Legal issues over depicting World War Two equipment

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by 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

Ah! But I am neither defending nor criticizing. I am describing how an aspect of things works, that few people seem to understand or even wish to accept

It is impossible for me to "explain what went down". If I only could! I could then explain the moon, stars, and everything above them and below

This is why I did not cite any specifics, and I only say that this may begin to explain some of the complexities and concerns involved. If I could cite what really happened, what specific infringements were alleged, which of those could be made to "stick", and what was done in the way of threatening and browbeating away from a legal arena, then maybe I could begin to paint a clear picture. But of course then I'd be privy to everything that both Oleg and NGC knows about the issue

The the issue at bottom is, I very strongly feel, legal precedence, which Petter has been so good as to couch in alternative terms to try and help clarify

Now, what do I know about this? Only what I was told, and I was asked to keep the source to myself. So that may be that what I know is not true- but that is why I go no further than to say: this idea of precedence is most likely the common thread that makes NGC so damned infuriating to us in the flight sim world- but they are merely acting within their legal rights to protect themselves- and they are not afraid of what Oleg does to their business, at all. They are afraid that what he does may be cited at a future date as a reason they lost control over a thing that is actually very important to them, that has zero to do with WWII aircraft.

What I was told:

UbiSoft made box art and copy. By 'copy' I am referring to the descriptions, and disclaimers, along with any copyrights, trademarks, and acknowledgments of ownership legally needed for the box

On the box they designed and approved, there were things such as aircraft, to which Northrop-Grumman Corporation owns the rights, and UbiSoft failed to secure permission for that

This started a snowball effect, and by the time all was said and done, from what I was told, from a source I will not name but of whom I have no doubts as to sincerity, UbiSoft basically put the mess in Oleg's lap. Oleg paid for Ubi's mis-step, figuratively and from what I gather, monetarily- but that is my own inference, not what I was told

Now, much of this has been argued:

it was copyright!
no, it was trademark!

I don't see how that really matters. The end result was the omission of things. Some of which were because of rights that were violated through the lack of permission (and a fee, no dount!). How do ships fit in? That's rumored, and the rumors I heard, again from those that stand a fair chance of knowing part of the story, that Oleg (When I say "Oleg" I of course mean whatever representation he had, and Oleg) was either convinced that "all" further US material was off-limits, or that he decided it was simply too much trouble to do it, when he was hung out to dry the way he (probably) was

But bear in mind: Ilya (Luthier1) and his team, very clearly, did not have a firm grasp on the PTO in any case. When asked if there would be a "Slot" map, the response from Ilya was, as I recall "What do you need the Slot for? You have Guadalcanal". That right there is a fair indication that the entire theatre was mis-understood by the developers- but let's be fair- how good of an Eastern Front sim could I design? I knew as little about the Crimea as Ilya probably did of the Solomons. We are from different cultures

So the omission of some thigns that to you and I might be "huge" or "important" to the developers might have been an "acceptable omission of detail", and therefore it may have been thought: "Screw it. We have enough PTO content already, we've covered the bases without needing more planes and specific ships. Screw NGC too, we don't need them anyhow"

That is, of course, just my feeling on how it may have been. But it seems logical to me given what I've learned. I will never know "the facts", and Oleg of course is not about to spill the beans

[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

[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

[robtek]

what i obviously fail to grasp is why can´t the companys not give somebody (here oleg) the rights to use the models and pictures, where they are holding the rights, in a exactly specified way (which has to be determined by the partys) without charge?
I mean, oleg gives them free pr! ok, a bit outdated for the models he intended to use, but still free pr.
If that had been worked out by the suit and tie wearers nobody else could have profited by this deal and we would enjoy the pto a bit more.

[Friendly_flyer]

Hi Former_Older, you wouldn't happen to be "Former Chuck_Older", a.k.a. BB-Cid, the Flying Tiger mission maker and skinner?

Robtek:
Yes, they probably could, written agreement and everything. The problem is that it would be a bit back and forth for them, translating things into Russian, getting confirmation from some expert in Russian and international law that their contract was covering everything, running it through their own department to see if anyone had objections, then back to the Russians etc. All in all they probably didn't think the admittedly limited PR they could get out of it worth the highly paid man-hours they'd have to put into it.

If Former Older is right (and I believe he is), they started out on the wrong foot too. Making a "good friends" deal when you have just had a bit of less then pleasantly worded legal correspondance going back and forth is very, very hard. If Oleg and Ilya felt they had most of what was needed, they probably decided not to go on trying to get favours out of someone they felt was hostile to begin with.

[mondo]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

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?

If it was a depiction of one of there products thats actually being produced, marketed and sold today and has direct competition then I'd agree with you 100% but in this case none of it is. Its all over 60 years old and none of its in service any more. They are not protecting anything, they are just being difficult and essentially asking people to buy the right to depict history.

I hear what your saying and if it was a current product then I could see why they would want people to seek permission and probably pay up some cash or lip service to them for the use of the image but it serves no purpose to them to block people using the image rights to a 60 year old iconic part of history.

Its trademarking and copyrighting gone mad (or gone USA I guess). Imagine if all the other companies or people who own the image rights in IL2 for the 50+ different plane types all did the same thing. No more flight sims.

[Spectrum]

So if the main problem is companies wanting to avoid creating a legal precedent, and not that they want to make a few modest bucks, surely it could be solved very easily if Oleg agreed to pay for the right to use the names/images. -- So he could agree to pay one dollar for the deal. --- hell! I would even be prepared to fund it.

Of course, not being a lawyer, I really don't understand these things and am being far too naive.

Why are more Americans not kicking up a fuss about all the US planes missing from a world leading flight sim. Complain to your Senators. It could become a Presidential election issue

[mondo]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Why are more Americans not kicking up a fuss about all the US planes missing from a world leading flight sim.

You've never been over to ubi zoo forums I take it?

[BSS_Sniper]

For the sake of argument, why can't oleg just make the darn planes and put a different name on them? We'll all know what they are.

[Viking]

From Olegs thread;

"Quote:
Originally Posted by VMF-214_HaVoK
I believe the trouble came when the use of the manufacturers name in print such as "Grumman" F6F Hellcat. Had something like F6F or just Hellcat been used I dont think the case is ever made. Thats what I gather from all the speculating rumors over the years.

S!

Doesn't matter F6F or Hellcat.... even image was prohibited.... Such a true story happened....."

Sad….!

Viking