Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment
 

-

From another thread:


“Excuse me if I seem to be bashing again but I can’t get my head around the “logic” of the firms involved.

The nation is under attack: and the citizens and companies are threatened: the citizens ask the companies to produce products that will make it possible for the citizens to protect the nation and the companies from that threat: the citizens pays for them in full: the companies are protected and makes a profit; the citizens pay in both gold and in blood: jet the companies owns it all!?

I know that it’s often a huge gap between law and moral but this…

*Viking shakes his head*

Viking”

I seriously didn’t want to bash or insult anyone I just described a very (extremely) naïve perception of the “problem”. Like I sad I know it’s a huge gap.

Let’s not go ballistic or nationalistic or start a flame thread here. But it sure would be nice to root out all the rumours and guesses and get some real hard facts on this topic.

Viking

From the other thread, in reply to your above post, Viking:



US Law in many cases, like this one, requires, I stress, requires a company to actively pursue issues similar to this if they want their rights protected later on. Otherwise a precedent is made that can be used as a legal wedge later on, to violate intellectual property, or copyright, or trademark- and it doesn't mater if the issue with Oleg was not trademark, or if it was not copyright, or if it was both, or neither. It's irrelevant. And intent, "public domain", cultural heritage...these things are nice warm and fuzzy feel goods, I agree, but they mean squat here

let me ask you a few questions, Viking:

Does the Government in your country collect taxes?

Do they buy things with those taxes?

Do those things belong to you? Can you use them whenever you like?

Do you own the Rights to the designs that produced those things?

The answers are of course "No" to the last three. You don't own those things or their rights. [thank you Avinimus! that made no sense before- Chris]. And of course, the companies that contract to your Government do exactly the same thing in regards to things they design.

So why then do you think that products made for WWII "belong" to US citizens? The US Government collected taxes, and sold Bonds to raise money for this WWII production. Then they allocated money to various Government agencies. The US Navy was one, and still is.

So the US Navy contracts Grumman to make a plane. The US Navy owns the plane. They bought it, with their money. They did. Not "The People". It's US Navy Property. Just like an Aircraft Carrier in use today, or a US Naval airbase or a truck the US Navy hauls toilet paper in. Every time a dollar changes hands, the the government that made the monetary system possible gets a share. This idea is very old of course- they back up the monetary system with their guarantee it will work, so the People pay taxes

But does the US Navy own the rights to the designs of that plane, or that aircraft carrier or that airbase or that delivery truck, just becasue they bought a plane, or a carrier, or an airbase, or a truck? Does the age of the thing matter?

Again, no. The company that designed the things owns those rights. How does it matter that the plane is 75 years old? The rights are not public property, and never, ever were

So today, a company called Northrop-Grumman Corporation owns the rights to for instance, an F4F-3 aircraft. [edit for clarity- they did not buy these rights. They always had them from day one. They ARE "Grumman". And why should they not have the rights to things they developed??] Exactly the same way they own the rights to an F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The same laws protect both sets of "rights". There is no "F3F-3 Law" and no "Super Hornet Law". The same rules apply to both for at least some aspects of the laws that protect their company

So let's say you find a loophole that lets you use the design of the F3F-4 without asking permission. So now let's also assume that some clever person notes that and has a bright idea. Now let's further assume that that "somebody else" will now try to use that event (your use of the old plane design) as a legal precedent to use the design of the F/A-18 E/F without asking. Of course it will fail by the way

But that will not stop these suits at NGC from being very afraid of that precedent you set with that loophole, because they can't predict how that might affect them later, because the same Laws protect all those things, and if they give up their rights to protect one, they are showing that there's a situation in which they will let the things they own- doesn't matter what things- be used without permission. So they will be very vigilant to make sure those loopholes and precedents never exist

Does this help you to begin to see the potential for problems surrounding this thing? It's much more complex than "Guys in suits are ruining our fun because they are greedy"

What set this in motion? what was the impetus that caused NGC to care? Lots of rumors. I have my own theory based on what I've been told, and the blame in that theory lies with neither Oleg Maddox, his company, or Northrop-Grumman Corporation. It lies with another group

But how does our gnashing teeth matter? It can't be un-done

I've tried for years to explain that it's not the WWII airplanes that is the issue here- it's that "Things" Northrop-Grumman Corporation owns rights to are in contest

the fact that these things are WWII vintage aircraft has nothing to do with it. If it helps to clarify it, imagine that the "Things" are brand new products they just unveiled yesterday. Even if those things are not critical to national Defense, or secret

Their lawyers want to set their own precedents, by bringing legal weight to bear if somebody even looks like they might take liberties with something NGC owns.

