PDA

View Full Version : Royal Air Force Copyright Issues



Vortex_79
05-20-2005, 08:54 AM
~S~

Recently, the MOD in London has copyrighted all insignia and logos. What implications this may have for the simming world has yet to come to light.

After speaking with someone who works at the MOD, he gave me some examples; any clothes that had the RAF roundel on them either had to be withdrawn from sale or monies paid to the MOD. The latest 'Wallace and Gromit' feature movie has a 30sec sequence where a WWI bi-plane is shown with a roundel on it and the makers of the movie had to pay a fee of 10,000!

So what are the implications for the makers of flight sims? Not to mention those 'Virtual Squadrons (ours being one of them) that sport RAF insignia. Once the lawyers get their greedy hands onto the subject, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of heartache and pain comes of it!

Here are a couple of links to the MOD website. The first is the main page that deals with copyright issues...

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/project_services/intellectual_property_rights.htm

And I quote from this...


In the context of the MoD, "trade marks" include all crests, heraldry, logos and other insignia used by the Armed Services and other MoD sections, together with their names, mottoes, and the names of any services they provide.


And then from one of the sub-pages...

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/project_services/trademarks_crests_and_logos.htm


Trade Mark law protects the identity of goods and services, allowing distinctions to be made between different undertakings. Trade marks do not necessarily need to be registered with the Patent Office in order to be protected, although many MoD trade marks are. In the context of the MoD, "trade marks" include all badges, crests, heraldry, logos and other insignia used by the Armed Services and other MoD sections, together with their names, mottoes and the names of any services they provide.

These signs embody the reputation of the units they represent, and as such their use is very tightly controlled under trade mark law. Unauthorised reproduction is treated as a serious matter, as it can amount to the appropriation of an organisation's reputation.

If you wish to reproduce insignia purely for as an illustration for reference purposes, please contact the Directorate directly, at the address below.

Frequently, firms wish to produce merchandise bearing MoD insignia. This business is generally welcomed, provided that the goods and services are of acceptable quality and fulfils the role of promoting or reinforcing the Armed Service's profile. Charges for reproduction usually take the form of a royalty payment. Initial authority relating to the use of Service names and crests for merchandising purposes rests with the following contacts:

All Royal Navy insignia including ships' badges:

Directorate of Corporate Communications (RN) Ministry of Defence, Room 1/77, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP

All Army insignia including regimental cap badges:

Marketing Branch, IDT(A)/MC, Trenchard Lines, Upavon, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 6BE.

All RAF insignia including the "RAF Roundel" and squadron badges:

Directorate of Corporate Communications (RAF) Ministry of Defence, Room 1/51, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP

For other trade marks and insignia , please contact the Directorate.

Once authorisation to reproduce the name or crest has been agreed-in-principle by the above section, please contact the Directorate, who are responsible for issuing formal licences setting out the terms and condition of use.

This as you can see from the quotes above could possibly lead to a whole can of worms being opened for not only Oleg and his crew, but also the virtual squadrons themselves. Only time will tell...

_79_Vortex

www.79vraf.com (http://www.79vraf.com)

Vortex_79
05-20-2005, 08:54 AM
~S~

Recently, the MOD in London has copyrighted all insignia and logos. What implications this may have for the simming world has yet to come to light.

After speaking with someone who works at the MOD, he gave me some examples; any clothes that had the RAF roundel on them either had to be withdrawn from sale or monies paid to the MOD. The latest 'Wallace and Gromit' feature movie has a 30sec sequence where a WWI bi-plane is shown with a roundel on it and the makers of the movie had to pay a fee of 10,000!

So what are the implications for the makers of flight sims? Not to mention those 'Virtual Squadrons (ours being one of them) that sport RAF insignia. Once the lawyers get their greedy hands onto the subject, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of heartache and pain comes of it!

Here are a couple of links to the MOD website. The first is the main page that deals with copyright issues...

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/project_services/intellectual_property_rights.htm

And I quote from this...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In the context of the MoD, "trade marks" include all crests, heraldry, logos and other insignia used by the Armed Services and other MoD sections, together with their names, mottoes, and the names of any services they provide.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then from one of the sub-pages...

