Call of Duty's Legal Victory Could Change the Racing Game Landscape

sumbrownkid
This ruling also only affects Muricaland doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
This is a yes-but.

In principle it would apply to any game released by an American publisher on the American market (and would cover all content, not just that of American manufacturers). Anywhere else that has a similar freedom of expression principle built into its constitution would likely see similar test cases before it would be allowed.

The but is that consoles are region-free. If the games were not permitted elsewhere under copyright laws, it would still mean that any gamer anywhere could buy a physical copy of the game from the USA - or buy it digitally from a US account - and have access to it.
 
Slapped
Here's the way I see it.

Putting the likeness of a vehicle into a game where the vehicle is not the central point of the game is probably OK and gets covered by this ruling.

However, due to sim-racing/driving requiring exceptionally accurate models and physics means that a licence is likely going to be required.

Sticking a model of a Ferrari into a game where it's called a, shall we say, a Feretti Turbo, is probably on the right side of this ruling. However devs like Kunos who work closely with the manufacturers to get not only the models right, but also the physics, would still need to license the cars as otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the necessary information to make the cars as realistic as possible. The manufacturers would just tell them to go and spin on it if such info was requested without licence.

So, licencing is still going to be needed for the sim-racing genre, otherwise we all might as well go and play Mario Kart.
Click to expand...

i kinda agree with this, but had the thought... what prevents private owners from offering their cars as models to game designers... they may not have the ability to get the ECU/IP data in the software side of cars. but spring rates, weight,suspension geometry and all that can be measured with off the shelf tools. and just call is Joe Bobs Ferrari 599 or what ever... they arent saying this represents all ferarri 599's just joe bobs ferrari 599... i am also insane from quarantine...
 
GT_brickhole
just call is Joe Bobs Ferrari 599 or what ever... they arent saying this represents all ferarri 599's just joe bobs ferrari 599... i am also insane from quarantine...
Click to expand...
That is not an insane idea, games like Midnight Club 3 did get a Ferrari and a Porsche by calling it Gamballa's F335 and 911 Turbo. And this is a game where you can run from cops and drive into pedestrian through a shopping mall.
 
Anonanon
That is not an insane idea, games like Midnight Club 3 did get a Ferrari and a Porsche by calling it Gamballa's F335 and 911 Turbo. And this is a game where you can run from cops and drive into pedestrian through a shopping mall.
Click to expand...
Not so fast. Gemballa is a real company (and thus its them who approve the license for the cars to be in, not Ferrari or Porsche), while "Joe Bobs" is not.

Try to copy the (near exact) likeness of the car design while calling them fictional made up names (thus no one is actually handling for the license of such car) and you ended up with the likeness lawsuit from the real actual car company.
 
It will never happen in a Gran Turismo title. They have too much official partnerships, brands, historic facts, data, they would need to get rid of the dealership mode and the pricing of cars and the ability to buy them etc. They won't take any unnecessary risks to just add some more unofficials, unlicensed cars.
 
ElieTheStig
It will never happen in a Gran Turismo title. They have too much official partnerships, brands, historic facts, data, they would need to get rid of the dealership mode and the pricing of cars and the ability to buy them etc. They won't take any unnecessary risks to just add some more unofficials, unlicensed cars.
Click to expand...

It might go the other way, if they cant collect licence fees then it would be in their interest to promote their vehicles for free in games. Given the rapidly increasing popularity of E-Sports this could be potentially very lucrative in a similar vein to celebrity blog endorsements...
 
Here's the thing, brands in GT Sport ARE monitoring what cars players buy. This would free up money spent for acquiring licencing. So, PDI not wanting to pay Lotus the same price as Ferrari, would be moot.

For the Gran Turismo brand, I don't think this would be a problem any longer. A brand would be silly not to allow PDI to get their car in one of these games today.

(Just on the side, we have seen how Kaz doesn't think of certain cars/brands for the game. Often, brands approach Kaz first(with a response from Kaz or not). So, it would depend on what this particular studio do moving forward)

Will be interesting for future games.
 
Famine
This is a yes-but.

In principle it would apply to any game released by an American publisher on the American market (and would cover all content, not just that of American manufacturers). Anywhere else that has a similar freedom of expression principle built into its constitution would likely see similar test cases before it would be allowed.

The but is that consoles are region-free. If the games were not permitted elsewhere under copyright laws, it would still mean that any gamer anywhere could buy a physical copy of the game from the USA - or buy it digitally from a US account - and have access to it.
Click to expand...
The problem with your 'but' is that no sane developer would build a game they can only legally sell in the US.
 
A lot of people that can't or won't read the ruling, or even the article, and understand what's going on.
The court applied a 3-pronged test:

1. Does the content have "artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever"? A racing game featuring a specific car clearly would, just as Call of Duty having one does.

2. Does the content's use "explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the work"? Unless one was making a "Ferrari game" or something similar, as one poster mentioned, this would clearly not apply.

3. Whether the content is an "integral element" to the work, which is protected as free speech. Cars are clearly an "integral element" to a racing game, especially one that wishes to simulate a specific series, etc.