They do this to set a precedent they themselves use later on- When X law was violated it meant that Y amount of money was due us because of infringement of Z

that way, they know to the penny how much they can and will sue for when somebody tries to steal something from them for real

Avinimus-

you made a statement before about how we have "Rights" to display our history. Can you be a little more clear on this? I posted that was an insane notion before, and here's why:

Lots of things that I don't have the right to display are part of my national history. I don't have the "Right" to re-enact the Boston massacre for example. I don't have the "Right" to make a video game about capturing run-away slaves in 1850s Alabama. I don't have the "Right" to sell prints of the assaults on 10 year old girls and grandmothers in Nanking

These things are not "Rights". The right to free speech does not guarantee my right to offend or cause distress. There's an old saying: 'you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre'

Well...why not?! I'm an American! I have FREE Speech!! It doesn't work like that. Lots of Americans think it does, but they are sadly wrong. And that hasn't ever been the intent of Free Speech

Do I have the Right to try to express my Art in the above ways? Yes. But that doesn't mean I can run around doing anything I want to. "Free Speech" is constantly abused- "I have a Right!" Well, most times, that just means "I am entitled to say what I want or do what I want, no matter what!"- and that's not so

Nobody "bought" the rights to History. that's way out of proportion and out of context

A company designed a plane. They own the design. 70 years go by- suddenly, and somehow, they do not own those rights to control their own design anymore? Preposterous

Imagine you're making a racing game about Ferraris

Now, imagine what Scuderia Ferrari will say if you try to do that without securing permission, and if saying "Well this car was made 50 years ago!" will sway them

Actually, in Italy (and in all Europe), you could, if you don't use the name "Ferrari" (which is protected by a trademark).
Industrial design, including car and plane design, is not protected by the intellectual property rights and can't be copyrighted (In Europe, that's the main difference with US)
In industrial design, only patented design can be protected, and only for a duration of 25 years.
Trademark are of course protected, but the trademark deposit must be confirmed each 10 years.

I know it's fully different in US.

I guess the reason a lot of people see this as just "greedy men in suits" is that it appears to be very much a US phenomenon.

Which is a very good thing, otherwise I guess WoW:BoB would never be made.

Very interesting; but I think we should start from the beginning: if I recall correctly there where some American airplanes and ships that was expected or “promised” to appear in Pacific Fighter and didn’t show up. What airplanes and ships and what was the reason for this? Can anyone recap and clarify?

And please don’t criticise or defend the legal system! Just explain what went down and how things work.
Viking

I think the matter of "legal precedence" that Former Older mentioned is the crux of the matter here. This was explained to me by a friend of mine who study international law, so my explanation may be a bit off, but basically it goes like this:

Compared to European countries, the US have very few laws governing the minutae of civil life. This has lead to a system where "legal precedence" is very important. The basic idea is that if something has been common practice, it's legal. Courts decide in cases where there's doubt or contesting claims as to what is right. This has lead to a system where rulings are made on basis of former rulings.

This applies to this case in that a certain US company has made sure they have control of the "intellectual property" of their vintage designs. If they let it slip once, anyone with a good barrister can claim "legal precedence", and start to use the companies other (and no doubt more important) intellectual property, effectively robbing them of their design rights. I don't think a certain US company ever thought Oleg or his IL2-series to be a threat in themselves.

I have tried to explain this as neutrally as I could.

If thats the case then why not use this as an example: The WW2 US army boot, helmet, shovel/trenching tool, pocket knife. I bet no one seeks permission to use the image rights of those but I bet someone does own the design and image rights for them but doesn't give a **** if there used. I mean how stupid would that be for the owner of the design or image rights of the US GI helmet to say "You can't use its image, I want to see that statue in Arlington down by the end of the week and no more WW2 computer games, thanks."

I guess the other main point is the 'product' is a historical relic thats part of the history of a number of nations and the design is neither current, competitive, in production, marketed or anything else which could affect the profits or operation of NG.

Imagine if BAE behaved in such a childish money grabbing manner. I think they own the rights to almost every British military thing ever made and a few US ones too!

I think the same legal precedence has made the G.I. helmet public property. Besides, the helmet was (if I'm correct) made by a number of companies to a US government specification. As such, the helmet (and bayonet and a heap of other things) cannot be claimed as intellectual property of one company.