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/project_services/trademarks_crests_and_logos.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Trade Mark law protects the identity of goods and services, allowing distinctions to be made between different undertakings. Trade marks do not necessarily need to be registered with the Patent Office in order to be protected, although many MoD trade marks are. In the context of the MoD, "trade marks" include all badges, crests, heraldry, logos and other insignia used by the Armed Services and other MoD sections, together with their names, mottoes and the names of any services they provide.

These signs embody the reputation of the units they represent, and as such their use is very tightly controlled under trade mark law. Unauthorised reproduction is treated as a serious matter, as it can amount to the appropriation of an organisation's reputation.

If you wish to reproduce insignia purely for as an illustration for reference purposes, please contact the Directorate directly, at the address below.

Frequently, firms wish to produce merchandise bearing MoD insignia. This business is generally welcomed, provided that the goods and services are of acceptable quality and fulfils the role of promoting or reinforcing the Armed Service's profile. Charges for reproduction usually take the form of a royalty payment. Initial authority relating to the use of Service names and crests for merchandising purposes rests with the following contacts:

All Royal Navy insignia including ships' badges:

Directorate of Corporate Communications (RN) Ministry of Defence, Room 1/77, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP

All Army insignia including regimental cap badges:

Marketing Branch, IDT(A)/MC, Trenchard Lines, Upavon, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 6BE.

All RAF insignia including the "RAF Roundel" and squadron badges:

Directorate of Corporate Communications (RAF) Ministry of Defence, Room 1/51, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP

For other trade marks and insignia , please contact the Directorate.

Once authorisation to reproduce the name or crest has been agreed-in-principle by the above section, please contact the Directorate, who are responsible for issuing formal licences setting out the terms and condition of use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This as you can see from the quotes above could possibly lead to a whole can of worms being opened for not only Oleg and his crew, but also the virtual squadrons themselves. Only time will tell...

_79_Vortex

www.79vraf.com (http://www.79vraf.com)

Sandman_UK
05-20-2005, 09:24 AM
Im not suprised they have done this, it has taken them a while but just think to yourself how many lines of clothing in the UK sport some sort of RAF roundel etc and you can see why they have done this.

Obviously a movie is a big selling product and im sure they would jump on that one. But to be honest 10,000 in the grand scheme of things is not that much cash for a movie version. I wonder which roundel they have copyrighted also, as there are so many RAF variants.

Some one please tell me but im sure once something has been in the public domain as long as the RAF roundel has you cannot copyright it to the extent that knowone can use it. I only have a few examples of that from my mind and they involves football teams. Both Arsenal and Chelsea have had to change their badges in the last few season due to not being able to get the right kind of copyright on what was their currnet badge. As they wanted more stringent CP coverage they created new badges. With the RAF ones being around so long i cant understand how they would be able to stop it being used?.

Lets hope it does not cause a problem in the future, what with the Grumman problem we have had it would be terrible for this to cause a problem also, especially with BOB around the corner.

danjama
05-20-2005, 09:51 AM
Being from England, i strongly hope the MoD realise that any reproduction or repesentation of the roundel in il2 or any flight sim, is done so with the most respect etc towards them. Hopefully, they will not take any action against Oleg and his team, they may realise what a huge deal the game is and leave it alone, or at most incur a small fixed fee for the useage. Surely they are not money grabbers! If they are i am ashamed to be preotected by such people.

Capt.England
05-20-2005, 10:49 AM
I am sure that the M.O.D. (ministry of deadheads) lost out in being able to copyright the old Mod (s****** boys) roundel!

I hope Oleg asks for permission before B.o.B. comes out. If he shows the M.O.D. the game before it comes out, and maybe tells them that for each copy sold there will be a cut of the moneys going to the R.A.F. charities then I am sure he would get the backing and support from the R.A.F. in making the game more realistic!

(he must be dealing with the R.A.F./M.O.D. at the moment due to the vast amount of information they have on file about the B.o.B!)

A lot of old and current R.A.F. pilots fly in this sim family at the moment, so I hear.

VW-IceFire
05-20-2005, 11:01 AM
Very silly how representations of history are being copyrighted. Like someone owns history.

