Names of planes - licensing issues?

[darklight]

Hi,

I'm an indie game developer (read $0 budget).  I'm making a game, not a 3D simulation, more 2D, but still a simulation to a degree, and I want to feature large numbers of combat planes from all ages.  I cant imagine this game ever having mass market appeal, it will more than likely only ever be seen by hundreds / possibly thousands of people over time (this is generous).

 

What are the legal issues with using the names of manufacturers and aircraft, and art (that I've drawn) of real aircraft?

 

Do all paid flight sims / add ons license the names of the aircraft they depict?  Please PM me if you have an answer you aren't willing to post publicly.  

 

I'm guessing I really shouldn't use the manufacturer's name, or the name of the aircraft i.e. General Dynamics Fighting Falcon.  Can I refer to aircraft by their military codes (e.g. F-16), or does the manufacturer / anyone have rights over that too?

 

What I'm looking for here is what the lower-end content producers do, as I believe their situation is the most similar to mine.  I know I should consult a lawyer - I will, I'm just trying to research the issue beforehand.

 

Thanks for any help, I hope I'm not asking awkward questions.  

 

[darklight]

I cant figure out how to edit my post.  I wanted to add I am based in Australia, not the US, in case that affects what laws apply to me.  Also I'm not planning on using the names in the title of my game, just as reference within the game.

[+RAVEN]

Have you tried serching for ( on the net) " F-16 Copyright "?

[darklight]

Have you tried serching for ( on the net) " F-16 Copyright "?

 

Yes - I find a few people hypothesizing.  Really I'm interested in what is the common approach of content creators, which is why I posted here.  BTW F-16 was just an example - as mentioned I'm looking at lots of aircraft. 

[Panama Red]

The original SF1 had the Lockheed C-130, but TK took that out due to Lockheed licensing issues.  Other than that, I do not know of any other manufacture that has raised an issue.

[Snailman]

I heard that IL-2 Sturmovik had the same issue with the Grumman TBD Avenger... So it was not in the game by any designation. I was upset about such a stupidity...

[darklight]

The original SF1 had the Lockheed C-130, but TK took that out due to Lockheed licensing issues.  Other than that, I do not know of any other manufacture that has raised an issue.

 

Thats interesting - so it sounds like I could have at least an initial version with all the planes I want, and then remove on request?

 

In my travels around the internet I've mainly heard of Boeing & Lockheed being the main culprits, along with Bell Helicopters (DCS Huey).

I heard that IL-2 Sturmovik had the same issue with the Grumman TBD Avenger... So it was not in the game by any designation. I was upset about such a stupidity...

 

I wonder what the problem was with that particular plane - other Grumman planes appear in the game.  At least in later versions.

[Snailman]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27537&highlight=ng+issue&page=7

 

 

tk471138

Senior Member

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xilon_x

Northrop-Grumman took legal action against Ubisoft over the unlicensed use of trademarks they own (specifically, "Grumman") on the Pacific Fighters box and packaging. This legal action was perfectly justified.

UbiSoft and Maddox games jointly settled out of court with Northrop-Grumman. However, Ubisoft provided very bad legal assistance to Oleg, regardless of what he has been led to believe and has said. It is obvious his limited english and complete unfamiliarity with the American legal system were both taken advantage of.

The settlement covered the unauthorized use of a Northrop-Grumman trademark. Perfectly reasonable.

Northrop-Grumman, however, took advantage of the situation to also advance their demands for licensing fees to depict WWII era material. This has no legal basis, despite what they may claim. This has been established in court.

Despite this, as they had Ubisoft and Maddox Games at their mercy, Northrop-Grumman also legally bound them to pay exhorbant licensing fees to use any aircraft (or other material) that Northrop-Grumman claimed intellectual ownership of. Ubisoft's legal representation to Oleg presented the situation inaccurately, convincing Oleg that he had no choice or hope but to accept their demands. Regardless of the previous legal veracity of their claims, Northrop-Grumman now DOES have the legal right to demand licensing from Oleg.

The final insult was that Ubisoft, who commited the original infringement (as they are responsible for product packaging, and thus the infringing text on the box), made Oleg pay Northrop-Grumman the settlement.

Heroes of the Pacific (the creators of which, IRGurus, I spoke to personally) and Blazing Aces both feature various 'disputed' aircraft because Ubisoft didn't screw up the box on those and because those developers happened to speak fluent English and thus could fend of Northrop-Grummans baseless claims. N-G did approach IRGurus (who made Heroes), but was rebuffed and did not make further demands.

The settlement also stipulated that the matter not be discussed publicly (since it obviously would show the true colors of two out of three parties involved), which is why any and all threads that bring this matter up are deleted.

The only group who benefitted were the lawyers of a multi-billion dollar defense contractor. A multi-million dollar global game publisher sidestepped the blame and the fine. Ultimately, a dedicated Russian development studio, many of those working on a project for them at the time, those peoples' immediate families, the project's fans, and legal precedent all suffered.

I know. I built the P-61. Kami had a finished B-29 interior. An underway TBF cockpit and a completely finished Yorktown carrier were yanked. Other content that was planned, in progress, or even finished--some of it expensive--was discarded. Some artists who had devoted extraordinary time and made significant personal sacrifices to contribute to Pacific Fighters were never compensated and almost didn't even get acknowledged.

All of which Northrop-Grumman and Ubisoft have demanded be kept secret.

I, however, am not going to take this anymore. This entire post will be permanently saved to another location. I will link to it whenever the subject is broached. If I am banned, I will make sure it is publicly known here that this is why.

Oleg was taken advantage of in a horrible way, by those who stood to lose nothing and who had no support for their demands. We owe him our efforts to correct that.

technically if oleg was misled in to signing a contract...or if he didnt understand the contract he was signing its null and void....

he should trash the contract....forget what some retarded greedy american company says...i know i could care less and I AM american....im certainly not going to let some company dictate the terms of my life and my freedom....

[darklight]

Food for thought Snailman - thanks.  Some of that pertains to usage of trade marks on the box art, and some to unfinished in-game assets.

[+Stratos]

Military names as for example F-16 are not copyrighted I think. Right?

[+JediMaster]

The only thing that is 100% off limits is the manufacturer's name, even defunct names like Fairchild or North American as they were bought up by others years ago and have taken on the legal burden.

 

You can say F-16, that's a designation. You can say F-16 Vipers or Electric Jets (as those are nicknames).

 

Usage of Fighting Falcon is a gray area depending on what the manufacturer bothered to register. However, rule of thumb is just to leave it off.

 

Notice ED called it DCS: A-10C, not A-10C Thunderbolt II, not Fairchild Republic A-10C Thunderbolt II.

 

 

The claims that the actual visual representation belongs to them is just bogus.

[+FastCargo]

There was also legal precedent set during the early 90s when Novalogic and LockMart tried to make the F-22 exclusive to them for computer games. The USAF and the USG basically said you can't do that with a taxpayer funded aircraft and squashed the effort.

 

American companies aren't the only ones guilty of this...if you look in some of the AC series, you'll see in the credits licensing notes from Dassault, EADS, etc. So, someone, somewhere had to contact those companies to work out an agreement.

 

This also happened on the civilian side with a few airlines who tried the same thing for MSFS. Apparently, that went away when someone figured out it was basically free advertising for the airlines.

 

It seems like this is one of those things that could easily be solved. A company has to know that what's more of a benefit...free advertising and good will, or no exposure and ill will. If they are worried about copyright, just have them insert a 'not an official licensed product' or 'not endorsed' or some such language. I can understand enforcement of copyright (use it or lose it principle), but someone has to know that a small developer in a niche market isn't going to fork over a large licensing fee vs just dropping the aircraft instead.

 

FC