The problems Mondo mention are real. The idea behind having few laws is a noble one, the rule of reason rather than the rule of law. Unfortunately, a complex society and rampant capitalism has made it into the rule of layers in stead. However, this is an internal US legal, constitutional and thus political problem. This is something the Americans will have to solve through their own political system.

Ah! But I am neither defending nor criticizing. I am describing how an aspect of things works, that few people seem to understand or even wish to accept

It is impossible for me to "explain what went down". If I only could! I could then explain the moon, stars, and everything above them and below

This is why I did not cite any specifics, and I only say that this may begin to explain some of the complexities and concerns involved. If I could cite what really happened, what specific infringements were alleged, which of those could be made to "stick", and what was done in the way of threatening and browbeating away from a legal arena, then maybe I could begin to paint a clear picture. But of course then I'd be privy to everything that both Oleg and NGC knows about the issue

The the issue at bottom is, I very strongly feel, legal precedence, which Petter has been so good as to couch in alternative terms to try and help clarify

Now, what do I know about this? Only what I was told, and I was asked to keep the source to myself. So that may be that what I know is not true- but that is why I go no further than to say: this idea of precedence is most likely the common thread that makes NGC so damned infuriating to us in the flight sim world- but they are merely acting within their legal rights to protect themselves- and they are not afraid of what Oleg does to their business, at all. They are afraid that what he does may be cited at a future date as a reason they lost control over a thing that is actually very important to them, that has zero to do with WWII aircraft.

What I was told:

UbiSoft made box art and copy. By 'copy' I am referring to the descriptions, and disclaimers, along with any copyrights, trademarks, and acknowledgments of ownership legally needed for the box

On the box they designed and approved, there were things such as aircraft, to which Northrop-Grumman Corporation owns the rights, and UbiSoft failed to secure permission for that

This started a snowball effect, and by the time all was said and done, from what I was told, from a source I will not name but of whom I have no doubts as to sincerity, UbiSoft basically put the mess in Oleg's lap. Oleg paid for Ubi's mis-step, figuratively and from what I gather, monetarily- but that is my own inference, not what I was told

Now, much of this has been argued:

it was copyright!
no, it was trademark!

I don't see how that really matters. The end result was the omission of things. Some of which were because of rights that were violated through the lack of permission (and a fee, no dount!). How do ships fit in? That's rumored, and the rumors I heard, again from those that stand a fair chance of knowing part of the story, that Oleg (When I say "Oleg" I of course mean whatever representation he had, and Oleg) was either convinced that "all" further US material was off-limits, or that he decided it was simply too much trouble to do it, when he was hung out to dry the way he (probably) was

But bear in mind: Ilya (Luthier1) and his team, very clearly, did not have a firm grasp on the PTO in any case. When asked if there would be a "Slot" map, the response from Ilya was, as I recall "What do you need the Slot for? You have Guadalcanal". That right there is a fair indication that the entire theatre was mis-understood by the developers- but let's be fair- how good of an Eastern Front sim could I design? I knew as little about the Crimea as Ilya probably did of the Solomons. We are from different cultures

So the omission of some thigns that to you and I might be "huge" or "important" to the developers might have been an "acceptable omission of detail", and therefore it may have been thought: "Screw it. We have enough PTO content already, we've covered the bases without needing more planes and specific ships. Screw NGC too, we don't need them anyhow"

That is, of course, just my feeling on how it may have been. But it seems logical to me given what I've learned. I will never know "the facts", and Oleg of course is not about to spill the beans

probably true :grin:

But that is their Right to not care about the helmet and boot and shovel. Why is it not NGC's Right to care about their own designs? They need to change what they do to protect their business, to cater to flight sim users? Is that reasonable?

Think about that a moment.

NGC is a real company that employs real people and has an actual responsibility to it's shareholders and employees. If they please to protect themselves by acting within their guaranteed by law rights, then what right do you have to say they should not do so?

These same ideas protect me, by the way, if ever I should have a desirable design. I will have certain rights and be protected by certain laws. If I perceive a threat to what I own, why should I not use those laws to protect myself if I see the need?

