PDA

View Full Version : Copyright Question



JediChris77
06-06-2007, 07:31 AM
Does Northrop-Grumman own the copyright to the WW2 carrier Enterprise or the modern version?

Or do the claim copyright on the name "Enterprise"?

Their web page is not specific.

JediChris77
06-06-2007, 07:44 AM
Ooops! I meant to post this in the general thread (mods please move)

WWSensei
06-06-2007, 07:50 AM
Copyright isn't that relevant. It's whatever they may have Trademarked. The two are not synonymous. It would not make legal sense for them to trademark just the word "Enterprise". (Besides, Paramount would be amore likely to try and do that given the Star Trek franchise).

Likenesses or images or use thereof of the WW2 Carrier "Enterprise" might be, but even general use of that term isn't going to be restricted.

Use of the name "Northup-Grumman" would be trademarked and copyrighted and would most likely result in a licensing fee.

MaxMhz
06-06-2007, 08:01 AM
Sensei is right. You can not claim copyright to any single or multiple word(s) that are generally used. If you could I would copyright 'a' 'the', and ofcause the letter e today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - pay-up you s*ers! lol
International copyrights are regulated through WTO treaties and not all countries have signed those. Anyway local national law will allways take precedence when copyright is involved.
Most if not all copyright law is under review at the present because it is doing more harm than good the way it is regulated today...

JediChris77
06-06-2007, 08:09 AM
Thank you for the reply.

A couple of weeks ago I read that SHIV didn't include the Enterprise carrier because of copyright.

I was lurking here and read a post alluding to the "issue" of PF release and I decided to look up some info as I was curious what N-G claimed the copyright to

I was also curious if they (NG) claimed TM or Copyright to the WWII Enterprise, as this seems against U.S. copyright law.

From NG:
Northrop Grumman Corporation recognizes that the copyright in a photograph, illustration or painting of a vehicle is owned by the photographer, illustrator or artist, respectively (absent a contractual arrangement otherwise). At the same time, Northrop Grumman, as the manufacturer, owns the trademarks (e.g. "F-14", "Corsair," "Enterprise") in the vehicles it makes. Under the trademark laws of the United States and other countries, a trademark owner risks losing trademark rights if others use those trademarks without permission.

However, according to Title 17 of the United States Code:

1302 (Vessel Designation)
Protection under this chapter shall not be available for a design that is -
(1) not original;
(2) staple or commonplace, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration which has become standard, common, prevalent, or ordinary;
(3) different from a design excluded by paragraph (2) only in insignificant details or in elements which are variants commonly used in the relevant trades;
(4) dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article that embodies it; or
(5) embodied in a useful article that was made public by the designer or owner in the United States or a foreign country more than 2 years before the date of the application for registration under this chapter.
Since it was not an original design (WW2 era), it would seem to be excluded, after all it is Yorktown class, not Enterprise.

P.S. The name Enterprise definitely pre-dates Star Trek.

JediChris77
06-06-2007, 08:12 AM
I just noticed the key word "Trademark" in the second sentence.

JediChris77
06-06-2007, 08:17 AM
Okay, so if they own the trademark to Enterprise, does it only pertain to the modern carrier (and possibly WW2)?

They can't possibly own it as a ship name period. The first USS Enterprise certainly existed before N-G.

MaxMhz
06-06-2007, 08:22 AM
All intellectual property can be transfered. This includes Copyright, Trademark, Patents etc. The normal span of copyright/trademark differs per country but is in the range of untill 50 - 80 years after the original owner of the right dies (if there is no transfer involved that is. If there is things get realy complicated - ask a lawyer)

JediChris77
06-06-2007, 08:28 AM
Yes it can be transfered, but the first Enterprise was built in 1775, which is well past 80 years.

I did a little more searching, and the only reference I can find with N-G, refers to the modern carrier CVN-65.

I was just curious if CV-6 was trademarked/copyrighted as its such a historical ship.

MaxMhz
06-06-2007, 08:45 AM
Big firms have a tendancy to claim itellectual property on anything they ever saw, heard or smelled. It's not the copy/trademark etc. It's the years, maybe decades of legal battles and nitwitting and insane monetary damage claims that scares off potential breachers of intellectual rights

-HH-Quazi
06-06-2007, 01:41 PM
Moved per your request sir.

DuxCorvan
06-06-2007, 01:50 PM
Newport News, the shipbuilders of Yorktown and Enterprise, are now property of NG.

In fact, Vladimir had a ready Yorktown for PF somewhere, that he had to scratch due to the 'problem'.

The new Enterprise is also their design.

So, well, they don't own the name 'Enterprise' -the trekkies would be angry- but they own the designs of those ships and -it seems- you cannot put them in a sim... in this sim at least.

For your info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Newport_News

striker-85
06-06-2007, 02:50 PM
I can undrstand the trademark or copyright on the actual carrier design (I guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif) BUT I don't see how they can have any claim to the "Enterprise" or "Yorktown" name or any name for that matter other than internal desinations.

I thought it was the USN or US Gov that named the ships, not the manufacturer. If that is the case how can NG hold claim to those names?

Wasn't the root of the problem that they used the NG name on the box and that is what caused the problem to begin with? My understanding is that most sims will only use the desinations like F4F or Wildcat but this game got into trouble because they actually used the Grumman name on their original Pacifc Fighters package, as in "Grumman F4F Wildcat".

VW-IceFire
06-06-2007, 02:53 PM
Lets all step back a minute and remember that the trademark issue is still partly hearsay. The reason we didn't get the SB2C Helldiver for instance was because the 3D model that was done for it was not up to technical standards. That could very well be the case with the Yorktown class carriers as well. Remember that PF was done using third party modeling support and that process failed to a certain extent and Oleg's modelers stepped in to save things at the last minute.

striker-85
06-06-2007, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by striker-85:
this game got into trouble because they actually used the Grumman name on their original Pacifc Fighters package, as in "Grumman F4F Wildcat".

