Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit

[secretone]

Can anyone please provide some historical background or a link to an article with information about the Grumman lawsuit against IL-2? I am very interested in learning more about how these proceedings have affected our beloved game, particularly regarding prospects of seeing more American aircraft.

[ElAurens]

I don't think that anyone who has real knowledge is able to discuss this, for legal reasons.

[nearmiss]

If you did know would it make a difference?

I careless about stuff like that. There are thousands of Grumman virtual aircraft all over the web. Methinks that was all just a smoke and mirrors thing to mess with the troops.

[SlipBall]

This information if true, can be searched in a local law library

[Les]

I too don't have any real knowledge, and so, funnily enough, am free to discuss it.

There's next to no chance of seeing any more Grumman planes in the official Il-2 series, as Grumman won't let representations of their aircraft be used for free. You'd have to be making a paid add-on for it to be worthwhile and I don't think even Team Daidalos will be doing that.

I'd like to think that by the time the new Storm Of War series gets back to the Pacific, if it ever does, that Oleg will be prepared to pay the Grumman fees and we'll see those planes looking better than ever. But who knows?

As for my interpretation of events, which should not be taken as fact, I thought the whole affair was a petty cash-grab from Grumman. At the time, they were targetting plastic-model-kit makers as well, and at least gave the impression that any hobbyist using images of their planes was also fair game for litigation. I also read or got the impression that Oleg himself thought of Grumman's demands as a form of extortion from the greedy capitalists in the U.S. He was annoyed too because it had been someone elses responsibility to make sure the legal bases were covered, but they stuffed up and left Oleg to pay the bill, which he might have just palmed off to Ubisoft anyway. (Pacific Fighters, the add-on in which the Grumman planes appeared, was done mostly by and at the instigation of, Ilya and his crew, unlike the rest of the Il-2 series.) A similar thing happened with the cover-art on the Pacific Fighters retail boxes, which had stuff in it that Oleg himself wouldn't have included. In fact it might have been the use of the Grumman name on that which alerted the legal eagles at Grumman that someone might have done something they could make money off. Along those lines, it was also pointed out that, just by coincidence, some head honcho at Grumman had recently moved over to work for Microsoft just before all this shit went down, and back then Microsoft's CFS3 was still competing with Il-2... but that's getting into conspiracy-theory territory, and this is about rumours and hearsay, not conspiracies, so, yeah...I can't remember if there were any more Grumman Planes in development that never saw the light of day after all this happened, but I think there were.

All in all it was a shame more wasn't made of the whole Pacific theatre side of the sim, but really, to do it justice would have required a whole other team of developers. There was just too much to do. Hopefully any add-ons for SOW won't be so half-arsed. But again, who knows. In cases like this I find it better not to expect anything, or to think of what could have been.

[proton45]

I think the problem was with the packaging of the game...Grumman wasn't upset with the content of the game, but they where upset that the Grumman name and the likeness of the famous aeroplanes where used in advertising and packaging without permission...

This is the information I remember from the "Blue Ubi" around the time of the problem...

[fuzzychickens]

By the same logic, anyone writing a history book, novel, or producing a movie based around a historical time period should have to pay Grumman to be historically accurate?

Some serious time limits need to be placed IP rights. Seriously, should Ford demand a fee for the Model-T being on the ground in a WWI flight game?

Should gun manufactures sue the pants of makers of WWII fps games for including accurate weapons of the time period they happened to make?

Maybe everybody should jump on the Grumman bandwagon and demand money for whatever reason.......

"You owe us big time money for using our grandpappy associated with a plane paint scheme he used in WWII!"

"You owe us money for showing company "X"'s type of bomb as a loadout option on the P-38, also we made the tires on the P-51, replace them with doughnuts or give us money!"

"You owe us money for putting a half naked lady on that famous B-17 bomber, my grandma was the lady who actually posed for that picture and if we can't get paid for her being half naked - we have to stop calling her an old whore!"

I think I'll go figure out if I can trace my ancestors back to the cave-dweller who invented the wheel - I see a huge money maker.

[flyingbullseye]

This can stir up a lot quick as it has in the past. To the OP when/if you do any search you'll come up with a lot of threads discussing the issue. Most of them are over at the ubizoo. Everyone has their take about who said what, when and how and some know more than others but more than likely the unknown truth lies somewhere in the middle. FS 9 and FSX have had grumman a/c modeled since for free and I believe paid addon but don't know if the modders had to do anything. At this point its all water under the bridge and mods it might be best to end this thread before it gets heated again.

Flyingbullseye

[proton45]

I think the box said, "Fly the Grumman Wildcat"...Grumman didn't like the use of their name "Grumman". If I remember correctly the packaging was done by Ubi, but they still blamed Oleg and crew...

[flyingbullseye]

I kind of remember reading something like that as well. Nothing like passing the buck then leaving the guy high and dry. Talk about a royal screw job. If actually true can't blame Oleg for parting ways with UBI.

Flyingbullseye

[Feathered_IV]

If you did know would it make a difference?

I careless about stuff like that. There are thousands of Grumman virtual aircraft all over the web. Methinks that was all just a smoke and mirrors thing to mess with the troops.

Anyone who loves the game would want to know all there is to know about it's history and development. Personally I'd like to see a tell-all autobiography one day. Yes Oleg, I mean you!

[II./JG1_Klaiber]

Here’s a International Game Developer's Association forum link which shows a 2004 discussion of this very issue:

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?threadid=13370

Some interesting highlights:

It seems that Northrop/Grumman company demanded an extremely high fee for the use of the aircraft and ships that their current family of acquired companies (Northrop, Grumman, Republic, Vought, etc...) manufactured during WWII. Given the low budgets that flight-sims work with, especially our Russian colleagues, the developers were unable to pay the fees. Northrop then went to the publisher who to the best of my knowledge paid the fees but deducted all or some of it from the developer's payments...

...I am attempting to locate the Northrop attorney for clarification but that may take a little while, I will update as I find out more.