What we see is "sim being punished by jerks who are worried about things that don't matter and shouldn't be theirs to control". That's what we want to see, and that's what the mob mentality has decided is going on

Petter-

as usual, you seem to easily grasp someone's meaning and maintain a level head while doing it. that is basically what I am suggesting, as absurd as the idea of using a loophole from the use of an F3F to steal some aspect of an F-18 is, I just used those as well known examples, naturally, to reinforce my point- which you seem to understand perfectly

You are one of the people I truly miss interacting with at Ubi's forums

what i obviously fail to grasp is why can´t the companys not give somebody (here oleg) the rights to use the models and pictures, where they are holding the rights, in a exactly specified way (which has to be determined by the partys) without charge?
I mean, oleg gives them free pr! ok, a bit outdated for the models he intended to use, but still free pr.
If that had been worked out by the suit and tie wearers nobody else could have profited by this deal and we would enjoy the pto a bit more.

Hi Former_Older, you wouldn't happen to be "Former Chuck_Older", a.k.a. BB-Cid, the Flying Tiger mission maker and skinner?

Robtek:
Yes, they probably could, written agreement and everything. The problem is that it would be a bit back and forth for them, translating things into Russian, getting confirmation from some expert in Russian and international law that their contract was covering everything, running it through their own department to see if anyone had objections, then back to the Russians etc. All in all they probably didn't think the admittedly limited PR they could get out of it worth the highly paid man-hours they'd have to put into it.

If Former Older is right (and I believe he is), they started out on the wrong foot too. Making a "good friends" deal when you have just had a bit of less then pleasantly worded legal correspondance going back and forth is very, very hard. If Oleg and Ilya felt they had most of what was needed, they probably decided not to go on trying to get favours out of someone they felt was hostile to begin with.

If it was a depiction of one of there products thats actually being produced, marketed and sold today and has direct competition then I'd agree with you 100% but in this case none of it is. Its all over 60 years old and none of its in service any more. They are not protecting anything, they are just being difficult and essentially asking people to buy the right to depict history.

I hear what your saying and if it was a current product then I could see why they would want people to seek permission and probably pay up some cash or lip service to them for the use of the image but it serves no purpose to them to block people using the image rights to a 60 year old iconic part of history.

Its trademarking and copyrighting gone mad (or gone USA I guess). Imagine if all the other companies or people who own the image rights in IL2 for the 50+ different plane types all did the same thing. No more flight sims.

So if the main problem is companies wanting to avoid creating a legal precedent, and not that they want to make a few modest bucks, surely it could be solved very easily if Oleg agreed to pay for the right to use the names/images. -- So he could agree to pay one dollar for the deal. --- hell! I would even be prepared to fund it.

Of course, not being a lawyer, I really don't understand these things and am being far too naive.

Why are more Americans not kicking up a fuss about all the US planes missing from a world leading flight sim. Complain to your Senators. It could become a Presidential election issue :grin:

You've never been over to ubi zoo forums I take it? ;)

For the sake of argument, why can't oleg just make the darn planes and put a different name on them? We'll all know what they are. :)

From Olegs thread;

"Quote:
Originally Posted by VMF-214_HaVoK
I believe the trouble came when the use of the manufacturers name in print such as "Grumman" F6F Hellcat. Had something like F6F or just Hellcat been used I dont think the case is ever made. Thats what I gather from all the speculating rumors over the years.

S!

Doesn't matter F6F or Hellcat.... even image was prohibited.... Such a true story happened....."

Sad….!

Viking

"But does the US Navy own the rights to the designs of that plane, or that aircraft carrier or that airbase or that delivery truck, just becasue they bought a plane, or a carrier, or an airbase, or a truck? Does the age of the thing matter?

Again, no. The company that designed the things owns those rights."

In these discussions, no one ever points out that the US Government could have obtained the rights to the designs, and frankly, in light of security issues, I'm not certain why they didn't. I'm a contracts lawyer for the state I live in, and whenever we bid for a design or development of a thing (usually software these days)...because it is being paid for through taxpayer dollars...we retain the rights to the design up front, or we go to the next qualified bidder. If it's a proprietary thingy (again mostly software) where we are essentially buying it off the shelf, the company retains the rights, because it was developed with private/corporate funds.

My understanding of aircraft development in the '30s and '40s is that the government put out specs for companies to design from, contractors submitted their product, tests were conducted, and contracts were let. I don't see why the government didn't retain the rights--presumably for good ol' capitalistic reasons--but nothing would have prevented them from doing so (unless the laws on the books at that time didn't allow it, but I haven't found anything supporting that possibility).

Of course if Uncle Sam did retain the rights, it still wouldn't help us out here, because the government wouldn't likely license those rights to the average Joe anyway. At least my state government doesn't.

My 2 cents.

