Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[Zoom2136]

All of this is C.R.A.P.....

If a company is so afraid of setting a precedent... they just have to GRANT 1C (or any other company) limited right to use image and depiction of their product.... This is called licencing... it can be made for a symbolic amont....

What would prevent such a thing is trying to squeeze all the $$$ they can from a product. So a company will want in exemple $$$/copy sold (ship, produced, etc). Don't forget these planes still bring in money from licencing (miniatures scale models, collectors items (books, posters, calenders), etc.). And you would be suprise how much $$$ they still generate.

So... precendence setting... please...

[tater]

They could have done lots of things, but the guy at NG probably decided to make himself look good to his boss, and get something for nothing.

Bottom line is that had someone with 1/2 of a clue looked at the box art before it went on press, we would not be having this conversation. It's that simple. Even a decent copy editor familiair with product packaging would have corrected this, doesn't need to be a lawyer.

It was not ABOUT the package, but the package opened the door because the package failure was open and shut, Ubi would certainly have lost in court there, no question. At that point it was cut their losses time, and negotiate as NG wished so they didn't have to reprint/recall X thousands of boxes, plus probably pay some damages.

Note that we do not know the settlement amount, and it was very likely a fee that NG would consider a nearly symbolic amount. 1C might not consider it symbolic, but 1C products go doe $50 a pop, and NG products go for 50 MILLION a pop. So even $500,000 would be 1% of a single sale to NG. It would be like ubi charging a symbolic fee of 50 cents.

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by tater

Bottom line is that had someone with 1/2 of a clue looked at the box art before it went on press, we would not be having this conversation. It's that simple. Even a decent copy editor familiair with product packaging would have corrected this, doesn't need to be a lawyer.

It was not ABOUT the package, but the package opened the door because the package failure was open and shut, Ubi would certainly have lost in court there, no question. At that point it was cut their losses time, and negotiate as NG wished so they didn't have to reprint/recall X thousands of boxes, plus probably pay some damages.

On the nose and the crux of the matter in my opinion. Well put

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by Zoom2136

All of this is C.R.A.P.....

If a company is so afraid of setting a precedent... they just have to GRANT 1C (or any other company) limited right to use image and depiction of their product.... This is called licencing... it can be made for a symbolic amont....

What would prevent such a thing is trying to squeeze all the $$$ they can from a product. So a company will want in exemple $$$/copy sold (ship, produced, etc). Don't forget these planes still bring in money from licencing (miniatures scale models, collectors items (books, posters, calenders), etc.). And you would be suprise how much $$$ they still generate.

So... precendence setting... please...

Look up US Constitutional Law sometime and get an eye opener about Precedence in US Law. Obviously this is not a Constitutional case but the fact of the matter is yes, US law does look to precedent

You want to believe it was greed? OK

Let me ask you just one question:

what made NGC follow this course of action? Put another way: Why did NGC start to care about all this?

Think about the answer a minute...what event was it that made NGC take notice...

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

Look up US Constitutional Law sometime and get an eye opener about Precedence in US Law. Obviously this is not a Constitutional case but the fact of the matter is yes, US law does look to precedent

You want to believe it was greed? OK

Let me ask you just one question:

what made NGC follow this course of action? Put another way: Why did NGC start to care about all this?

Think about the answer a minute...what event was it that made NGC take notice...

To make precedent a case has to be argued before the Court and a jugement must be rendered. It is not enough to just state.... hey they let it appened in the past... So if you don't bring a matter before the Court it CANNOT make legal precedent...

[mmitch10]

Originally Posted by Zoom2136

To make precedent a case has to be argued before the Court and a jugement must be rendered. It is not enough to just state.... hey they let it appened in the past... So if you don't bring a matter before the Court it CANNOT make legal precedent...

You're right about legal precedence, but if trade marks were the issue here then allowing someone to use their trade marks without a licence would lead to so-called "dilution" of their trade mark rights, making them less strong. Another party in the future could then argue that NG had aquiesced to Ubi's unlicensed use of the TMs, so everyone should also be allowed to use them without licence. So you wouldn't make legal precedence, but you would weaken your trade marks.

[tater]

Trademark is only a problem if there is a chance for the consumer to mistake the product in question for the real thing. It's perfectly fine to use another company's name as long as it is clear you are not that company: ie: "Acme™ seatcover fits BMW™ 3-series sedans."

Acme can say that with no issues or permissions since it is clear that Acme is not BMW.

I don't think any of us think a computer game is a real ww2 aircraft.

tater

[mmitch10]

Originally Posted by tater

Trademark is only a problem if there is a chance for the consumer to mistake the product in question for the real thing. It's perfectly fine to use another company's name as long as it is clear you are not that company: ie: "Acme™ seatcover fits BMW™ 3-series sedans."

Acme can say that with no issues or permissions since it is clear that Acme is not BMW.

I don't think any of us think a computer game is a real ww2 aircraft.

tater

Not quite true...trade marks will cause a problem if the public might be deceived into thinking that the owner of the trade mark (NG) has an affiliation with the person using the trade mark, or endorses their use of the trade mark in some way. So, for example, if I'm selling clothing and I put the BMW logo on the clothes, I will get into trouble even though I am not selling cars, becuase the public might think that BMW have endorsed my clothing or are selling it themselves. As you pointed out, you can use someone else's trade mark for comparative advertising. I guess some people out there might be simple enough to think that Ubi's use of NG trade marks implies that they endorse Ubi's product.

It's all speculation anyway, we don't know if it was trade marks, copyright or both that caused the problem.