WOLFMondo
05-20-2005, 11:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

dadada1
05-20-2005, 11:12 AM
What the......This is the armed forces for pities sake paid for out of public funds. Not a football team, movie or game that has all the money making merchandise opportunities attached to it. As a UK tax payer I would either like to be awarded RAF shares, or at least have the ability to opt out of paying that part of my taxes that maintain the armed forces.

major_setback
05-20-2005, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Do you think they're maybe trying to stop Tom Cruise winning the Battle of Britain? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The logo 'The Battle of Britain' is now copywrited, I will ask you to refrain from using this title, from now on it will be known as the 'The Bittle of Wooton'.

Also please refrrain from using the term 'Tom Cruise' (copyright). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Monty_Thrud
05-20-2005, 11:23 AM
Well i wish they had done this in the '60's, when those ruddy Mods used to descend on every seaside town in their Parkas with the RAF roundals on the back poncing about on their Italian made womens shopping mopeds...bunch of ruddy jessies...long live the Rockers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zyzbot
05-20-2005, 11:33 AM
BBC
MoD defeated in fashion dispute
Tuesday, 13 January, 2004

The roundel cannot be registered as a trademark on clothing
The Ministry of Defence has failed in its battle to stop clothing retailers using the red, white and blue target symbol.
Arcadia Group, owners of Topshop, Dorothy Perkins and Burton, went to war with the MoD after it tried to register the roundel as a trademark for RAF-related clothing.

The high street fashion group argued the roundel was brought into the public domain by the Mod movement of the 1960s.

On Tuesday, the Patent Office told BBC News Online it had rejected the MoD's application.

However, the MoD has been given the sole rights to use the roundel, which appears on all RAF aircraft, on items other than clothing such as military hardware.

Mod fashions

A spokeswoman for the MoD said they were now considering whether to appeal against the decision.


The target appears on all RAF aircraft
"We are naturally disappointed with the decision in respect of the suitability of the roundel as a trademark for RAF-related clothing," she said.

"However we are happy that the roundel has been protected as a trademark in respect of other goods and services."

Arcadia Group had enlisted the help of other clothing manufacturers, including The Lambretta Clothing Company, who have also used the motif on their products.

Making his decision John Macgillivray, for the Registrar the Comptroller-General, said the roundel "has been used since the 1960s to a significant degree as a decorative motif or emblem on articles of clothing and prior to the relevant date has been used by a number of different traders.

"It has, in particular, been associated with a group of persons known as Mods and while its popularity has ebbed and flowed with fashion, clothing bearing the 'roundel' or 'target device' has remained available to the public."

He ordered the MoD to pay the Arcadia Group 1,900 costs.

LStarosta
05-20-2005, 02:13 PM
You know, those Eurofighter Typhoons aren't cheap. They gotta find a way to fund them...

Aaron_GT
05-20-2005, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Very silly how representations of history are being copyrighted. Like someone owns history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not about owning representations of history so much as preventing commercial exploitation of representations of insignia in products that are not primarily historical. If you produced a history book on the RAF and photos showed RAF planes with roundels you could very easily argue fair use since the purpose of the book is to depcit RAF history. However a Wallace and Grommit film is a commercial venture with no particular historical content.

The same sort of thing would be true for coca cola bottles. If you promoted a product adorned with images of the bottles then expect to pay for the privelege. If you show a historical scene in a history book in which there just happens to be coke bottle, then you are fine.

A computer game is not designed primarily for teaching history but for amusement, so I suspect it will be covered by the copyright regulations, but I think donations to RAF charities will probably smooth things over. It is closer to being fair use than, say, roundels on mod jackets.

Aaron_GT
05-20-2005, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Making his decision John Macgillivray, for the Registrar the Comptroller-General, said the roundel "has been used since the 1960s to a significant degree as a decorative motif or emblem on articles of clothing and prior to the relevant date has been used by a number of different traders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the judge's argument here is essentially that the MoD failed to protect its trademark in respect of clothing for a period of 40 years, so it can't bolt the stable door now. But with respect to other items the infringement was more minor so the roundel has not been devalued in the other contexts and the MoD can assert that it still retains trademark.