The plastic modeling industry has been going through this for years. Some pay the royalties and others just ignore it. I don't know of anyone being sued for making a likeness of a Gruuman Avenger or CV Yorktown.

With that being said; Ubisoft screwed up royally on the packaging by stating the Grumman Avenger, Douglas Havoc etc. instead of TBF Avenger or A-20 Havoc.
DO NOT put company names on your retail product period.

See this article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in887340.shtml

Does anyone know what happened to the proposed law on this issue?

Former Older,

Thanks for this interesting clarification about the legal rationale. Nonetheless I believe that the protest of the "game people" does not come from a simple childish "I want it!" instinct.

IMHO this is one of the cases where "summum ius summa iniuria", as Romans used to say. In other words the strict interpretation of the law clashes violently with the common sense of justice of the average man.


Regards,
Insuber

In a broader sense, the idea of demanding royalties for showing an image of a product seems absurd to me.

Imagine if I took a photograph of my room, and sold that photo for $20. The company that made my furniture would want their piece of the $20. The company that made my computer would want their piece. The company that made my carpet would want their piece. And so on.

Pretty soon, these royalties would be more than the $20 I made. Were this the case, it would be impossible to produce any kind of media.

It's mind boggling absurd and impractical that any company should demand royalties for displaying an image of their product. It's reprehensible that any would get away with it, and only then because of legal loopholes and bullying.

Try selling a product with an image of say an LCD monitor on the box. Better yet make it a Sony monitor and see what will happen...

The concept is rapidly becoming a problem. I'm involved in making a small educational film with the local museum. The only thing making our job remotely possible is that it is a non-profit film. In Norway we have rather straight forward laws on the matter, but the American oxmanure rules are spilling over here as well. In the end I think all this will force forth some sort of "public image" law, detailing what is beyond copyright bounds.

the use and depiction of military assets in movie/ television/ art (rendered) media doesn't require permission or infringe on copyright, as I understand it... though I would stand correction.

Hello,

Having started this topic, I thought I would weigh in. In particular, Former_Older I thought you would find this interesting as it is inspired by what you have written:
http://web.ncf.ca/ee555/il2unwritten.pdf

I look forward to hearing your response, S!

I have read from some involved in intellectual property law, state that if you look people in the eye and say "fair use", they'll probably leave you alone. They did say 'probably' though...hmmm

Looks like another developer, "Gearbox" who are trying to recreate cities and objects as they were in WWII, is dealing with that same issue but with great
success. they are able to use the "philips" logo and the Opel logo now.
http://www.gearboxity.com/content/view/323/38/

their game is called Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway, if any of you are interested.

Copyright is a legitimate issue. That pertains tot he box art for PF. They had a copyright, all rights reserved to themselves. The used NGC's trademark on the box, however. Their blanket copyright in effect stole the trademark.

They were now FUBAR and had to do whatever NGC asked.

You are allowed to use another company's trademark on a package as long as it is clear you are not pretending to be the actual product, period. No permission is needed.

I can make a lens and put "Works with Canon™ DSLRs" on the box art. No perms needed as long as I properly denote the Canon brand name.

The only possible issue is intellectual property which is not related to © or ™.

Hey, that was a great read. I'm glad to see some success by using some good old fashion PR. I doubt a RUSSIAN company would have this type of success with US military companies but you never know.

If it was presented to them with something like Mitsubishi, Mercedes Benz, MiG etc. let us use their aircraft......

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthrea...threadid=13370

That thread there discusses this issue very well :)

Greed, its such a missused word, isnt it AMERICA.

But it's not greed. Haven't you been reading? It's oh so easy to blame "America", but you have no inkling about what you're about. Northrop Grumman didn't set it's sights on the simming world and lick it's chops

tater has spelled out what I have thought was the issue, for some time. Based on my conversations with people who have some info on this (not forum rumor, information), and my experience dealing with Northrop-Grumman on a professional basis...well I've seen parts of their contracts and how strictly controlled they keep house

NGC didn't go looking for this. It found them. And they were obliged to respond the way they did, so the Law could protect them in the future. I explained this on page 1 :) They don;t particularly care if this is about WWII aircraft. They don't care that it's aircraft. They care that it's THEIRS

Now, nobody's required to believe what I've posted on this, put everyone is invited to research the facts of the matter and how US Law would require NGC to react and why. "Precedent" is a very big thing

This wasn't corporate greed, or a desire for Northrop Grumman to spoil our fun, or an attempt to do some silly and sinister thing like take away our heritage

