Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[Friendly_flyer]

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.

[mondo]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

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.

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!

[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.