Humvee Maker Sues Activision over “Call of Duty”

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The maker of Humvee military vehicles has filed a lawsuit accusing Activision Blizzard of reaping billions of dollars of revenue by incorporating its trademarks without permission in its flagship “Call of Duty” video game franchise. AM General LLC accused Activision of taking advantage of its goodwill and reputation in the “Humvee” and “HMMWV” marks by featuring them prominently in “Call of Duty,” and licensing related content for use in toys and books.

Activision has said “Call of Duty” last year was the world’s largest video game console franchise, and North America’s largest for the eighth straight year. But AM General said that success came “only at the expense of AM General and consumers who are deceived into believing that AM General licenses the games or is somehow connected with or involved in the creation of the games.”
 
Call of Duty's use of the Humvee "is a key selling feature of the games"
​
NastyElderlyDarklingbeetle-size_restricted.gif
 
Some ideas are so dumb that the responsible party should be imprisoned for letting that thought out of their head.
 
In USA you can appearently sue everything, doesn't that mean you can also sue stupidity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: _l_
like this
Activision should turn around and sue them for using their name in a sentence without prior authorization.
 
Logic seems to dictate that this falls under fair use. Could you imagine how impossibly expensive it would be to make a military game if you had to pay royalties for every piece of military hardware?
 
So does this mean that Call of Duty and other games need to get permission from gun makers for all the guns they model and use the sounds for?
 
NeoNemesis said:
Logic seems to dictate that this falls under fair use. Could you imagine how impossibly expensive it would be to make a military game if you had to pay royalties for every piece of military hardware?
Click to expand...
nope it's not fair use, why do you think GTA Chops cars. all racing games(Forza, Gran Turismo) etc have to licence BMW, Mercedes, Toyota etc why should COD be exempt.
 
RogueTadhg said:
So does this mean that Call of Duty and other games need to get permission from gun makers for all the guns they model and use the sounds for?
Click to expand...

kind of...

Many of the newer weapons in use right now seem to have royalties associated with the name, so game makers work around it by using a similar sounding name.
Like in PUBG, the "HK416" is called the "M416"
however, other weapons seem to have no royalty attached to the name, and are named their proper name. "SCAR-L" is a "SCAR-L"

I have no idea what has royalties attached to their names, because in PUBG, the "M1911" is called the "P1911".
Copyright/trademark law would normally suggest that 20yrs is the limit for trademarks, if it can be called that at all.
 
Sakkie said:
You would think a big company like that knows to get clearance before they use a brand in their product. Their own fault and Humvee has every right to sue if it wasn't cleared.
Click to expand...

how does rockstar get away with it?
 
MrDeaf said:
kind of...

Many of the newer weapons in use right now seem to have royalties associated with the name, so game makers work around it by using a similar sounding name.
Like in PUBG, the "HK416" is called the "M416"
however, other weapons seem to have no royalty attached to the name, and are named their proper name. "SCAR-L" is a "SCAR-L"

I have no idea what has royalties attached to their names, because in PUBG, the "M1911" is called the "P1911".
Copyright/trademark law would normally suggest that 20yrs is the limit for trademarks, if it can be called that at all.
Click to expand...
They no longer pay gun royalties, its is free advertising for gun makers. EA used to pay them but they stopped doing it.
 
Its perfectly fine that they are suing. With that said, im salty over Squad (niche fps shooter) being forced to change their Humvee model to MAT-V over the potential of being sued.
 
Deathroned said:
They Chop cars, read my reply to him, they take two different cars and meld them together.
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily even chopping cars. You cannot patent/copyright/trademark a shape, however complex. So you could theoretically create a vehicle that is identical to a Humvee and use that in-game. But as soon as you put the Humvee name on it, then you have to ask for permission or it's going to be a problem. That's why a lot of racing games used to feature RUF instead of Porsche because the cars had the same body and look, they just didn't come with the name 'Porsche' attached to them. But to the average Joe Blow gamer, it was a Porsche.