Here is an update:

I spoke to Mr. Patrick Joyce (310.201.3384) at Northrop this morning. He is the person who handles such things for their company; it might even be his only responsibility. Anyway, he was the person who requested TM fees from the Russian developer and eventually received said fees from the French publisher. He is not an attorney but here is what I could gather from our little chat.

Northrop/Grumman is requiring trademark licensing fees for the use of any aircraft, ship, boat, vehicle or weapon system that they our any of their acquired companies have ever produced. They maintain that all these things are covered by either registered trademark or “common law” trademark, sometimes both.

Upon further inquiry, he stated that all video/computer games, motion pictures, television, and toys are subject to these fees. When asked about literature, he said no.

I brought up the fact that the US government purchased these items and that they would seemingly be public domain. He said no, that both Northrop/Grumman and the US government own rights to the items.

To facilitate a good ongoing investigation, I’ve kept the discussion pretty light and open to continuation. Without alienating this guy (as least not yet) what are the questions I need to ask him?

And here is an HMA (Hobby Manufacturers Association) June 2007 memo which also discusses the issue as well, this time from a hobbyist standpoint:

http://www.hmahobby.org/pdfs/HMA-Membership-Memo-6.07.pdf

Companies like Revell-Monogram say that military products that have been paid for by the US government through taxpayer money are in public domain and not private property. Meanwhile, the defense industry completely disagrees.

[nearmiss]

What a crock...

The U.S.Government paid for the complete development, engineering and the building of those aircraft. In other words, the U.S. Taxpayer paid for it.

Looks to me like they have way found a way to skin foreigners.

[SlipBall]

I think that various company's developed aircraft on their own dime. Then had to compete against, to win the goverment contract through performance results...having won the contract, then tax payer money would enter the picture for pre orders

[proton45]

I think that various company's developed aircraft on their own dime. Then had to compete against, to win the goverment contract through performance results...having won the contract, then tax payer money would enter the picture for pre orders

I believe the unit price for each aerocraft had the cost of development, tooling & production worked into the final price per aeroplane... :)

They didn't loose money...they made money.

If the game included an aeroplane that looked very much like a "Wildcat", but was not called a "Wildcat" I believe that Grumman would have a very hard time collecting money...but because the box said "Fly the Wildcat", Grumman can make a pretty strong case that the game manufacturer is making money off of their property.

[flyingbullseye]

Two legal questions about this.

1. What if Oleg and crew didn't use Grumman but either wildcat, hellcat ect or F4F-3 is there still a case for Grumman?

2. What if the a/c in question were added into the sim either by a free patch by Oleg or as we have now by mods, what then? There is no money involved there.

Flyingbullseye

[nearmiss]

I think that various company's developed aircraft on their own dime. Then had to compete against, to win the goverment contract through performance results...having won the contract, then tax payer money would enter the picture for pre orders

Nope not the case... during the war the government influenced everything with money, money, money. Winning the war was priority one. The DOD threw money at anything to aid in the war effort.

The world was at war, Britain, Australia, Russia, etc they all needed equipment as well.

The government even paid for Howard Hughes Spruce Goose, start to finish.

I double doubt those American aircraft companies could do anything with an American based game developer. The lawyers would love those lawsuits.

[Voyager]

Actually, the whole "who owns the rights" gets really complicated with defense contracts. These days most governments are including explicit clauses into their contracts that when they buy it, they buy everything, including future design rights, including the rights to hand the designs to 3rd parties for additional design and development.

I'm told that the paperwork entailed in a single mid-sized DOD contract will fill a C-130 Hercules loaded on standard pallets. As in, they will literally fly a C-130 out there, and you will completely fill it with contract paperwork, shrink wrapped and stacked onto standard pallets in the appropriate Legal Paper loading configuration.

[ElAurens]

Two aircraft come to mind.

The Douglas A20 Havoc (Boston) and the Bristol Blenheim. Both were private venture developments that were not done to specific government contract requirements, but were purchased by their respective governments because their demonstrated performance was so good.

The P51 also sort of fits this description, because has you may recall, it was not built to a government specification. It was a private venture design offered to the RAF in lieu of the P40, that the RAF was actually looking to purchase.

[proton45]

I really think that the "Grumman issue" was about using names that they own copyright to...names like "Grumman", "Wildcat" & "Hellcat".

I could be wrong...but i think I'm right. ;)

[Voyager]

Two aircraft come to mind.

The Douglas A20 Havoc (Boston) and the Bristol Blenheim. Both were private venture developments that were not done to specific government contract requirements, but were purchased by their respective governments because their demonstrated performance was so good.

The P51 also sort of fits this description, because has you may recall, it was not built to a government specification. It was a private venture design offered to the RAF in lieu of the P40, that the RAF was actually looking to purchase.

I believe both Douglas and North American are now part of Boeing.

Douglas merged with McDonnell to become McDonnell Douglas, which was later bought by Boeing. North American Aviation merged with Rockwell-Standard to become North American Rockwell, which renamed itself to Rockwell International. Rockwell later sold its defense and space divisions to Boeing.

Does Boeing tend to be this way about its older aircraft?

Interestingly enough, it looks like Northrop Grumman may not actually own the remains of Republic Aviation or Vought. Republic was bought by Fairchild, which seems to be owned by M7 Aerospace. Vought was originally partially owned by Northrop Grumman, but NG's share in it was bought out by the Carlyle Group in 2000.

Harry Voyager

[hiro]

Thanks for the clarification behind all this.

Wow that sucks Ubi threw Oleg under the bus. Part of being a publisher means they take responsibilities for (issues like legal stuff).

I can understand getting paid for something, but there has to be reason.

a) let microsoft make grumman stuff for free. But russian flight sim seems to be a better product and oh its selling like hotcakes, lets charge them b/c they can't get high powered lawyers like microsoft can.

b) for years model companies and previous game developers have been using stuff for free and now you're going to charge for something that's US govt and paid for by tax payers to line individual company pockets?

c) instead of paying teams of lawyers, it'd be better spent on R&D and bettering your company than nit picking legal stuff and losing focus on what the companies set out to do originally.

look at what greed has done to the US car companies for nickle and diming for their likeness of cars in models (now asking govt handouts b/c they develop crap, and the Japanese are kicking their bums in the marketplace because 50 years ago they didn't listen to Edward Deming).

or RIAA and MPAA trying to sue peer to peer networks / the internet and asking taxpayers to pay for damages via software piracy because they were too slow to jump on the internet marketing and mp3 boom. They've lost credibility by suing grandmas and mac users (no p2p for mac at the time), lost profits, and instead of making good music and paying musicians well, the only guys making money are the lawyers. One can attest to this by listening to radio and seeing how much junk songs are being played.

