EA Sued For Battlefield 3 Helicopter Use

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Why risk a lawsuit like this when making a "generic" helicopter would have been so much easier than dealing with lawyers, court costs and running the risk of an unfavorable ruling?

EA's legal talks with Textron, the parent company of Bell Helicopter, broke down. In response, EA filed the action in a Northern California federal court on Friday. EA claims the helicopters are "protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use." It also notes that the packaging includes a disclaimer that its use of weapons and vehicles is not an official endorsement of the manufacturers.
Click to expand...
 
I meant that I appreciate them using the real deal. "Why" seems like a silly question to ask. Because it's badass, that's why.
 
They look so bad ass though. And I love that feeling when you're holding a point by yourself, and completely out gunned, when all of a sudden a Little Bird comes out of nowhere and does about 2 passes lighting up the enemy.
 
Heh, maybe they'll be able to take down the EA website under SOPA. :p
 
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
 
heh EA is going to lose this one
if you make a sim of any kinda with a real aircraft in it you need to get permission from the manufacturer
 
Imagine the possibilities for racing sims if they win. Any car, in any game, no royalties.
 
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...

Product placement isn't really worth it for something like an army helicopter. Not a lot of buyers will order some because they saw it in a video game...
 
Seeing the linked article in the article, I think EA is just trying to see how far it can go.
 
Elios said:
heh EA is going to lose this one
if you make a sim of any kinda with a real aircraft in it you need to get permission from the manufacturer
Click to expand...

They should know this already from the NFS games :p
 
Elios said:
heh EA is going to lose this one
if you make a sim of any kinda with a real aircraft in it you need to get permission from the manufacturer
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrPatate said:
Product placement isn't really worth it for something like an army helicopter. Not a lot of buyers will order some because they saw it in a video game...
Click to expand...

In which case, you aren't losing anything either by having it in a video game...
 
Lith1um said:
Imagine the possibilities for racing sims if they win. Any car, in any game, no royalties.
Click to expand...

EA's definitely gonna lose this. If they were as 'confident' of their legal rights then they would have tried to save legal costs by not even talking/negotiating with the manufacturer and just used it no questions asked (as in the NCAA story).

Plus there is a strong precedent set in the video/film/TV industry where you get permission and pay royalties if you directly profit from that car's market power. Hence why the majority of racing games have a long line of trademark and copyright messages in the credits for cars they use.

If EA had used a 'generic' model ie GTA where they car looks 'familiar' but does not have any branding etc. then they might have been able to get away from it.

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.
 
Ridiculous.

What's next? Suing newscasters cause a model of car/helicopter appears on screen? :rolleyes:
 
It's not really about "product placement" or "free exposure." It's about Bell Helicopter & Textron protecting its IP. (lawyers aren't doing their job if they're not zealously defending their client's IP) It's not public domain, even if Amercian tax dollars paid for the hardware. 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)

I don't like it either. But I've seen this battle fought and lost before.
 
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...

I agree. Although, granted, to actually USE a real vehicle in a movie does required that you BUY said vehicle. So there is really no reason for manufacturers to be upset about that. They get paid for the vehicle and they get free advertising.

Using the likeness of their vehicle in a game doesn't net them any sales. But then, I'm of the opinion, "too damn bad". Unless the manufacturer is providing useful information, design drawings, etc., then the "likeness" of the vehicle is really not that valuable.

And the OP said it well himself - you could have just used a generic helicopter and it wouldn't make any difference. Yes, and that is why the actual likeness of a Bell helicopter is of no ACTUAL value.
 
Saturn_V said:
It's not really about "product placement" or "free exposure." It's about Bell Helicopter & Textron protecting its IP. (lawyers aren't doing their job if they're not zealously defending their client's IP) It's not public domain, even if Amercian tax dollars paid for the hardware. 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)

I don't like it either. But I've seen this battle fought and lost before.
Click to expand...
The thing is, though, for a helicopter manufacturer, their IP is actually the helicopters they design and build. Not the "likeness" of it in a picture. There may be precedent in the industry for it, but I don't see the actual value here.

Frankly, I'd like to see Bell win and the court award them $1. Yes, EA has to pay for the actual value of using the likeness of your product. However, that value is almost nil.
 
Except that this is not a flight sim. It's a first-person shooter that happens to have some vehicles in it. Is Hummer suing them for using a vehicle that looks like a HumV? No. Is General Dynamics suing for the use of the A1-Abrams? No.

It is actually quite likely that EA will win this suit. They are not "featuring" the vehicle like you would be featuring a specific sports car in a racing game.
 
see this is why i hate the current copy right and ip laws in this country... why instead of Sony TVs you get Somy TVs or instead of Budweiser you see some other weird name in comics and games.

Companies suing cause they didnt approve the placement of the product in a show/game/book is stupid. if you release said product into the public, then any depiction of public use/consumption should be approved by default.

The real world product/item in question is not used to sell the book/game. it is a prop that is used by the protagonist/antagonist/cast & characters in said fictional work.

Just add an f'ing disclaimer at the end of the book or at the very front where you have the print edition info.
 
M Bison said:
Is Hummer suing them for using a vehicle that looks like a HumV? No. Is General Dynamics suing for the use of the A1-Abrams? No.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if EA does not have permission or some sort of licencing/royalty deal with those companies, as it appears EA was actively negotiating with companies about the vehicles in its game.

If EA has not secured deals with all the other companies then their CEO may be finding it hard to sleep as I'm sure there will be a queue of lawyers outside the court as soon as their is any hint/smell of a payment to Bell Helicopters.
 
Bell is in big trouble financially since they haven't produced a decent helo in many years. The likes of Eurocopter is putting them out of business, since both the tourism and EMS industries have effectively shunned Bell almost completely.

So I guess their answer--instead of producing a worthy helo and competing in the marketplace--is to sue EA. Nonsense. I doubt it will go anywhere, and may portend the demise of Bell in the long term.
 
BettiePage said:
The real world product/item in question is not used to sell the book/game. it is a prop that is used by the protagonist/antagonist/cast & characters in said fictional work.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that. There are a lot of gamers who love playing war based games because they have 'real' guns and vehicles compared to generic guns and vehicles. Thus EA have profited from people who are more likely to purchase the game based on the use of 'real' items.

EA even actively marketed/promoted the game on their blog by advertising the large list of 'real' guns and vehicles.

If the use of product likeness in a game was not legal concern to game developers then we would not see the large number of games that use 'generic' items/models/trademarks and the large number of games that licence items/models/trademarks (in both directions e.g in game adverts).
 
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.
 
Incomming patch that renames the " MH6 LittleBird" to the " LH6 Humming Bird" or something.

Fucking lawyers.
 
wizdum said:
Incomming patch that renames the " MH6 LittleBird" to the " LH6 Humming Bird" or something.

Fucking lawyers.
Click to expand...

Correction. Bell does not make the MH6.

Incomming patch that renames the "AH-1Z Viper" to the "BH-2L Rattlesnake" or something.

Also, there were UH-1s in BFBC2: Vietnam, where was Bell then?
 
If this company gets it's funds from the taxpayers through the government since it is military then it needs to quite down and suck it up.
 
wizdum said:
Also, there were UH-1s in BFBC2: Vietnam, where was Bell then?
Click to expand...

It is possible they had a deal with Bell for BFBC2. Maybe Bell liked the money they got and decided they wanted more from BF3.
 
I suppose it's time for a class action lawsuit by the artificial people depicted in this game. EA never had them sign a release for using thier 'likeness' :p
 
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 concur.
 
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...

Well, except for the fact that gov't contracts are not awarded because of games, and civilians cannot buy a fully armed millitary vehicle, yet many people WILL buy a car they see in a game, just as Jeep about that one.

I say they are not mutually inclusive arguments. What if it was a recreation type game? Could be considered documentary even, and name brands are part of life in a documentary.

I say the whole suit is bs and should be thrown out.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top