EA Says Use of Brands In Video Games Is Free Speech

Yeah, they'll be fine with that, until, you know, someone does the same thing to them, and then they'll have a huge ass hissy fit.

IIRC, there was a notice in the game about the use of brand names of weapons.

The fact is, different games will make reference in quite obvious ways to elements of other games. For example, how often is some quote from Duke Nukem put into another game?

Game publishers like EA have already taken a stance on this kind of thing - they'd rather see it as paying homage to their games than infringing on their copyrights. The helicopter thing falls into two categories here, paying homage to the real thing and the companies that made them, and making their games a bit more realistic by using real choppers.

Now, if EA starts making helicopters - that might be a real reason for Bell to be concerned. I don't blame them for filing a suit though because these things should be clear under the law, and suits help the judicial system interpret the law clearly so that we all know where we stand.

If I were Bell, I might have tested the waters, but mostly I'd be proud that my helicopters served so well, and were considered to be a fundamental component of modern combat today. And, they should be proud.

If the trademark claim is over the designations used... Bell doesn't own them, the US Government does, and the current rule is that intellectual property owned by the US government is freely useable... If not relinquished into the public domain entirely.

Similarly, if the name is NOT the same, it, in many cases, would fall into the realm of "parody;" anything appearing in any Grand Theft Auto game would be a case of this. And this is, likewise, artistic expression and protected speech, and fair use.

Also, where are the lawsuits threatened against Activision for Call of Duty Umpteen?

Maybe bell doesn't want EA's meaningless homage.

As a tax payer, you are technically a co-owner of the products in question made by Bell helicopters, and because the purchaser is the federal government, your free speech on the depiction and use of said products must be upheld. (be it in writing or animated, interactive pictures)

It is a different story entirely if the product was a Lamborghini.

I would go so far as to say, that any company receiving any corporate welfare from the government needs to suck it up, and realize that part of the deal of getting tax payer money entitles tax payers to protected speech. If they don't like that deal, they are free not to sell the product to the federal government, or take corporate welfare from the government,

I'm no expert obviously but you don't see Bell/Textron suing every time one of their choppers on TV/news programs. Not sure this is really any different. Since we don't see all the other manufacturers of the various weapons/vehicles suing too, there's probably some fair use exemption the folks at Textron aren't privy to.

^^ Exactly. This is ridiculous. Putting my brand of car or cellphone or helicopter in someone's video game just brings my product to light more. If anything, I am helped by it being in the video game or movie. The company making the game is not making helicopters to sell. This is so BS. I hate to side with EA, but for crying out loud. Why would Bell throw a fit over this? If anything they are being given some good publicity for how awesome and cool their helicopters are. I don't see how having their product in a video game can to anything but help them.

I can CERTAINLY see how whining and complaining about it will HURT them though.

Here's an idea: Maybe everyone should stop being so butthurt about everything and running off to call the lawyers at the drop of a hat. Things would work a lot better.

There's a difference between buying the chopper of a manufacturer and owning the rights to it. I bet that hardly anyone knows that the US Army dosen't own any of the designs to large parts of their arsenal. They are outsourcing everything to private firms that own and rights to the weapons they develop. The US army only owns the product and not the designs per say.

So EA is largely at fault here can't use private property in their games. There are reasons why they should loose. First is that they are cheap asshats. Second being that IW and Namco have huge ass lists of military hardware they have secured rights to use in CoD and Ace Combat. Third EA are just trying to do what they allways do, cheat.

Good job EA...Ill go ahead and keep my SWTOR toon names then..... Bobafat and OBgyn are OK names now. All I am trying to do with the names is "create a realistic space combat scene"

Than why doesn't Rockstar use real names for their cars in GTA.

And heck in some video games Corps. buy their name into the game. You see it a lot in The Need For Speed Series.

Because most car manufacturers are reluctant to allow their products to be used in perpetrating crimes, or to take a considerable amount of damage. Even if it's just a video game...

Bell does sell those helicopters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_412
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_212

The designs are not owned by the US Gov't. Funds for development are provided on the basis that a certain amount of aircraft will be sold at a certain price. Bell owns the Huey family of helicopters, just like Lockheed Martin owns the C-130 design and Northrop Grumman owns the B-2 design.

i'd be more than happy to get free advertising of my products if the ads were done to promote positively my products' image and reputation. if Bell wins then imagine for instance, all the casinos in a Las Vegas street scene will start suing the movie producers of trademark infringements.

God forbid a military hardware manufacturer, whose producst are made for the sole purpose of killing people, get portrayed in a game where you do the same thing but no one actually gets hurt.

It would be nice if in the future EA uses Russian and European heli, like mi-8 transport and mi28 Hind . And then say something how better are they than the old ones . It is strange for me how company's don’t want the free advertise.

The trademark owners should thank them instead of suing since they are advertising their products for free.

EA are hypocrites they stopped Turn 10 from using Porsche in Forza 4 even though Turn 10 let them use Ferrari.

So does that mean EA doesn't support SOPA, or is it to much to ask to be consistent?

This the same EA that has EXCLUSIVE rights to the NFL / NFLPA and it's trademarks and names...

WEIRD

This is a ridiculous byproduct of trademark laws aimed at stopping commercial COUNTERFEITING. The reason GTA uses parody car names and so forth is because the interpretation of trademark laws in the area of video games is lacking significant precedents.

It goes like this. I can't make a purse and put prada on it because I'm lying to the public about what my product is, and I'm interfering with the real prada's ability to conduct business. This is what the trademark laws are designed to outlaw.

However it's disturbing that lawmakers haven't taken steps to more clearly limit these laws, especially with regards to electronic media. Putting a purse in a video game with "prada" on it does not constitute lying about the origin of the purse, because there is no purse and nobody is selling it (it's virtual). This stuff needs to work its way through the courts, so the supreme court can say once and for all that stuff in a video game is artistic depiction and has the exact standing that a watercolor painting would. This is hurting video games right now through the chilling effect. Games like GTA can get away with parody names because those have a CLEAR exemption in free speech laws. But parody names don't work for every type of game, as not all games have to be a fucking joke. This is why we need clear laws and clear precedents. The fact that the chilling effect is rearing its ugly head and here we are in 2012 still looking for precedent is a testament to how poorly the legal system is able to handle new cases.

Actually it should be advertising and the company's logo should have to pay for their spot. I find it odd that game makers are not approaching company's for advertising in their higher ranked games. In many cases game are more popular than most tv shows so I find it odd that company's aren't seeking game makers out to add their logo's and such.