Intellectual property rights and disclaimers.

[Scarecrow]

Recently DCS added a disclaimer to their loading screen basically stating the the manufacturers and IP rights owners had no input into the simulation and representation of the included aircraft/vehicles.

 

I'm guessing ED had to do this for the same reasons that Oleg had to exclude NG aircraft from Pacific Fighters. It looks like ED have found the answer to simulating any vehicle without infringing the IP rights of the manufacturers.

 

I'm hoping that given time for this series to develop we could have a Battle of the Pacific expansion without having to ommit key aircraft using a similiar disclaimer tactic.

 

Or maybe I'm wrong?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

A. I'd like to see how that works in court. Just saying you didn't ask me to participate alleviates me of my copyrights?

B. Oleg and EA were jerks in their prior implementation and that is why they got spanked.

C. This issue is much easier to solve than that.

D. How does this topic manage to come up every six months on every flight sim forum known to man?

[Feathered_IV]

Recently DCS added a disclaimer to their loading screen basically stating the the manufacturers and IP rights owners had no input into the simulation and representation of the included aircraft/vehicles.

 

Seems an odd thing to say if that is indeed what they wrote.    Are they trying to say that the aircraft are modelled without any manufacturers bias?  It certainly wouldn't absolve them of any copyright restrictions.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

DCS is not that black and white. Developers do add disclaimers, but that is only after they have reached an agreement with the manufacturers.

 

A few development teams had to drop their projects because of manufacturers denying rights, and the negotiation of rights is a major point in the creation of all modules there. Two teams have had to cancel F-4 Phantom and A-4 Skyhawk projects because of McDonnell Douglas denying usage of it.

[Scarecrow]

Well it just seemed odd that this new disclaimer comes into being with a DCS 3rd party developer modelling the F14. I didn't realise the subject was discussed that frequently here or on the ED forums but perhaps elsewhere SimHQ etc.

From what Lucas says it doesn't seem to be a get outta jail free card though

 

I thought it a kind of legal blanket statement that relieved them of having to gain IP rights for a virtual representation of the item/aircraft/missile/vehicle/gun/bullet/sunglasses etc.

 

I get that games make money from these representations therefore it is fair the IP rights owners get a cut it just sucks when I don't get to fly interesting aircraft.

 

I didn't know the Oleg and EA history thing. What was that?

[Sokol1]

 

I didn't know the Oleg and EA history thing. What was that?

 

"REVIEWERS NOTE: As of this writing, an issue has arisen with Pacific Fighters that may severely curtail the planned free add on. Apparently Northrop-Grumman is demanding massive royalties form Ubi and Maddox to include anything made by Grumman (or any of the many companies they now own). Oleg Maddox has said little on this, but some Pacific Fighters fans have contacted Grumman, and it does appear that there is a legal issue afoot. What this means is that either the free patch will just be Japanese planes, or that patch may never come out until this is resolved (which might be a VERY long time)."

From: http://www.avsim.com/pages/0105/Pac_Fight/pacflt_review.htm

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/archive/index.php/t-10544.html

 

So we have a unfinished Pacific Fighters - a Pacific game without torpedo planes...

[Scarecrow]

Oleg and EA were jerks in their prior implementation and that is why they got spanked.

Thank you Sokol I remember the Pacific Fighters days and waiting for Betty. I meant the prior implementations HerrMurf mentioned.

[Uufflakke]

Talking about copyrights regarding old IL-2 and Maddox.

Did Oleg and his team contact the Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB) for permission to use portraits of the national team for most of the Dutch pilot skins?

Like Ruud van Nistelrooij, Robin van Persie and Dennis Bergkamp?

 

I think I can guess the answer.

 

 

 

upload image online

[Feathered_IV]

What does EA stand for in this particular case?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So we have a unfinished Pacific Fighters - a Pacific game without torpedo planes...

Well, technically you had Japanese ones. So there were some.

 

 

What does EA stand for in this particular case?

Extremely Arrogant ?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Electronic Arts got spanked for using the CH 46 and some other aircraft prominently on box art after the manufacturer specifically told them not to prior to release. The manufacturer probably would not have even gotten involved except EA made it appear the manufacturers were sponsoring their product. Oleg used manufacturers names as opposed to just military designations without consulting the copyright holders and it ruffled feathers enough to lead to desist orders.

 

Art and (plastic) model makers use all of these images/designs without thumbing their noses at the copyright owners. Every major manufacturer has F4F, F6F, TBF and more in their lineups. I don't know if royalties are paid by plastic model companies but they may. 777/1CGS can do the same if they tread lightly and actually consult with the copyright owners ahead of time.

 

The PTO doomsayers are just that, crying that they are victims when that is not quite true. If the above offenders hadn't been so blatant about tramping on the copyrights then, it would be a non-issue for the manufacturers today. They wouldn't even blink at a small video game house using images of 75 year old aircraft. Since the damage is done, however, they will now hold their cards close to the vest. I have faith in Jason and Co. to negotiate cordially and get it done.