The reason Rockstar chops cars is because it gets them even further away from the potential of a legal battle and it's a fantasy game anyway so people don't really care if the game doesn't have brand X of car in it.

SighTurtle said:
Its perfectly fine that they are suing. With that said, im salty over Squad (niche fps shooter) being forced to change their Humvee model to MAT-V over the potential of being sued.
Click to expand...

If they did get sued, they'd probably win. But I can understand why they changed it because even the threat of a legal battle is something they'd never be able to deal with because they don't have loads of cash and lawyers to go to battle for them.
 
So every flight simulator ever owes money to aircraft manufactures? Give me a break. You take a contract with the US military to produce weapon platforms paid for by public money you give up all trademark claims. It no longer belongs to you, it belongs to America. :p
 
Watch Activision issue franchise wide retro-active patches that change the appearance slightly and remove any reference to Humvee. I think they would rather burn dev hours than pay money on a lawsuit. Then again, what do I know, I am not a corporate lawyer.
 
Nah, they are wrong.

This is fair use.

If you want to realistically depict a scene this is fair game.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Nah, they are wrong.

This is fair use.

If you want to realistically depict a scene this is fair game.
Click to expand...

For sake of argument, why then must racing games license manufacturers and models? If you want to realistically depict a race on a race track.
 
Taldren said:
So every flight simulator ever owes money to aircraft manufactures? Give me a break. You take a contract with the US military to produce weapon platforms paid for by public money you give up all trademark claims. It no longer belongs to you, it belongs to America. :p
Click to expand...

Actually they do. Every the more arcadey style games like Ace Combat pay and that is why you see manufacture logos at the start. For real flight sims if you don't get a license you can get shut down. You can very easily violate a number of laws not even related to copyright. It is part of the reason why certain planes simply can't get a flight sim made.
 
Flogger23m said:
Actually they do. Every the more arcadey style games like Ace Combat pay and that is why you see manufacture logos at the start. For real flight sims if you don't get a license you can get shut down. You can very easily violate a number of laws not even related to copyright. It is part of the reason why certain planes simply can't get a flight sim made.
Click to expand...

See, I understand this if you are making a model specific sim, and name it something to do with the plane...

But if you are just depicting a battle scene, and there happen to be Humvee's in it, that seems kind of ridiculous.

If this were enforced across the board, you couldn't make any movie or any game without paying licenses to the maker of any product that happens to fall into view in the scene. Even the clothes actors wear could require a license. It's quite frankly bull. If you manufacture and put a product on the market, it should be a free-for-all to use its image to depict realistic scenes in which it might occur.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
If this were enforced across the board, you couldn't make any movie or any game without paying licenses to the maker of any product that happens to fall into view in the scene. Even the clothes actors wear could require a license. It's quite frankly bull. If you manufacture and put a product on the market, it should be a free-for-all to use its image to depict realistic scenes in which it might occur.
Click to expand...

It's why you see laptop logos and car logos in shows covered up all the time
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
See, I understand this if you are making a model specific sim, and name it something to do with the plane...

But if you are just depicting a battle scene, and there happen to be Humvee's in it, that seems kind of ridiculous.

If this were enforced across the board, you couldn't make any movie or any game without paying licenses to the maker of any product that happens to fall into view in the scene. Even the clothes actors wear could require a license. It's quite frankly bull. If you manufacture and put a product on the market, it should be a free-for-all to use its image to depict realistic scenes in which it might occur.
Click to expand...

In movies, those companies pay money to have their products in the films. It's called Product Placement.
 
86 5.0L said:
It's why you see laptop logos and car logos in shows covered up all the time
Click to expand...
That isn't because of trademark, it's because the producers aren't getting paid to promote the product so they cover up the names/logos.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Logic seems to dictate that this falls under fair use. Could you imagine how impossibly expensive it would be to make a military game if you had to pay royalties for every piece of military hardware?
Click to expand...

