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.

[Viking]

Very interesting; but I think we should start from the beginning: if I recall correctly there where some American airplanes and ships that was expected or “promised” to appear in Pacific Fighter and didn’t show up. What airplanes and ships and what was the reason for this? Can anyone recap and clarify?

And please don’t criticise or defend the legal system! Just explain what went down and how things work.
Viking

[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.