This was the result of somebody breaking the law. NGC's rights were violated. That does not necessarily mean "copyright", by the way. Just becasue NGC has a lot of money, that doesn;t mean that UbiSoft can go around breaking laws and violating their rights, and just because NGC has a lot of money, that doesn't mean the law should not protect them. UbiSoft made a regrettable mistake- and they paid the price. Well, actually, I believe they made Maddox Games pay the actual price in dollars and future development by bullying Oleg into thinking he was responsible, and also allowing NGC to get a ruling that tied MG's hands, but that's just my opinion

Since this thread's back, another viewpoint:

I'm fresh from ITAR training. That's International Trade in Arms Regulations. After going to this training, I see very clearly now that what the layman who plays sims feels is "public domain" is a very far cry from what is really public domain! I also learned very clearly that just because a thing is legal in one country, that doesn't make it legal in the USA, and the penalties for these things are steep. Now ITAR doesn't directly relate here, but it is trade Law, and if commercial trade law is HALF as draconian as some of these Trade in Arms laws...wow

I think that what most companies fail to understand is the concept of "free advertising"..just imagine, you get a deal with Grumman to include a small video of what a great brand it is, that they built some of the finest aircraft on WW2, and that they still use the same care and technology advances in their current products....or Boeing/Douglas...to include the real deal ( with the cool logo on the control yoke on their planes)...this people fail to see a good platform to advertise their products to new consumers via branding of their products on mass media.

Free publicity...in a day when you have to pay 22,000 bucks to put a full page add on a magazine, you can not beat the free part.

imagine something like this on a game box:

aircraft depicted in this game are courtesy of "insert name here" manufacturer of high tech "aircraft/satellite/etc", please see our website www."manufacturer".com to learn more about us.....bling....more people learn about them, and they can actually increase the sales of whatever they do , 75 years after they made that product depicted on the game....for free.

Former Older,

All that you say sound nice, but there's a small problem:

NGC never sued against microsoft, as far as I know. why? maybe because microsft may be a too big oponent in court?.. or, maybe, simply because microsoft made certain that no CFS box had any company name on it.

From what I've understood, defense firms threatened to sue ubi, 1C etc, because they used their trademarks on the packages... WWII planes, as such, do not belong to them, as they were financed by tax money.

What's more, I don't remember seeing any company sueing developpers for other games before, nor do I remember them sueing any developper putting online planes like the Grumman Goose and such for FS...

I take planes" photographies... I have a Grumman Wildcat that's displayed in my web gallery... maybe they should sue me too? after all, I published a representation of a plane they built... I even had one of my pics published in a magazine.. figuring a Chance Vought Corsair taking off... why don't they sue me and the magazine who published it?

the reason is simple: it's not about the representation (because, if US law is based on precedency, it's already too late to complain, they've let go for decades), but just because of the inappropriate use of their company name...

I'm unfamiliar with the issues you're talking about. Could it be that Microsoft didn't break the law? :) Or because MS did what Ubi should have done, and could have:

asked permission to do it?? Ubisoft is not an innocent little kid, they are supposed to be in world business

This:

"because, if US law is based on precedency, it's already too late to complain, they've let go for decades"

is confusing to me. What do you mean to say? "The US" has let too much go? Northrop Grumman? The two aren't the same thing you know. It's also very hard to take a blanket statement like "because, if US law is based on precedency, it's already too late to complain, they've let go for decades" and defend it. You must realise that each case of violation of a company's rights is potentially different. You can't say "Oh well, too late, everything goes now". For one thing, of course that statement is too broad to be so. For another...the courts don't care

So, if I understand you here, you're saying that it's OK for UbiSoft to have broken the Law, and because it was NGC's rights that were violated, it's ok, and the reason is because it doesn't much matter

On the one hand I can see that you're debating this with your gut feelings- of course you know that the reasons you cite are not a good enough reason for UbiSoft to go around breaking US Law. I don't care if Microsft violated more laws, it still doesn't make what Ubi did OK. These things don't cancel out. Ubi isn't forgiven X number of violations of law for every Y number of times MS does it

On the other hand I can see that you don't appreciate that if you don't feel that NGC should be protected by US law, why should US law protect individuals or other businesses? "Ah, he had it coming. That guy had too much money. Serves him right that he got robbed" What?? You can't really feel that way

Every time I try to explain these things, somebody treats me as if *I'm* Northrop Grumman and *I* did this

Ubisoft did it. Get mad at Ubisoft. I don't care who also broke the Law, it doesn't excuse Ubisoft's poor business and illegal practices. People get mad at NGC over this becasue that's what they've read only: "Northrop Grumman did this!". Heaven forbid anyone actually look into it, oh no! Just go with what the mob yells and that's good enough- and the reasons? Public Domain, the good old "it doesn't matter", "It's our heritage", and the oldie but goodie "Tax money paid for it". Big deal. The US government owned the planes but the designs are property of the firms that designed and/or purchased them. Just becasue the US government bought a P-51, that doesn't mean they own the rights to the design. Do you own the rights to the design of the car you drive?