Ok its exaggerated and over simplified but its like the lady suing Mickey D's / Macdonalds for purchasing a hot hot cup of coffee, placing it in her lap THEN driving all over the place and spilling it so it scalded her pretty good for the fast food not putting warning labels on the cups. But jeez take some responsibility instead of working the system for a fast buck.


If this junk is kept up, trying to copyright 'history' it will simply force flight sim companies to do what sports games have doing for ages.


I remember NBA games . . . Instead of using Michael Jordan, and paying millions in royalties to him, Nike . . . they had a player Mitchell Gordan with no. 23 jersey, that looks like MJ, plays like him, and shoots / dunks like him.


Grumman TBF Avenger you will get Drumman FBT Revenger . . .

It'd be funny if they had to resort to leet speak to get around copyrighting.

Or briefings in BOB SOW. Today 7he Bth A* (The 8th AF is copyrighted) is targeting Br*men (Bremen is trademarked). Be prepared as the L*ftwaff3 ^f-1O9's will stop at nothing to . . ."


Skins will be called Er1ch Hartm*nn.bmp and Bvd 4nderson.bmp , because the names already taken (by lawyers).

[SlipBall]

Nope not the case... during the war the government influenced everything with money, money, money. Winning the war was priority one. The DOD threw money at anything to aid in the war effort.

The world was at war, Britain, Australia, Russia, etc they all needed equipment as well.

The government even paid for Howard Hughes Spruce Goose, start to finish.

I double doubt those American aircraft companies could do anything with an American based game developer. The lawyers would love those lawsuits.


Not the case...It worked like this: the goverment announces what it is looking for, different company's then develope an aircraft to meet what they hope will win the contract. The aircraft would then be tested, and then the goverment would choose the winner, and thus the valuable contract...So in the case here about Grumman, they are in the right since it is their aircraft design, and property. Now Boeing with its B-17 is not so picky as Grumman is, so it depends on each company as to how they share their property. The goverment did not own the patent, they only bought a bunch of the aircraft.



"The prototype B-17, designated Model 299, was designed by a team of engineers led by E. Gifford Emery and Edward Curtis Wells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Curtis_Wells) and built at Boeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing)'s own expense."

There may have been cases of goverment money used for developement, but I'm not aware of them

[billswagger]

Whats happening in this case actually shows the loop holes in the laws itself.

I think any judge or law writer should examine the intent of such rules and why they exist.
Trademarks, and patents exist to protect ideas and IP.
I think these rules may be getting stretched too far to include design specs outside of the industry that they compete in.

For example, no one is taking a Grumman design, building it and trying to sell it as their own.

There is no physical aircraft that competes against Grumman.

No one is selling completely different airplanes and calling them Grumman.

There is probably also a way to link the use of such a design as public domain because it was purchased and used by the US government in a HISTORICAL war.

An even stronger argument is the educational value of such content.

Are we to rename historical figures or monuments at the cost of not being able to pay their fees?
"Sorry, its not the Eiffel Tower in game, its called 'The Big Antenna'."
A kid then visits Paris, and only knows to call it 'The Big Antenna'.

Gaming developers as well as model and toy manufacturers need to establish that their content has an educational as well as journalistic value to the public and that changing the names or designs would be misleading and a change in historical facts. This might raise issues that surround freedom of the press, and related statues.

As video game developers, we are only trying to depict the truth.


something like that....


Bill

[II./JG1_Klaiber]

Honestly, the whole trend is based off of a very loose interpretation of copyright laws. But the defense companies really don't have to worry about this because most small companies aren't going to be able to afford the lawyers to adequately fight them in the US court system. So it really is a case of might makes right.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/pentagon-vs-hob/

…The contractors have sought 2 to 8 percent of the costs of each unit from toy manufacturers, according to the association. This expense, which amounts to an increased cost of $6,000 for 15,000 units, is passed on to the consumer, driving down demand and putting small hobby shops in jeopardy, the association argues on its Web site.

The sad thing is that it had actually been my understanding that from the 1960s through the late 1980s, most defense manufacturers actually encouraged the model and hobby industry to use their designs. It was good PR, as it gave them free advertising and it allowed newly merged mega-companies (like Northrop-Grumman for example) to get some mileage on obsolete aircraft created by their antecedents (Northrop, Grumman, Ryan, Fairchild, Republic, etc).

But as the 2007 memo I posted from the HMA says, the shift to aggressive trademark protection happened when U.S. car manufacturers realized they could make an extra buck by pinching the little guy. And Defense contractors soon smelled blood and followed suit.

I actually wouldn’t be surprise if the explosion of computer simming in the 1990s also caught the manufacturers' attention.

Either way, here’s another really good article regarding this issue:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20050131.aspx

January 31, 2005

For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being hit with royalty demands.

These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize intellectual property income. Models of a companys products are considered the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. Some intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this contention. In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even notice if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model companies will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or otherwise no royalty items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many of the kit makers. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem, and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent of the wholesale price of the kits).

[Insuber]

Whats happening in this case actually shows the loop holes in the laws itself.


An even stronger argument is the educational value of such content.

Are we to rename historical figures or monuments at the cost of not being able to pay their fees?
"Sorry, its not the Eiffel Tower in game, its called 'The Big Antenna'."
A kid then visits Paris, and only knows to call it 'The Big Antenna'.



Bill

Funny enough, actually the Tour Eiffel image (not the name) is copyrighted, but only when lit at night... No copyright for unlit daily pictures ... The fee is intended to contribute to the huge costs of lighting that Big Antenna, not to make easy money on something tha has been largely paid off long time ago, as in the case of a warplane ...

