The article I sited mentions that, pointing out that the Activision case passed the Rogers Test, allowing the use of trademarked names in works of art without needing to pay a royalty or licensing fee. But I also agree with Tornado:However, something I noted at the time might apply: the game features cars that look like the real cars, but they're never specifically named in the games. I think there's a moment in MW2 where you're told by another character to "get in the Hummvee", but that's it as far as I recall.
Having a car that both looks like the real car and is specifically named as the car within a section with the manufacturer's name might be a different legal challenge.
It would take an exceptionally brave developer to do that, especially if they want to sell their game outside of the American market.
They're in RaceRoom too IIRC.Did some digging and interesting to note that SCG has only appeared in:
Asphalt 8 & 9
Assetto Corsa
CSR Racing
Racing Rivals
Kinda tells you how little they care about sim racing when the only title remotely close to it is Assetto Corsa and everything else is a Mobile game
Not exactly the biggest deal if they ever appear or not in GT game personally for me, but this attitude is just stunning. Part of me shouldn't be surprised this is coming from a guy who's main fortune is from Hollywood (Insert all the jokes you want here), but it just wows me to get this from a guy his age. Not in anyway close to what I would call mature.
It's been raceroom's premium pack in a nutshell, I own it and I didn't even know I had it.
The thing is, if much smaller games can afford his "fee", then there's no reason PD shouldn't. What I don't understand is why Lotus isn't in GT anymore. That's the most egregious BS. PAY THEM WHAT THEY WANT PD!!! And get Classic Lotus in too!!!!! (Lotus 49, 72, 79, etc.)
I think its come out in the GT Sport Spa debacle that many licensing fees arent flat rate.
If you're Spa and a game like Automobiista comes and it expects to sell 500k copies then your fee might be only $5,000.
If a game like Gran Turismo comes up under Sony's banner and you expect to sell 10 mil. copies then your fee is NOT going to be $5,000 as well.
They will scale up their fee given how big your company is and how much your reach is going to be.
Some companies/tracks will charge larger franchises more.The thing is, if much smaller games can afford his "fee", then there's no reason PD shouldn't. What I don't understand is why Lotus isn't in GT anymore. That's the most egregious BS. PAY THEM WHAT THEY WANT PD!!! And get Classic Lotus in too!!!!! (Lotus 49, 72, 79, etc.)
Also, why do ZERO sims have the Brabham BT46B fan car??? I'm dying to drive that thing. Even virtually.
And there's the critical point, the same legal battles have occurred in flight sims. In some jurisdictions, if the owner of a trade mark does not actively demand fair value for its use in all circumstances, they lose the right to defend it under any circumstances in the future.We also covered that at the time - and for that reason. However, something I noted at the time might apply: the game features cars that look like the real cars, but they're never specifically named in the games. I think there's a moment in MW2 where you're told by another character to "get in the Hummvee", but that's it as far as I recall.
Having a car that both looks like the real car and is specifically named as the car within a section with the manufacturer's name might be a different legal challenge.
This will remain the most mysterious case why Koenigsegg isn't on GT despite appearing in several racing games including indies and mobiles, and why NOBODY ever talk about it even on this site.Better to use that fee to get koenigsegg instead in gran turismo
Interestingly, its under "P4/5 Competizione" and not "Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus"
This will remain the most mysterious case why Koenigsegg isn't on GT despite appearing in several racing games including indies and mobiles, and why NOBODY ever talk about it even on this site.
I mean i didn't know brands like Ruf , Re-Amemiya, Koenigsegg etc existed and i coulden't give a 🤬 as a 5-10 year old but i became aware of them thanks to racing games and thats one of the great things about them.I doubt PD are losing much sleep over Glickenhaus not being in the game. Most people wouldn't have a clue about the manufacturer let alone be able to identify one in a line up.
Sounds to me like Jim's been eating a lot of sour grapes lately lol.
the way they express their opinions in social media isn't appropriately phrased for public view
Nothing unprofessional whatsoever. He stated his demands. Agree or disagree with the merits of the demand but nothing unprofessional about it, just blunt.Well, royaltes, are they paid by how many games are selled? Because if is that the case, a GT game would sell a lot more than AC, for example where they have their car featured. And it's a good car to drive in the game.
But yeah, they didn't soudn very professional there..
So like all the other cars then. I kid, semi kid.Should Sony and Glickenhaus actually come to an agreement, I have some speculation as to how PD may show their passive aggressive displeasure to the final negotiations...... By simulating the SCG cars to handle like utter 🤬.
I'm on to you PD!
I would surely think that wouldn't stand when the game is selling itself on the contents of its game I.e those brands. If a sim had no Ferraris in it, but there was a Ferrari with branding sat in the car park as you drive by, maybe that would be covered but not assets you actually use? I haven't read up on this situation but that sounds more likely to me.The article I sited mentions that, pointing out that the Activision case passed the Rogers Test, allowing the use of trademarked names in works of art without needing to pay a royalty or licensing fee. But I also agree with Tornado:
It's been so long since I played (Or even heard about) RaceRoom so no surprise I wasn't aware. Even then, that now makes it just 2 sims and 5 Mobile game titles. Interestingly, its under "P4/5 Competizione" and not "Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus"
He wanted to race it as a Ferrari but Ferrari said no so they just built the shell in the same shape in carbon ( iirc ) and the platform is a Ferrari F430.The car wasn't produced by SCG, it was produced for James Glickenhaus by Pininfarina and Ferrari.
edit: Sorry, just realised it was the racing car in RaceRoom you're talking about. Perhaps a licensing clash since Ferrari weren't too happy it at the time.