EA Sued For Battlefield 3 Helicopter Use

BF3 is popular and there is money to be had. Period. That's it. End of story. It's alll about the Benjamin's. If it were a shitty game, no one would give two shakes (any more and you're playing with it).
 
Advil said:
Where are we going with this?

In over 25 years of pc gaming, I've never heard of this happening. I cannot recall any news of anything even remotely like this.

Need for Speed was an entirely separate issue. This is playing war. We're not selling the military vehicles as "take a test drive, then buy one!" LOL! Product image to the public? Or what, they want money for using the likeness of their product?

Get real! Throughout the ages of "playing war" I've never heard of a weapons maker (vehicles or firearms) who doesn't simply appreciate the name recognition. Otherwise the public would never hear of it.
Click to expand...

Glock and H&K are known for going after people for using things that are even vaguely shaped like guns.
 
So in the future, either:

Game manufactures are going to have to pay unrealistic fees to every company that makes any piece of equipment shown in-game.

or

Game manufactures are going to stop using realistic weapons/vehicles/equipment in-game.

With games already costing $60 I'm not sure there is room for BS fees, and playing a game with fake generic equipment sounds lame.
 
maboblivion said:
hahahaha! I think EA's missing a good opportunity to make money.

Pay us "y" amount of money and we'll feature your "x" model of vehicle or weapon in our game.

Z= profit
Click to expand...
You have it backwards there. The Game developer pays Y amount of money to feature their X model of vehicle or weapon in their game.
Saturn_V said:
A military aircraft is no different from a exotic sports car (and VG creators have had to pay royalties to car manufacturer's for decades)
Click to expand...
Except the "VG creators" pay the car manufacturers a one time license fee to use the cars. They dont get royalties off every game sold. lol
Derangel said:
I want EA to lose. Not because they're in the wrong, but because they support SOPA. They're trying to hide behind the first amendment now while it is convenient for them at the same time they support a law that fucks with everyone else's rights. Fuck them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Like said before it would be hilarious is Bell used SOPA to beat them. Live by SOPA die by SOPA.
 
ljbade said:
At the end of the day EA will fork out a couple of billion/million and both sides will be happy. Not like EA will even notice the tiny dent a few billion/million would make.
Click to expand...

They can't afford to "fork out" a couple of billion. Look at the f/s
 
Last I checked, the A/MH-6 is a military designated helicopter. Which means, like the rest of any US military equipment, trademark patents are unenforceable on the name and likeness. All EA has to do is present previous case law, ask for legal damages, and walk home a few bucks richer at the expense of Bell trying to be dicks.
 
wizdum said:
Incomming patch that renames the " MH6 LittleBird" to the " LH6 Humming Bird" or something.

Fucking lawyers.
Click to expand...

Wasn't this the same reason they kept changing the names of the guns in counterstrike?
 
Here is a case that applies to model car replica: Ford make a Focus, however compagny X make a replica. Ford cannot sue compagny X because they are not in competition with ford. However Ford could if the packaging use the ford logo. Most of the time they just pay a 1$ symbolic fee to ford and offer a couple of replica for the CEO office; maybe thats what Bell/textron want : Free bf3 copies :)
 
On the bright side, it makes a damn good incentive to recreate BF 2142 with frosbite 2. Nobody to sue you if you create all your vehicles and weapons from imagination.
 
Sly said:
Wasn't this the same reason they kept changing the names of the guns in counterstrike?
Click to expand...

AFAIK Counter strike guns have been called the same. The commands regarding the guns in console are correct though. The new counter strike names the guns correctly.
 
TheCapulet said:
Last I checked, the A/MH-6 is a military designated helicopter. Which means, like the rest of any US military equipment, trademark patents are unenforceable on the name and likeness. All EA has to do is present previous case law, ask for legal damages, and walk home a few bucks richer at the expense of Bell trying to be dicks.
Click to expand...
^^^ This.

I'm not sure that EA will get damages (all you'd have at that point are preliminary lawyers' fees- which even then may be substantial), but Bell really doesn't have a leg to stand on considering it's a US Military piece of equipment.

