Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-07-2008, 09:38 AM
Friendly_flyer's Avatar
Friendly_flyer Friendly_flyer is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 412
Default

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.
__________________
Fly friendly!



Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF

Petter Bøckman
Norway
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-11-2008, 04:02 AM
Fritzgryphon Fritzgryphon is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Default

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.

Last edited by Fritzgryphon; 02-11-2008 at 04:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-11-2008, 04:24 AM
Theshark888 Theshark888 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritzgryphon View Post

It's mind boggling absurd and impractical that any company should demand royalties for displaying an image of their product.
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...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-11-2008, 05:31 AM
Friendly_flyer's Avatar
Friendly_flyer Friendly_flyer is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 412
Default

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.
__________________
Fly friendly!



Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF

Petter Bøckman
Norway

Last edited by Friendly_flyer; 02-11-2008 at 01:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-11-2008, 12:52 PM
Wolf_Rider Wolf_Rider is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,677
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2008, 08:40 PM
Avimimus Avimimus is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 803
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-16-2008, 11:38 PM
Vigilant Vigilant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-29-2008, 03:48 PM
Biggs Biggs is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 351
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-29-2008, 04:33 PM
Theshark888 Theshark888 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggs View Post
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
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......
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-31-2008, 10:09 PM
Former_Older Former_Older is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avimimus View Post
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!

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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.