(I should have said trademark rather than copyright earlier).

LStarosta
05-20-2005, 03:21 PM
Aaron, I think Coca Cola would be paying to have their products shown in commercial films. :P

JG6_Oddball
05-20-2005, 04:04 PM
I think i will see if anyone has a copy right on the german sqaudron insignia's , then perhaps I can indulge in some nazi like buisness tactic's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif .

I never did follow up on what happend with grummen...anyone give me the heads up?

S!

Te_Vigo
05-20-2005, 09:14 PM
I'm sure if the argument followed the lines of "Visual Representation" as in Film and Television productions...there could be leg to stand on.
As for namings copyright..."this is a visual representation of 'such and such' plane"

Apparently the construction of a model (eg building) that is used in film/tv does not infringe copyright but to rebuild in RL the same building to designer's spec would.

If not there are a lot of artists out there that will also be looking down the barrel of Military copyright legal eagles.

But as we have been asked not to discuss such matters in these forums.........I do apologise and ...............

IBTL

Aaron_GT
05-21-2005, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aaron, I think Coca Cola would be paying to have their products shown in commercial films. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but product placement's a whole different kettle of fish!

major_setback
05-21-2005, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG6_Oddball:...never did follow up on what happend with grummen...anyone give me the heads up?

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As requested. The truth. The whole truth..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

This is from an earlier thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2551085023

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Oleg has specifically stated that there was no lawsuit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems Ubi sidestepped the legal issue by sending a cheque to N/G. I guess semantically speaking the assertion that N/G have never had a legal issue with Oleg is correct... it never came to it because they made their cash without exploring the legality of anything. Ubi set a dangerous precedent... or at least perpetuated one.

One wonders what would have happened if the "scary letter" that N/G no doubt sent to Ubi was simply ignored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answered by SaQSon:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SaQSoN:
Goshikisen described the situation exhactly as it was.

Wish, the other posters also had such ability to understand things, as he has... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Enforcer572005
05-21-2005, 11:09 PM
OK, some reality here. If ubi paid an extortion demand by some stuffed shirts who know nothign about aircraft, they were STUPIDDDD.in the US, we have the first amendment, one of the few that is still intact. ubi should have sent the check to a first year law student to file an injunction in federal court as a prelude to a suit. this would ahve should those morons up. you cant control history, not in the us anyway. every model company, book publisher, etc would be put out of bsness. there is considerable legal precedent on this in this coutnry.

the brit mod couldnt do **** to oleg...he's in Russia, and they aren't. this grumman **** is alot of college boy lawyer ****.

Ive dont alot of my own legal work, hving been totally betrayed by a lawyer. ive caused the state of Ga. alot of headaches, and have been threatened repeatedly by the attorney gen. yet I am going to defeat these morons. I could have easily filed something to shut Grummans mouth, and any ohter arrogant morons.

you dont have to have a lawyer....they dont want you knowing that by the way.

Hollywood would also sic a ton of lawyers on any1 trying to censor all use of historical machines or insignia.

anyway, all other avaition companies love to have thier products promoted, past and present. Its the equivalent of air time, and they in fact give alot of help to companies making movies, models, and sims. theres more to this than we have been made aware of . I would love for some moron lawyer to tell me I couldnt make us of national insignia or an aircraft design. I would hve that fool in court for yrs, cost them many bucks, and embarrass them by making it public, as I already have the state of Ga and some local court officials.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-22-2005, 03:31 AM
You have to agree with the MoD's action as, at the end of the day, it is their IP and they are well within their rights to try to protect it.

After all, the RAF roundel must rank highly as one of the easiest symbols to be recognised across the world and strong 'branding' like that is bound to attract protection. Incidentally, who owns the IP on the swastika? That must be one of the ultimate (negative) branding icons? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But maybe the clothing rule still applies to computer games as RAF roundels will have been used many times before and, therefore, could fall into the same category as the public domain mod gear.

Perhaps it should work the other way around, though? Someone has beat me to it, in a way, but why not *charge* the MoD etc for product placement of their brands in a game title just as people like BMW & Ericsson "pay" for their products to be used in Bond films etc.

