Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit

[ElAurens]

This has been thrashed out many times since the launch of Pacific Fighters. As of now the law is on the side of the manufacturers.

Nothing we can do about it.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think there is more to be gained by cooperating with veterans' associations than by trying to go around it with lawyers.

To illustrate the difference, just imagine what it would look like in the news:

"PC flight simulator developers and hobbyists take legal action against the defense industry, in an effort to abolish royalty fees involved in the portrayal of historical military hardware in PC software: (insert row upon row of legal jargon)"

as opposed to

"The privatization of history and personal struggle, or how our veterans' blood and sweat became the lawyers' bread and butter:
Dozens of veteran associations across the US and other countries have taken objection to the practice of certain military industry firms to demand royalty and copyright fees for the portrayal of machines of war that they fought in. And while these machines were in fact built by these companies, it's these men, most of them in their late 80s or more, who fought, bled and died in these machines during WWII. One of the most well-known surviving US ace pilots of the time and spokesman for one of the veteran associations, Mr. XYZ, issued the following statement when asked to comment on the issue:
It's almost 70 years ago that we took to the skies in an effort to defend basic human freedoms and rights. Countless people on all sides lost their lives in that struggle and they deserve to be remembered. Just like books and movies, PC gaming software that focuses on WWII and the historically accurate portrayal of this struggle serves to keep the memory alive and the public aware of the great deeds of sacrifice that happened so long ago, yet their repercussions are still far-reaching.
It's a complete disgrace, an awful disservice to and even an obscene slap on the face of the individuals who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice, that the continuation of historical memory and the telling of their heroic deeds are subject to the hurdles and hubris of petty profiteering by companies that already make a killing in their original field of work.
It's also tragically ironic, to say the least, that a company whose designs saved so many of our lives thanks to their robust construction back in the day, is nowadays looking to rob us of the recognition we deserve, by preventing our youth from re-enacting our deeds and putting themselves in our shoes for a little while with the aid of PC simulation software. "

Which one do you think is prone to stir up the most trouble? See, if you want to go against the establishment you're better off fighting it with its own means, sensational journalism being one of them

[Viking]

The way the American economy is going and seeing how the Chinese are spending their Greenbacks’ I say it’s only a matter of months before we can go to Peking and ask for permission to use the name and images of Grumman et consortia’s!


Viking

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I only hope this Grumman thing does not private us from having the F9F Pantherjet or any other important aircraft of the Korean conflict that should be present on SoW Korea!!

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Viking

The way the American economy is going and seeing how the Chinese are spending their Greenbacks’ I say it’s only a matter of months before we can go to Peking and ask for permission to use the name and images of Grumman et consortia’s!


Viking

LOL, ain't that the truth!

[WTE_Galway]

Note that we didn't just lose aircraft, at least one almost completed ship (escort carrier ? cannot recall now) was pulled from the game as well.

Nothing much to add here other than this ..

The story going around at the time was it never went to court. Grumman threatened to take out some sort of injunction preventing the release of Pacific Fighters until the matter was dealt with by the US courts, possibly several years later. As Pacific Fighters was just hitting the markets and all the publicity already paid for by UBI made an out of court settlement and billed Oleg for the costs.

A final note --- the rights to this stuff will never go public domain. The American courts have recently set a precedent with a Disney case whereby IP holders can apply to have their copyright extended virtually forever.

[Wolf_Rider]

copyright doesn't apply to drawn/ rendered images/ likeness of the real thing

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

copyright doesn't apply to drawn/ rendered images/ likeness of the real thing

Tell that to Disney ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act

http://copyfight.corante.com/archive...ckey_mouse.php

Of course their are fair use provisions ... but under current law the Grumman case for copyright protection of images of their aircraft and ships has some legal basis and the Bono act provides the ability to extend those rights once they expire (copyright from the WWII period would otherwise begin to become public domain around 2015).

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Originally Posted by ECV56_Lancelot

I only hope this Grumman thing does not private us from having the F9F Pantherjet or any other important aircraft of the Korean conflict that should be present on SoW Korea!!

Well if its a Nothrop Grumman A/C then prevention will happen unless Oleg can somehow get NG to come to the party.

What a bunch of 'pillicks' really!!!

[Wolf_Rider]

did you see SouthPark and their treatment of Mickey Mouse (And boybands), Galway? ... it was hoot.


(I didn't mean a image couldn't be copyrighted, I meant that to draw an image of a real object doesn't infringe copyright)
All those paintings (renders/ drawings of the real thing) of spitfires, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc aren't attracting copyright, Galway ... and the avenger (?) was reversed engineered by GM (who ? also built the birds) to aid in the understanding of contructing the 'plane.

Using the Navy designation/ monickers (nicknames) shouldn't attract anything also.


I've always felt there was something more to it than just a call of "copyright issue", considering how come on down real quick all discussion was at the other place