Not fair use in the slightest. For ex. cars and licenses to use brand name cars in oh racing games.

Zarathustra[H] said:
See, I understand this if you are making a model specific sim, and name it something to do with the plane...

But if you are just depicting a battle scene, and there happen to be Humvee's in it, that seems kind of ridiculous.

If this were enforced across the board, you couldn't make any movie or any game without paying licenses to the maker of any product that happens to fall into view in the scene. Even the clothes actors wear could require a license. It's quite frankly bull. If you manufacture and put a product on the market, it should be a free-for-all to use its image to depict realistic scenes in which it might occur.
Click to expand...

It is enforced. Try making a racing game and use Ferrari and Porsche cars and see what happens?
 
thesmokingman said:
Not fair use in the slightest. For ex. cars and licenses to use brand name cars in oh racing games.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to separate the brand from the US military. The reality is that you can't develop a modern military game without featuring modern military equipment.

I have no idea how the courts will rule on this, but from my perspective it should be a non-issue.
 
This is dumb. It's a symptom of our American disease.


TL;DR -----------


The term 'High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle' ('HMMWV' or 'Humvee') is not the property of AM General, it was the description used in the Pentagon's project specifications before any company was allowed to submit a proposal for manufacture. The name 'Hummer' wasn't an AM General creation, it was a nickname given by the soldiers who tested the vehicle, and it was a derogatory nickname, since at that time a 'hummer' was slang for a blowjob ("something really sucks here, but I'm not enjoying it.") Humvee's had early problems, and when asked about the vehicle, if a soldier wanted to be cute he might say, "This Hummer has a lot of teeth, sir." 'Hummer' wasn't always a popular name, and around 1984 the Army Times, the Pentagon press corps, and the soldiers who would be operating the early production models were asked not to refer to it as 'the Hummer'.

AM General is not the owner of the model number "M998" or "M1114", those are military model designations assigned by the Pentagon.

AM General did not pay for the development of the Humvee. The American people did. AM General sold off the rights for civilian manufacture, including copyrights for the same, to General Motors, who dissolved the Hummer brand during the financial crisis.

In any case, the sale of an item to the military causes it to pass through a type of barrier. In comparison, when Dodge started selling civilian pickups to the Army in 1976, those trucks stopped being a Dodge pickup and became an M890 5/4 ton truck (often called a "five-quarter", or sometimes called "that piece of shit five-quarter", since the 1970's era pickups that Dodge sold to the military were horrid.) Once the military folded those trucks into their TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) they were no longer Dodge trucks. As I type this I'm looking at an Army manual for an M880, and there is no mention of Dodge or Chrysler Corporation until the last page. My question is, does anyone think that EA is making a game about AM General trucks? Or are they making a game about the US military? AM General certainly doesn't own any rights to depictions of the US military.

Does AM General have any other rights to sue? Call of Duty is a game using a fictional representation of the US military. For the purposes of fiction (and the game) the US military is a public figure that holds very few rights concerning trademark and ownership of image, and it has almost no protections against defamation, slander or libel. As best I know (I'm not a lawyer) for AM General to claim recompense for the depiction of common military equipment they would need to prove either 1) that they were defamed, and that because of the game people no longer wanted to buy Humvee, or 2) that they were denied revenue because EA was unfairly promoting a conflicting product. Both those ideas seem unlikely, but it is the reason that licensing is so stringent in racing sims.

(When EA first started making Need For Speed they got in trouble for depicting crashes - car companies didn't like visualizations of their cars exploding. There were also arguments among car brands about whose car was the better performer. EA has usually gone to neutral third parties for the setup of the cars in the game. None of this should mean anything to the Humvee.)