Now, if EA had used something like a Sikorsky S76 in BF3 we would be in a different situation.
 
TheCapulet said:
Last I checked, the A/MH-6 is a military designated helicopter. Which means, like the rest of any US military equipment, trademark patents are unenforceable on the name and likeness. All EA has to do is present previous case law, ask for legal damages, and walk home a few bucks richer at the expense of Bell trying to be dicks.
Click to expand...

The MH-6 is not what Textron is suing over since they didn't design or build the MH-6.

Textron is suing because of the Bell UH-1 and AH-1.
 
Advil said:
Where are we going with this?

In over 25 years of pc gaming, I've never heard of this happening. I cannot recall any news of anything even remotely like this.

Need for Speed was an entirely separate issue. This is playing war. We're not selling the military vehicles as "take a test drive, then buy one!" LOL! Product image to the public? Or what, they want money for using the likeness of their product?

Get real! Throughout the ages of "playing war" I've never heard of a weapons maker (vehicles or firearms) who doesn't simply appreciate the name recognition. Otherwise the public would never hear of it.
Click to expand...

Same here.

If they win I want to have my MP5 in the damn game!
 
Companies pay to have products put in movies as props, yet video game makers are getting sued..... They're fucking doing it wrong.
 
Elios said:
the UH-1 has a Genreal Aviation version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_204/205
they charge a licence fee for people that make RC heli bodys of there helis as well
Click to expand...

They also charge a license fee to entities that make plastic scale model aircraft kits too. Not just Bell either, Boeing and Lockheed Martin also charge license (AND royalty) fees for kitting their aircraft too.

Plastic_model_kits. There's no money there compared to computer & video games.
 
Saturn_V said:
They also charge a license fee to entities that make plastic scale model aircraft kits too. Not just Bell either, Boeing and Lockheed Martin also charge license (AND royalty) fees for kitting their aircraft too.

Plastic_model_kits. There's no money there compared to computer & video games.
Click to expand...

also for scale bodies for RC helis as well
 
German Muscle said:
AFAIK Counter strike guns have been called the same. The commands regarding the guns in console are correct though. The new counter strike names the guns correctly.
Click to expand...

You say they stayed the same, but then confirm that they changed the names ;)
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
I hope EA wins and it sets a precedent.

Last time I checked, movie studios don't have to gain permission from every vehicle manufacturer featured.
Click to expand...

They don't and EA will probably win this. Unless Bell has a copyright on the shape of the helicopter, they really can't win. There's already precedent set by vehicles being used in other games and TV/Movies. If Bell wins, then all manufactures of any item ever shown on TV, Movies, or games will be able to sue.
Think about the ramifications. That old piece of shit winnibago in Independence Day would entitle the company to sue the studio for millions, then I think it's McDonnell Douglas that made the F18 that was prominent in it.
 
This happened to Ubisoft due to planes used in IL2 but Ubisoft being the wonderful people that they are passed the buck on to the developer of the game so it was no longer their problem. I think the developer had to pay the license fees in the end.
 
Lebowski said:
They don't and EA will probably win this. Unless Bell has a copyright on the shape of the helicopter, they really can't win. There's already precedent set by vehicles being used in other games and TV/Movies. If Bell wins, then all manufactures of any item ever shown on TV, Movies, or games will be able to sue.
Think about the ramifications. That old piece of shit winnibago in Independence Day would entitle the company to sue the studio for millions, then I think it's McDonnell Douglas that made the F18 that was prominent in it.
Click to expand...

funny thing about aircraft is you tend to have copyrights on the shape
 
The shape, body style, silhouette, and appearance is considered "trade dress" by the aerospace industry.

I want Bell to lose. They probably will lose since it's near impossible to prove damages from the unlicensed IP use. But going to court is enough to nudge conditions in favor of the IP holder industry-wide. Developers will pay license and/or royalties to avoid a fight- and that cost is passed on to us.
 
Saturn_V said:
. They probably will lose since it's near impossible to prove damages from the unlicensed IP use.
Click to expand...
Are you freaking kidding me? They'll just pull out the RIAA/MPAA stylized 10E7 times the GDP of the world figures that EA has been party to in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top