Regards,
insuber

[Feathered_IV]

Here's something that I'd really like to know.

When Northrop Grumman constructed that full-sized copy of the Horten flying wing for research and promotional purposes, did they pay a cent in royalties to the Horten family?

If NG did not observe their own legal obligations in this exact same area, wouldn't this give MG or Ubisoft an opportunity to get their money back?

[ElAurens]

I doubt that any Nazi era design is covered by any law that would be applicable now.

Not that I am backing N-G's deplorable conduct in any way, but the Nazi flying wing has nothing to do with this.

To the victor go the spoils.

[SlipBall]

Well our founding fathers decided to put this protection in the Constitution, and I think that it was a good idea...The problem is that our congress has a long history of going back into the law, and changing it, that is to say extending the time frame of the law. That to me is a bad idea


"A growing number of academics and legal experts are saying that the copyright renewals are a violation of the Constitution. "The copyright extension bill is a rotten idea for the American people," said Dennis Karjala, a professor of intellectual property law at Arizona State University and a leader of the opposition to extension."

[II./JG1_Klaiber]

Well our founding fathers decided to put this protection in the Constitution, and I think that it was a good idea...The problem is that our congress has a long history of going back into the law, and changing it, that is to say extending the time frame of the law. That to me is a bad idea


"A growing number of academics and legal experts are saying that the copyright renewals are a violation of the Constitution. "The copyright extension bill is a rotten idea for the American people," said Dennis Karjala, a professor of intellectual property law at Arizona State University and a leader of the opposition to extension."

I agree. Copyrights are meant to protect intellectual property and are therefore good so long as this protection is not abused.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0123105835.shtml

But, really, the bigger point was made by [Prof James] Boyle, via Twitter, where he noted that we are "the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves and to drive the point home, he notes that no work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to build upon. For people who don't recognize the importance of the public domain and the nature of creativity, perhaps this seems like no big deal. But if you look back through history, you realize what an incredibly big deal it is -- and how immensely stifling this is on our culture. And then you realize this is all done under a law whose sole purpose is to "promote the progress" and you begin to wonder how this happened. It goes back beyond Mickey Mouse, certainly, but Mickey and Disney have been huge drivers of this attempt to stifle new culture, all in the name of limiting competition for itself. What a shame.

[nearmiss]

I really think that the "Grumman issue" was about using names that they own copyright to...names like "Grumman", "Wildcat" & "Hellcat".

I could be wrong...but i think I'm right. ;)

You could right, F4F-4 is a U.S.Navy designation, Wildcat is a "handle", which may be copyrighted.

From Bladerunner, movie by Ridley Scott

Ridley Scott’s Film, Blade Runner - ‘I think, therefore I am.’ As the humans begin to assume that the replicants are satisfied living as ‘slaves’ to their creators, the replicants answer with an affirmative ‘no’ by the emotional and intellectual responses they are giving.

[Viking]

We must not forget that Grumman et consorties (the "defence" contractors) live on fear. The population must live in fear and a belive that the outside world is evil and that US must use every available dollar to buy moore weapons from the contractors.

Then comes a Russian (one of the evil commies!) guy and gives microsoft a teatching on how a flightsim should look! And then the commie goes on and sort of clames that the Soviets won the war!!
Do you seriusly think that Grumman would slap Oleg on the back? " Congrats comrade you surly made a nice Grumman XXX there! This will cast some light on history and bring our nations together again like old times!"
Think not!

Regards

Viking

[SlipBall]

We must not forget that Grumman et consorties (the "defence" contractors) live on fear. The population must live in fear and a belive that the outside world is evil and that US must use every available dollar to buy moore weapons from the contractors.

Then comes a Russian (one of the evil commies!) guy and gives microsoft a teatching on how a flightsim should look! And then the commie goes on and sort of clames that the Soviets won the war!!
Do you seriusly think that Grumman would slap Oleg on the back? " Congrats comrade you surly made a nice Grumman XXX there! This will cast some light on history and bring our nations together again like old times!"
Think not!

Regards

Viking




lol...it did not go down that way. It was a simple matter of property protection...happens every day around here

[Skoshi Tiger]

Then comes a Russian (one of the evil commies!) guy and gives microsoft a teatching on how a flightsim should look! And then the commie goes on and sort of clames that the Soviets won the war!!Viking

Now I'm Australian and I am very proud of my father and his generations service during WWII, but when you look at the numbers on total casualties. (Sorry for the Wikipedia data)

Austalia - 41,200
Canada - 45,300
US - 418,500
UK - 449,800
USSR - 23,954,000!

Well I doubt that anyone could say that their country won the war but the USSR can at least say it did its share of suffering. If Oleg wants to be proud of his country's contribution to winning WWII that's OK by me.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Agree with Viking - you commie bastard! :-P

It just remembered those pre-90's American movies, with the evil Russians that ate live children and had baby heads for dessert.

Regarding to the whole discussion, it's just ridiculous. People just like getting money for everything nowadays. Worst than this, to me, only those bastards that can't take a joke and prosecute everyone because of it (yeah, I called you guys who do this BASTARDS. You are going to prosecute me?).

First this was happening mostly in the US, but then this spreaded world-wide. In Brazil this is happening very often too. I've seen cases of people getting about 9 thousand dollars because of such things (in this particular case, if I remember, it was something like students making jokes about some teacher on their Orkut community). I don't know who was the idiot that gave room to such things, but I bet he was a barrel-shaped anti-social nerd that was bothered by everyone during his childhood and decided to have a payback. Ridiculous.

PS: I don't have anything against barrel-shaped anti-social nerds, even because I'm not that thin :rolleyes:.

[Vevster]

You could right, F4F-4 is a U.S.Navy designation, Wildcat is a "handle", which may be copyrighted.


Hi all, especially El, who might recognise me (Oink!!)

Grumman holds the rights on the design of the planes as well, so they say.
so if you use a too-close representation of it, you could get sued.


The name "Drumman FBT Revenger" may not be enough to get them of a developper's back.

Same for those questions

1. What if Oleg and crew didn't use Grumman but either wildcat, hellcat ect or F4F-3 is there still a case for Grumman?

Yes


2. What if the a/c in question were added into the sim either by a free patch by Oleg or as we have now by mods, what then? There is no money involved there.