By trouble I mean that once the package was released with Grumman's name on it the lawyers stepped in and we have been saddled with whatever settlement they decided on ever since.

MaxMhz
06-06-2007, 03:10 PM
The whole discussion as far as implementing new vehicles in the FB series is obsolete at this point in time since UBI/1C:Maddox et al have moved on to the SoW series anyway. Let's not forget this sim is not the only thing suffering though - model aircraft manufacturers etc. have to deal with the same thing. Even M$ had problems with their train simulator (Union Pacific etc. claimed intellectual copyright infringement there...
Even the RAF tried to copyright their roundel and extort money from a T-shirt maker that printed it on it's shirts. They were thrown out of the British court when they tried - that's the way it should go lol.

berg417448
06-06-2007, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by MaxMhz:

Even the RAF tried to copyright their roundel and extort money from a T-shirt maker that printed it on it's shirts. They were thrown out of the British court when they tried - that's the way it should go lol.

The MOD actually only lost with respect to clothing. According to the article I read, they were granted " the sole rights to use the roundel, which appears on all RAF aircraft, on items other than clothing such as military hardware. "

A quote from the MOD spokesman:

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

DuxCorvan
06-06-2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Lets all step back a minute and remember that the trademark issue is still partly hearsay. The reason we didn't get the SB2C Helldiver for instance was because the 3D model that was done for it was not up to technical standards. That could very well be the case with the Yorktown class carriers as well. Remember that PF was done using third party modeling support and that process failed to a certain extent and Oleg's modelers stepped in to save things at the last minute.

Man, I wasn't inventing it. I remember when SaQSoN announced his Yorktown wasn't to make it -in the now offline Netwings development forum- and SaQSoN is no 3rd party, AFAIK.

Stew278
06-06-2007, 06:44 PM
Looks like the Military Toy Replica Act might still be getting debated in the House of Reps as of Feb. '07. Here's the links

http://www.hmahobby.com/legislature.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00607:@@@L&summ2=m&

Of course this still might not cover the use of trademarked names like N-G. But at least model manufacturers wouldn't be having to pay licensing fees to a multi billion dollar defense contractor simply for using the likeness of or using the military designation F6F Hellcat.

Then again, defense contractors are a powerful lobby with lots of lawyers; I suspect this this bill is doomed to be rejected. The bill seems fair to us as flight simmers and model builders, but to companies like N-G it would mean the loss of thousands of $$$ (a big pinch for a multi-$billion company right?).

It might seem like common sense to us for Congress to pass this bill, but when has the legal system ever relied on common sense?

Copperhead310th
06-06-2007, 09:51 PM
and it reamians to be seen as to weather or not we may aver see any of these types in a Maddox sim ever again. up to & including the SoW series. I would love to hear something offical on that from the powers that be.
but i ain't holding my damn breath for one second on that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-06-2007, 10:13 PM
As for the Defense Ministry's "trademark" on the British roundel, just swap inside and outside colours and call it RAF. Justice. That's how they want it, they got it.

WOLFMondo
06-07-2007, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by JediChris77:
Yes it can be transfered, but the first Enterprise was built in 1775, which is well past 80 years.


The first Enterprise being recorded in service was a French ship later captured by the British in 1705 and called HMS Enterprise.

Why some company should have rights over history is completely daft.

Whats also daft is NG throwing away free advertsing by having there 'product' in a game. Its a sad state of affairs and not the fault of game makers but the trademark system in the US. Thankfully this sim is made in Russia and published by a French company...

MEGILE
06-07-2007, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
That's how they want it, they got it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

hheee

Oleg didn't add the Swastika to the Messers, so maybe he could do that to the RAF.

ploughman
06-07-2007, 03:32 AM
How come Boeing isn't having the heebie-jeebies but NG is?

PB0_shadow
06-08-2007, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Stew278:
Looks like the Military Toy Replica Act might still be getting debated in the House of Reps as of Feb. '07. Here's the links

http://www.hmahobby.com/legislature.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00607:@@@L&summ2=m&

Of course this still might not cover the use of trademarked names like N-G. But at least model manufacturers wouldn't be having to pay licensing fees to a multi billion dollar defense contractor simply for using the likeness of or using the military designation F6F Hellcat.

Then again, defense contractors are a powerful lobby with lots of lawyers; I suspect this this bill is doomed to be rejected. The bill seems fair to us as flight simmers and model builders, but to companies like N-G it would mean the loss of thousands of $$$ (a big pinch for a multi-$billion company right?).

It might seem like common sense to us for Congress to pass this bill, but when has the legal system ever relied on common sense?

Not sure that the act would cover Video Games....

Stew278
06-08-2007, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by PB0_shadow:

Not sure that the act would cover Video Games....

I don't know if it would either, but it would set a precedent if it passed. The video game manufacturers could then argue that if scale model manufacturers don't have to pay licensing fees for the name/likeness of military equipment, then surely it would seem unfair to charge them for creating virtual models of the same.

Besides which, judging by the model builders thread here I'd say a fair number of people here are hobbyists and I brought it up in case anyone was interested.

PB0_shadow
06-08-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Stew278:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PB0_shadow:

Not sure that the act would cover Video Games....

I don't know if it would either, but it would set a precedent if it passed. The video game manufacturers could then argue that if scale model manufacturers don't have to pay licensing fees for the name/likeness of military equipment, then surely it would seem unfair to charge them for creating virtual models of the same.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They may use that, true; but books, for instance are already exempted from those licenses (ie, you don't have to pay licenses fees if you mention Grumann F4F in a book....)

Let's hope it works out well....