Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[Former_Older]

I've tried for years to explain that it's not the WWII airplanes that is the issue here- it's that "Things" Northrop-Grumman Corporation owns rights to are in contest

the fact that these things are WWII vintage aircraft has nothing to do with it. If it helps to clarify it, imagine that the "Things" are brand new products they just unveiled yesterday. Even if those things are not critical to national Defense, or secret

Their lawyers want to set their own precedents, by bringing legal weight to bear if somebody even looks like they might take liberties with something NGC owns.

They do this to set a precedent they themselves use later on- When X law was violated it meant that Y amount of money was due us because of infringement of Z

that way, they know to the penny how much they can and will sue for when somebody tries to steal something from them for real

Avinimus-

you made a statement before about how we have "Rights" to display our history. Can you be a little more clear on this? I posted that was an insane notion before, and here's why:

Lots of things that I don't have the right to display are part of my national history. I don't have the "Right" to re-enact the Boston massacre for example. I don't have the "Right" to make a video game about capturing run-away slaves in 1850s Alabama. I don't have the "Right" to sell prints of the assaults on 10 year old girls and grandmothers in Nanking

These things are not "Rights". The right to free speech does not guarantee my right to offend or cause distress. There's an old saying: 'you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre'

Well...why not?! I'm an American! I have FREE Speech!! It doesn't work like that. Lots of Americans think it does, but they are sadly wrong. And that hasn't ever been the intent of Free Speech

Do I have the Right to try to express my Art in the above ways? Yes. But that doesn't mean I can run around doing anything I want to. "Free Speech" is constantly abused- "I have a Right!" Well, most times, that just means "I am entitled to say what I want or do what I want, no matter what!"- and that's not so

Nobody "bought" the rights to History. that's way out of proportion and out of context

A company designed a plane. They own the design. 70 years go by- suddenly, and somehow, they do not own those rights to control their own design anymore? Preposterous

Imagine you're making a racing game about Ferraris

Now, imagine what Scuderia Ferrari will say if you try to do that without securing permission, and if saying "Well this car was made 50 years ago!" will sway them

[Rama]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

Imagine you're making a racing game about Ferraris

Now, imagine what Scuderia Ferrari will say if you try to do that without securing permission, and if saying "Well this car was made 50 years ago!" will sway them

Actually, in Italy (and in all Europe), you could, if you don't use the name "Ferrari" (which is protected by a trademark).
Industrial design, including car and plane design, is not protected by the intellectual property rights and can't be copyrighted (In Europe, that's the main difference with US)
In industrial design, only patented design can be protected, and only for a duration of 25 years.
Trademark are of course protected, but the trademark deposit must be confirmed each 10 years.

I know it's fully different in US.

[Friendly_flyer]

I guess the reason a lot of people see this as just "greedy men in suits" is that it appears to be very much a US phenomenon.

Which is a very good thing, otherwise I guess WoW:BoB would never be made.

[Viking]

Very interesting; but I think we should start from the beginning: if I recall correctly there where some American airplanes and ships that was expected or “promised” to appear in Pacific Fighter and didn’t show up. What airplanes and ships and what was the reason for this? Can anyone recap and clarify?

And please don’t criticise or defend the legal system! Just explain what went down and how things work.
Viking

[Friendly_flyer]

I think the matter of "legal precedence" that Former Older mentioned is the crux of the matter here. This was explained to me by a friend of mine who study international law, so my explanation may be a bit off, but basically it goes like this:

Compared to European countries, the US have very few laws governing the minutae of civil life. This has lead to a system where "legal precedence" is very important. The basic idea is that if something has been common practice, it's legal. Courts decide in cases where there's doubt or contesting claims as to what is right. This has lead to a system where rulings are made on basis of former rulings.

This applies to this case in that a certain US company has made sure they have control of the "intellectual property" of their vintage designs. If they let it slip once, anyone with a good barrister can claim "legal precedence", and start to use the companies other (and no doubt more important) intellectual property, effectively robbing them of their design rights. I don't think a certain US company ever thought Oleg or his IL2-series to be a threat in themselves.

I have tried to explain this as neutrally as I could.

