EA vs Bell helicopters in BF3...

[EricM 0]

Electronic Arts is asking a federal judge to rule that it has a First Amendment right to depict real-life military helicopters in video games such as Battlefield 3 without the permission of the aircraft's maker.

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes-first-amendment-protection-for-video-games-in-trademark-dispute-with-helicopter-maker

[roberthammer 582]

lol that's a fail by EA DICE - not a surprise

[Mr. Charles 22]

I wouldn't be so happy about that. A2 does have all the Bell helicopters, too.

[Maddmatt 1]

"The Bell-manufactured helicopters depicted in Battlefield 3 are just a few of countless creative visual, audio, plot and programming elements that make up EA's expressive work, a first-person military combat simulation," says the suit.

Kill me please.

But seriously, this could be a major problem for every combat game including the ArmA series. Guns, humvees, tanks, planes will all need to be licensed and it will end up just like race games where only the really big budget projects can afford the major licenses.

And they will be able to have restrictions on the license.

Car manufacturers have varying restrictions like no damage the affects the driver, Ferrari cars cannot be outclassed by competitors, exhaust smoke cannot be depicted realistically ect.

You can't put a Humvee in a combat game with those restrictions.

[maddogx 13]

Kill me please.

But seriously, this could be a major problem for every combat game including the ArmA series. Guns, humvees, tanks, planes will all need to be licensed and it will end up just like race games where only the really big budget projects can afford the major licenses.

And they will be able to have restrictions on the license.

Car manufacturers have varying restrictions like no damage the affects the driver, Ferrari cars cannot be outclassed by competitors, exhaust smoke cannot be depicted realistically ect.

You can't put a Humvee in a combat game with those restrictions.

If that really does happen, I expect BIS will push further into sci fi and abandon contemporary equipment completely.

[roberthammer 582]

I wouldn't be so happy about that. A2 does have all the Bell helicopters, too.

BIS have permissions since VBS2 of Osprey , AH-1Z and UH-1Y etc

I doubt that all stuff will be hardcore restricted on the licenses - maybe those big plane/heli/car companies yes ,but we don't need a Ferrari or Porsche in the ArmA do we?

Most weapons have a licence only of the real name - for example FN2000 , in the game will be Mk20 (also with removed FN logo etc) and thats it

Edited January 9, 2012 by RobertHammer

[Maddmatt 1]

If that really does happen, I expect BIS will push further into sci fi and abandon contemporary equipment completely.

Or they could represent countries besides the US where licensing is cheaper...

Which would probably mean fewer sales :rolleyes:

,but we don't need a Ferrari or Porsche in the ArmA do we?

Obviously not. But you need Hummer and Lockheed Martin.

Most weapons have a licence only of the real name - for example FN2000 , in the game will be Mk20 (also with removed FN logo etc) and thats it

Changing the name and removing logos isn't always good enough. Most companies will ignore that but there is still the possibility if them taking legal action.

Games like GTA4 have to change the cars to the point where they hardly resemble the real ones. It would suck if that happened here seeing how important realism is for the ArmA series.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Hard times and profit rules...

Lets see if the right of expression outweights the right of publicity.

The best games are not bound to real symbols/signs or logos. BIS making fictional games (stories) and A3 is set into the future - the only thing BIS need to care is to make A3 believable and working flawless + smooth in SP/MP! :)

[b101_uk 10]

I don’t see how EA could use the free speech argument unless they are giving away the game FREE and not charging vast amounts for it given you don’t own the game but the licence to use it which EA grants, it can hardly be said to be free or fair for EA to grant licence of use to the end user in order to make money while at the same time EA thinks its above getting licence to use trademark or copyright names/likeness owned by others.

There is also a difference between film and videogame in that in films large items such as vehicles will either be furnished by the manufacture as part of product placement, or will be vehicles owned exclusively by individuals or companies who are then contracted/employed in there use given they own the vehicles fully and thus are well beyond the scope of redress by the manufacture as they are depicting the actual owned property or a likeness of that actual property where CGI is used in specific short scenes.

[mrcash2009 0]

Hang on you have an organisation depicting war thats making reference to the constitution? Isn't that a potential terrorist organisation? They need to be reported to the hotline!

I think its pretty bad to license if the model created is a "depiction" if you leave out all interiors and other such minor details, and dont use any direct dynamics information for the company as reference then how can it be licensed? Any logo's maybe ... If my likeness is placed in a game can I take that further as they never licensed me ....

In a way this opens the clone debate and CGI replacement more, license ownership of a depiction .... hmmmmm.

Does this mean BIS will close down from an entire country they are going to depict in Arma3? Will they need the license for it ...... it gets a bit stupid to be honest.

