Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[saunders1953]

"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."

In these discussions, no one ever points out that the US Government could have obtained the rights to the designs, and frankly, in light of security issues, I'm not certain why they didn't. I'm a contracts lawyer for the state I live in, and whenever we bid for a design or development of a thing (usually software these days)...because it is being paid for through taxpayer dollars...we retain the rights to the design up front, or we go to the next qualified bidder. If it's a proprietary thingy (again mostly software) where we are essentially buying it off the shelf, the company retains the rights, because it was developed with private/corporate funds.

My understanding of aircraft development in the '30s and '40s is that the government put out specs for companies to design from, contractors submitted their product, tests were conducted, and contracts were let. I don't see why the government didn't retain the rights--presumably for good ol' capitalistic reasons--but nothing would have prevented them from doing so (unless the laws on the books at that time didn't allow it, but I haven't found anything supporting that possibility).

Of course if Uncle Sam did retain the rights, it still wouldn't help us out here, because the government wouldn't likely license those rights to the average Joe anyway. At least my state government doesn't.

My 2 cents.

[Theshark888]

The plastic modeling industry has been going through this for years. Some pay the royalties and others just ignore it. I don't know of anyone being sued for making a likeness of a Gruuman Avenger or CV Yorktown.

With that being said; Ubisoft screwed up royally on the packaging by stating the Grumman Avenger, Douglas Havoc etc. instead of TBF Avenger or A-20 Havoc.
DO NOT put company names on your retail product period.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Why are more Americans not kicking up a fuss about all the US planes missing from a world leading flight sim. Complain to your Senators. It could become a Presidential election issue

See this article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in887340.shtml

[Friendly_flyer]

Does anyone know what happened to the proposed law on this issue?

[Insuber]

Former Older,

Thanks for this interesting clarification about the legal rationale. Nonetheless I believe that the protest of the "game people" does not come from a simple childish "I want it!" instinct.

IMHO this is one of the cases where "summum ius summa iniuria", as Romans used to say. In other words the strict interpretation of the law clashes violently with the common sense of justice of the average man.


Regards,
Insuber

[Fritzgryphon]

In a broader sense, the idea of demanding royalties for showing an image of a product seems absurd to me.

Imagine if I took a photograph of my room, and sold that photo for $20. The company that made my furniture would want their piece of the $20. The company that made my computer would want their piece. The company that made my carpet would want their piece. And so on.

Pretty soon, these royalties would be more than the $20 I made. Were this the case, it would be impossible to produce any kind of media.

It's mind boggling absurd and impractical that any company should demand royalties for displaying an image of their product. It's reprehensible that any would get away with it, and only then because of legal loopholes and bullying.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Fritzgryphon

It's mind boggling absurd and impractical that any company should demand royalties for displaying an image of their product.

Try selling a product with an image of say an LCD monitor on the box. Better yet make it a Sony monitor and see what will happen...

[Friendly_flyer]

The concept is rapidly becoming a problem. I'm involved in making a small educational film with the local museum. The only thing making our job remotely possible is that it is a non-profit film. In Norway we have rather straight forward laws on the matter, but the American oxmanure rules are spilling over here as well. In the end I think all this will force forth some sort of "public image" law, detailing what is beyond copyright bounds.

[Wolf_Rider]

the use and depiction of military assets in movie/ television/ art (rendered) media doesn't require permission or infringe on copyright, as I understand it... though I would stand correction.

[Avimimus]

Hello,

Having started this topic, I thought I would weigh in. In particular, Former_Older I thought you would find this interesting as it is inspired by what you have written:
http://web.ncf.ca/ee555/il2unwritten.pdf

I look forward to hearing your response, S!