 

The PTO is completely within reach if it is handled correctly but there will have to be negotiations with the rightful owners of the copyrights. 

[Feathered_IV]

I hadn't heard of the Electronic Arts issue. Thanks!

 

Hopefully a PTO expansion is still possible one day. Even without the likes of Grumman, there are still plenty of stories that can be told in the Pacific that use names like Vickers, Bristol, Hawker and Supermarine.

[HippyDruid]

Well I know the rivet counters wouldn't like it much, but I always found Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto to have quite amusing names for real-life looking vehicles.

We could have the "Expectorate-Pyros Mk IIa" for IL-2 "Battle of Britain part 2" for instance.

 

I am curious though, does anyone have a screen shot of the DCS disclaimer? I don't have the game installed. 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Electronic Arts got spanked for using the CH 46 and some other aircraft prominently on box art after the manufacturer specifically told them not to prior to release. The manufacturer probably would not have even gotten involved except EA made it appear the manufacturers were sponsoring their product. Oleg used manufacturers names as opposed to just military designations without consulting the copyright holders and it ruffled feathers enough to lead to desist orders.

 

Art and (plastic) model makers use all of these images/designs without thumbing their noses at the copyright owners. Every major manufacturer has F4F, F6F, TBF and more in their lineups. I don't know if royalties are paid by plastic model companies but they may. 777/1CGS can do the same if they tread lightly and actually consult with the copyright owners ahead of time.

 

The PTO doomsayers are just that, crying that they are victims when that is not quite true. If the above offenders hadn't been so blatant about tramping on the copyrights then, it would be a non-issue for the manufacturers today. They wouldn't even blink at a small video game house using images of 75 year old aircraft. Since the damage is done, however, they will now hold their cards close to the vest. I have faith in Jason and Co. to negotiate cordially and get it done.

 

The PTO is completely within reach if it is handled correctly but there will have to be negotiations with the rightful owners of the copyrights. 

 

These war planes are and were designed, built and flown with tax payers money, it amazes me anyone would defend this, they've profited indirectly from war, these wars are part of our history and for them to use copyright is a disgrace. Good job Supermarine doesn't exist anymore isn't it.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, if you cant make more money by producing those aircraft and servicing existing models in museums is hardly profitable ... than companies will eagerly squeeze anything else possible. Big companies hardly care for history or remember that it was national effort to produce those warbirds. 

[Feathered_IV]

Good job Supermarine doesn't exist anymore isn't it.

And I was going to suggest the Soup or Margarine SpiffFlyer as a suitable replacement.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

These war planes are and were designed, built and flown with tax payers money, it amazes me anyone would defend this, they've profited indirectly from war, these wars are part of our history and for them to use copyright is a disgrace. Good job Supermarine doesn't exist anymore isn't it.

Copyright is copyright. I don't have to defend it. It is the law. Mostly what I'm saying is be reasonable in your approach when dealing with the IP rights holders and it will go better than those other guys attempts. Those other guys didn't and now we are jammed up because of it.

Edited September 17, 2015 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Mastermariner]

I guess we just have to wait a few years more until the Chinese buys Northrop-Grumman et co. Then it will be settled.

Master

​

[Dakpilot]

If a newer 2012 "game" (and I mean game  ) such as this can achieve it then I am sure it is possible in the future

 

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Damage_Inc._Pacific_Squadron_WWII/Allied_Aircraft

 

fairly certain that the Grumman issue with IL-2 was more a very poor  advised/rushed/handled decision regards a legal clause/contract after the initial issue became apparent, this then tied Maddox games hands for further development and left a sour taste 

 

because of the Lawyer/legal wrangle the true matters were never discussed openly, and have since passed into legend

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Scarecrow]

Electronic Arts got spanked for using the CH 46 and some other aircraft prominently on box art after the manufacturer specifically told them not to prior to release. The manufacturer probably would not have even gotten involved except EA made it appear the manufacturers were sponsoring their product. Oleg used manufacturers names as opposed to just military designations without consulting the copyright holders and it ruffled feathers enough to lead to desist orders.

 

Art and (plastic) model makers use all of these images/designs without thumbing their noses at the copyright owners. Every major manufacturer has F4F, F6F, TBF and more in their lineups. I don't know if royalties are paid by plastic model companies but they may. 777/1CGS can do the same if they tread lightly and actually consult with the copyright owners ahead of time.

 

The PTO doomsayers are just that, crying that they are victims when that is not quite true. If the above offenders hadn't been so blatant about tramping on the copyrights then, it would be a non-issue for the manufacturers today. They wouldn't even blink at a small video game house using images of 75 year old aircraft. Since the damage is done, however, they will now hold their cards close to the vest. I have faith in Jason and Co. to negotiate cordially and get it done.

