EA Says Use of Brands In Video Games Is Free Speech

[cookoy]

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.

 

[back_by_demand]

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.

 

[ivyanev]

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.

 

[digiex]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[zybch]

[citation][nom]Darkerson[/nom]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.[/citation]
A bit like how they forced Comedy Central to alter parts of a South Park episode that depicted a fictitious version of their Tiger Woods Golf game.

 

[Gulli]

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

 

[BSMonitor]

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

WEIRD

 

[digitalzom-b]

[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]The trademark owners should thank them instead of suing since they are advertising their products for free.[/citation]

Yes, advertising their product for free...

...because a lot of gamers are going to be in the market for an AH-1Z or a Huey...

Get real.

 

[intel4eva]

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.

 

[elbert]

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.

 

[digitalzom-b]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]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.[/citation]

Because Bell Helicopters isn't targeting gamers?

 

[digitalzom-b]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]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.[/citation]

And to add to that, good thing they aren't! Last thing we need is Pepsi loading screens and Viagra Scoreboards. Ads need to step back, or we'll be an idiocracy in no time.

 

[atikkur]

i agree with ea

 

[freggo]

If a movie uses Bell make Helicopers does Bell pay the Movie for product placement or does the Movie studio pay Bell for the 'honor' of being allowed to use their product ?

I think we all know the answer; seeing that Bond, James Bond, switched to BMWs a while back.
So why should it be different for Video Games ?

 

[bigdragon]

If EA were right then there would be Porsche cars in Forza 4. A Bell helicopter is a commercial product just like a Porsche. The fact that the government purchased a set number of them and made it illegal to sell them to civilians is irrelevant. They are still commercial products wholly owned by the companies involved in their production. The government does not have its own engineers and factories designing and building the helicopters. They are contracted out.

I think EA dug their own hole here. They're quick to license things like car brands, sports franchises, and other products shown in their games. They use these licenses aggressively to block competition and handicap their competitors. Their competitors got the upper hand on licensing military tech many years ago back in the Janes simulation days and EA has gotten a free ride ever since. I want to see these licensing agreements either universally required or completely eliminated. It's ridiculous that EA can block other companies from using Porsche but no one can block EA from using Bell.

The inconsistencies in the industry's licensing procedures is what bugs me the most.

 

[xythrax4420]

Fuck_trademarks my cocaine business would be booming if i could just call it coke

 

[keczapifrytki]

If EA wins this, then we might finally see real cars in the next GTA. That would be nice.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

It's easy to say that this shouldnt be an issue for battlefield, where there's basically no possibility of you even seeing the helicopters in action, let alone buying one. For other games, like Gran Turismo for example, it's a much cloudier issue. If companies could be used without approval, you'd probably see a lot of games with "real" products that have little relation to the actual thing, such as some companies product being super unreliable in a game when that isn't the case in reality.

These sort of inaccurate use of real content would understandably make some companies really mad, so you wouldn't want to allow completely open access. Somewhat accurate comparisons are generally good for the product, anyway. Cars in GTA don't handle like real ones, but a sports car is still faster than a semi. Ideally, any game dev that wants to use a real product should have access to the company and said product to accuratly represent it in the game, at no cost to either party, as the company gets advertising and the dev gets realism. It's unfortunate that this isn't possible because access to a company requires time and to some extent making your "trade secrets" available. So we need some sort of middle ground, and hopefully that's what will come of this. Considering the fact that EA is involved, however, I don't expect anything good to come of it.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

[citation][nom]bigdragon[/nom]If EA were right then there would be Porsche cars in Forza 4. A Bell helicopter is a commercial product just like a Porsche. The fact that the government purchased a set number of them and made it illegal to sell them to civilians is irrelevant. They are still commercial products wholly owned by the companies involved in their production. The government does not have its own engineers and factories designing and building the helicopters. They are contracted out.I think EA dug their own hole here. They're quick to license things like car brands, sports franchises, and other products shown in their games. They use these licenses aggressively to block competition and handicap their competitors. Their competitors got the upper hand on licensing military tech many years ago back in the Janes simulation days and EA has gotten a free ride ever since. I want to see these licensing agreements either universally required or completely eliminated. It's ridiculous that EA can block other companies from using Porsche but no one can block EA from using Bell.The inconsistencies in the industry's licensing procedures is what bugs me the most.[/citation]

The inconsistencies do sort of make sense, however. In Forza, there's an attempt at an accurate portrayal, and that requires time with the companies actual product and/or employees, which isn't free or unlimited, so companies have to pay for it. For battlefield, there's not even a hint of realism in the portrayal of helicopters, so EA didn't even need to talk to Bell to get them into the game. If you think of it as paying for access to the companies actual product instead of just paying for liscensing, it makes more sense. Unfortunately, there are still inconsistencies, as need for speed makes little attempt at realistic portrayals but nonetheless licenses everything.