That would be a nice solution to the problem with everyone being happy!

Cheers,
Norris

Hastatus
05-22-2005, 08:27 AM
I agree 100 percent with Enforcer. This **** is just silly. It wouldnt take jack to have their "suit" laughed out of court.

Model makers, TV shows, movies ect have for DECADES had a/c names and insignia appear...they have no claim to make. Its beyond stupid.

They should have told Grumman to F*** Off and see them in court. Giving in to that sort or idiocy just encourages more of it.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">we have the first amendment, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but it isn't relevant in the case of using what a company considers an infringement commercial asset. The 1st Ammendment is designed to prevent the government proscribing freedom of speech, not companies exercising control over what they consider to be intellectual property in a commecial venture.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But maybe the clothing rule still applies to computer games as RAF roundels will have been used many times before and, therefore, could fall into the same category as the public domain mod gear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good point. If the MoD has failed to protect the trademark in previous computer games over the years then it might have a hard time fighting for the right to a licensing fee in the future. But in that case I think a donation to the RAFA would be appropriate.

Aaron_GT
05-22-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps it should work the other way around, though? Someone has beat me to it, in a way, but why not *charge* the MoD etc for product placement of their brands in a game title </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure if they will get many sales that way.

"Dear Ministry of Defence,

I recently played a game entitled Battle of Britain featuring Spitfires and was very impressed. Could you please rush me a brochure of your available aircraft for sale.

A. Galland"

Capt.England
05-22-2005, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps it should work the other way around, though? Someone has beat me to it, in a way, but why not *charge* the MoD etc for product placement of their brands in a game title </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure if they will get many sales that way.

"Dear Ministry of Defence,

I recently played a game entitled Battle of Britain featuring Spitfires and was very impressed. Could you please rush me a brochure of your available aircraft for sale.

A. Galland" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

major_setback
05-22-2005, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hastatus:
....Model makers, TV shows, movies ect have for DECADES had a/c names and insignia appear...they have no claim to make. Its beyond stupid.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gaming magazine PC Pilot have also been keeping one eye on Maddox and 1c's legal 'issue'. They have printed acouple of articles on the subject recently.

Unfortunately even makers of plastic scale model kits have been harassed by corporate lawyers in the same way as 1c. This seems sadly to have become a trend:

Quote (from a reader€s letter in PC Pilot):
"I have just been reading the account of Nowthwrop Gwumman€s demands for royalties from a simware developer and thought that it was just plain greed. If developers succumb to this, what will be next?....This issue has recently cropped up in the world of scale modelling and has already led to some producers altering some features such as engraved tyre details so that large firms (e.g. Continental) cannot approach them..."
PC Pilot nr34

The above letter is referring to an earlier editorial in nr33 of PC Pilot, in which the editor outlines the legal issues between Maddox 1c, and Nowthwrop/Gwumman. The editorial is entitled "A Worrying Development". I will quote from it:

Quote:
€When one of our writers called us up just before Christmas to tell us what he'd been reading in the International Games Developers Association forum (www.igda.com (http://www.igda.com)) (sic) we weren't all that surprised. Nowthwrop Gwumman, it appears demanded (and apparently got) money from a publisher for using simulations of their aircraft in a recent sim by a 'Russian flight sim developer'. I'm sure you can guess who that might be€¦.
€¦.In spite of the obvious complexity of copyrighted-related issues, there's plenty here to give cause for concern....
....It is worrying to think that the publisher's reaction to Nowthwrop Gwumman's demands will eventually be seen as a test case for other companies who are now aware that there's money to be made from flight simulation and that a precedent has been set....You have to wonder, though, whether the rewards would be sufficiently high€¦An ideal €" albeit unlikely - outcome might be that we€ll see a new era of cooperation between manufacturers and developers€¦
....Experience tells us, however, that when large companies sniff some money coming their way and start to flex their corporate muscle in order to get it, common sense and what most of us might think of as reasonable behaviour aren't traditionally the main priorities."


The article was accompanied by a screenshot of a sinking SBD with the caption "Hopefully not the future of FS development". Let€s hope that they are right.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-22-2005, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps it should work the other way around, though? Someone has beat me to it, in a way, but why not *charge* the MoD etc for product placement of their brands in a game title </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure if they will get many sales that way.

