Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit

[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.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

I guess Ubi didn't bother with Silent Hunter 5:
"US bomber"
"US seaplane"

For comparison:
Mosquito
SM 79
FW 200

[mazex]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

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.