Money involved as even a free patch can be considered as helping your sales of the game.


BTW, be aware that other weapon manufacturers, including guns are starting to go the same way, so we might be doomed with fake weapons on FPS and such...or the costs will be added to the game.
(Car manufacturers have licensed their cars for a while now)

Want to help change the trend? Join the ECA in Northern America and / or write to your Congree representative.

[ElAurens]

Mon Ami! How have you been?

Vev is correct here. If you bother to go to the N-G website and look it up, they say their copyright covers names, designs, likenesses, virtual images, etc... of everything ever made by any company, active or defunct, that is/was under their corporate umbrella.

T3h evil bastages.

[Vevster]

Oink, I'm fine.

Can't login to the pub or the sty though.
Might need to contact Tspin and already tried to re register at the "new" pub.

[ElAurens]

I will alert the appropriate folks Vev.

[GF_Mastiff]

I'm confused isn't USA military declassified contracts considered public domain?

Hence the US public tax payer owns the property and we can use it in any capacity?

We paid for it I'm going to use it.

[ElAurens]

This has been thrashed out many times since the launch of Pacific Fighters. As of now the law is on the side of the manufacturers.

Nothing we can do about it.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think there is more to be gained by cooperating with veterans' associations than by trying to go around it with lawyers.

To illustrate the difference, just imagine what it would look like in the news:

"PC flight simulator developers and hobbyists take legal action against the defense industry, in an effort to abolish royalty fees involved in the portrayal of historical military hardware in PC software: (insert row upon row of legal jargon)"

as opposed to

"The privatization of history and personal struggle, or how our veterans' blood and sweat became the lawyers' bread and butter:
Dozens of veteran associations across the US and other countries have taken objection to the practice of certain military industry firms to demand royalty and copyright fees for the portrayal of machines of war that they fought in. And while these machines were in fact built by these companies, it's these men, most of them in their late 80s or more, who fought, bled and died in these machines during WWII. One of the most well-known surviving US ace pilots of the time and spokesman for one of the veteran associations, Mr. XYZ, issued the following statement when asked to comment on the issue:
It's almost 70 years ago that we took to the skies in an effort to defend basic human freedoms and rights. Countless people on all sides lost their lives in that struggle and they deserve to be remembered. Just like books and movies, PC gaming software that focuses on WWII and the historically accurate portrayal of this struggle serves to keep the memory alive and the public aware of the great deeds of sacrifice that happened so long ago, yet their repercussions are still far-reaching.
It's a complete disgrace, an awful disservice to and even an obscene slap on the face of the individuals who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice, that the continuation of historical memory and the telling of their heroic deeds are subject to the hurdles and hubris of petty profiteering by companies that already make a killing in their original field of work.
It's also tragically ironic, to say the least, that a company whose designs saved so many of our lives thanks to their robust construction back in the day, is nowadays looking to rob us of the recognition we deserve, by preventing our youth from re-enacting our deeds and putting themselves in our shoes for a little while with the aid of PC simulation software. "

Which one do you think is prone to stir up the most trouble? See, if you want to go against the establishment you're better off fighting it with its own means, sensational journalism being one of them ;)

[Viking]

The way the American economy is going and seeing how the Chinese are spending their Greenbacks’ I say it’s only a matter of months before we can go to Peking and ask for permission to use the name and images of Grumman et consortia’s!


Viking

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I only hope this Grumman thing does not private us from having the F9F Pantherjet or any other important aircraft of the Korean conflict that should be present on SoW Korea!!

[SlipBall]

The way the American economy is going and seeing how the Chinese are spending their Greenbacks’ I say it’s only a matter of months before we can go to Peking and ask for permission to use the name and images of Grumman et consortia’s!


Viking

LOL, ain't that the truth!:grin:

[WTE_Galway]

Note that we didn't just lose aircraft, at least one almost completed ship (escort carrier ? cannot recall now) was pulled from the game as well.

Nothing much to add here other than this ..

The story going around at the time was it never went to court. Grumman threatened to take out some sort of injunction preventing the release of Pacific Fighters until the matter was dealt with by the US courts, possibly several years later. As Pacific Fighters was just hitting the markets and all the publicity already paid for by UBI made an out of court settlement and billed Oleg for the costs.

A final note --- the rights to this stuff will never go public domain. The American courts have recently set a precedent with a Disney case whereby IP holders can apply to have their copyright extended virtually forever.

[Wolf_Rider]

copyright doesn't apply to drawn/ rendered images/ likeness of the real thing

[WTE_Galway]

copyright doesn't apply to drawn/ rendered images/ likeness of the real thing

Tell that to Disney ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2008/09/15/disney_and_the_copyright_on_mickey_mouse.php

Of course their are fair use provisions ... but under current law the Grumman case for copyright protection of images of their aircraft and ships has some legal basis and the Bono act provides the ability to extend those rights once they expire (copyright from the WWII period would otherwise begin to become public domain around 2015).

[_RAAF_Smouch]

I only hope this Grumman thing does not private us from having the F9F Pantherjet or any other important aircraft of the Korean conflict that should be present on SoW Korea!!

Well if its a Nothrop Grumman A/C then prevention will happen unless Oleg can somehow get NG to come to the party.

What a bunch of 'pillicks' really!!!

[Wolf_Rider]

did you see SouthPark and their treatment of Mickey Mouse (And boybands), Galway? ... it was hoot.


(I didn't mean a image couldn't be copyrighted, I meant that to draw an image of a real object doesn't infringe copyright)
All those paintings (renders/ drawings of the real thing) of spitfires, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc aren't attracting copyright, Galway ... and the avenger (?) was reversed engineered by GM (who ? also built the birds) to aid in the understanding of contructing the 'plane.

Using the Navy designation/ monickers (nicknames) shouldn't attract anything also.


I've always felt there was something more to it than just a call of "copyright issue", considering how come on down real quick all discussion was at the other place

[baronWastelan]

copyright doesn't apply to drawn/ rendered images/ likeness of the real thing

It most certainly does. Try to make a racing game for the PC and put in the Porsche 911, and instead of calling it that, call it the "Cahrera". See if Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG doesn't come down on you like a ton of German steel.

