What is the issue with Grumman?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Fhechene

So, basically, Grumman got super offended because a cover art and Ubisoft had the legal dexterity of a shoe.

Basically.

Additionally, 1C had a number of aircraft and ships which Grumman claimed copyrights to in the game and it was just a few weeks before the game was to be shipped.

Grumman's lawyers were bigger and meaner than Ubisoft's, 1C seriously screwed up on copyright clearances, and any legal action would be expensive and screw up the game's release. The business decision saved Ubisoft and 1C a lot of grief.

I've always wondered if the consent decree would still stand if the original IL2 games were sold to another company. At this point it's 15 years old, which is ancient in computer years, so it might be possible for fans to buy the sim, void the consent decree, and possibly have a nominal corporation to continue to develop the sim in a country where copyright laws are a bit less restrictive.

[Verdun1916]

I wonder if it would be possible to make a deal with N-G for atleast an upgrade of the already present aircraft if funds could be raised for a license fee.

Let's say through the use of patreon or something similar.

[Music]

I think we should Tell Gruman that this is IL-2, the famous flight Simulator, and if they want their contribution to the Allied efforts in WW2 represented properly, they have a opportunity to have that showcase for their products free of charge here, in Il-2, the Famous Flight Simulator.

then we wait.....

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Music

I think we should Tell Gruman that this is IL-2, the famous flight Simulator, and if they want their contribution to the Allied efforts in WW2 represented properly, they have a opportunity to have that showcase for their products free of charge here, in Il-2, the Famous Flight Simulator.

then we wait.....

I wish it was that easy!

[Fighterace]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

I wonder if it would be possible to make a deal with N-G for atleast an upgrade of the already present aircraft if funds could be raised for a license fee.

Let's say through the use of patreon or something similar.

Why not start one??

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Fighterace

Why not start one??

I think that would be up to TD.

I don't even know if it's possible to pay the license fees necessary for an update or if Northrop-Grumman hold any old grudges towards this game due to the past sins of it's creators.

[Music]

No word from Grumman?

Alrighty, lets make a new deal Grumman, you make the models, and submit your request to Daidalos Team, and we'll consider adding you to Il-2 the famous flight simulator.

do you wanna keep procrastinating Grumman...

Seriously, I can't understand such a Historic Moment represented in a long lived PC game is almost void of their product, which did a lot to save the world, and they don't care...
Are they owned by Americans anymore?

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Music

No word from Grumman?

Alrighty, lets make a new deal Grumman, you make the models, and submit your request to Daidalos Team, and we'll consider adding you to Il-2 the famous flight simulator.

do you wanna keep procrastinating Grumman...

Seriously, I can't understand such a Historic Moment represented in a long lived PC game is almost void of their product, which did a lot to save the world, and they don't care...
Are they owned by Americans anymore?

This is a subject that has been debated to death.
But to put it simple, this is not a game, it's business. And any product made by Northrop-Grumman or any other businesses affiliated with this company dating all the way back to their foundations are trademarked by N-G. And like anything else that is trademarked or copyright protected you have to pay a license fee to use it commercially unless the owner of the trademark or copyright agrees to something else or noone is around to hold the rights to the trademark or copyright.

Northrop-Grumman don't give a flying f*ck about an almost 20 year old flight sim unless they can make money out of it!
It's not some small avionics business you are refering to, it's one of the biggest avionics companies in the world, heavily involved in the US defence industry aswell as much else. They are all about making money and running a business! And one of their sources of income is people paying license fees to use trademarks they own!

It would be damn bad business for them to make an exception for a near 20 year old flight sim like IL-2 no matter how much we (the players) love this sim!
We can think that it's silly as much as we want, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't have any obligtions towards IL-2 nor it's fans and players. And it doesn't change the fact how the business world works, especially in the US were making money is religion!

Are you willing to help pay such a license fee to get more Northrop-Grumman related aircrafts into the game? Because the only way to get IL-2 1946 officially updated in regards of any Northrop-Grumman product is to pay the license fees and hope that Northrop-Grumman won't hold any old grudges towards this game due to the past sins of it's creators!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

But to put it simple, this is not a game, it's business. And any product made by Northrop-Grumman or any other businesses affiliated with this company dating all the way back to their foundations are trademarked by N-G.

IANAL, but many of the grounds on which N-G claims trademark seem very dubious. It seems like N-G is doing to model companies and computer game makers what patent trolls are doing to software developers and scientists. They're making broad and dubious IP claims, threatening to sue, and revoking their threats after the defendant pays a "licensing fee." Basically, it's legal extortion.

Practically, there's nothing we can do as fans (we lack standing, except maybe as members of a consumer class action suit). Practically, Ubisoft's lawyers screwed up massively by agreeing to the N-G consent decree as it is written.

Even so it sucks, and I have a feeling that a smart IP lawyer could make a very good case against N-G's claims.

Frex:

N-G claims trademark for "USS Arizona" because that ship was built in a shipyard that N-G briefly owned (via Ingalls Shipyards) over 70 years after the fact.

But:

While the USS Arizona existed, neither N-G or any prior company subsequently owned by N-G, attempted to copyright the term "USS Arizona" or its appearance while the ship existed.

For many years after the USS Arizona was sunk, the shipyards which might have claimed copyright failed to assert their rights, thus allowing any potential copyright passed into public domain.

The original specifications of the ship, the shipyard in which it was built, and all modifications to the ship were done under the auspices of the US Navy, and as work created by and for the US government should be copyright free.

N-G divested itself of Ingalls Shipyard and all shipbuilding business (one of which build the USS Arizona) sometime in the 1990s, before IL2 was a gleam in Oleg Maddox's eye. Thus, even if it ever owned the USS Arizona trademark, it no longer had rights to that trademark at the time of the consent decree because it sold the company which held it!

As a historical product which N-G and its subsidiaries are unlikely to ever produce commercially, there is no commercial harm whatsoever to their basic business (i.e., making weapons and aircraft) if someone makes a model of the USS Arizona. If someone were to start making functional replicas, then maybe N-G would have a real complaint. If N-G were a graphic design firm whose revenue stream depended on unique licensing origianl CGI models and other images of the USS Arizona, then they might have a complaint. As it stands, though it's hard, even for a layman, to understand how someone making CGI models of a ship which was obsolete even in 1941 is messing with N-G's current business.

If N-G wants to treat the USS Arizona as a "creative work" like an old Disney movie, they're still out of luck because anything along those lines produced before 1923 (and sometimes later) is out of copyright. That means that the ship's name can't be copyrighted because it was launched and named in 1915! Additionally, the ship's appearance up to 1923 is now out of copyright just like any other work. Trying to claim otherwise is a bit like claiming that the USS Constitution (laid down in 1794) can be trademarked because it was refitted at the distant ancestor of a shipyard that N-G once owned!

Even if N-G were to assert copyright protections, as a US National Monument and famous historical ship, the terms "USS Arizona" and images of the ship can't be used as copyrights for the ship itself. Sure, you could sell "USS Arizona widgets" and use images of the ship in your advertising and successfully claim copyright, but claiming the ship itself and any images of it as copyrights is a bit like copyrighting "Yosemite National Park" and a map of the park and then trying to collect royalties from anyone who draws their own maps, or who attempts to use any image of the park, or reference to it!