About legal problems of showing in-game real aircraft...

[ChrisDNT]

... very interesting, here :

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthre...f=59&t=1028359

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes...licopter-maker

Electronic Arts asserts that its depiction of the three aircraft "are protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use." EA notes that Battlefield 3's packaging features a disclaimer stating that the appearance of real-world weapons and vehicles does not constitute any official endorsement by their maker. ...

I do hope EA will win, so perhaps we will see some Grumman aircrafts in this game !!!

[ChrisDNT]

In September, a federal judge ruled that EA's recognizable, if unnamed, depiction of a real college quarterback, without his permission, was within the boundaries of its rights to free expression.

So, a Grumman aircraft, but not named as a "Grumman" would be ok, it seems ???

[Codex]

That's how GSC got around using some US weapons in the Stalker series, they just called them something else.

What's even more outrageous is that from WWII to the present day all of these US military aircraft have been 100% taxpayer funded. The depiction of them being ground for NG, Lockheed, or GE getting money is ludicrous! If anyone should be getting that "fee" it should be the US taxpayers. There's a reason why GM, Ford, Porsche, etc, get to charge for games to use their products. Because they footed the bill to make them! Hell, a lot of companies push their products to be in films (see any Michael Bay movie) to get free advertising. Seeing how large the gaming market is (bigger than the movie industry) you'd think they'd be thrilled to have their products featured in a game.

Then again, the companies that cater to the US military are among the greediest most corrupt companies out there, and have no qualms with wasting billions of dollars of other people's money, or trying to squeeze a few extra dimes out of some little operation.

[Verhängnis]

Ah so that explains why every vehicle in BF3 looks like it's been modelled by a blind person.

[JG5_emil]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

what's even more outrageous is that from wwii to the present day all of these us military aircraft have been 100% taxpayer funded. The depiction of them being ground for ng, lockheed, or ge getting money is ludicrous! If anyone should be getting that "fee" it should be the us taxpayers. There's a reason why gm, ford, porsche, etc, get to charge for games to use their products. Because they footed the bill to make them! Hell, a lot of companies push their products to be in films (see any michael bay movie) to get free advertising. Seeing how large the gaming market is (bigger than the movie industry) you'd think they'd be thrilled to have their products featured in a game.

Then again, the companies that cater to the us military are among the greediest most corrupt companies out there, and have no qualms with wasting billions of dollars of other people's money, or trying to squeeze a few extra dimes out of some little operation.

+1000000

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

What's even more outrageous is that from WWII to the present day all of these US military aircraft have been 100% taxpayer funded. The depiction of them being ground for NG, Lockheed, or GE getting money is ludicrous! If anyone should be getting that "fee" it should be the US taxpayers. There's a reason why GM, Ford, Porsche, etc, get to charge for games to use their products. Because they footed the bill to make them! Hell, a lot of companies push their products to be in films (see any Michael Bay movie) to get free advertising. Seeing how large the gaming market is (bigger than the movie industry) you'd think they'd be thrilled to have their products featured in a game.

Then again, the companies that cater to the US military are among the greediest most corrupt companies out there, and have no qualms with wasting billions of dollars of other people's money, or trying to squeeze a few extra dimes out of some little operation.

Actually there was a lot more to the old "Paciffic Fighters" legal incident, than representing American planes. Nobody cared if they modeled an old F-4U or F-4F.
They legally scewed the pooch so bad, that it would have been a miracle not to get sued over it.

Heres a quick scan I did to the rear CD cover of my Paciffic Fighters copy.
I highlited with green some trademark registered names represented correctly on the cover and with yellow the blunt stupid legal mistakes.


Nobody in his right mind would publish such a cover in the modern world. I'm not surprised they got screwed over. The problem is UBI was the publisher and it was responsible for what they publish.
In the end, it was UBI that screwed Oleg, not Grumman.

[hiro]

Its so funny

EA and sports games have always modeled certain really high paid and uber athletes that "look like" and are similar but are not.

Like the famous no name "Player 23" on the Bulls that could dribble, shoot, dunk, and move like a famous player, Michael Jordan. Even had a bald head and tongue sticking out. But EA never got sued by Michael Jordan for doing that.

I guess EA didn't remember their age old tactic. . .





pr0n or porn is covered under first amendment . . . as art lol, but realistic as possible depiction of past historical events in movies and video games as history or art is not . . .

welcome to America, land of the paradoxes.

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

Nobody in his right mind would publish such a cover in the modern world. I'm not surprised they got screwed over. The problem is UBI was the publisher and it was responsible for what they publish.
In the end, it was UBI that screwed Oleg, not Grumman.

That's pretty bad, but dropping the company names should have been sufficient to have the aircraft included in the game without any issues. Then again we don't really know how spineless UBI was, and if they even cared if the game had certain aircraft removed.

[Kupsised]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

There's a reason why GM, Ford, Porsche, etc, get to charge for games to use their products. Because they footed the bill to make them! Hell, a lot of companies push their products to be in films (see any Michael Bay movie) to get free advertising. Seeing how large the gaming market is (bigger than the movie industry) you'd think they'd be thrilled to have their products featured in a game.

You're right about the tax payers, but this is a bit different in that car companies (and others) pay to/give away for free in order to have their products in films because they're advertising them to potential consumers who might either buy that car or at least a car made by them, but in the case of BF3 I don't think the market for a Super Hornet is the average gamer, no matter how much the average gamer wishes it were It isn't product placement in the way that Michael Bay movies are because it would even be illegal to sell a Hornet or any other aircraft to 99.99% of all the people who play battlefield (I'm giving the .01% as I'm going to assume that somewhere some head of state or minister of defence might actually play battlefield), even if they could afford it, which again 99.99% of people couldn't even if it were legal.

It was interesting to see what Jaws posted there though. I never saw that as I got pacific fighters through a fully merged 1946 so never saw the box art. Someone really dropped the ball there...