The exception is when it is a "parody", like in a cartoon.

[Wolf_Rider]

where did the artwork for your signature come from?

[WTE_Galway]

did you see SouthPark and their treatment of Mickey Mouse (And boybands), Galway? ... it was hoot.


(I didn't mean a image couldn't be copyrighted, I meant that to draw an image of a real object doesn't infringe copyright)



Generally under US law images of utilitarian items like a fork or coffee mug do not attract copyright but images of sculptures, frescos, paintings, cartoon characters and other "artwork" does.

Yes, commonsense says an aircraft is a utilitarian item rather than artwork and attracts no copyright but apparently that is not how American courts interpret the matter.

I do not agree with it just stating how it works in the US.


I've always felt there was something more to it than just a call of "copyright issue", considering how come on down real quick all discussion was at the other place

The gossip was that part of the out of court settlement was UBI not discuss the issue. In addition UBI are often portrayed as one of the bad guys in this story which may partly explain their aversion to allowing discussion.


EDIT: I would also add we are not talking sketches here. Consider the difference between a 95% scale flyable copy of an aircraft; versus a smaller flyable scale model; versus a static plastic model; versus a functional 3D computer simulation ... all of the same aircraft. Lawyers would have a field day arguing over those distinctions. Commonsense is irrelevant where the law is concerned. Even should Grumman be wrong it would need to be appealed to the US supreme court before you had the authority to set down a precedent.

[Wolf_Rider]

"Generally under US law images of utilitarian items like a fork or coffee mug do not attract copyright but images of sculptures, frescos, paintings, cartoon characters and other "artwork" does. "

there is something allowed for in copying artwork... ie redrawing something which has already been drawn, as in copying a Rembrandt. (especially if ya tried to sell it as a Rembrandt, lol)


we need to stay on track though and not go straying off http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sony-EA-Disney-and-Ubisoft-Are-Charged-With-Copyright-Infringements-127263.shtml

[=PF=Coastie]

I don't think there would have ever been a problem if the NG name wasn't put directly on the box. This opened the door for NG and they took advantage of it.

[ElAurens]

The TBM was not reverse engineered, it was built under license by General Motors, as was the FM2 Wildcat.

Guys, you can carry on about this for 20 more pages, but the simple fact is that if UBI/1C/Maddox Games do not pay the royalty license to Northrop-Grumman, then no N-G owned designs of any kind can be in any sim produced by Oleg.

That's all there is to it.

End of story.

[PE_Tigar]

I say -
1. do not feed the likes of N-G trolls
2. release modeling tools to the masses when time comes to model the a/c in question
3. mission accomplished

In the meantime you Yanks could do something to change your retarded laws. And don't compare Porsche with this, they've never sued anyone for modelling Tiger tank or smt...

[Igo kyu]

don't compare Porsche with this, they've never sued anyone for modelling Tiger tank or smt...
Maybe not, and good on them for that, but you do know the actual production Tiger was a Henschel design?

[robtek]

Henschel didn't sue also!
Ooops, there will be a Henschel in 4.10. I shure hope nobody gets a idea :-D

[PE_Tigar]

Maybe not, and good on them for that, but you do know the actual production Tiger was a Henschel design?

I'm not too much into tanks, but I do know both Porsche and Henschel had designs for Pz. VI, and that the Henschel design won... Anyway, the point was - car designs and weapon designs shouldn't be compared. I mean, when I was in China I was amazed at the number of knock off cars on the road - quite funny, and scary. Now making a digital likeness of a WWII era plane is a different thing altogether...

Which brings in mind another thing - how come those trolls try to sue Oleg, and forget the guys who build scale replicas of P-51s for example?

[Viking]

“Which brings in mind another thing - how come those trolls try to sue Oleg, and forget the guys who build scale replicas of P-51s for example?”

It’s all explained in my previous post, see below.
They, the war industrial complex of USA, live and thrive on the citizen’s fear and ignorance of other nations. The first, second and finally the cold war was a major contribution to their shareholders. Do you seriously think they will voluntarily shift from warships, warplanes, guns etc and start producing bicycle stands, park benches etc ? Think not!

“We must not forget that Grumman et consorties (the "defence" contractors) live on fear. The population must live in fear and a belive that the outside world is evil and that US must use every available dollar to buy moore weapons from the contractors.

Then comes a Russian (one of the evil commies!) guy and gives microsoft a teatching on how a flightsim should look! And then the commie goes on and sort of clames that the Soviets won the war!!
Do you seriusly think that Grumman would slap Oleg on the back? " Congrats comrade you surly made a nice Grumman XXX there! This will cast some light on history and bring our nations together again like old times!"
Think not! “



Viking

[baronWastelan]

I say -
1. do not feed the likes of N-G trolls
2. release modeling tools to the masses when time comes to model the a/c in question
3. mission accomplished

In the meantime you Yanks could do something to change your retarded laws. And don't compare Porsche with this, they've never sued anyone for modelling Tiger tank or smt...

Porsche during WWII were a design consulting office not a manufacturer and their designs became the property of Porsche's customers i.e. the German govt. For example the VW "beetle" (pre-1998,) is entirely a "Porsche design" but Porsche AG will not make a claim of copyright of the beetle. You'll get sued for making and selling VW beetle models without licensing the design, just not by Porsche AG. ;)

[Wolf_Rider]

The TBM was not reverse engineered, it was built under license by General Motors, as was the FM2 Wildcat.

Guys, you can carry on about this for 20 more pages, but the simple fact is that if UBI/1C/Maddox Games do not pay the royalty license to Northrop-Grumman, then no N-G owned designs of any kind can be in any sim produced by Oleg.

That's all there is to it.

End of story.


the TBM was sent to GM (?) in a screwed together form so GM could disassemble the plane (reverse engineer) and study it to aid in their manufacturing.

check your il2 plane list again ;) ....


