SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

vindex · 04-30-07, 02:12 AM

Scoochy,

I'm not as ignorant as you think I am about the IP and US legal issues involved. I am a PE fund manager and understand IP quite well. I am also a former Army officer, so I respect the notion that US medals should not be treated in an offhand way. There are two issues here:

1) I do not think it is disrespectful, in a historical simulation game, to portray US medals in a historically accurate manner. To my knowledge, innumerable games have done so in the past, and no one has been prosecuted. The purpose of these laws about reproducing medals is NOT to prevent historical simulation, but to prevent counterfeiting and/or demeaning depictions. For instance, there would certainly be no objection to an encyclopedia printing an image of a Congressional Medal of Honor next to its entry. There might be an objection if they were handing out little mock Medals of Honor in boxes of cereal. Regardless of this, I doubt ANY restriction, however rational, would stand up the face of 1st amendment claims.

2) I think it is unreasonable that an aircraft manufacturer like Grumman, Lockheed, or others, should claim absolute control of the names of historical aircraft. The legal purpose of trademark is to AVOID CONFUSION in commercial transactions -- i.e., you can't make an aircraft and sell it as a "Boeing 747" because someone might think they were buying a Boeing 747 and in fact they're not. I realize that the "fair use" doctrine applies to copyright, not trademarks, but I think the general principle should apply here. It is nearly impossible to depict a historical event in an authentic manner in any media -- books, movies, software -- without using brand names or references to things other people might own. That does NOT mean anyone is infringing on the brand or the owner's property rights. WHEN YOU OWN A BRAND, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET PAID EVERYTIME SOMEONE MENTIONS IT IN HISTORY CLASS, or even in a Discovery Channel documentary.

My serious point -- and I realize that because I wrote sparingly you presumed I was just a yapping idiot -- is that if these unreasonable restrictions are applied to depictions in software, then what is next? There is no reason those same restrictions could not be applied to books, movies, and other forms of media.

04-30-07, 02:12 AM	#10
vindex Planesman Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 192 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	Scoochy, I'm not as ignorant as you think I am about the IP and US legal issues involved. I am a PE fund manager and understand IP quite well. I am also a former Army officer, so I respect the notion that US medals should not be treated in an offhand way. There are two issues here: 1) I do not think it is disrespectful, in a historical simulation game, to portray US medals in a historically accurate manner. To my knowledge, innumerable games have done so in the past, and no one has been prosecuted. The purpose of these laws about reproducing medals is NOT to prevent historical simulation, but to prevent counterfeiting and/or demeaning depictions. For instance, there would certainly be no objection to an encyclopedia printing an image of a Congressional Medal of Honor next to its entry. There might be an objection if they were handing out little mock Medals of Honor in boxes of cereal. Regardless of this, I doubt ANY restriction, however rational, would stand up the face of 1st amendment claims. 2) I think it is unreasonable that an aircraft manufacturer like Grumman, Lockheed, or others, should claim absolute control of the names of historical aircraft. The legal purpose of trademark is to AVOID CONFUSION in commercial transactions -- i.e., you can't make an aircraft and sell it as a "Boeing 747" because someone might think they were buying a Boeing 747 and in fact they're not. I realize that the "fair use" doctrine applies to copyright, not trademarks, but I think the general principle should apply here. It is nearly impossible to depict a historical event in an authentic manner in any media -- books, movies, software -- without using brand names or references to things other people might own. That does NOT mean anyone is infringing on the brand or the owner's property rights. WHEN YOU OWN A BRAND, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET PAID EVERYTIME SOMEONE MENTIONS IT IN HISTORY CLASS, or even in a Discovery Channel documentary. My serious point -- and I realize that because I wrote sparingly you presumed I was just a yapping idiot -- is that if these unreasonable restrictions are applied to depictions in software, then what is next? There is no reason those same restrictions could not be applied to books, movies, and other forms of media.