Weapon Likenesses and Licensing

#1 I don't know the exact legalaities....

but a likeness of the weapon should fine, as its been done so many times, with so many titles, but using the actual name of the weapon may require permissions.

Monkey

#2 My understanding is that mod teams have run into copyright issues when they tried to refer directly to brand names, models or too accurately replicate the guns themselves.

For a real world example, the Klobb in Goldeneye was named thus because of potential legal problems. Klobb = Kevin Lobb.

#3 A.J.

I've looked into this in preparation for the modern weapons pack I'm working on.

I believe Chris is right. You can build any gun, but the name can't be identical. For example I'm including a pistol that looks exactly like a desert eagle, but I'm calling it a Savanna Falcon...etc.

I don't think this applies to older weapons. Or if it does, no one cares. If you're making a M16, AK47, RPG7 etc. you can use the real names.

In a similar vein...you might check out www.turbosquid.com - They sell digital replicas of all kinds of patented products with copy written names, and no one cares...so maybe it doesn't matter at all unless you get a lot of exposure.

Good luck - and check out the modern weapons pack in a couple of months...I may have many of the weapons you want, already built :)

-Weston

#4 Thanks for the help everyone. But I'm still going to email them just to be on the safe side, I don't want to get sued for anything as small as this because I do plan on using the same names as their real world counter-part.

I think I already know the answer to this, but does this also apply to tanks and helicopters as well?

#5 Yes, If you are going to use anything that depicts an object made by a curently standing company (maybe even a disolved company) and/or use the same name, it may be wise to contact the actual companies and inform them or ask permission :). As Weston points out, alot of people do this and no one seem's to give a damn, but best to check anyway.

Good Luck

Monkey

#6 OK, if I recall correctly the Soldier of Fortune developers contacted some gun manufacturers about including named replicas of real guns in their game and were pretty much uniformly told 'no way in hell'. They were also told to expect legal action if they did it without permission.

If you ask for permission it will be denied and you will make yourself a target, at least for the civilian gun market. I can see two reasons for this.:
1) The various make and model names are trademarked. In the U.S. and many other countries trademark holders are REQUIRED by law to "vigorously" defend their trademarks against infringement or lose the trademark. Even though trademarks are industry specific - thus the Beretta car and Beretta gun - a gun manufacturer may feel they need to sue you to protect their trademark. This may also be an excuse motiveated by reason number two.

2) Politics. Video games have a bad rap for being violent. They get blamed for all sorts of social ills just like comic books and Dungeons and Dragons before them. Think of all the ridiculous, inaccurate, dishonest and just plain stupidly wrong claims you've heard in the media regarding video games. No gun maker wants that kind of negative publicity. They'd be accused of marketing guns to children.

Now, there are lots of games and mods that feature models of real guns with identifiable names and get away with it. There are Desert Eagles, Berettas and Glocks in Counter-Strike and all sorts of real world weapons in various games and movies (especially movies, how many times did you see Springfield .45s in Sin City?), so it is possible and perhaps probable that you can use real firearms without and risk of legal action.

I am not a lawyer but I would suggest the following guidelines for using real world items in a game.

1) Military designations are generally fair game, M-16, M-4, etc are government designations and not trademarked so they should pose no problem.

2) Using brand names as a central part of your advertising or promotion is bound to cause trouble - don't do it.

3) Using the full precise name of an item is more likely to be considered an infringement. A "Beretta Model 92F" is more of a risk than simply "9mm model 92"

4) Make all models and textures yourself. Do not use website photos or marketing materials as textures for your models.

5) Don't call the gun company asking for permission. They will say no and You will make yourself a target and create an issue where none existed.

6) For Hunting sims many of the rules go out the window. For all I know Winchester may be willing to pay good money to get their hunting rifles featured in the next Wal-Mart blockbuster hunting game.

If you are really worried use entirely fictional guns and names. That's the only way to be sure.

#7 That's just it though, Cholly. The game I'm making takes place no longer than 10 years from now, so I really can't use all fictional weapons. I just wish there was someone of which I really could talk to about this situation that really knows what my options are.

I appreciate your help Cholly. I'm going to take your word on it and try something with that.

#8 I'll try to dig up the actual ruling from the US Supreme Court on this exact issue for those that wish to see it for themselves, but it was actually a big win for game makers in relation to this exact issue. In fact, it also covers the exact same questions in regards to military equipment that is copyrighted by the contractors that build the weapons or war machines. The actual wording in the law is so mind boggling and confusing that not many of us mere mortals can make it out, but I did find a site(will refind it also) where a legal expert explained the meaning of it very clearly. What he said amounted to this in my simplified terms...

If you use the exact image of a weapon you are protected from legal retailiation as long as...

A. You do not use the gun makers copyrighted NAME for the weapon(Example: Make a Glock look like a Glock, just don't call it a Glock)

B. The Gunmaker themselves did not apply for copyright protection on the image of their weapon when used within the context of a video game. Although this would seem to be an easy defeat the law stipulates that they must actually compete in the video game market. To clarify, unless the makers of Glock want to start producing video games themselves, they have no right to copyright protection on their gun images when used in video games. The Supreme Court said that the reason for copyright protection was to protect not only the maker of a product, but the consumer as well. The consumer is to be protected from being "confused" by not being able to tell one product from the other when wanting to purchase the correct product. To clarify this further it means, the Supreme Court does not believe ANY consumer will be fooled into purchasing a virtual Glock in a video game by thinking its a real Glock. A real glock shoots real bullets, virtual Glocks do not. Therefore, only the name, and not the image is protected.




Same holds true for a warplane like the F16 Fighting Falcon. You CAN make an exact replica of the F16 for use in your video game without fear of retribution but the name "Fighting Falcon" is actually a protected name that is owned by the F16 manufacturer. So if you replicate the F16, you can only call it an F16 or something else. You cannot use the name "Fighting Falcon" in any way shape or form in connection with that plane(or any other plane for that matter). The designation of the plane "F16" is actually a military designation which of course is funded by the taxpayers and is therefore in the public domain and cannot be rightfully claimed by anyone.



This was actually a HUGE win for every game maker from the top to the bottom.

I shall return with links(I hope, could take some time)

#9 Here is the ruling in question. Do not let the fact that this is a makeup dispute take away from the actual ruling. Protection of "Fair Use" and what is infringement are completely covered here no matter what the product.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-4...


Although I still have not located the original explanation I was looking for, here is one interesting way of looking at the "consumer confusion" aspect of the law...


"Andy Wharhol's famous painting of a Campbell's soup can was okay under free-use because the expensive art market is not the same as the canned food market"

#10 Thank you so much! This is exactly the information I needed.

#11 AJ showed me this and we've solved the issue. Thanks guys! :)