"Over G Fighters" apparently carries (ubisoft release?) NG licensing

you make quite a valid point, Baron, about reproducing a realife replica and selling that as the original (Chinese knock off's, etc) and would be quite correct... change the dimensions slightly and give it a different name, you're home sweet. What we are talking about here though, is a rendered (drawn) image, much like WWII art which featured Spitfires, etc

[baronWastelan]

I am also talking about rendered (drawn) images. If the drawings are copying a design, and sold for money, then the owner of the design has a potential copyright claim for compensation. It's an extremely complex subject and usually the artist doesn't get sued, but the rights always exist even if the owner of the copied design doesn't exercise them. I also am of the opinion that Ubi could have avoided the problem with N-G by simply omitting the words "Grumman", "Hellcat", & "Wildcat". It's all hindsight now, but in this sort of case that's all you ever have.

[The Kraken]

"Over G Fighters" apparently carries (ubisoft release?) NG licensing


I guess Ubi didn't bother with Silent Hunter 5:
"US bomber" (http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/silent-hunter-5/bilder/original/45308,91510,2097140.html)
"US seaplane" (http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/silent-hunter-5/bilder/original/45308,91510,2097139.html)

For comparison:
Mosquito (http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/silent-hunter-5/bilder/original/45308,91510,2097178.html)
SM 79 (http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/silent-hunter-5/bilder/original/45308,91510,2097234.html)
FW 200 (http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/silent-hunter-5/bilder/original/45308,91510,2097217.html)

[Emperor Norton]

Worth noting it was Northrup Grumman, the leading supplier of military simulators, who sued and not Boeing*, Lockheed or Curtiss-Wright. You want a tin foil hat conspiracy Northrup Grumman was looking to trip up a potential competitor for their golden goose.

* who bought out North American and thus would have rights to the Mustang.

[SlipBall]

I think back then, it was still just plain Grumman ( may be wrong), and they were having financial trouble's...they wanted some cash, but Oleg played hardball:grin:

[mazex]

Guys, you can carry on about this for 20 more pages, but the simple fact is that if UBI/1C/Maddox Games do not pay the royalty license to Northrop-Grumman, then no N-G owned designs of any kind can be in any sim produced by Oleg.

That's all there is to it.

End of story.

As you already bent over for it, can you hand me the soap? ;)

This is actually a perfect example of the fact that the western civilization is right now getting sick like the old roman empire. Bots buying and selling stocks and lawyers spending time on stuff like this...

/Mazex

[Igo kyu]

As someone said, they are writing themselves out of history.

Gru.. who?
It's not as if they have anything to be ashamed of, but there they went anyway.

[Wolf_Rider]

I am also talking about rendered (drawn) images. If the drawings are copying a design, and sold for money, then the owner of the design has a potential copyright claim for compensation. It's an extremely complex subject and usually the artist doesn't get sued, but the rights always exist even if the owner of the copied design doesn't exercise them. I also am of the opinion that Ubi could have avoided the problem with N-G by simply omitting the words "Grumman", "Hellcat", & "Wildcat". It's all hindsight now, but in this sort of case that's all you ever have.


I'm talking about rendered images, Baron... like this http://www.aviationartprints.com/spitfire_fighter_aircraft.htm

"government works", seem to be outside the copyright sphere and at the end of the day, they're the ones who coughed up the bucks making them the employer/ owner/ principal contractor/ whatevva you want to call it.

... and a derivative work based on works in the public domain, don't attract copyright infringement

[ZaltysZ]

All these intellectual property laws are very confusing not only to ordinary people, but to ordinary lawyers too. It would be interesting to hear opinion of lawyer specializing in this area. In example, it would be nice to know what laws and what parts of them exactly covers this "Grumman thingy".

So far, I am only sure about trademark law, which prohibits using Grumman name, logo or their product names without their permission. Plane shape should be covered by design patent (?), but its term is relatively short (around 20 years) and should be expired by now.

[Ctrl E]

can we put together a petition to grumman? circulate it to all the modding sites and gather as many names as we can?

Something like:

We the undersigned are great fans of Grumman aircraft and would dearly love to see historic Grumman aircraft included in any future ad-ons of Storm Of War. Unfortunately Grumman copyright demands at present make this impossible. We feel Storm of War is a great educational tool and if Grumman were to lift its restrictons new generations would learn of the role Grumman played in fighting for freedom.

[csThor]

Pointless. The people who are responsible for that mess live in a world of economical gibberish, numbers and balance sheets. History or emotional values are meaningless to them.

[Wolf_Rider]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/TBF_GeorgeBush.jpg

One notable Avenger pilot was future American President George H. W. Bush, flying a TBM Avenger off the light aircraft carrier USS San Jacinto (CVL-30) in 1944.

[Ctrl E]

Pointless. The people who are responsible for that mess live in a world of economical gibberish, numbers and balance sheets. History or emotional values are meaningless to them.

disagree. you can always make an argument. never know your luck in the big city.

[mazex]

Thinking of it - lets hope the remnants of Messerschmitt don't get bought by N-G. Then they will sue my ass badly for my avatar...

Fortunately for me the Messerschmitt brand seems to be owned by Daimler-Benz Aerospace and DB don't talk to much about their wartime efforts, or spend time on chasing small guys for pocket money like that...

[csThor]

That wouldn't happen, anyway, mazex. The press would be all over them and the outcry would be horrendous. EADS would get a helluva bad press and they're understandably interested in avoiding that.

[Wolf_Rider]

I must be having a blonde moment.... the Grumman "Wildcat" and "Hellcat" are in the sim and flyable, aren't they?

[csThor]

Yes, but they've been "paid for". Anything more ... Got ca$h? :roll:

[Wolf_Rider]

and the Avenger is available as an AI aircraft in the sim?

[WTE_Galway]

Lets just step back and look at exactly what sort of corporation Northrop Grumman is before getting to indignant about this as copyright extortion on WWII games is small fry compared to what else they get up to :


http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/northrop_grumman

The first major scandals in Northrop Grumman’s history came in the early 1970s, when the company, then known as Northrop Corp., was embroiled in controversies over illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign by company chairman Thomas Jones as well as some $30 million in bribes paid to foreign governments to win orders for fighter jets. A few years later, there were revelations that the company regularly entertained Pentagon officials and members of Congress at a hunting lodge on the eastern shore of Maryland. During the 1980s, Northrop was the subject of numerous investigations relating to alleged mismanagement during its work on the MX Missile and the B-2 Stealth bomber.

