Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[Avimimus]

-

[Viking]

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

[Former_Older]

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

[Former_Older]

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

[Rama]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

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.

[Friendly_flyer]

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.