 

The PTO is completely within reach if it is handled correctly but there will have to be negotiations with the rightful owners of the copyrights. 

Very interesting back story. That certainly casts a very different light on the issue.

[LizLemon]

Electronic Arts got spanked for using the CH 46 and some other aircraft prominently on box art after the manufacturer specifically told them not to prior to release. The manufacturer probably would not have even gotten involved except EA made it appear the manufacturers were sponsoring their product. Oleg used manufacturers names as opposed to just military designations without consulting the copyright holders and it ruffled feathers enough to lead to desist orders.

 

Art and (plastic) model makers use all of these images/designs without thumbing their noses at the copyright owners. Every major manufacturer has F4F, F6F, TBF and more in their lineups. I don't know if royalties are paid by plastic model companies but they may. 777/1CGS can do the same if they tread lightly and actually consult with the copyright owners ahead of time.

 

The PTO doomsayers are just that, crying that they are victims when that is not quite true. If the above offenders hadn't been so blatant about tramping on the copyrights then, it would be a non-issue for the manufacturers today. They wouldn't even blink at a small video game house using images of 75 year old aircraft. Since the damage is done, however, they will now hold their cards close to the vest. I have faith in Jason and Co. to negotiate cordially and get it done.

 

The PTO is completely within reach if it is handled correctly but there will have to be negotiations with the rightful owners of the copyrights.

 

That's a very, shall we say, interesting way to present the issue.

 

What NG had a perfectly valid legal complaint against was the use of the word "grumman" on the US packaging for the game.

 

This packaging was created by ubisofts US decision, not Oleg or any part of Maddox Games.

 

Once NG sued over the use of the name "Grumman" they also made several other legal demands, many of them of very dubious validity, to which ubisoft virtually rolled over and agreed. I guess they didn't see the value in spending legal fees for a lowly flight sim from Russia.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

What other dubious claims?

 

And it's not my presenting of the issue. It is the way the issue was settled to avoid a court fight that would have bankrupted the offending parties. It's the law.

 

Northrop Grumman likely doesn't give a rat's @## about the tenths of pennies on the dollar they can expect from flight sim revenue. They are a multi-billion dollar entity. What they are interested in is preserving their name and controlling how it is used. For that I do not blame them in the least. If you violate my copyright or name you bet I'd get my publisher to chase you to the ends of the earth on my behalf. People and companies have a right to their IP and copyrights.

 

Perhaps I used Oleg's name in vain, as we all see him as the heart of the original series, but it doesn't change the body of the argument. The body of the argument is about copyright and copyright was clearly violated in such a way that it still impacts us decades later. If it had been handled with even an iota of care in the past no one would even blink in the present day. Now we have to tread lightly and defer to lawyers.

Edited September 17, 2015 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

These war planes are and were designed, built and flown with tax payers money, it amazes me anyone would defend this, they've profited indirectly from war, these wars are part of our history and for them to use copyright is a disgrace. Good job Supermarine doesn't exist anymore isn't it.

Supermarine could still exist. It became British Aircraft Corporation and they likely held the same rights as NG does. Copyright is transferable in most cases. So, BAC's successor could conceivably make claims as well, as long as they have transferred and renewed properly. (I stopped searching at BAC.)  EDIT - BAC is Panavia.

 

This is where even moderately competent legal research comes in and where this problem could have been solved from the outset.

 

**No, I am not a lawyer but I am a published author.

Edited September 17, 2015 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Supermarine could still exist. It became British Aircraft Corporation and they likely held the same rights as NG does. Copyright is transferable in most cases. So, BAC's successor could conceivably make claims as well, as long as they have transferred and renewed properly. (I stopped searching at BAC.)

 

This is where even moderately competent legal research comes in and where this problem could have been solved from the outset.

 

Even if they did British people and companies are proud of their past achievements and I would be very surprised if a British company would sue over IP rights of the name of a WW2 bird. If that happened here there would be an uproar.

 

"Only in America" as they say

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Let's not resort to nationalism here. That is a total red herring. It is strictly a legal argument. Copyright works in the Isles as well if I'm not mistaken.

 

I think we all agree the military designations should have some level of fair/public use. To say that the manufacturers have no claim to their designs is a bit ludicrous. Manufacturers are granted numerous copyrights to their designs even under military contract.

 

To say they have no claim to their names is outlandish.

 

NG had a valid legal argument or '46 would have used all of the manufacturers names with impunity. Clearly that did not happen.

 

I'm kind of done with the argument. There is no legal basis for the opposing view. It continues to boil down to how we are all victims of the evil corporations and it is utter tripe. I don't work for any corporate entities but I see the value of protecting my name and my copyright. So do the courts and thank God for that.