In 1989, Northrop was indicted on criminal charges of falsifying test results on cruise missiles for the Air Force and Harrier jets for the Marine Corps. Just as the trial in the case was about to begin in 1990, the company agreed to plead guilty to 34 fraud charges and pay a fine of $17 million. Under the plea agreement, federal prosecutors agreed to end the investigations relating to the MX and the B-2. However, the company agreed in 1992 to pay $4.2 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit—brought without the involvement of the Justice Department—alleging that the company padded its invoices on MX missile guidance system work.

Grumman Corp., acquired by Northrop in 1994, brought with it a history of controversies on issues such as cost overruns in the production of F-14 Tomcat fighters for the Navy, production of defective municipal buses by its Flxible division (sold in 1983) and a bribery scandal involving Iran and Japan.

In 2000 Northrop Grumman paid $1.4 million to settle a whistleblower case alleging that the company overcharged the Air Force for B-2 bomber instruction and repair manuals. In a case inherited through the acquisition of TRW, Northrop Grumman agreed in 2003 to pay $111 million to settle claims that TRW overcharged the Pentagon for work on several space electronics programs in the early 1990s. Also in 2003, Northrop Grumman agreed to pay a total of $80 million to settle two False Claims Act cases, one involving work by Newport News Shipbuilding before Northrop acquired it in 2001 and the other involving the delivery of allegedly defective aerial target drones.

In 2004, Northrop settled for $1.8 million the remaining individual whistleblower case from the late 1980s involving cruise missiles. The following year it paid $62 million to settle the remaining claims relating to overcharging on the B-2 bomber program.

The false claims allegations continue. In March 2008 a whistleblower brought a lawsuit charging that Northrop Grumman’s Melbourne division with hundreds of millions of dollars of overcharges relating to the Joint STARS radar aircraft program.

Not all of Northrop’s performance problems have been related to overcharging. Soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the company’s Vinnell Corp. subsidiary (acquired as part of the purchase of TRW in 2002) was awarded a $48 million contract “to train the nucleus of a new Iraqi army.” It botched the job so badly that the Jordanian Army had to be brought in to take over.
Labor:

Some 17 percent of Northrop Grumman’s 122,000 employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Some of the most contentious labor relations have been at the company’s shipbuilding operations. Northrop inherited these relationships when it acquired Litton Industries and Newport News Shipbuilding in 2001.

There had been a bitter dispute dating back to the early 1990s between Avondale Industries and the New Orleans Metal Trades Council, a group of eight unions which had won a representation election for 5,000 workers. Avondale fought the unions, which in turn launched a major corporate campaign against the company. The confrontation deescalated after Litton took over Avondale in 1999 and signed a neutrality agreement with the unions. In 2002, with Litton now part of Northrop Grumman, the dispute was finally settled.

In 2003, there was nearly a strike at the other Litton shipyard inherited by Northrop—the Ingalls operation in Pascagoula , Mississippi. After a 14-day “cooling-off” period a settlement was reached that was approved by a majority of the 7,000 workers covered. Things did not go so smoothly in 2007. The workers in Pascagoula struck the shipyard for 27 days before accepting a revised contract offer from the company.

Members of United Steelworkers Local 8888 at Northrop’s shipyard in Newport News, Virginia ratified a new 52-month contract in 2004.

In 2007 it was reported that guest workers from India employed by Signal International, a Northrop Grumman subcontractor in Pascagoula, were being held against their will.

[baronWastelan]

Screw N-G. We got LOCKHEED. :D

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d63/baronWastelan/lightining00.jpg

[Wolf_Rider]

thats' right there Galway, it (royalties, etc) is extremely small fry by comparison which keeps taking me back to there could well be something more than just (by comparison)a simple copyright issue...

was it really just a US President Bush Sr. protest reaction?

[dakuth]

For anyone that is a bit "iffy" on the copyright laws in the US:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo



Following with that, IMO, game developers would be very well served by getting a judge to rule that games (or sims in particular) are educational. With that precedent in place, problems like this would evaporate, because they would be protected by fair use.

[flyingbullseye]

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff129/y0j1mb0-2008/beating_a_dead_horse1.jpg?t=1235014411

Flyingbullseye

[Seeker]

Ha! Oleg has it easy......

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102557-EA-Sports-Gets-Sacked-by-Retired-NFL-Players

[imaca]

quote: "Northrop/Grumman is requiring trademark licensing fees"
As others have pointed out this is a Trademark issue , not IP. If you called it "bob" there is nothing they could do about it. It is not artwork being reproduced. There is absolutely no IP infringement. Just copyright of the tradename.

[Moritz]

What I have always found curious about this suit was their claim on 'all ships built at Hampton Roads Shipyard.' Unlike modern US Naval design and precurement, all US Naval Vessels constructed prior to 1966 were designed by the US Bureau of Ships, a government entity. The naming of the vessel is also a government function.

Either they are not aware of the role of the Bureau of Ships as the persons involved may not have been around in 1966, or they are running a bigger bluff in their shakedown.

[Moritz]

This could probably be resolved for all model companies and software modelers by reviewing the original procurement/production contracts between the 'Department of War' (now Department of Defense) and the contractors. One may find that the work is deemed to be the property of the Department of War and that there would be no intellectual rights retained by the contractor. This would also go with the fact that all product liability issues related to these would assumed by the government. In fact, if I were arguing this with an attorney, I would contend that the fact that the government absolved the contract from any product liability would be further proof that the government assumed all ownership rights under the contracts.

One other US legal concept is precedent. The fact that the contractors were very willing to allow models to be made for 50 years prior to getting greedy. One example I remember from my youth was teh 1/48 B-17G from Monogram, where in the original 1976-7 instruction sheet had a booklet on how Boeing and workers from WWII era voluntarily provided the documents and worked with Monogram to ensure the accuracy of the kit.