Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit

[Viking]

“Which brings in mind another thing - how come those trolls try to sue Oleg, and forget the guys who build scale replicas of P-51s for example?”

It’s all explained in my previous post, see below.
They, the war industrial complex of USA, live and thrive on the citizen’s fear and ignorance of other nations. The first, second and finally the cold war was a major contribution to their shareholders. Do you seriously think they will voluntarily shift from warships, warplanes, guns etc and start producing bicycle stands, park benches etc ? Think not!

“We must not forget that Grumman et consorties (the "defence" contractors) live on fear. The population must live in fear and a belive that the outside world is evil and that US must use every available dollar to buy moore weapons from the contractors.

Then comes a Russian (one of the evil commies!) guy and gives microsoft a teatching on how a flightsim should look! And then the commie goes on and sort of clames that the Soviets won the war!!
Do you seriusly think that Grumman would slap Oleg on the back? " Congrats comrade you surly made a nice Grumman XXX there! This will cast some light on history and bring our nations together again like old times!"
Think not! “



Viking

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by PE_Tigar

I say -
1. do not feed the likes of N-G trolls
2. release modeling tools to the masses when time comes to model the a/c in question
3. mission accomplished

In the meantime you Yanks could do something to change your retarded laws. And don't compare Porsche with this, they've never sued anyone for modelling Tiger tank or smt...

Porsche during WWII were a design consulting office not a manufacturer and their designs became the property of Porsche's customers i.e. the German govt. For example the VW "beetle" (pre-1998,) is entirely a "Porsche design" but Porsche AG will not make a claim of copyright of the beetle. You'll get sued for making and selling VW beetle models without licensing the design, just not by Porsche AG.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

The TBM was not reverse engineered, it was built under license by General Motors, as was the FM2 Wildcat.

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.

the TBM was sent to GM (?) in a screwed together form so GM could disassemble the plane (reverse engineer) and study it to aid in their manufacturing.

check your il2 plane list again ....


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

you make quite a valid point, Baron, about reproducing a realife replica and selling that as the original (Chinese knock off's, etc) and would be quite correct... change the dimensions slightly and give it a different name, you're home sweet. What we are talking about here though, is a rendered (drawn) image, much like WWII art which featured Spitfires, etc

[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.

[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

[Emperor Norton]

Worth noting it was Northrup Grumman, the leading supplier of military simulators, who sued and not Boeing*, Lockheed or Curtiss-Wright. You want a tin foil hat conspiracy Northrup Grumman was looking to trip up a potential competitor for their golden goose.

* who bought out North American and thus would have rights to the Mustang.

[SlipBall]

I think back then, it was still just plain Grumman ( may be wrong), and they were having financial trouble's...they wanted some cash, but Oleg played hardball

[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.

[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