Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit

[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!!

[_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!!!

[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).

[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

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by 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)

Generally under US law images of utilitarian items like a fork or coffee mug do not attract copyright but images of sculptures, frescos, paintings, cartoon characters and other "artwork" does.

Yes, commonsense says an aircraft is a utilitarian item rather than artwork and attracts no copyright but apparently that is not how American courts interpret the matter.

I do not agree with it just stating how it works in the US.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

The gossip was that part of the out of court settlement was UBI not discuss the issue. In addition UBI are often portrayed as one of the bad guys in this story which may partly explain their aversion to allowing discussion.


EDIT: I would also add we are not talking sketches here. Consider the difference between a 95% scale flyable copy of an aircraft; versus a smaller flyable scale model; versus a static plastic model; versus a functional 3D computer simulation ... all of the same aircraft. Lawyers would have a field day arguing over those distinctions. Commonsense is irrelevant where the law is concerned. Even should Grumman be wrong it would need to be appealed to the US supreme court before you had the authority to set down a precedent.

[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.