Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[GF_Mastiff]

Originally Posted by Rama

Former_Older
You don't know more than anybody else here the details of the letter Ubisoft received from NGC lawyers, neither the content of the agreement between NGC, Ubisoft and Oleg.
Nobody except the 3 parties do know, and they wont tell anything since they agreed to keep it confidential.
So you can't say "it's Ubisoft fault", as nobody can say "it's NGC fault" or "it's Oleg's fault"...
Everything said on these forums is nothing but unfounded guess and as usefull as to talk about sex angels.
Wouldn't it be better not to talk about?

Yes lets pound our head in the sand and close our eyes to such things!

[Al Schlageter]

Actually, the railroad companies have been putting it to the model railroaders for some time now.

[Rama]

Originally Posted by GF_Mastiff

Yes lets pound our head in the sand and close our eyes to such things!

What things?
It won't help you to open your eyes and your ears when there's nothing to see or to hear.

Nobody knows what exactly happened, and everybody's speaking in the vacuum

[GF_Mastiff]

Originally Posted by Rama

What things?
It won't help you to open your eyes and your ears when there's nothing to see or to hear.

Nobody knows what exactly happened, and everybody's speaking in the vacuum

this is what happened.

The "door opening" factor was the failure to properly mark the Grumman name on the package art (I have it here in my lap). That's open and shut, and in fact, the companies in question are required to defend their marks for fear of precedent that it is open for use. Ubi was over a barrel at that point, and the negotiators decided to ask for fees as precedent. Now they can claim that companies have been forced to pay for images of their products that would otherwise be "fair use." That's my guess, anyway.

the fair use is now gone, since they paid out and made it precedent.