4.12 development update discussion and feedback

[Nil]

Originally Posted by batistadk

Hi people.

Time after time, this NG question comes to light. Again, as a lot of people, including guys from the TD said, there's no way to change this situation.

After all, I don't think it's a good idea mess with those people. They have strong ties with the US Goverment, and, well, their business is... basically, sell weapons that kill lots of peoples every year. I won't touch this.

I totally agree with you!

Originally Posted by batistadk

I'm with TD in this question; give it a rest. Besides that, there are so many stuff that can be created to IL2 yet.

Like the most produced aircraft ever?
I just love this aircraft, it is a amazing piece of machine which had a good role during the war.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by DuxCorvan

Wow, someone with a sense of irony!

Always

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Let's not make this about one political personality or party. The issue is copyright and patent trolling, which cuts across political lines.

I am of the opinion that N-G's trademark claims to any product produced for the U.S. government before or during WW2 is unsustainable, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned.

It also appears that their IP policies are inconsistent. They allow trademark free use of pictures of their past products, but not 3d computer images or simulations? How is a 3d image not art? Why should use of that art in a video game be any different from a static picture of that object in an old-school tabletop game?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure how one would start a campaign to overturn crap like N-G is doing. There are a number of petition sites, which could be used to bring attention to the issue, but I'm not sure how to frame it.

Not only that this issue with NG has been going on since ... 2003-2004 hasn't it?

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Not only that this issue with NG has been going on since ... 2003-2004 hasn't it?

At least...

There were lawsuits against plastic model makers, die cast makers, and the latest one I know about was launched against EA for the inclusion of the AH-1Z Viper helicopter in Battlefield 3.

It's not just N-G but it applies to us because of what went on in the past.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by IceFire

At least...

-- and the latest one I know about was launched against EA for the inclusion of the AH-1Z Viper helicopter in Battlefield 3.

I think the case was actually a pre-emptive one by EA against the manufacturers to cease their trademark claims. I wouldn't be surprised if it was subject to an out of court settlement to prevent a precedent being created.

The lawsuit says that on Dec. 21, Textron lawyers demanded that EA cease its depiction of three Bell aircraft in Battlefield 3. Electronic Arts asserts that its depiction of the three aircraft are protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use. The three helicopters in question are the AH-1Z Viper, an attack helicopter; the UH-1Y, a multipurpose/transport helicopter; and the V-22 Osprey, whose distinctive tilt-rotors allow for vertical and short takeoff and landing. EA's complaint said:
"The parties have been unable to resolve their dispute. EA therefore has a reasonable and strong apprehension that it will soon face a trademark and/or trade dress action from Textron.
The Bell-manufactured helicopters depicted in Battlefield 3 are just a few of countless creative visual, audio, plot and programming elements that make up EA's expressive work, a first-person military combat simulation."

But perhaps a precedent already exists?

EA recently won a similar lawsuit against Rutgers University regarding the the use of quarterback Ryan Hart's likeness in NCAA Football. The court ruled that EA's First Amendment rights trumped Hart's rights to control his own image.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

But perhaps a precedent already exists?

Actually, the case you cite isn't as applicable, since it concerns an individual's right to control his own image as opposed to a company's right to control its trademarks (and "trade dress" - basically, the appearance of a product or packaging, like the yellow border around the edge of National Geographic magazine).

In the current U.S. political climate, courts are more protective of corporate trademarks than images of public figures. If you think about it, if any public figure could sue to get images of them removed, it would completely shut down political satire among other things.

The people who are screwed by this precedent are the estates of famous dead people, like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe - and just as well since they're the original "trademark trolls."

I think that you're right that Textron settled out of court with EA to avoid losing the case and setting a precedent. EA is big enough that it can go toe to toe in a trademark fight and Textron isn't as big a company as N-G.

Anyhow, it's moot as regards N-G/Ubisoft agreement. Also, even if there were a precedent overturning the sort of trademark trolling that N-G engages in, I doubt that either 1C or Ubisoft would want to waste legal billing hours trying to overturn an agreement for a 10-year-old game.

So, still no N-G products for IL2!