max power 21 Posted January 10, 2012 >first-person military combat simulationYeah, stopped reading there. Whole article seems bollocks. The issue in the article is not the definition of the word simulator. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
celery 8 Posted January 11, 2012 Read BI instead of EA (and Arma 2 in place of Battlefield 3) to see things in perspective. Would it be cool if military manufacturers demanded Bohemia Interactive to stop depicting their products in Arma 2? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rumrunner 10 Posted January 11, 2012 Didn't this come up some time ago with a flight sim maker? IIRC, They depicted something like the F117 or F22 in a game and the real world manufacturer objected only to have the military step in and say they owned the copyright and since they are a federal entity, the designs belonged to the american public and could be used freely? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZXSHADOWS 0 Posted January 13, 2012 What if the tables where turned an EA created a design of a vehicle/aircraft in a game/digital form an Bell was able reproduce a real working vehicle off of that design of EA's vehicle an sold it to customer's worldwide without anything to EA. Silly idea I know but Im just saying if tables where turned who would be in the wrong? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TFatseas 0 Posted January 13, 2012 Didn't this come up some time ago with a flight sim maker? IIRC, They depicted something like the F117 or F22 in a game and the real world manufacturer objected only to have the military step in and say they owned the copyright and since they are a federal entity, the designs belonged to the american public and could be used freely? I know when Pacific Fighters came out it got to the point where Northrop-Grumman was asking huge royalties for anything made by Grumman, or any other plane, ship or whatever made by any company they(Northrop-Grumman) now own, even if they acquired the company post-WWII. I know a lot of good stuff wasn't put into the game because of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr burns 131 Posted January 13, 2012 Operative;2086915']For me' date=' depicting the weapons/vehicles/tools and making the players like them is like a kind of free merchandising for the brands.[/quote']But not with a hello kitty skin (or bible phrases) textured on it. Think it´s more about the slight loss of control over their brand than not wanting free advertising. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted January 13, 2012 What if the tables where turned an EA created a design of a vehicle/aircraft in a game/digital form an Bell was able reproduce a real working vehicle off of that design of EA's vehicle an sold it to customer's worldwide without anything to EA. Silly idea I know but Im just saying if tables where turned who would be in the wrong? That's an interesting argument. I think there is an issue of identity in there- or of appropriation. The purpose of copying a visual design would be to copy the visual design. Bell aircraft look the way they do out of necessity. They are designed to be an effective war machine, not really look a certain way. When you make a portrait of something you're taking a visual impression of something that already exists to be seen. I think that where this becomes really murky is when you assert (and I think rightfully so) that the battlefield franchise wouldn't be where it is if it didn't portray real war machines. But how is this different from a website selling prints of professional aviation photography? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soul_assassin 1723 Posted January 13, 2012 Lol, imagine Kalashnikov would sue the gaming industry....epic lawsuit is epic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4591 Posted January 13, 2012 What if the tables where turned an EA created a design of a vehicle/aircraft in a game/digital form an Bell was able reproduce a real working vehicle off of that design of EA's vehicle an sold it to customer's worldwide without anything to EA. Silly idea I know but Im just saying if tables where turned who would be in the wrong? good point. The main difference is the usage... But how is this different from a website selling prints of professional aviation photography? There is no difference...The fact that there is a 3d model used in a commercial way, doesn't mean the one who created the said model made the design...most are actually acknowledging this in their readme etc.. If i were to have a company that sells aircraft, and copy-paste the design to my own creation, and call it blel instead, yes there would be a problem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites