|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
12-27-2011, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I really don't think NG can do a damn thing if TD was to include the contentious aircraft in a patch as long as there is no company name attached, and if they have something to say TD can basically tell them to Feck Off. At any rate the modders will make them and again NG cannot do anything to stop them it's art and it's free. If I want to stand on the street corner and hand out crude crayon drawings of a Grumman Plane with the name on the bottom and some representative of the company tries to stop me I can tell them the same thing and they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing, because they won't want the publicity and they know the general public and all the aviation lovers would crucify them in the media. It's the implied threat of lawsuit followed by an out of court settlement that they are depending on, since most small company's would fold when faced by a multi-billion dollar corporation because they think they can't win. Screw them, I'll take 2 P-61's with a side of Avenger please!
|
|
#2
12-27-2011, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quit your wishful thinking, Krt_Bong. There is a contract between 1C and NG in place which does prevent the official inclusion of any further NG-related objects without considerable cash input. And since TD is sanctioned by the developer we're under that official umbrella.
Let it go folks, that horse is dead and decayed. No chance of resuscitation. 
|
|
#4
12-28-2011, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
who cares governments always go back on contracts they sign...so why not 1c...at least in this case the 1c would have justification to break their contract and no one is hurt in any way as a result...i would really like to see that contract and to understand why the developers signed it...i dont know why any one would tie their hands like this....as some others have stated i dont think they knew exactly what they were getting into...and if the terms of the contract were misrepresented by NG or their lawyers then it is all but null and void, and their signatures on the contract are meaningless... |
|
#5
12-28-2011, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, you guys are so smart and quick to find a solution to other man problems! But I wonder, would you be so, if you personally, or someone, who depends and trust in you would be threatened by 6-digits law suit? Would you be so quick in jumping to a conclusions without even trying to find out more info about the situation in that case? And believe me, all info is here, on this forum, repeated gazillion times. For you, smart kids, I will repeat it again.
Fact 1: NG claims copyright not only for it's name, or names of it's products, but also on the external appearance of their products. This claim exclude only the work of arts (paintings and sculptures) and photography. Which means, if you want to produce a toy, film a movie, or create a computer game with something, which looks like NG product, you have to obtain their permission in the form of a license agreement. Which usually comes for a fee. You may find this info on NG site, if you look carefully. It was also posted on this forum, may be even in this thread. Fact 2: in year 2004, about a week before planned start of the Pacific Fighters title sales, Ubi was approached by NG lawyers with a threat of a lawsuit, demanding license fees for using images of NG products, according to the 1. So, basically, Ubi had a choice to either stop US sales of the product and get themselves into an expensive lawsuit, or pay a certain amount and settle. In this situation they decided, the second variant would be more acceptable for them. Not to mention, that any software publisher standard contract states, that all expenses, related to copyrights infringement found in the product are covered by product developer. Therefore, fact 3: 1C paid 6-digit sum to NG as a license fees and signed contract with NG and Ubi, which prohibits use of any images of NG products in the IL-2 series, without permission and license from NG, no matter if this images are included in free or paid add-ons. Fact 4: a part of agreement between DT and 1C is a prohibition to use any images of NG products in DT creations, related to the IL-2 series. PERIOD Last edited by SaQSoN; 12-28-2011 at 05:31 AM. |
|
#6
12-28-2011, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A significant legal point against NG's position is that copyright was originally only for a duration of 28 years (say 1973 for WWII stuff). Current law extends the period but does not apply to things which had already gone into the public domain. Copyright law should not have applied to warships, which were designed by the Navy Board, not NG's predecessor companies, but under fact three NG seeks to define ships built by their companies as their "products". They were not. The navy board could instruct any yard to build them without paying any royalties to NG companies. Last edited by Asheshouse; 12-28-2011 at 11:18 AM. |
|
#7
12-28-2011, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No matter, how dubious NG position in this question is, the only way to prove, they are wrong and set clear this issue is to take NG to court (or, at least, threated them to do so). Which would require quite noticeable fees to the lawyers. ATM neither Ubi, or 1C are willing to invest into resolving this issue. So, unless someone is willing to take this expenses and all other related hustle on him/herself, any further discussion of the NG issue is pointless.
Which concludes that as follows: there will be no NG products included into official add-ons whatsoever. |
|
#8
12-29-2011, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It might be wishful thinking but there are already some mod Models of some of these planes and though they might not be Official it doesn't mean we can't get them and install them in our game and I think there is nothing NG could do about it. If as you say it was signed and contracted well then they have my sympathy because I fully believe UBI could have rebuffed them but they let Oleg swing in the wind instead. I'm just venting, I know that there are games out there that have quasi representations of things that are not licensed, cars specifically where some small detail is changed like the shape of a tail light but it is rather obvious that it is supposed to represent say a Corvette but instead they call it a Chivy Cheetah and I realize that they didn't want to pay to have it, it is after all just an animated picture. It might be a pointless argument but that never stopped us from having arguments before in internet forums we just like to give some invective on the ridiculousness of it all and dream of sticking it to the big evil corporation, just sayin'
|
|
#9
12-28-2011, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you guys can remove these restrictions, TD can potential make the best flight sim ever. |
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