Edited January 9, 2012 by mrcash2009

[EricM 0]

Maybe that's the solution to war in the third world :

Call the manufacturer of AK47 and tell them to sue 99% of the modern FPS genre for royalties and make loads of money... No need to make guns anymore after that, just live off your licence fee's from COD, BF3, Counterstrike etc...

Right ?

(joke)

[maturin 12]

Didn't that article say that the case was pre-emptive? As in, Bell hasn't sued anyone.

[dekster 1]

The otorolla radio's and hand-overs do just fine in arma. :p

[[aps]gnat 28]

Yeh, lol ... EA seen to be making way more money than Bell now, Bell need a little bit of Cash ;)

[maturin 12]

Maybe that's the solution to war in the third world :

Call the manufacturer of AK47 and tell them to sue 99% of the modern FPS genre for royalties and make loads of money... No need to make guns anymore after that, just live off your licence fee's from COD, BF3, Counterstrike etc...

Right ?

(joke)

Well, the inventor of the AK47 is a Communist who was never paid a cent for his invention. Aren't things easy when there's no such thing as intellectual property?

[daman3 19]

lol that's a fail by EA DICE - not a surprise

There is no fail by them, I don't know what you are seeing.

[roberthammer 582]

There is no fail by them, I don't know what you are seeing.

Oh yea right ... :rolleyes:

[batto 17]

Former SOPA supporter invokes First Amendment Protection? Ron Paul hype is spreading fast :P

[Tonci87 163]

Former SOPA supporter invokes First Amendment Protection? Ron Paul hype is spreading fast :P

And I thought that I´m the only one to see the irony :D

[-GR-Operative 10]

For me, depicting the weapons/vehicles/tools and making the players like them is like a kind of free merchandising for the brands.

[Messiah 2]

The Brands? I hadn't quite budgeted for an F-22 this year.

I'm sure Walker will pop along soon to correct me, but there should be a precedence in any potential suit that the vehicles in the game generate it's selling potential and profits? In FIFA et al you enjoy playing with Messi, Ronaldo, etc. In Gran Turismo you can't wait to buy your first Aston Martin. In COD/BF3 who actually buys the game thinking 'I can't wait to use the AK47'?

Their only appeal in the game are based on their apparent stats and the sense of 'progression' as you level up, getting 'better' weapons. Those stats/power/appeal are arbitrarily decided and programmed by DICE. BF3 profits on its gameplay, its action sequences and its little gimics, not the brands it uses. I can't imagine that your average player would give two hoots if the Bell got renamed to 'Ding Dong', and as such any 'royalty' claims would be laughable.

[Baff1 0]

BIS have permissions since VBS2 of Osprey , AH-1Z and UH-1Y etc

I doubt that all stuff will be hardcore restricted on the licenses - maybe those big plane/heli/car companies yes ,but we don't need a Ferrari or Porsche in the ArmA do we?

Most weapons have a licence only of the real name - for example FN2000 , in the game will be Mk20 (also with removed FN logo etc) and thats it

They have a copyright on the design mate.

You have to change it by 10%.

Sort of like a Crysis gun, almost an AK but not quite.

Changing the name isn't enough.

[Messiah 2]

But does that copyright of a physical object extend to digitial reproduction? You're not physically copying or selling anything that would put them at a finanicial loss?

Trademark infringement is something else, however, and a possible route for claims.

[Archosaurusrev 12]

>first-person military combat simulation

Yeah, stopped reading there.

Whole article seems bollocks.

[-GR-Operative 10]

The Brands? I hadn't quite budgeted for an F-22 this year.

I'm sure Walker will pop along soon to correct me, but there should be a precedence in any potential suit that the vehicles in the game generate it's selling potential and profits? In FIFA et al you enjoy playing with Messi, Ronaldo, etc. In Gran Turismo you can't wait to buy your first Aston Martin. In COD/BF3 who actually buys the game thinking 'I can't wait to use the AK47'?

Their only appeal in the game are based on their apparent stats and the sense of 'progression' as you level up, getting 'better' weapons. Those stats/power/appeal are arbitrarily decided and programmed by DICE. BF3 profits on its gameplay, its action sequences and its little gimics, not the brands it uses. I can't imagine that your average player would give two hoots if the Bell got renamed to 'Ding Dong', and as such any 'royalty' claims would be laughable.

I get it more to the side of PR. Some people call it BS, but if you deliver the tools to the good guys do their job, the public can get a better view about the product/brand behind it. It's not about increasing profit, but getting a better image out there. That's only my opinion, and it's subject to changes, of course.