[mondo]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

This applies to this case in that a certain US company has made sure they have control of the "intellectual property" of their vintage designs. If they let it slip once, anyone with a good barrister can claim "legal precedence", and start to use the companies other (and no doubt more important) intellectual property, effectively robbing them of their design rights. I don't think a certain US company ever thought Oleg or his IL2-series to be a threat in themselves.

If thats the case then why not use this as an example: The WW2 US army boot, helmet, shovel/trenching tool, pocket knife. I bet no one seeks permission to use the image rights of those but I bet someone does own the design and image rights for them but doesn't give a **** if there used. I mean how stupid would that be for the owner of the design or image rights of the US GI helmet to say "You can't use its image, I want to see that statue in Arlington down by the end of the week and no more WW2 computer games, thanks."

I guess the other main point is the 'product' is a historical relic thats part of the history of a number of nations and the design is neither current, competitive, in production, marketed or anything else which could affect the profits or operation of NG.

Imagine if BAE behaved in such a childish money grabbing manner. I think they own the rights to almost every British military thing ever made and a few US ones too!

[Friendly_flyer]

I think the same legal precedence has made the G.I. helmet public property. Besides, the helmet was (if I'm correct) made by a number of companies to a US government specification. As such, the helmet (and bayonet and a heap of other things) cannot be claimed as intellectual property of one company.

The problems Mondo mention are real. The idea behind having few laws is a noble one, the rule of reason rather than the rule of law. Unfortunately, a complex society and rampant capitalism has made it into the rule of layers in stead. However, this is an internal US legal, constitutional and thus political problem. This is something the Americans will have to solve through their own political system.

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by mondo

If thats the case then why not use this as an example: The WW2 US army boot, helmet, shovel/trenching tool, pocket knife. I bet no one seeks permission to use the image rights of those but I bet someone does own the design and image rights for them but doesn't give a **** if there used.

probably true

But that is their Right to not care about the helmet and boot and shovel. Why is it not NGC's Right to care about their own designs? They need to change what they do to protect their business, to cater to flight sim users? Is that reasonable?

Think about that a moment.

NGC is a real company that employs real people and has an actual responsibility to it's shareholders and employees. If they please to protect themselves by acting within their guaranteed by law rights, then what right do you have to say they should not do so?

These same ideas protect me, by the way, if ever I should have a desirable design. I will have certain rights and be protected by certain laws. If I perceive a threat to what I own, why should I not use those laws to protect myself if I see the need?

What we see is "sim being punished by jerks who are worried about things that don't matter and shouldn't be theirs to control". That's what we want to see, and that's what the mob mentality has decided is going on

[Insuber]

Former Older,

Thanks for this interesting clarification about the legal rationale. Nonetheless I believe that the protest of the "game people" does not come from a simple childish "I want it!" instinct.

IMHO this is one of the cases where "summum ius summa iniuria", as Romans used to say. In other words the strict interpretation of the law clashes violently with the common sense of justice of the average man.


Regards,
Insuber

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

I think the matter of "legal precedence" that Former Older mentioned is the crux of the matter here. This was explained to me by a friend of mine who study international law, so my explanation may be a bit off, but basically it goes like this:

Compared to European countries, the US have very few laws governing the minutae of civil life. This has lead to a system where "legal precedence" is very important. The basic idea is that if something has been common practice, it's legal. Courts decide in cases where there's doubt or contesting claims as to what is right. This has lead to a system where rulings are made on basis of former rulings.

This applies to this case in that a certain US company has made sure they have control of the "intellectual property" of their vintage designs. If they let it slip once, anyone with a good barrister can claim "legal precedence", and start to use the companies other (and no doubt more important) intellectual property, effectively robbing them of their design rights. I don't think a certain US company ever thought Oleg or his IL2-series to be a threat in themselves.

I have tried to explain this as neutrally as I could.

Petter-

as usual, you seem to easily grasp someone's meaning and maintain a level head while doing it. that is basically what I am suggesting, as absurd as the idea of using a loophole from the use of an F3F to steal some aspect of an F-18 is, I just used those as well known examples, naturally, to reinforce my point- which you seem to understand perfectly

You are one of the people I truly miss interacting with at Ubi's forums