Mods discussion, links, etc

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by csThor

But, unfortunately and obviously, no common sense.

And, it's maddening, because I don't think that NG has that great a legal case, either. Unless they've bribed the U.S. Congress into giving them some special legal rights, I think that they're just "copyright trolling."

I wish that some advocacy organization like the Electronic Frontier Foundation would go after them, but I don't think it's going to happen. I don't blame Ubi for backing off, and I don't blame 1C for being very cautious about risking liability issues, though.

It's just nuts that NG can claim IP rights over ships and aircraft designed during the 1940s or before. At the time, copyright law was different (only something like 20 years, renewable for another 20) and I don't think that many design firms actually copyrighted their designs. After all, they were designed and built, fully or partially in cooperation with the U.S. government, to government specifications.

For example, the USS Arizona was laid down in 1916 at the Brooklyn Navy Shipyard (a U.S. government institution). Even if she wasn't built by the government (thus, copyright free), according to copyright law at the time, her original design would have been out of copyright for good by 1956. Even with refits, her Pearl Harbor design would have been out of copyright by 1981, well before the latest extended copyright law came into effect.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

That would surely be helpfull. Unfortunately we do not have the ressources to set up such a place.

Why not?

Is there any chance that one of the fan sites, like Mission 4 Today or SimHQ could host?

[Verhängnis]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

The Northrop Grumman position on intellectual property rights.

From http://www.northropgrumman.com/ipm/tmpolicy.html

In summary NG claims trademark rights on the names of its "products" but does not claim any rights to images, drawings etc, provided the name is not used.



But from previous comments made here it seems 1C may have made specific agreements which extends these terms in order to avoid legal conflict over Pacific Fighters.

I am surprised that they claim specific rights to the trademark "F-14". I thought that was a USAAF designation. However the term "Corsair" is understandable as a trademark. Perhaps you would be ok using "F14"

When it comes to ships it seems unlikely that NG would claim any rights to "CV5" but they might claim trademark rights to "Yorktown". --- Even though I expect it is the USN which decides on names of ships, not NG.

PS: I have e-mailed NG to clarify the last point. --- Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

But did it ever occur to you that perhaps NG built the damn ship!
You should really do your research before making such claims:

"Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), originally Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company (NNS&DD), was the largest privately-owned shipyard in the United States prior to being purchased by Northrop Grumman in 2001."

So, yes for a matter of fact, they do own the rights to many ships, including the Yorktown and CV-5 model.

[csThor]

Still ... regardless of the actual copyright situation the contract between Ubi/1C and NG is the crux here. Like Luthier told SaQSon - "better leave it alone".

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by Verhängnis

But did it ever occur to you that perhaps NG built the damn ship!
You should really do your research before making such claims:

Of course I know that NNS built the ships.

Originally Posted by Verhängnis

So, yes for a matter of fact, they do own the rights to many ships, including the Yorktown and CV-5 model.

If you read the rest of the thread you might realise that they do not have any intellectual rights to photos, drawings, paintings or any other representation of the ships, as they themselves have acknowledged, but they may have rights relating to the use of trademarked names.

If you are going to declare something as "a matter of fact" you might explain the basis of your statement.

Ultimately though the problem may be not in copyright/trademark law but in the terms of the agreement between NG and UBI/1C as csThor says.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

The Northrop Grumman position on intellectual property rights.

In summary NG claims trademark rights on the names of its "products" but does not claim any rights to images, drawings etc, provided the name is not used.

Read carefully:

...the free license does not apply to use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks for any form of merchandise such as toys, models, clothing, coffee cups, notebooks, electronic or video games, etc.

And it is not about names. It is also about external appearance.
Which means, people can not use objects which called, or look, like NG products, or both in the electronic or video games.

This free license allows people to make photos, or paintings of the NG products and label them with their real life names. That's all.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

For example, if "frankenplane" German nightfighters and British heavy bombers seem to be popular, then DT should beat the modders at their own game by doing the RAF night bombing campaign properly. Basically, beat the modders at their own game.

Well, if DT owned, like 200 Chinese slaves, trained to do 3D modeling, texturing and Java programming, then DT could easily produce a high quality replacement for each franken-plane, cockpit, or object that modders ever put out, in no time.

Unfortunately, DT does not posses such labour resources, while producing a high quality model, accurate to the real-life prototype takes a lot more time, then putting out not-so-well-fit-together franken-stuff.

Not to mention some funny modder-guys, which, every time DT produces a high-quality model of a plane, or cockpit, that have been out before as franken, start lamenting, that DT stole their idea and did not include them into credits!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Ah yes, SaQSoNs postings are like your first beer ever! Bitter.

Ask yourself: How was your first beer? And how is it today?
You get first used to it, then you like it, then you never want something different.

[Asheshouse]

This is the bit I prefer to read

Northrop Grumman Corporation recognizes that the copyright in a photograph, illustration or painting of a vehicle is owned by the photographer, illustrator or artist, respectively (absent a contractual arrangement otherwise). At the same time, Northrop Grumman, as the manufacturer, owns the trademarks (e.g. "F-14", "Corsair") in the vehicles it makes.

You can make an illustration of an NG product provided you don't use the Trademark.
The reference to video games also specifically restricts the use of the Trademark not the digital illustration of the product.

--but I guess the section "(absent a contractual arrangement otherwise)" may include the NG UBI/1C agreement.

[Maori]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

Not to mention some funny modder-guys, which, every time DT produces a high-quality model of a plane, or cockpit, that have been out before as franken, start lamenting, that DT stole their idea and did not include them into credits!

List, please, or you are a deliberate liar



Such claims have NEVER happened with frankens.