"Dear Ministry of Defence,

I recently played a game entitled Battle of Britain featuring Spitfires and was very impressed. Could you please rush me a brochure of your available aircraft for sale.

A. Galland" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe..but you see my point. From the other side of the coin, 1C would be promoting a brand that the MoD have IP rights on; it's not like you'd be advertising the MoD's hardware but just the roundel brand.

Somehow, I doubt it would work, either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

bolillo_loco
05-23-2005, 02:54 AM
what!!!!! hum sounds like some usa lawyers and politicians have found their way into english government

hunhunter-texas
05-23-2005, 10:21 AM
I very much doubt that the RAF have registered EVERY one of their markings. I think I will find out which ones they haven't registered and copyright them in my name. Next time the RAF use one of MY markings, i'll sue THEM....see how they like being the victim of stupid laws http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

blakduk
05-23-2005, 07:13 PM
I think the critical issue is the legal point that was used in the original decision- failure to protect copyright previously. The time has long passed when the MOD could have made reasonable efforts to restrict the use of their ww2 insignia. As for the LW- who can claim on their behalf?
If they do succeed, i intend to launch a lawsuit on behalf of the Danes- everytime some kid makes a Viking longship or horned helmet there should be fair compensation (of which i shall take a percentage, it would reasonable compensation for my time and capitalist instincts).

Abbuzze
05-24-2005, 03:50 AM
Uaahaha, insane cr@p.

Unbelieveable, the Problem I see, if they don´t have a specified amount of fee, it will be much more expansive if you make a movie with some criticism, than a stupid propagandamovie, then they will help you with planes...

Hmm thats nothing the pentagon not allready does, but...

As the FRG is the assigne of the 3rd Reich maybe they should do the same for the swastika (if used in this context) and the german cross, so everytime Hollywood is making a stupid warmovie, they should take a fee and spend this money to the victims of nationalsocalism!!

This would maybe rise the quality of many movies, cause no idiotic and unnecessary Nazis will apear, and if they apear some money will be used for a good thing...

Did anyone of you saw "Bulletproof Monk"?

What about the cross of jesus, that would be a good idea for the vatican! Everytime a cross is in a movie - pay for it!!
Crusaders?? A bug for the pope!! Lot of money for the fight vs hunger in the world.

This world is getting more and more crazy...
What about use of old cars in movies... I have a lot of ideas!

VW-IceFire
05-24-2005, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
You have to agree with the MoD's action as, at the end of the day, it is their IP and they are well within their rights to try to protect it.

After all, the RAF roundel must rank highly as one of the easiest symbols to be recognised across the world and strong 'branding' like that is bound to attract protection. Incidentally, who owns the IP on the swastika? That must be one of the ultimate (negative) branding icons? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But maybe the clothing rule still applies to computer games as RAF roundels will have been used many times before and, therefore, could fall into the same category as the public domain mod gear.

Perhaps it should work the other way around, though? Someone has beat me to it, in a way, but why not *charge* the MoD etc for product placement of their brands in a game title just as people like BMW & Ericsson "pay" for their products to be used in Bond films etc.

That would be a nice solution to the problem with everyone being happy!

Cheers,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed.

I have nothing wrong with the MoD defending their IP rights. As with everything there are grey areas of the law and grey areas of precedent that exist and that I worry about.

For instance, if UBI were to have to pay to use every single representation of a historical object based on trademark for a virtual simulation then there would be no more flight sims a'tall. So what if they had to pay for the RAF roundel...what about the French? Or the American stars and bars (or just stars)? Or pay for all of them. And then they have to pay to use each plane...and so on and so forth. These are historical items being recreated virtually...

Its a grey area. Is it fair use? Maybe. Its a representation of history. The money made is on the code and artistry and not on the actual aircraft. When someone paints a picture of a Spitfire....do they pay Vickers (I guess BAE owns them now?) for the historical and artistic representation of an aircraft they designed?

