Ubisoft Oleg Northrop syndrome

[GF_Mastiff]

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes...licopter-maker

[Luno13]

It will be interesting to see the results of this case, but UBI and 1C have already made an agree with Grumman.

[jannaspookie]

+1 for freedom. Hopefully the court will rule on the side of what's right, and not what's profitable for corporations. Just my two cents...

[Viking]

Originally Posted by Luno13

It will be interesting to see the results of this case, but UBI and 1C have already made an agree with Grumman.

I think ,hope and pray, that that agreement just expired!

Viking

[Blackjack]

The article mentions EA licenses it cars for their "need for speed" franchise as they are the main protagonists in that series,
wouldn't you say the airplanes are some kind central game element in il2

I dont think anything would change regarding il2 if they are permitted to depict 3 Bell helicopters
in Battlefield 3 where there are much more vehicles players can choose from.

EDIT: I wonder how older flight simulations handled that sort of thing (or didn't they need to?), like Aces over the Pacific etc.,
maybe american copyright law is getting ridiculously restricted over the years ?

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Blackjack

The article mentions EA licenses it cars for their "need for speed" franchise as they are the main protagonists in that series,
wouldn't you say the airplanes are some kind central game element in il2

I dont think anything would change regarding il2 if they are permitted to depict 3 Bell helicopters
in Battlefield 3 where there are much more vehicles players can choose from.

It does not matter which role in a game take an object. Even if you use it's model as a 3rd plan scene prop - you still have to license it, if it is recognizable model/type.

Consumer goods (like cars), however, are different from military goods in terms of copyright. Because, development of consumer goods in most cases is paid by it's producer. Development of the military goods, in most cases, is paid by government=taxes=taxpayers=people of the country. Which, though arguably, puts copyright of mil.goods to public domain of the country, which paid for development thereof.

Well, something like this...

Anyways, if EA wins, it may lift the Grumman ban from future flight sims. But as for the IL-2 - I wouldn't be so sure, because of that agreement between UBi, 1C and NG.

Regarding older sims: this issue first struck IL-2. Previous developers were not affected. Approximately at the same time, toy and plastic kit manufacturers also encountered the same copyright problems.

[Fighterace]

Do we know what the result of this court case is?

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Fighterace

Do we know what the result of this court case is?

If it was only filed a few weeks ago expect a decision to be handed down in ... two weeks ... no .. more like 2 years ... say 2014

[Bearcat]

I have often wonmdered if the outcry would have been as loud or as quick from NG had 1C not been a Russina company with a French publisher..

[WTE_Galway]

Sadly when you combine the SOPA and PIPA government enforced corporate greed with US courts happy to grant companies patents on more and more stupid basic things, for example Apple getting a patent on the user clicking on an icon while also making a call (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_1...-during-calls/), the situation can only get worse.

Add to this the ability of US courts to now have people deported for alleged crimes that are not even illegal in the country they live in and we will be lucky to see any flight sims under $500 once the royalties are paid.

EDIT:

Forgot to mention that whereas intellectual property rights for everyone else in the world eventually expire, US corporations (after a recent Disney test case over Mickey Mouse of all things) have the ability to renew copyright/patents etc indefinitely. Unlike anyone else in the world, US corporations now have unlimited rights that never expire.