|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
02-08-2008, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
|
#3
02-08-2008, 05:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#4
02-09-2008, 12:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"But does the US Navy own the rights to the designs of that plane, or that aircraft carrier or that airbase or that delivery truck, just becasue they bought a plane, or a carrier, or an airbase, or a truck? Does the age of the thing matter?
Again, no. The company that designed the things owns those rights." In these discussions, no one ever points out that the US Government could have obtained the rights to the designs, and frankly, in light of security issues, I'm not certain why they didn't. I'm a contracts lawyer for the state I live in, and whenever we bid for a design or development of a thing (usually software these days)...because it is being paid for through taxpayer dollars...we retain the rights to the design up front, or we go to the next qualified bidder. If it's a proprietary thingy (again mostly software) where we are essentially buying it off the shelf, the company retains the rights, because it was developed with private/corporate funds. My understanding of aircraft development in the '30s and '40s is that the government put out specs for companies to design from, contractors submitted their product, tests were conducted, and contracts were let. I don't see why the government didn't retain the rights--presumably for good ol' capitalistic reasons--but nothing would have prevented them from doing so (unless the laws on the books at that time didn't allow it, but I haven't found anything supporting that possibility). Of course if Uncle Sam did retain the rights, it still wouldn't help us out here, because the government wouldn't likely license those rights to the average Joe anyway. At least my state government doesn't. My 2 cents.
|
|
#5
02-09-2008, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The plastic modeling industry has been going through this for years. Some pay the royalties and others just ignore it. I don't know of anyone being sued for making a likeness of a Gruuman Avenger or CV Yorktown.
With that being said; Ubisoft screwed up royally on the packaging by stating the Grumman Avenger, Douglas Havoc etc. instead of TBF Avenger or A-20 Havoc. DO NOT put company names on your retail product period.
|
|
#6
03-29-2008, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright is a legitimate issue. That pertains tot he box art for PF. They had a copyright, all rights reserved to themselves. The used NGC's trademark on the box, however. Their blanket copyright in effect stole the trademark.
They were now FUBAR and had to do whatever NGC asked. You are allowed to use another company's trademark on a package as long as it is clear you are not pretending to be the actual product, period. No permission is needed. I can make a lens and put "Works with Canon™ DSLRs" on the box art. No perms needed as long as I properly denote the Canon brand name. The only possible issue is intellectual property which is not related to © or ™.
|
|
#7
03-31-2008, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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...
|
|
#8
03-31-2008, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#9
03-31-2008, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
03-31-2008, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
but the fact of the matter is yes, US law does look to precedentYou 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...
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
