|
|
#31
02-16-2008, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#32
03-29-2008, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Looks like another developer, "Gearbox" who are trying to recreate cities and objects as they were in WWII, is dealing with that same issue but with great
success. they are able to use the "philips" logo and the Opel logo now. http://www.gearboxity.com/content/view/323/38/ their game is called Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway, if any of you are interested.
|
|
#33
03-29-2008, 04:08 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 ™.
|
|
#34
03-29-2008, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If it was presented to them with something like Mitsubishi, Mercedes Benz, MiG etc. let us use their aircraft......
|
|
#35
03-29-2008, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthrea...threadid=13370
That thread there discusses this issue very well 
|
|
#37
03-30-2008, 03:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
But it's not greed. Haven't you been reading? It's oh so easy to blame "America", but you have no inkling about what you're about. Northrop Grumman didn't set it's sights on the simming world and lick it's chops
tater has spelled out what I have thought was the issue, for some time. Based on my conversations with people who have some info on this (not forum rumor, information), and my experience dealing with Northrop-Grumman on a professional basis...well I've seen parts of their contracts and how strictly controlled they keep house NGC didn't go looking for this. It found them. And they were obliged to respond the way they did, so the Law could protect them in the future. I explained this on page 1 They don;t particularly care if this is about WWII aircraft. They don't care that it's aircraft. They care that it's THEIRSNow, nobody's required to believe what I've posted on this, put everyone is invited to research the facts of the matter and how US Law would require NGC to react and why. "Precedent" is a very big thing This wasn't corporate greed, or a desire for Northrop Grumman to spoil our fun, or an attempt to do some silly and sinister thing like take away our heritage This was the result of somebody breaking the law. NGC's rights were violated. That does not necessarily mean "copyright", by the way. Just becasue NGC has a lot of money, that doesn;t mean that UbiSoft can go around breaking laws and violating their rights, and just because NGC has a lot of money, that doesn't mean the law should not protect them. UbiSoft made a regrettable mistake- and they paid the price. Well, actually, I believe they made Maddox Games pay the actual price in dollars and future development by bullying Oleg into thinking he was responsible, and also allowing NGC to get a ruling that tied MG's hands, but that's just my opinion Since this thread's back, another viewpoint: I'm fresh from ITAR training. That's International Trade in Arms Regulations. After going to this training, I see very clearly now that what the layman who plays sims feels is "public domain" is a very far cry from what is really public domain! I also learned very clearly that just because a thing is legal in one country, that doesn't make it legal in the USA, and the penalties for these things are steep. Now ITAR doesn't directly relate here, but it is trade Law, and if commercial trade law is HALF as draconian as some of these Trade in Arms laws...wow Last edited by Former_Older; 03-30-2008 at 03:10 AM.
|
|
#38
03-30-2008, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that what most companies fail to understand is the concept of "free advertising"..just imagine, you get a deal with Grumman to include a small video of what a great brand it is, that they built some of the finest aircraft on WW2, and that they still use the same care and technology advances in their current products....or Boeing/Douglas...to include the real deal ( with the cool logo on the control yoke on their planes)...this people fail to see a good platform to advertise their products to new consumers via branding of their products on mass media.
Free publicity...in a day when you have to pay 22,000 bucks to put a full page add on a magazine, you can not beat the free part. imagine something like this on a game box: aircraft depicted in this game are courtesy of "insert name here" manufacturer of high tech "aircraft/satellite/etc", please see our website www."manufacturer".com to learn more about us.....bling....more people learn about them, and they can actually increase the sales of whatever they do , 75 years after they made that product depicted on the game....for free.
|
|
#39
03-30-2008, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Former Older,
All that you say sound nice, but there's a small problem: NGC never sued against microsoft, as far as I know. why? maybe because microsft may be a too big oponent in court?.. or, maybe, simply because microsoft made certain that no CFS box had any company name on it. From what I've understood, defense firms threatened to sue ubi, 1C etc, because they used their trademarks on the packages... WWII planes, as such, do not belong to them, as they were financed by tax money. What's more, I don't remember seeing any company sueing developpers for other games before, nor do I remember them sueing any developper putting online planes like the Grumman Goose and such for FS... I take planes" photographies... I have a Grumman Wildcat that's displayed in my web gallery... maybe they should sue me too? after all, I published a representation of a plane they built... I even had one of my pics published in a magazine.. figuring a Chance Vought Corsair taking off... why don't they sue me and the magazine who published it? the reason is simple: it's not about the representation (because, if US law is based on precedency, it's already too late to complain, they've let go for decades), but just because of the inappropriate use of their company name...
|
|
#40
03-30-2008, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Or because MS did what Ubi should have done, and could have:asked permission to do it?? Ubisoft is not an innocent little kid, they are supposed to be in world business This: "because, if US law is based on precedency, it's already too late to complain, they've let go for decades" is confusing to me. What do you mean to say? "The US" has let too much go? Northrop Grumman? The two aren't the same thing you know. It's also very hard to take a blanket statement like "because, if US law is based on precedency, it's already too late to complain, they've let go for decades" and defend it. You must realise that each case of violation of a company's rights is potentially different. You can't say "Oh well, too late, everything goes now". For one thing, of course that statement is too broad to be so. For another...the courts don't care So, if I understand you here, you're saying that it's OK for UbiSoft to have broken the Law, and because it was NGC's rights that were violated, it's ok, and the reason is because it doesn't much matter On the one hand I can see that you're debating this with your gut feelings- of course you know that the reasons you cite are not a good enough reason for UbiSoft to go around breaking US Law. I don't care if Microsft violated more laws, it still doesn't make what Ubi did OK. These things don't cancel out. Ubi isn't forgiven X number of violations of law for every Y number of times MS does it On the other hand I can see that you don't appreciate that if you don't feel that NGC should be protected by US law, why should US law protect individuals or other businesses? "Ah, he had it coming. That guy had too much money. Serves him right that he got robbed" What?? You can't really feel that way Every time I try to explain these things, somebody treats me as if *I'm* Northrop Grumman and *I* did this Ubisoft did it. Get mad at Ubisoft. I don't care who also broke the Law, it doesn't excuse Ubisoft's poor business and illegal practices. People get mad at NGC over this becasue that's what they've read only: "Northrop Grumman did this!". Heaven forbid anyone actually look into it, oh no! Just go with what the mob yells and that's good enough- and the reasons? Public Domain, the good old "it doesn't matter", "It's our heritage", and the oldie but goodie "Tax money paid for it". Big deal. The US government owned the planes but the designs are property of the firms that designed and/or purchased them. Just becasue the US government bought a P-51, that doesn't mean they own the rights to the design. Do you own the rights to the design of the car you drive? When a likable guys robs some rich jerk...the likable guy is the criminal. It doesn't matter that he robbed a jerk, people just do not think this through
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
