About the medals issue...

daft · 04-09-07, 03:32 AM

You might have seen this already, but one of the devs posted this on the SimHq.com forums in response to criticism of the fantasy medals:

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

Guys,

Thanks for pointing out the error with the Thresher. Just a small missing h. Sorry about it, it will of course be corrected in the next patch.

As for the medals, belive me we would have liked to LEAVE the correct medals in the game. But, if the US Institute of Heraldry says we can't, I suppose we can't do it. Anyway, it was not our call, and in now way it was meant as making fun of the real awards of the US Navy.

Camaero · 04-09-07, 03:53 AM

I am in the business of making vest extenders for Harley riders (among other apparel items) and I recently encountered the same sort of problem. A guy was going to start making some very nice emblems which sported the logos for the Marines, Air Force, Army, etc... They looked great on these vest extenders and there was a lot of interest from the guys who served wanting to sport these things. Well this guy was on the phone with people in the Pentagon dealing with these copyright issues! It is ridiculous! Number one, don't they have anything better to do over there in the Pentagon? A war to win maybe? Number two, what a moronic move it is to make it harder for people to show their military pride! Finally, who the hell pays for the military? Of course tax payers do. Shouldn't they have the right their own military’s logos?

It's kind of frustrating in my opinion.

Lukemb · 04-09-07, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daft

You might have seen this already, but one of the devs posted this on the SimHq.com forums in response to criticism of the fantasy medals:

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

Guys,

Thanks for pointing out the error with the Thresher. Just a small missing h. Sorry about it, it will of course be corrected in the next patch.

As for the medals, belive me we would have liked to LEAVE the correct medals in the game. But, if the US Institute of Heraldry says we can't, I suppose we can't do it. Anyway, it was not our call, and in now way it was meant as making fun of the real awards of the US Navy.

Thanks for the post, the same quote was posted few days ago.

There are 2 big threads dealing with the medals issue, 1 in the main forum and 1 in the mod forum.

Antrodemus · 04-09-07, 04:42 AM

This is most odd... Has this ever been an issue in any past games that depict medals and rewards?

Drokkon · 04-09-07, 10:52 AM

This maybe a result of tightened security. I think it's a bit silly. Perhaps to fund the war George W. Bush has decided to only release these symbols at $500,000,000.00 per design to game and t-shirt companies.

vindex · 04-29-07, 11:38 PM

What are they going to do next, trademark "D-Day" and say you can't make a movie about it unless you pay a fee??? Or maybe you can, but you have to rename it B-Day or the invasion of Snormandy or something stupid?

Grothesj2 · 04-30-07, 12:18 AM

The idiocy of the government cant be understated.

Scoochy · 04-30-07, 12:18 AM

I'm sorry, but these last 2 posts really pissed me off.

Perhaps instead of making outlandish remarks that maybe in your eyes are humorous, spend your time doing something productive like digging around and finding out why.

There just may be a good reason........

EDIT: correction, last 3 posts.

fullmetaledges · 04-30-07, 01:39 AM

I hear ya scoochy
as for the medals I posted this in the ubi forums

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 32, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2006]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 32CFR507]

Sec. 507.11 Reproduction of designs.

(a) The photographing, printing, or, in any manner making or
executing any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the
likeness of any decoration, service medal, service ribbon, badge, lapel
button, insignia, or other device, or the colorable imitation thereof,
of a design prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of
the Air Force for use by members of the Army or the Air Force is
authorized provided that such reproduction does not bring discredit upon
the military service and is not used to defraud or to misrepresent the
identification or status of an individual, organization, society, or
other group of persons."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi?WAI...html&WAISmaxHits=120

The link is to the CFR's related to reproductions of medals and things, I'm not sure what catigory a likeness of a medal in digital form would fall into. My personal opinion is that medals and seals and such are property of the people and if they have rules agaist making a painting with a likeness or a video game, then why can you make movies with the same thing and it be ok

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.

04-09-07, 03:53 AM	#2
Camaero The Old Man Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA, Massachusetts Posts: 1,477 Downloads: 18 Uploads: 0	I am in the business of making vest extenders for Harley riders (among other apparel items) and I recently encountered the same sort of problem. A guy was going to start making some very nice emblems which sported the logos for the Marines, Air Force, Army, etc... They looked great on these vest extenders and there was a lot of interest from the guys who served wanting to sport these things. Well this guy was on the phone with people in the Pentagon dealing with these copyright issues! It is ridiculous! Number one, don't they have anything better to do over there in the Pentagon? A war to win maybe? Number two, what a moronic move it is to make it harder for people to show their military pride! Finally, who the hell pays for the military? Of course tax payers do. Shouldn't they have the right their own military’s logos? It's kind of frustrating in my opinion. __________________

04-09-07, 10:52 AM	#5
Drokkon Loader Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 90 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	This maybe a result of tightened security. I think it's a bit silly. Perhaps to fund the war George W. Bush has decided to only release these symbols at $500,000,000.00 per design to game and t-shirt companies. __________________

04-30-07, 12:18 AM	#8
Scoochy Sparky Join Date: May 2005 Location: San diego Ca. Posts: 150 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	I'm sorry, but these last 2 posts really pissed me off. Perhaps instead of making outlandish remarks that maybe in your eyes are humorous, spend your time doing something productive like digging around and finding out why. There just may be a good reason........ EDIT: correction, last 3 posts. __________________ SH5 Photobucket Slideshow

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-09-07, 04:42 AM	#4
Antrodemus Torpedoman Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Scotland Posts: 117 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	This is most odd... Has this ever been an issue in any past games that depict medals and rewards?

04-29-07, 11:38 PM	#6
vindex Planesman Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 192 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	What are they going to do next, trademark "D-Day" and say you can't make a movie about it unless you pay a fee??? Or maybe you can, but you have to rename it B-Day or the invasion of Snormandy or something stupid?

04-30-07, 12:18 AM	#7
Grothesj2 Medic Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 167 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The idiocy of the government cant be understated.

04-30-07, 01:39 AM	#9
fullmetaledges Chief Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 314 Downloads: 120 Uploads: 0	I hear ya scoochy as for the medals I posted this in the ubi forums [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 32, Volume 3] [Revised as of July 1, 2006] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 32CFR507] Sec. 507.11 Reproduction of designs. (a) The photographing, printing, or, in any manner making or executing any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any decoration, service medal, service ribbon, badge, lapel button, insignia, or other device, or the colorable imitation thereof, of a design prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force for use by members of the Army or the Air Force is authorized provided that such reproduction does not bring discredit upon the military service and is not used to defraud or to misrepresent the identification or status of an individual, organization, society, or other group of persons." http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi?WAI...html&WAISmaxHits=120 The link is to the CFR's related to reproductions of medals and things, I'm not sure what catigory a likeness of a medal in digital form would fall into. My personal opinion is that medals and seals and such are property of the people and if they have rules agaist making a painting with a likeness or a video game, then why can you make movies with the same thing and it be ok

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.