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.

where did the artwork for your signature come from?

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.

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.

"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-...s-127263.shtml

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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?