When a likable guys robs some rich jerk...the likable guy is the criminal. It doesn't matter that he robbed a jerk, people just do not think this through

Former_Older
You don't know more than anybody else here the details of the letter Ubisoft received from NGC lawyers, neither the content of the agreement between NGC, Ubisoft and Oleg.
Nobody except the 3 parties do know, and they wont tell anything since they agreed to keep it confidential.
So you can't say "it's Ubisoft fault", as nobody can say "it's NGC fault" or "it's Oleg's fault"...
Everything said on these forums is nothing but unfounded guess and as usefull as to talk about sex angels.
Wouldn't it be better not to talk about?

it just that now I'm seeing more and more collectibles get the same treatment all of a sudden. I.E. 1/32 scale vehicles, trains, planes. Just the other day I bought a BF109 F-2/F-4 and it had the Boeing logo on it?! Boeing didnt make that plane! WTF now their making it more expensive to get these memorabilia. You don't see the train dealers doing it to there scale models.

Yes lets pound our head in the sand and close our eyes to such things!

Actually, the railroad companies have been putting it to the model railroaders for some time now.

Toocool, the trick is that you can be damn sure M$ vets package art pastthe Legal Dept. (which probably has the population of some small countries ;) ).

The "door opening" factor was the failure to properly mark the Grumman name on the package art (I have it here in my lap). That's open and shut, and in fact, the companies in question are required to defend their marks for fear of precedent that it is open for use. Ubi was over a barrel at that point, and the negotiators decided to ask for fees as precedent. Now they can claim that companies have been forced to pay for images of their products that would otherwise be "fair use." That's my guess, anyway.

What things?
It won't help you to open your eyes and your ears when there's nothing to see or to hear.

Nobody knows what exactly happened, and everybody's speaking in the vacuum

this is what happened.


the fair use is now gone, since they paid out and made it precedent.

All of this is C.R.A.P.....

If a company is so afraid of setting a precedent... they just have to GRANT 1C (or any other company) limited right to use image and depiction of their product.... This is called licencing... it can be made for a symbolic amont....

What would prevent such a thing is trying to squeeze all the $$$ they can from a product. So a company will want in exemple $$$/copy sold (ship, produced, etc). Don't forget these planes still bring in money from licencing (miniatures scale models, collectors items (books, posters, calenders), etc.). And you would be suprise how much $$$ they still generate.

So... precendence setting... please...

They could have done lots of things, but the guy at NG probably decided to make himself look good to his boss, and get something for nothing.

Bottom line is that had someone with 1/2 of a clue looked at the box art before it went on press, we would not be having this conversation. It's that simple. Even a decent copy editor familiair with product packaging would have corrected this, doesn't need to be a lawyer.

It was not ABOUT the package, but the package opened the door because the package failure was open and shut, Ubi would certainly have lost in court there, no question. At that point it was cut their losses time, and negotiate as NG wished so they didn't have to reprint/recall X thousands of boxes, plus probably pay some damages.

Note that we do not know the settlement amount, and it was very likely a fee that NG would consider a nearly symbolic amount. 1C might not consider it symbolic, but 1C products go doe $50 a pop, and NG products go for 50 MILLION a pop. So even $500,000 would be 1% of a single sale to NG. It would be like ubi charging a symbolic fee of 50 cents.

Your first statement:

"You don't know more than anybody else here the details of the letter Ubisoft received from NGC lawyers, neither the content of the agreement between NGC, Ubisoft and Oleg."

does not support your second statement:

"So you can't say "it's Ubisoft fault", as nobody can say "it's NGC fault" or "it's Oleg's fault"...
Everything said on these forums is nothing but unfounded guess and as usefull as to talk about sex angels."

