Licensing

yea i dont get it either, specialy since they helicopters in question are all payed for by the US taxpayer! Its just greedy corperate lawyers wanting more money for doing nothing (after all, its not like the build the 3d model, then texture it, then code it etc etc etc) ... never thought i'd say this, but i hope EA win!
 
I have always wondered how these companies can get away with this, especially in a case like this that involves publicly funded products such as the AH-1 aircraft. What better public relations or marketing than to have something like this out there for everyone to see?


I say.....keep'm coming.......besides...how did Area 51 get to do the AH-1Z? Did they get permission? Maybe I should go buy the UN-1Z also before they get sued for it.
 
It's just corporate greed and the quest for the almighty dollar. Il-2 Sturmovik: Pacific Fighters fell victim to the same thing and it got so nasty that Oleg Maddox said he would never include another U.S. built aircraft in his sims. Plastic model manufacturers have been paying fees to produce plastic models and model railroad manufacturers pay fees to use the paint schemes and logos of the railroads they model. I wish EA well, but the big corporations have very deep pockets.
 
logos and paint schemes i can understand, because people associate that logo/paint with a certain company .. but for planes or trains its just stupid ...
 
Certaintly an interesting take that is for sure. I can see both sides of the argument. I doubt it will hold up from Textrons perspective. The only way I could see them possibly getting anything is because EA is such a large company. I doubt they would target someone like Area 51, or the like. We shall see though.
 
Isnt that stupid...


man..

They have the chance to become a household name, get into peoples living rooms, offices, see their products played, kids grow up knowing their product lines and possibly become their future Bell pilots, and here this company is suing them. lol....

I dont get it. Other Corporations spend billions in advertising, and here it is for free and Textron sue them! That shows their intelligence level.
 
I always assumed that replicating military aircraft falls under fair use since they are citizen paid. I don't even see a case. EA won't back out of this without a fight. They are also a multi-million dollar company with very deep pockets.
 
stiz said:
logos and paint schemes i can understand, because people associate that logo/paint with a certain company .. but for planes or trains its just stupid ...
Click to expand...

Re. paint schemes - I was late to the fsx table for helicopters. See videos and screenshots of ND MD500 with Magnum PI paint from ND. Is no longer available.
What could be the reason for pulling the plug on a paint used in a defunct tv series? (curious to hear opinions)
 
Textron will lose this case. This has already been decided in court and by directive of the DOD and more than once ruled that any and all taxpayer funded US Military hardware is in effect public domain meaning no corporation, company, individual or any other contractor entity has the right to restrict or license the image/utility name of said hardware unless it involves the name of the said corporation and/or the physical replication of the hardware. In other words, if I want to make silkscreen art/shirts of an F-22 or a AH-1Z without using the trade name of Lockheed-Martin or Textron name and sell them, it's my right to do so. They may still sue but any lawyer worth a hoot will shoot holes in their case like Swiss cheese. I remember when Lockheed-Martin tried to pull this crap several times involving flightsim type software. Their legal eagle eyes were going to impose license on digital re-creations of any and all aircraft dating back to pre-acquisition of of Consolidated/Convair/General Dynamics, etc. That was until the bad press they got out of it ended up forcing a memo being delivered their legal dept to drop such claims outright(or so the story goes).
 
They have the chance to become a household name, get into peoples living rooms, offices, see their products played, kids grow up knowing their product lines and possibly become their future Bell pilots, and here this company is suing them.
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't see the market for an attack helicopter increasing markedly because it's in a computer game, and I'm not sure many arms companies are that worried about becoming household names heck there are loads that actively try and avoid becoming household names!

Some companies don't want their products appearing in games because of the lack of control they have over what the end user does with it, which is why there aren't any 'real' cars in Grand Theft Auto. I believe Porsche cars aren't featured in one of the Gran Turismo games because they put too many constraints on how they could be represented.

From the company's point of view why should someone else profit from their hard work and investment without paying for it? After all if there wasn't some sales value in copying a real world design they wouldn't do it and as I understand it that's how the law stands, if you copy someone's product in another format for profit e.g. toy, t-shirt, computer game they are entitled to a licensing fee and to impose limitations on its use.

You'll have noticed how representations of real aircraft are far more popular than fictional ones in FSX, which indicates there is value to be had in copying a real world design.

logos and paint schemes i can understand, because people associate that logo/paint with a certain company
Click to expand...

And people associate the 747 with Boeing, the 911 with Porsche etc. Planes, Trains and Automobiles are 3D logos and marks of the company that made them.

Now in this specific instance there may be an exception due to the taxpayer funded status of the object in question (and this doesn't apply in all countries) but Bell may feel they have a case if private company funds had been invested in some stage of the development and considering the age of the UH-1/AH-1 design that wouldn't be surprising.
 
When i look at the image above, I see an AH-1 Apache. I dont see Bell textron, I dont see EA, I see a helicopter some of my money goes into producing. I and all of us paid for it, its ours, not textrons or EA's.. but these bozo's think they can get away with bullying people around because we're such a docile society any more.. We own the damn thing, it should be us deciding if it cAN BE USED OR NOT.. and i would rather see it used, than not be used..
Pam
 
warchild said:
When i look at the image above, I see an AH-1 Apache. I dont see Bell textron, I dont see EA, I see a helicopter some of my money goes into producing. I and all of us paid for it, its ours, not textrons or EA's.. but these bozo's think they can get away with bullying people around because we're such a docile society any more.. We own the damn thing, it should be us deciding if it cAN BE USED OR NOT.. and i would rather see it used, than not be used..
Pam
Click to expand...

Well said, Pam! Exactly what I was thinking.
 
SkippyBing said:
And people associate the 747 with Boeing, the 911 with Porsche etc. Planes, Trains and Automobiles are 3D logos and marks of the company that made them.
Click to expand...

only those who know who makes em, the vast majority just see "plane" "car" "train" !
 
stiz said:
only those who know who makes em, the vast majority just see "plane" "car" "train" !
Click to expand...

People's ignorance is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned, furthermore if people really did just see 'plane' 'car' 'train' why do game companies go to such lengths to make accurate copies?

It strikes me as somewhat ironic that on a forum with a rigid policy on piracy there's disdain for such a closely related area of the law.
 
SkippyBing said:
why do game companies go to such lengths to make accurate copies?
Click to expand...

because they build the plane they like and know, for those who also like the plane and who want an 100% accurate model of it. Ask people outside of flight sim, car sim, train sim, what a specific plane is call (so say a 747) and who made it, i can pretty much quarentee most of the answers will NOT have 747 or boeing in them.


It strikes me as somewhat ironic that on a forum with a rigid policy on piracy there's disdain for such a closely related area of the law.
Click to expand...

I still think its a grey area where theres no set law (like trade names, logos etc). You could argue that the devs are simply chargeing for the work they've put into recreateing the object in question, after all, textron dont exactly sit infront of the computer, model the mesh, do the codeing, do the textures etc etc. Also if textron get what they want, does that mean that a company (for example) can do a 24" monitor and say "no one else can do one!!! its our shape!!!" ?
 
stiz said:
because they build the plane they like and know, for those who also like the plane and who want an 100% accurate model of it. Ask people outside of flight sim, car sim, train sim, what a specific plane is call (so say a 747) and who made it, i can pretty much quarentee most of the answers will NOT have 747 or boeing in them.
Click to expand...

But who are the models being sold to? That's right, people who place value on them because they represent real objects rather than imaginary ones.


I still think its a grey area where theres no set law (like trade names, logos etc). You could argue that the devs are simply chargeing for the work they've put into recreateing the object in question, after all, textron dont exactly sit infront of the computer, model the mesh, do the codeing, do the textures etc etc. Also if textron get what they want, does that mean that a company (for example) can do a 24" monitor and say "no one else can do one!!! its our shape!!!" ?
Click to expand...

Put it this way, if a toy company makes a model of a, plane, actual person, etc they have to pay a licensing fee to the manufacturer/actual person, why should it be different for someone who makes virtual toys?
The argument about charging only for the work in recreating the object is irrelevant, as, as far as I'm aware the law doesn't allow you to make that distinction. The product sells because it looks like an established real life object so there is perceived value from it looking like that, you'll note the low sales of fantasy aircraft in FS.

On your final point Apple are suing Samsung in a variety of territories because they believe the Galaxy Tab looks too much like the iPad. You can make a 24" monitor no problem, but if you slavishly copy the design of a rival manufacturer expect to be visiting the courts in short order. Similarly Ford would be in a world of hurt if their next car looked exactly like a Ferrari 308.
 
It's interesting to me that EA's suit (Textron is defendant) doesn't seem to dispute Textron's ownership of trade mark or trade dress, rather that EA can use them under two different theories. There is no mention of any claim by Textron for copyright of the design as a “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work”.

scott s.
.
 
SkippyBing said:
Put it this way, if a toy company makes a model of a, plane, actual person, etc they have to pay a licensing fee to the manufacturer/actual person, why should it be different for someone who makes virtual toys?
The argument about charging only for the work in recreating the object is irrelevant, as, as far as I'm aware the law doesn't allow you to make that distinction. The product sells because it looks like an established real life object so there is perceived value from it looking like that, you'll note the low sales of fantasy aircraft in FS.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this toy is owned by the U.S. government and is paid for by public tax money. In the United States multiple cases have been filed in this regard to copyrights and military aircraft and the law has been shown historically to be on EAs side. I'm all for protection of intellectual property, but at the same time tax paid and or governmental equipment should not apply. If this were the case, nearly half of the games on my shelf could be in trouble for such copyright infringement.

Opening that door could put EA in harm's way for many copyright lawsuits that extend far beyond the graphic of a helicopter... from the equipment and arms to the use of battlefield uniforms made by various manufacturers. It could potentially put a lid on the franchise and it's competitors (Call of Duty) as well as historically accurate games. And who is stopping there? What about the History Channel's use of images in documentaries about said vehicles in their historical context? They are a for profit company, but are they illegally using images and intellectual property as well? Should NASA and the people who built the shuttle sue everyone who made a copy of the shuttle? Should Colt and Fabrique Nationale go after gaming companies for making models of M-16 and M-4 rifles? The list would be endless, and would be entirely stifling. Many companies however in the past have taken a safer road by incorrectly changing the nomenclature of various weapons or replicated models, while still retaining their visual accuracy.... but if such doors were opened, even the shape could be grounds for copyright infringement, and that is a scenario that is dangerous.

Textron has a reputation of chasing down copyrights as has been shown in the FS community with the word "Cessna." These types of things typically start from the top down in management and/or are controlled by out of control lawyers/contractors who's job it is to seek this stuff out to ensure future employment by proving they are doing more than sitting on their rear.
 
there is truth in both sides of that arguement
the truth is US Military stuff is owned (finaced) by the US Taxpayer, however the IP rights do belong to the manufacturer and they are in their rights to demand that it is licensed, whether for a fee or not.
Also they have rights to comment and approve or not the look of the product that is being portrayed (if it is chosen to say it is what it is...)
the only way the company (ie EA) can avoid this is by not calling it or making it look like a real aircraft, becuase if it does then again they can be sued for breach of copyright / trademark

also one more point, yes the Aircraft is part of the US ORBAT and therefore owned by tax payers, HOWEVER, most if not all contracts are based on an initial competition / tender for the contract they still had to fund all the work up until the contract is placed....
the F117 for example was never a military contract, they did it all off their own back... so it could have been a very costly flop!
Click to expand...

Quote above is from a Skype conversation I had with a friend who works in the toy industry and has to deal with this stuff. As he says there's truth in both sides of the argument, however the tax payer funded get out clause is open to interpretation in that very few programs are 100% tax payer funded, I'm guessing also unless the law was enacted retrospectively there's all sorts of legal room to manoeuvre for programs that started before it came into being. That's presumably why Bell/Textron feel it's worth taking the legal action, if it was an open and shut case it wouldn't be worth them even trying.

As another mental exercise, do you think Bell should have a say in the use of their IP if I wrote a computer game where you use an AH-1 to blow up orphanages and convents? From their point of view there is such a thing as bad PR.

For the record I'm not hugely in favour of the action Bell have taken, but I do recognise they have a right to enforce their IP in the manner they choose consistent with the law even if I think there are better ways of doing it. Asking nicely is always a nice starter. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean you should expect to get away with ignoring it, as the points on my driving license attest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top