flagship. And it's just funny how the mighty fall. It just seems to happen over and over. Like I said, Gottlieb, this is a story that's too long to tell in this episode, but they got bought and sold. They were, this was at the time when they, when Columbia Pictures bought them, which is why I think it's interesting bringing up this movie license a different movie studio than the one that used to own a pinball company is suing them for copyright infringement i want to get into the movie like do you all have to have you all seen what women want no no i've seen the scene i've watched it because of law school i've looked at it several times because just gotta go see it when you in context of the in context to the lawsuit Dude, it's incredible. Okay, so the movie itself is pretty terrible. I saw it when it came out. Well, I had it on VHS, I think, or my mom rented it. It's a Nancy Meyers movie. She makes popular kind of rom-com movies, and it's about a guy, Mel Gibson in this case, who's like just kind of a shitty, yeah, playing himself, playing a shitty guy. Like he's a chauvinistic kind of just player, asshole. Like he's rich. she thinks he's the best thing that's ever happened to anybody uh and then he has like a freak like blow dryer in the bathtub accident scene nice and that causes him to wake up and now he can hear the inner thoughts of every woman on earth it's like a comedy except i don't think mel gibson's ever been funny like ever but he's like the lead and now with 24 years later we have the added reminder of what a kind of piece of shit human mel gibson actually is in real life so maybe he was just preparing for the role it's just like deep preparation ruin lethal weapon and maverick yeah but this is not a good guy oh but that's a callback yeah because now this is tangentially another pinball machine where mel gibson is related he's not in silver slugger Everything comes back to Mel Gibson on the spot. But yeah, it's a goofy movie. It's not well regarded. But what's interesting is that movie was released in 2000 by Paramount. And then, Nate, when does this lawsuit get brought? Yeah, it comes in 2008. And that's relevant because with most lawsuits, there's usually a statute of limitations, which is just a period of time. You have to bring a case before it's out for just timing reasons to serve justice and all sorts of other reasons. This is not a love podcast. Yeah, that's three years for a copyright suit. This is eight years after the movie came out. How did they get that leniency? Now, I can't remember the exact year, but at the end of all this fun Gottlieb timeline history, Gottlieb kind of gets the company back from Coke. And they I think what they've done. This is just my guess. I I cannot find definitively where this came from. But there's this thing called the discovery rule, which will hold the time that you have to bring the lawsuit if you could not have discovered the infringement beforehand. So so they just had to maintain the fact that they didn't watch this. There wasn't a movie release. This Mel Gibson, Helena, rom-com blockbuster. You know we're dunking on it. It was still everywhere. Everybody's probably heard of it. You should have known about it. This is not secret. Yeah, I don't. But I guess it could be argued. I mean, like, how can you prove someone hasn't seen something? It's insane, but, like. Yeah, I think that's the mindset. And they're probably arguing that, oh, look, Coke with their premiere games are just, they're not paying attention at all. They don't care about the brand. they're just pushing out barbed wire and mario andretti this is i'm assuming that's it like i said i can't find it definitively but that's my idea is that they're arguing oh we just now got back into pinball okay so now take us into the mind of like they're filing a lawsuit in 2008 for a movie that came out in 2000 for a game that came out in 1990 so by the time this lawsuit is brought not only has gotley done making games completely but the game in question was a game they released 18 years ago yeah so it doesn't really matter when the game came out itself that i mean it will but the like the length of copyright is just so far yeah just 100 years down the road yeah yeah well that might be an issue but i think it's really it has to be the discovery rule i just i don't want to put myself into or make them out to be malicious or anything but seems like a kind of the last ditch effort to try to make as much money off trying to make money off the gut yeah they're just kind of cashing in with what they have at their disposal which is literally the name yeah the limited ones other than this there is there's actually a really nice website I can't remember the URL right now. That is somebody has compiled all the instances where a game of pinball has appeared in a movie. It's really extensive. It's like four or five pages long. You click through. Awesome. I really hate that I can't remember what it is. There's a Facebook group called Pinspotting where people just post pinball machines and anything. And this kind of shit happens constantly. Yeah. Like every single... And some studios are good about putting a different translate in or putting tape over logos. You see that occasionally. It's always funny. You see them blurred too. when you're watching a movie too even if you can make out like i watched a netflix movie that had a couple pins in and actually rodsey was going to put those pins in they ended up going with somebody else i think but they needed it for this scene and uh this rich kid has a basement and they have some pinball machines and they're like metallica and acdc they wanted like band rock and roll pins but when the games are being played it's just like bells and chimes which as a pinball head you know like it's like generic old pinball sounds from like 50 years ago but they have to do that in the movie yeah for copyright issues even with that you do see a lot of like recognizable games or not you know not censored games in like a lot you can see it in like dazed and confused you can see a bunch of them don't go after it when was the last time you saw a gottlieb though one of those that's a good that's the real point is i think this is it this is like they found the only the only one that's getting put in games so they had to go with silver slugger that you gotta dance with the one that got you there i want you to explain as a student of law and a soon-to-be lawyer i imagine barring the bar but yes yes nate we're recording this nate has taken the bar and we're waiting to hear how he did but we're all assuming that you will be a lawyer and i just need you to explain to us and to the listener because i think we're all lay people here what is the plaintiff's legal theory here this is copyright infringement just standard you have taken my images and you have put them in this movie what they're basing this off is called a it's a lawsuit ringgold versus black entertainment television maybe you've maybe you've heard of yeah Yeah. In this case, Ringgold was an artist and she had one of her works appears in the background of one of the episodes. It appears for a substantial portion of the episode. It's in the background. If you know the work of art, you can recognize it. So it's a substantial part of the show. Substantial part of the show. Kind of the theme of the art matches the theme of the episode. They're putting all this stuff together in a way that they've incorporated, you know, the art into it. 27 minutes in the Ringgold case, I think, is the amount. Or 27-minute episode, 12 minutes of it, something like that. Okay. This case, the Silver Slugger, appears for not too dissimilar a total length. you know the differences we'll get to the differences later but so that's kind of where they're coming from they see this ring gold case it looks a whole lot like something maybe that they might get in here well look you guys can't see us back home but we have pictures of the play field up here they brought infringement for the back glass the play field there's something else i think maybe easy layout i think also was the other thing even though that seems interesting design patent thing to me but is the is the idea that they're like got leaves like you guys made money using our product it just seems such like an arbitrary so frivolous to us it's a public when it's a public like it's a product that was purchased and put in public to me it's a commercial product it's a commercial product it shouldn't it's just such an odd distinction because i know pinball machines are like pieces of art there's artists that have like worked on it but it's a commercial product i didn't realize that a commercial product i guess i know there's some censorship but it's like you see cars in movies and i'm sure they're not paying for every car and I know sometimes they debadge the cars. Yeah, it depends. A lot of times the cars you see in movies are paid for. They're paid to specifically have those. Yeah, but when you're watching, like, CW11, not every, you know, 2005 Camry in the back, like, in the background shot has been cleared, I assume. So it's just, like, where do you draw the line? Yeah, well. That's what we get into. Yeah, that's the whole, that's where it all hinges on. But kind of getting to your point, there is this thing, like, you buy a book, you can share a book, You can do what you want with that copy. Obviously, you can't make more copies and sell it. But that book is yours to do with what you want. That's a property, right? You'd think you'd be able to do it. But once again, the works of art thing, it does. There are both sides of it. And obviously, you can copyright these gorgeous, you know, pinball. I like how you swallowed on that one. I just stopped looking at that. The silver plucker. I just don't know if I can finish this sentence. If it was a Greg Ferrer's package, it would have been easier to get out. I love this. It would have been easier to get out. But Silver Slugger. Nate means in general. Pinball machines can have amazing art, and this is a pinball machine.

The Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television case, where artwork appeared for a substantial portion of an episode (approximately 12 minutes), formed the legal basis for Gottlieb's de minimis argument

high confidence · Nate Taylor, law student, citing precedent case

Alan @ discussing right-to-repair issues — Illustrates ongoing impact of Gottlieb IP control on restoration community

“Bring it on. Yeah. No, no, no, no. Wait till I'm barred and we'll do this.”

Nate Taylor and Alan @ joking about suing Steve Young — Light moment illustrating frustration with Gottlieb parts/manual monopoly

Frank Thomas' Big Hurtgame

Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Televisionevent

Sandoval v. New Line Cinemaevent

Columbia Picturescompany

Pinball Resourcecompany

Wedgehead Pinball Podcastorganization

community_signal: Gottlieb machine restoration faces systematic barriers due to IP monopoly on manuals and parts, potentially causing machines to remain unrepaired or abandoned in hobby.

high · Alan noted that unlike other pinball machines, Gottlieb games don't get fixed/restored due to manual access restrictions, raising right-to-repair arguments.

historical_signal: Gottlieb was developing a Brooks and Dunn themed pinball machine prototype that was cancelled before manufacturing when the company went out of business in 1996.

high · Alex the Waterboy mentioned Brooks and Dunn as the last game set to be in production that Gottlieb never made. Alan confirmed it was cancelled due to company closure.

product_concern: Gottlieb's final game releases (Barbed Wire, Frank Thomas' Big Hurt, Mario Andretti, Silver Slugger) sold poorly and did not help company's viability.

medium · Alex noted it's 'not surprising' Gottlieb went out of business given these games' market performance. Alan mentioned Silver Slugger was 'meager success.'

machine_intel: Brooks and Dunn pinball prototype existed but was never manufactured due to Gottlieb's closure.

high · Multiple references to Brooks and Dunn as unreleased final project. This is historical/archived knowledge about unreleased machine.

licensing_signal: What Women Want's use of Silver Slugger likely unpaid and uncleared (standard for background set dressing), illustrating how film productions handle incidental use of branded products.

medium · Discussion of whether Paramount paid for product placement. Consensus that Gottlieb's claim that movie audiences believed Gottlieb endorsed the film was implausible.

business_signal: Gottlieb/Paramount lawsuit in 2008 appears to be opportunistic attempt to monetize remaining IP assets 8 years after film release, possibly triggered by Gottlieb regaining independence from Coca-Cola.

medium · Nate speculated lawsuit was 'last ditch effort' to make money off Gottlieb IP. Alan noted timing (18 years after game release, 12 years after company closure) suggests opportunistic strategy rather than genuine infringement concern.

content_signal: Extensive cataloging of pinball machines appearing in films exists (described as 4-5 page website and Facebook group 'Pinspotting'). Most studios either pay for placement, debadge products, or blur logos.

medium · Nate mentioned website cataloging all pinball appearances in movies. Discussed common industry practice of obscuring or paying for product placement.