I just worry that with the level of IP protection frenzy that continues to escalate that nobody will be able to do anything about anything anymore unless they already own the IP rights from long ago. Video games will have to be fictional only with no historical references or content that may be under someone elses IP protfolio. Thats what I worry about. Should I?

Vortex_79
01-24-2006, 12:17 PM
~S~

I originally posted this back in May last year and now it seems that the MOD has the RAF as a trade mark and licensed to 4kids entertainment (http://www.4kidsentertainment.com/properties/raf.html)

Here are the licensing details. (http://www.4kidsentertainment.com/services/lic_sales_cont.html)

How long before it filters down to the simming world is anyone's guess.

This came to light in the PPRUNE (Professional Pilots Rumour Network Forum. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=207796))

Philipscdrw
01-24-2006, 01:01 PM
That picture isn't Photoshopped as much as it is MSPainted...

Monty_Thrud
01-24-2006, 01:18 PM
My God!...you could invade Russia with those..and succeed where the Germans failed... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif..i say!.. my monitor seems to have steamed up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

FunGus1968
01-24-2006, 01:52 PM
What about this: who owns the specs?
Imagine if someone told game developers that they couldn't use plane specs or related info as a model for the sim?

It's sort of happening with fantasy baseball leagues.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060116-5984.html

berg417448
01-24-2006, 01:57 PM
The Australians are in on it too:

http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/organisation/info_on/units/brand/

Monty_Thrud
01-24-2006, 02:34 PM
HMMMFF!...i must have been hallucinating...i'm sure there were a pair of Roundalls uptop.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif..DOH!

Rattler68
01-24-2006, 02:39 PM
I'm gonna copyright the word "copyright" and all its derivations and permutaions. In this way, I'll be able to make big $$ just off of a thread like this! See, I made $10 off of this post alone (albeit my own money!)

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-24-2006, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
HMMMFF!...i must have been hallucinating...i'm sure there were a pair of Roundalls uptop.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif..DOH! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're probably being very closely inspected by an RAF snowdrop by now.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

russ.nl
01-24-2006, 02:45 PM
This is ridicules. What the hell do you pay taxis for then?
And I feal that goverments may not make money on military or national history. We (the people) have payed for that in lives and tax money.

uglyohyeah
01-24-2006, 02:50 PM
Aren't most roundels simply representations of the national flag. If I recall the RAF (RFC/RNAS) introduced the roundel because the union flag could be mistaken for the german cross too easily.

Is the Union Flag copyrighted?

Also do you honestly mean to tell me you can copyright a symbol as simple as a red circle, inside a white circle, inside a blue circle? I bet that symbol has been in use, long before the RAF adopted it.

LEBillfish
01-24-2006, 06:30 PM
Sorry........Hard news for the British Government but they cannot copyright something that has been in existance by virtually every nation going back thousands of years.....They can claim theirs is a special little flower....and they can call a rose by any other name.......

yet it's still a "Bullseye" for the rest of us http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Like I said.......Tell the MOD to

Sue me....... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif........

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/Me/flagsmall.jpg

The_Gog
01-24-2006, 07:02 PM
The RAAF has copyrighted the current roundel (Kangaroo inside circle) and that is all. Old roundels, like WW2 ones are not covered. I daresay that pre-current insignia are ok to use.

The_Gog
01-24-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by russ.nl:
This is ridicules. What the hell do you pay taxis for then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

**** right! I'm heading off now to bash a Taxi driver and tell him how I feel!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEBillfish
01-24-2006, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Gog:
The RAAF has copyrighted the current roundel (Kangaroo inside circle) and that is all. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nope....my great great great great grandpa was planning a trip to Austrailia and made a bullseye like that to practice hunting Kangaroo....I claim that one too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

jds1978
01-24-2006, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">russ.nl
Posted Tue January 24 2006 13:45
This is ridicules. What the hell do you pay taxis for then?
And I feal that goverments may not make money on military or national history. We (the people) have payed for that in lives and tax money </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exactly. How many Billions of Pounds get spent per year on Britain's Defense Budget? and don't get me started on NG. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-24-2006, 10:52 PM
Let em keep it. Flight sims from now on can use the similar French insignia on the Spits and Hurricanes, the Camels and the Hunters. Viva teh roundel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif