Friday, January 13th 2012
BF3 Helicopters Too Much Like The Real Thing – May Be Decommissioned
In a somewhat ironic case, Electronic Arts is claiming First Amendment rights to depict helicopters made by Textron, parent company of Bell Helicopter, without permission. EA has been in talks with Textron about using the likeness of their helicopters in EA's games, but the two sides are unable to come to an agreement. Now, EA can feel a lawsuit from Textron coming on, so they have made a pre-emptive strike with one of their own, according to a copy seen by Kotaku, which was filed on January 6th in the federal court for the Northern District of California. On December 21st, Textron had demanded that EA stop depiction of three of their Bell helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, an attack helicopter (pictured) the UH-1Y, a multipurpose/transport helicopter; and the V-22 Osprey (jointly produced with Boeing) whose distinctive tilt-rotors allow for vertical and short takeoff and landing.
EA has a better chance of winning this than one might think, since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that video games have the same free speech protections as other expressive works as film, books and music. Since that ruling, EA has prevailed in a similar case, where a federal judge ruled that EA's depiction of a recognizable, but unnamed real-life college quarterback without his permission, was within the bounds of free expression.
And why is it ironic? Because big media companies are always complaining about 'piracy' and people misusing their intellectual property without proper compensation. They then get dodgy internet censorship laws like SOPA drafted in to supposedly combat it. However, they are more than happy to do the same to others, in this case Textron, hence this is just another case of hypocrisy - and why didn't EA sort this out before releasing BF3 in the first place? If Textron said no, regardless of what kind of deal EA tried to make, then they should simply respect Textron's decision and use different helicopters, not demand use of them without any compensation under "fair use". Of course, they might have a bit of a problem in picking which other helicopters to use, as all of them are made by someone, who is likely to object, but that's another story. So, be prepared for some very generic-looking helicopters if EA lose this one.
See here and here for previous examples of hypocrisy that we've reported on.
These are the real-life versions of the three disputed helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y and V-22 Osprey:
And why is it ironic? Because big media companies are always complaining about 'piracy' and people misusing their intellectual property without proper compensation. They then get dodgy internet censorship laws like SOPA drafted in to supposedly combat it. However, they are more than happy to do the same to others, in this case Textron, hence this is just another case of hypocrisy - and why didn't EA sort this out before releasing BF3 in the first place? If Textron said no, regardless of what kind of deal EA tried to make, then they should simply respect Textron's decision and use different helicopters, not demand use of them without any compensation under "fair use". Of course, they might have a bit of a problem in picking which other helicopters to use, as all of them are made by someone, who is likely to object, but that's another story. So, be prepared for some very generic-looking helicopters if EA lose this one.
See here and here for previous examples of hypocrisy that we've reported on.
These are the real-life versions of the three disputed helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y and V-22 Osprey:
33 Comments on BF3 Helicopters Too Much Like The Real Thing – May Be Decommissioned
In Battlefield 2, where you could play as PLA, Chengdu J10 was depicted, do you know how popular it made that fighter? International depiction on a videogame? It became a pride for Chinese to 'fly' a J10 or 'ride a Type98 tank (both Chinese in-house designs), in battles against Abrams and F16s, and inspired many other local game studios to make games on PLA. Beijing was OK with it.
To get your product depicted in a video game is an achievement, not an IP issue.
I don't have Half-Life so I can't check the credits for "V-22 Osprey design used under license from Bell/Boeing." BF3 has AH-1Z Viper written all over the place.
Textron: their brand is undoubtedly being enhanced by being featured in BF3 and should be glad to be in it. However, for dumb mystery reasons known only to them, they don't want to be in it, likely without some sort of payment or royalty from EA. :rolleyes: I think this is wrong of them, but it's their right. One could also argue in Textron's favour perhaps, of how much difference does it actually make to sales of their helicopters anyway? Think about it, governments aren't gonna buy their products because they featured in some video game! No, they'll go by the usual tendering processes that have been around forever. Therefore, one could argue that it's reasonable for Textron to demand payment from EA, as the benefit is not mutual.
EA: They should respect the wishes/rights of another company's intellectual property, regardless of whether they are being reasonable about it or not. If Textron want to take a hatchet to their brand and not feature in an uber game, then EA should respect that and use something else. We well know that if EA didn't like something of theirs featured in another product, they'd damned well bring out the
rottweillerslawyers and expect everyone else to respect their IP rights, regardless of whether EA is right or wrong about them. However, because the case is the other way round, they're bleating on about "fair use" and trying to use Textron's IP against their wishes. Do me a favour! :rolleyes::rolleyes: This is where the source of the hypocrisy comes from.I do very much agree with your last line. If I were Textron, then heck, I'd probably be handing out detailed schematics (nothing classified of course) to EA to help them make their simulated helicopters as realistic as possible, regardless of any direct and obvious commercial benefit to me. But that's just me.
If it's a trademark it doesn't matter where you use it you need owners approval. Dice fault that they didn't ask for it before using. But I think its a smart move from DICE as if they would ask each company if they can use it in their game 100% of trademark/name owners would reply with a price. This way they only need to handle them picky companies that notice it and the rest which is ignored/unnoticed they get free.
And I'm a 'him', not an 'it', thanks. ;)
I mean is General Dynamics Land Systems gonna come after EA because of the Abrams? Are all the gun manufacturers gonna be next? Honestly I think it's a bit over the top and well frankly a little late. IF Textron has such a big problem with their products being portrayed in this game they coulda stopped this during the long beta period...I think they should be proud that so many of their products are represented in the game...