Edited September 17, 2015 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Scarecrow]

Even if they did British people and companies are proud of their past achievements and I would be very surprised if a British company would sue over IP rights of the name of a WW2 bird. If that happened here there would be an uproar.

 

"Only in America" as they say

I'm a Birt and I can totally understand the situation. No racing game would ever dare do the same thing to a car manufacturer, all those companies get royalties. There should be a statute of limitations on artistic and historical representations without the barrier of cost prohibitive royalties, say 70 years?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

There is a limitation on copyright. US copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. There are renewable clauses for some types of material. That is why a copyright lawyer should be employed to do the research and contact the appropriate parties for permission or at least for notices. You may have to settle for an F6F-5 as opposed to an F6F-5 Hellcat or a Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat but I'm sure the aircraft will be present again in an Il2 PTO module.  

 

I have confidence in this team to make it so and do it right both from the technical as well as the legal side of things.

[Scarecrow]

The whole "only in America" thing reminded me of this

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025926/MoD-legal-battle-Next-use-RAF-insignia-boys-duvet.html

 

And I'm sure DCS Hawk had some issues with BAE during the development of that.

 

IP rights is massive in software and that transcends borders.

 

This guy here though he was a real douche

 

http://kotaku.com/after-four-years-an-industry-scourge-loses-his-edge-476590339

[6./ZG26_Emil]

The whole "only in America" thing reminded me of this

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025926/MoD-legal-battle-Next-use-RAF-insignia-boys-duvet.html

 

And I'm sure DCS Hawk had some issues with BAE during the development of that.

 

IP rights is massive in software and that transcends borders.

 

This guy here though he was a real douche

 

http://kotaku.com/after-four-years-an-industry-scourge-loses-his-edge-476590339

 

Yep that's the kind of crap we're starting to see all the time now. I mean RAF symbols on a boy's duvet or birthday card big bloody deal....The RAF wasn't invented by an entrepreneur who needs to protect his business it is an entity created within the state and it's fame comes on the back of regular people who died for it. I know about the IL2 thing and I know if they had understood things better they could have just not put the manufacturers name on the box art and avoided the whole thing but it is a bit sad in my opinion.

[HippyDruid]

This guy here though he was a real douche

 

http://kotaku.com/after-four-years-an-industry-scourge-loses-his-edge-476590339

 

Yes, that made me laugh. I wonder if he ever attempted legal action against the guitarist from U2?

[Bearcat]

If a newer 2012 "game" (and I mean game  ) such as this can achieve it then I am sure it is possible in the future

 

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Damage_Inc._Pacific_Squadron_WWII/Allied_Aircraft

 

fairly certain that the Grumman issue with IL-2 was more a very poor  advised/rushed/handled decision regards a legal clause/contract after the initial issue became apparent, this then tied Maddox games hands for further development and left a sour taste 

 

because of the Lawyer/legal wrangle the true matters were never discussed openly, and have since passed into legend

 

Cheers Dakpilot

The problem with the PF debacle was not that they used the planes but that they specifically used the name Northrop Grumman in the box of the product. Once that was done legal action was taken and a precedent was set. Had they just used the plane name like MS and every other manufacturer had been doing and many have done since the issue would not have escalated to the point that it did.

[Feathered_IV]

Out of curiosity due to a genuine interest in the history of flight simulation, who was actually responsible for the design of the Il-2 Pacific Fighters box art? 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Out of curiosity due to a genuine interest in the history of flight simulation, who was actually responsible for the design of the Il-2 Pacific Fighters box art? 

 

Not sure about that (you would imagine Ubi and 1C ) but didn't this all come about because someone phoned NG up to ask them for some information and the person they spoke to passed the info on to their law team?

[Scarecrow]

I would have imagined it was Ubisoft for all the non-Russian localisation. In my opinion it really boiled down to naivete on the part of whoever thought  using the name Grumman was ok, that Northrop Grumman wouldn't have a corporate image to maintain. That could have been either camp.

 

Just today RAZBAM have announced pre-sale of the M2000C for DCS World, no where on the Eshop description does it mention the name of the French manufacturer Dassault. Guess that's what this disclaimer covers.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Scarecrow

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I would have imagined it was Ubisoft for all the non-Russian localisation. In my opinion it really boiled down to naivete on the part of whoever thought  using the name Grumman was ok, that Northrop Grumman wouldn't have a corporate image to maintain. That could have been either camp.

 

Just today RAZBAM have announced pre-sale of the M2000C for DCS World, no where on the Eshop description does it mention the name of the French manufacturer Dassault. Guess that's what this disclaimer covers.

 

Sure, these people make computer games and aren't lawyers but at the time of PF I think the world had less of a sue everyone culture but it was changing....we just happened to be one of the victims. Nowadays I think people are more aware of the pitfalls.

 

I wonder when it was that Airfix had to ask permission to use these names?