Manufacturer licenses, EA logic and GT6

[Lain]

Alright, so news recently broke that EA won't be paying for the rights to use real weapons in its videogames. However, they'll still be using them in their games, because they feel they have the constitutional right under the tenants of free speech.

What sparked this decision, other than using the large number of recent shootings as an excuse, is the fact that they won against Bell using the first amendment argument, who sued EA for using their helicopter designs in the Battlefield series.

My question is... couldn't the same logic be applied to including certain car manufacturers in a videogame? Wouldn't it be ironic if EA accidentally set the legal precedent which would allow Polyphony to use Porsche in GT6 without licensing?

 

[dr_slump]

It's risky at the moment, we'll have to wait.

 

[Flamingwaffles]

That's an interesting idea, although I'm not sure that you can compare a military helicopter to a car. A car is a commercial item, that the public can buy, the other is a vehicle that is only bought by State's militaries.
That said, if EA's tactic works for guns, and even one of the guns is one that our public can buy, than a new precedent might be set, and this might be possible with cars.

Either way I doubt PD would be smart enough to exploit this haha.

Also, Porsches would have to be DLC, like how Forza did it.

 

[dr_slump]

That's an interesting idea, although I'm not sure that you can compare a military helicopter to a car. A car is a commercial item, that the public can buy, the other is a vehicle that is only bought by State's militaries.
That said, if EA's tactic works for guns, and even one of the guns is one that our public can buy, than a new precedent might be set, and this might be possible with cars.

Either way I doubt PD would be smart enough to exploit this haha.

Also, Porsches would have to be DLC, like how Forza did it.

It's actually possible to buy some of those helicopters, unarmed of course. The questionated Bell helicopters as example.

EDIT: Here as example:http://www.globalplanesearch.com/helicopters/bell/

 

[martin_ky]

I know very little about law and licensing but, EA and Bell are both American companies I believe. So how would the first amendment argument be used here? A Japanese company using a German company's product in game without license.

 

[dr_slump]

nvm

 

[amar212]

*If* by some mean someone could circumvent such copyright infringement for some territory - because usage of design, name or such falls under the copyright property - it could not be used for all territories.

Examples from history of Gran Turismo are JGTC Diablo, that was used only in Japanese version of GT2 (we all got it in GTPSP, once PD/Sony resolved licensing with Lamborghini) or legendary F1-replicas for GT3 that were existent only in JP/US version of GT3.

Even if someone would take such move to try to circumvent usage of some design/brand for some territory, he would not be allowed to use it on other territories. Or if he would insist to use it by some mean, he would face serious legal consequences without any mean to win is such battle.

You can't just take Porsche cars - or any other car to be precise - and use it in the game without consent of the manufacturer. What EA is doing is absolutely different because EA is trying to circumvent everything by calling on the US-specific "First Amendment" rule which is by no mean valid in any other country except US.

Of course, in some hypothetical world, somebody *could* try to use Porsche design and characteristics of the vehicle under some fake name ("Glorious" for example) but he would face court this way or another if such move would be found problematic by Porsche Lizenz- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG - and you can bet it would.

 

[Tornado]

American military designs aren't the same as German civilian designs regardless of if there are civilian versions offered; and PD would most likely never do anything like the super sketchy Tokyo Xtreme Racer Zero way of including road cars.

 

[BongRipz]

Of course, in some hypothetical world, somebody *could* try to use Porsche design and characteristics of the vehicle under some fake name ("Glorious" for example) but he would face court this way or another if such move would be found problematic by Porsche Lizenz- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG - and you can bet it would.

Pretty much what Tokyo Extreme Racer did.

 

[Jawehawk]

I hope the gun manufactures sue the 🤬 out of EA, resulting in their demise. No more EA equals an instantly better gaming industry.

 

[NeuroticVows]

I see it being something like this. DICE make the Battlefield games that get published by EA. If they want licensed guns in BF4, it would be DICE paying for licensing NOT EA. I don't know if EA develops any shooters in house.

 

[Tornado]

That's like saying that Sony wouldn't be paying for licencing, but PD would be. DICE games are in house.

 

[Flamingwaffles]

I hope the gun manufactures sue the 🤬 out of EA, resulting in their demise. No more EA equals an instantly better gaming industry.

Agreed, as long as talented studios like DICE and Bioware are picked up by other companies.

Like Amar212 said, you need the consent of the manufacturer, and Porsche has no reason to be nice to PD and give them the right to use their cars.

 

[Voodoovaj]

I think it's a matter of application of the license. In the case of Bell, the Huey was an iconic element of the Vietnam war, which was being portrayed.

 

[Jawehawk]

Agreed, as long as talented studios like DICE and Bioware are picked up by other companies.

Like Amar212 said, you need the consent of the manufacturer, and Porsche has no reason to be nice to PD and give them the right to use their cars.

Dice hasn't made any good games since Battlefield 2142. They can go down with EA for all I care, as they have completely destroyed the Battlefield franchise.

And it would be great advertisement for Porsche to be in Gran Turimso. Just like it's good PR for them to be featured in Forza.