Oleg Maddox vs Grumann
Oleg Maddox vs Grumann
You must have changed 10% of it's detail for it to become an original design or place that design in original enviroment, for example a picture of VW Golf against a beautiful sunset.
The model is yours, but the IP belongs to VW.
You have copied someone elses design, not created your own.
At least, that's the law in the UK.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk//Intellectual Property (IP) results from the expression of an idea. So IP might be a brand, an invention, a design, a song or another intellectual creation. IP can be owned, bought and sold.
Volkswagon own the design right for Golf. The design is their IP, they own it.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design.htmDesigns protect the physical appearance and visual appeal of products - from the shape of a take-away cup to the body of a jet.
Last edited by Baff1; Nov 5 2010 at 17:17.
Yep - that's the one! (Thanks guys.)
But as I recall, it went beyond just the name, to the actual depiction of the aircraft. I don't believe it was appealed, so there's various legal arguments that it isn't generally applicable. Regardless whether it was a good/bad decision, that's the way at least one US court ruled.
@Baff1: I like what it says under "What's new"
Carl Gustaffa - left this game due becoming Steam Exclusive
That attracted my eye too.
You are correct to the letter of the law but not strictly accurate in its application. You are missing out on a few facts as well as the context the material is used in/for.
In our particular arena we are talking about "artistic impressions" of an plane/tank/car etc. Your interpretation would only be correct if you were to make an exact copy of someone's design. But if that representation even varies more than 10% the claim over IP can not be upheld. Unless you can prove that the design is actually copied from your own.
Even if the design is changed more that 10% and if your are competing in the same market place you can still be successfully sued/convicted for IP infringment/theft. So much in the world of IP is a grey area and comes down to how courts apply the laws withing the stated frameworks.
Look at the majority of models in this community. How accurate are they? 50%? 90% ? While they may appear to represent a product they are not a copy of that product are they?
However, should you use a trademark or branding without the appropriate license then you can get your arse sued off for trademark infringement. Which is why BIS has Cayotas etc
In our scenario the addon maker own all his own models and the IP rights. I've been down this path, through the courts and out the other side clutching a legal judgment that i am the sole owner of the models IP etc i create.
Last edited by RKSL-Rock; Nov 5 2010 at 17:28.
Addons makers don’t get cash they get credit! Support them!
RKSL Studios Website is BACK!! http://www.rkslstudios.info
RKSL have you read what i wrote 2-3 sites ago
i think it is all due to clan-use and "my tag" issue
cause look - half year passed since i released addons with "texture selection"
have you seen CDF/ Takistani/desert M109, 2S1, BMP1, M113A2 ???
so if simple reskin is too problematic in period of half year, why people need /demand MLODs and unlocking more complicated stuff than putting on solid-green texture some dark spots and green star to make it CDF ??
even more, they would buy it as DLC
maybe it is a matter that OFP community gone retired and CoD community era begun ?
12yo demanders who must have something now
Last edited by vilas; Nov 5 2010 at 17:37.
I was'nt really meaning you in particular with the whole showcase thing, maybe you dont need it but im sure other modders do. I know if i was at all competent with model making i'd be trying to make a name for myself in some game or other hoping it would lead somewhere. Its probably the newcomers that hurt the most in that scenario.
Its a knee jerk reaction to say no to encryption, human nature is to want something you cant have yet the more I think about it the more it makes sense. I agree that pbo's should always be openable to help foster the community but that the models themselves should be out of bounds.
Last edited by xmongx; Nov 5 2010 at 18:10.
According to the EULA, I still believe it states that anything put into the program is owned by Bohemia Interactive. However, after.. (oh whoever it was who posted the link to Placebo's post..) posted the link to the thread stating our rights to models created using the software, they are giving us the right to anything created. I believe the EULA should be corrected stating this, as that is the license we see when using the software and is the only one presented to us, not Placebo's forum topic stating our rights. I stand corrected on the Copyright / IP matter, but just think the EULA should be fixed stating this
However, if you have attempted to make an exact copy of a VWGolf, that is not your IP. That is VW's.
They own not just the brand name but the design.
If it is your intention to millimetre for millimetre copy a design, then it's not your IP.
Now you may be able to argue your way around this in court, but you are still attempting to profit from someone elses work without offering them a slice or some kind of control over it.
You are still just as guilty as the person selling your model on Turbosquid.
So in this example, if you managed to argue against this in court, you would be arguing the letter of the law and not the spirit. Which means you would lose.
The spirit of the law is that you add somthing to the model. not that the 10% difference is due to your errors, but that it is due to your creative originality. That you have taken their design and used it as a basis to create a new design. An improved design. To have added something, rather than just sought to 1 for 1 reproduce it.
A VW Golf with better aerodynamic styling for example. Or one that is more appealing to children with teeny boppers on the roof etc. One with built in Roo bars for the Aussie market.
The difference between trademark infringement and design infringement depends more on what the owner of the IP has chosen to protect, or rather how he has attempted to protect it, than what is right or wrong.
For a VW Beetle for example, the look of the car is iconic. So they patent not only the brandname but also the design.
If a company has only protected their brandame and not the design, they may seek to protect their IP using that method in priority.
I do not believe that all the addon maklers in our MOD community own the IP rights for the stuff they create. (Although I belive that many do. Specifically it is the 3D moddelers who typically do not).
I do not believe even remotely that the correct example to use is of a mod maker who already owns the IP.
I expect a grand total of zero of us have protected anything we have created for this game and a good many who think they would be able to if they tried would find out quite differently in court.
I expect the models you have protected so far are not mods for this game and I also suspect that the protection you have gained for your models is not above being appealed against and lost.
As you say, it is the determination of the courts that matter in these things not our own individual ones.
I expect should those who designed the models you have recreated found out about you, or were the pissy kind, they could get it all revoked.
I think you operate beneath the radar.
That they simply don't even know you exist. And this I feel benefits all modding communities. If we want to all stand up and start demanding our legal rights... we might find out that we don't altogether like what our legal rights actually are.
Last edited by Baff1; Nov 5 2010 at 18:38.