Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[Friendly_flyer]

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.

[Fritzgryphon]

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.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Fritzgryphon

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...

[Friendly_flyer]

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.

[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.

[Avimimus]

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!

[Vigilant]

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

[Biggs]

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.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Biggs

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......

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

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?