Finally, we have a whole question of precedence. If AM General wins this suit, does it mean they need to be paid when someone uses a Humvee in a movie or TV show? The answer is, "no." A Humvee used in a film is someone's property, and their ownership allows them to grant license for the vehicle and the vehicle's image to be used as they see fit. But does this mean that if I write a book about the military I have pay AM General for the rights to use the word 'Humvee'? Or I have to buy my own Humvee, and reference only that one? Well... It actually could, especially if I defame the Humvee, but that's crazy, and I hope someone in the court system realizes that. Aside from that, though, the argument should be that EA is allowed to use the image of the Humvee by proxy. EA doesn't own a real military Humvee, but the US military owns thousands of them, and EA is depicting the military's ownership, not AM General. Think of it like this: EA doesn't own their own Humvee, but they asked the US military if they could use the image of several of theirs, and the US military, as a public figure with no rights of trademark or image, was unable to say no.

My biggest question is, why did AM General wait until after the money was made to bring this suit? If AM General wins any portion of this suit, I think that EA should file a counter suit claiming that since AM General waited until the check was in the bank, they are only entitled to comparable licensing fees agreed upon before development of a game began.

But I digress....

/TL;DR
 
Kinda conflicted on how to feel about this. It seems a rather stupid lawsuit to bring considering a lot of the nomenclature didn't originate with AM General. On the other hand, Blizzard has been quick to wield the copyright/trademark hammer to smash a lot of folk's attempts to do anything with Blizzard properties. Maybe this is karma's response.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Kinda conflicted on how to feel about this. It seems a rather stupid lawsuit to bring considering a lot of the nomenclature didn't originate with AM General. On the other hand, Blizzard has been quick to wield the copyright/trademark hammer to smash a lot of folk's attempts to do anything with Blizzard properties. Maybe this is karma's response.
Click to expand...

The reason I'm sort of on the fence is that it seems like plenty of time has gone by since cod came out. How many games have featured humvees, yet am general brings this up now? For that reason it feels like a cash grab, regardless of who's in the right.
 
This is not what trademarks are for.

Trademarks were created so that nobody could create a competing product and make people think it was made by you. They were not created so that you could get royalties every time someone spoke about your product.

The logic that "AM General consumers [...] are deceived into believing that AM General licenses the games" is so twisted that it is simply laughable. NONE of your consumers care! It doesn't affect them in any conceivable way!
 
If CoD was using official logos and claiming official vehicles in the game without official authorization, it's an official fuckup. If it's just a military likeness, AMGeneral has nothing.
 
NeoNemesis said:
It's impossible to separate the brand from the US military. The reality is that you can't develop a modern military game without featuring modern military equipment.

I have no idea how the courts will rule on this, but from my perspective it should be a non-issue.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of precedence on this from racing games to sports games, cycling games etc etc. I see all these ppl with beef with this because everyone needs to argue a side lol. Some NBA games are missing certain players because those players haven't signed a license with the NBA Players Union. Some cars are missing from Assetto Corsa because a deal was never struck for licensing until players demanded it enough to make it worthwhile for them to pay the fee.

The only question seems to be if the IP in question is trademarked or not. Yall seem to think it's not and yet AM thinks they are. It should be squared away easily...

http://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/assetto-corsa-welcomes-porsche.33544/

https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23...ar-licensing-agreements-with-2k-and-ea-sport/

https://attackofthefanboy.com/news/porsche-and-ea-vs-ferrari-and-microsoft/

For ex. in Pro Cycling Manager, even race routes are changed not to mention the complete absence of real rider names due to licensing.

There are many races that follow the correct route but for some reason, likely licensing related, the name of the race is changed in a way similar to those of the riders who are not included.
Click to expand...

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/4458/Pro-Cycling-Manager-2014/
 
What a crock of shit !! How exactly are Humvee out of pocket by having a digital copy of their vehicle in a computer game ?? Are all other vehicle manufacturers going to follow suit where their vehicles have been depicted in games ?? It smacks of greed to me.
 
My question is: why wait with suing until now?
It's not like the CoD series has been relatively unknown until now. Have they lived in a bunker... Oh... Well that's not impossible. :sneaky:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top