I'm sorry, but yes I can know whose fault it is. 1C:Maddox Games did not do the box art. UbiSoft did. They were the publisher. As tater points out, this "opened the door"

So while I know nothing about the finite and precise details of the legal case, I do know it was Ubi's fault. :)

But tell me more about these angels

On the nose and the crux of the matter in my opinion. Well put

Look up US Constitutional Law sometime and get an eye opener about Precedence in US Law. Obviously this is not a Constitutional case :) but the fact of the matter is yes, US law does look to precedent

You want to believe it was greed? OK

Let me ask you just one question:

what made NGC follow this course of action? Put another way: Why did NGC start to care about all this?

Think about the answer a minute...what event was it that made NGC take notice...

Very interesting. I'm not sure I fully understand the unwritten constitution implication yet. I'll have to think on that

But does this mean that somehow, our heritage trumps ownership of design by corporations and even private ownership? In my opinion, no. For example:

Ford Motor Cars owns the Model T rights. It's a very historic thing in it's own right, the Model T

I still need to take certain steps in order to legally use it's design for a commercial application, correct?

But Ford will lose no history, no heritage, and no direct money if I do this without their permission. Yet I still can't just do anything I want with anything concerning the Model T, commercially. How can Ford lose money? What, am I selling the design to Audi? ;)

But you don't know if the box art was or wasn't the reason for NGC to sue Ubisoft and M:1C
... this is just a guess... so you KNOW nothing (same for everybody there)

Even if 1C made the box art, as the distributor, Ubi should have run it past a lawyer. Period. THEIR name is on it, and you can be damn sure they would have had a problem without the proper protections on THEIR name.

The buck stops with Ubi, IMO. They are the ones doing the marketing (LOL, that's another issue altogether) and the selling. It's pitched as an Ubisoft product.

tater

I highly doubt anyone at Ubisoft knows what an Aichi, Grumman or Vought is. They had to get that info from 1C. Look at the trademarks etc. listed at the back of PF and nobody thought of the right of these companies?

I work with product packaging all the time and it goes through many eyes and departments-it's not as if one guy didn't know the law and screwed up.

Include a commercial intro from the companies in question in the DVD or small pamphlet and set a positive precedent from this situation. These are "game" designers after all and I would like to see some thought out of the box. :-P

I'm starting to wounder if Micro$oft had anything to do with this because of their slump in sales with CFS series?

I think cultural differences should be in taken into account as well. Oleg and 1C maddox had enormous open arms help and assistance from russian aircraft/defense industries. This is partly why the russian planes have very good modeling (FM and DM and 3d modeling) in this game.


This is very different when dealing with american aircraft/defense companies. Instead of giving blueprints and other data, american companies wanted money.

I don't think 1C and UBI fully udnerstood the american nature specially when it comes to proprietary trademark and copyright issues specially not knowing that Fairchild Republic,Vought and other old Long Island-based aircraft manufacturers were merged or absorbed by Grumman Corporation which merged with Northrop years ago.

And yes Ubi paid NGC more than the development costs for Il-2 which 1C was the one to suffer hence minimal incentive for delevoping the Il-2 series further.

To make precedent a case has to be argued before the Court and a jugement must be rendered. It is not enough to just state.... hey they let it appened in the past... So if you don't bring a matter before the Court it CANNOT make legal precedent...

You're right about legal precedence, but if trade marks were the issue here then allowing someone to use their trade marks without a licence would lead to so-called "dilution" of their trade mark rights, making them less strong. Another party in the future could then argue that NG had aquiesced to Ubi's unlicensed use of the TMs, so everyone should also be allowed to use them without licence. So you wouldn't make legal precedence, but you would weaken your trade marks.

Trademark is only a problem if there is a chance for the consumer to mistake the product in question for the real thing. It's perfectly fine to use another company's name as long as it is clear you are not that company: ie: "Acme™ seatcover fits BMW™ 3-series sedans."

Acme can say that with no issues or permissions since it is clear that Acme is not BMW.

I don't think any of us think a computer game is a real ww2 aircraft.

tater

Not quite true...trade marks will cause a problem if the public might be deceived into thinking that the owner of the trade mark (NG) has an affiliation with the person using the trade mark, or endorses their use of the trade mark in some way. So, for example, if I'm selling clothing and I put the BMW logo on the clothes, I will get into trouble even though I am not selling cars, becuase the public might think that BMW have endorsed my clothing or are selling it themselves. As you pointed out, you can use someone else's trade mark for comparative advertising. I guess some people out there might be simple enough to think that Ubi's use of NG trade marks implies that they endorse Ubi's product.

It's all speculation anyway, we don't know if it was trade marks, copyright or both that caused the problem.