Thus, the inclusion of real vehicles is protected free speech and not in violation of any intellectual property laws. This was a trademark case, so the naming of the content is included, whether Call of Duty used it or not.

Things that are completely irrelevant: Being "realistic" in terms of physics, whether the car is the "central focus", whether it has any influence on car sales, whether the game developer makes any profit, etc, etc, etc. Please read! It's not hard :)
 
Last edited:
There has been some weird decisions in American courts recently, like American States being able to freely use copyrighted material. So American courts are capable of anything atm.

Whether this court ruling could be applied around the world is questionable. If Europe, or another large region, are not of the same 'mind' a lot of barriers could be put in place. It would have to be a very good game for a lot of people to import it, or now that many games are now downloaded, if they are only sold within a region basis, how many would go to the trouble of getting around that region store block. :confused:

Do you stick with the Laws for the majority of the world and get sales around the world, or do you sell in one market and hope users go and 'acquire' it. :rolleyes:
 
PaMu1337
The problem with your 'but' is that no sane developer would build a game they can only legally sell in the US.
Click to expand...
There's also the fact that there's nothing preventing legal challenges outside of the US forcing publishers to region lock games out areas where you are required to licence designs, badges and names even if the consoles themselves are not. The provisions for doing so already exist, on the PS4 at least.


bduddy
Things that are completely irrelevant: Being "realistic" in terms of physics, whether the car is the "central focus", whether it has any influence on car sales, whether the game developer makes any profit, etc, etc, etc. Please read! It's not hard
Click to expand...
I've been reading about and following this case since Activision first filed it. Don't be so arrogant as to assume the people who have doubts about the theories raised by this news piece simply must not have read anything about it before commenting.


Television and film have been legally codified as free speech for decades longer than videogames, and they absolutely are not so flippant about how they use the intellectual property of other companies in their medium as "It's free speech so deal with it."
 
Last edited:
You know, considering the boost in sales stuff like the Lancer Evolution, Nissan Skyline and others saw because of games like Gran Turismo, I would argue that at least one goal of a racing simulator, or, at least, of a manufacturer putting a car in a racing simulator is to sell cars.
 
Tornado
There's also the fact that there's nothing preventing legal challenges outside of the US forcing publishers to region lock games out areas where you are required to licence designs, badges and names even if the consoles themselves are not. The provisions for doing so already exist, on the PS4 at least.



I've been reading about and following this case since Activision first filed it. Don't be so arrogant as to assume the people who have doubts about the theories raised by this news piece simply must not have read anything about it before commenting.


Television and film have been legally codified as free speech for decades longer than videogames, and they absolutely are not so flippant about how they use the intellectual property of other companies in their medium as "It's free speech so deal with it."
Click to expand...
It's not just a "news piece". It's an actual court ruling. The decisions made by other media companies, for other reasons (such as wanting to get product placement money), have absolutely nothing to do with the actual legal reasoning by a court.
 
I never understood the point to hide historic race cars under licence, the same with historic tracks, they even doesn't exist anymore, they not meant to be sold, the doesn't represent anything what define current generation of auto market, they have to be free to add into any game, because it's indeed just a history, that otherwise could be gone and forgotten, especially if not racing simulators.
 
bduddy
It's not just a "news piece". It's an actual court ruling.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks. Again, I've been aware of this lawsuit for years, and GTP isn't making breaking news with this story to begin with.

bduddy
The decisions made by other media companies, for other reason
Click to expand...
No, for the same reason. I helpfully bolded an example of a shared reason that frequently comes up in other media in your post. Please read! It's not hard.

bduddy
have absolutely nothing to do with the actual legal reasoning by a court.
Click to expand...
The potential consequences of this court case, and whether the precedent will actually in practice be applied to things outside of the scope of this court case, will be examined in future court cases and is very much something with more discussion value than your attempt to dismiss it all above implies.

"It's free speech" doesn't allow unfettered use of intellectual property by others. Maybe in theory it could and in some cases has (for example, none of the firearms companies have been pushing back at videogame companies since 2011 when they use to collect money for it and threaten action against companies that didn't pay up) but in practice there are usually restrictions and one of the things you mentioned yourself is a relevant test to seek damages over if you didn't authorize the use. Car companies specifically have done that exact thing.
Let's see what the first company to try to put out a FIFA or NFL game without the permission of FIFA or EA or the NFL gets hit with before we declare licencing things for use in games has been declared null and void when it hasn't for films and television.
 
Last edited:
Slapped
Here's the way I see it.

Putting the likeness of a vehicle into a game where the vehicle is not the central point of the game is probably OK and gets covered by this ruling.

However, due to sim-racing/driving requiring exceptionally accurate models and physics means that a licence is likely going to be required.

Sticking a model of a Ferrari into a game where it's called a, shall we say, a Feretti Turbo, is probably on the right side of this ruling. However devs like Kunos who work closely with the manufacturers to get not only the models right, but also the physics, would still need to license the cars as otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the necessary information to make the cars as realistic as possible. The manufacturers would just tell them to go and spin on it if such info was requested without licence.

So, licencing is still going to be needed for the sim-racing genre, otherwise we all might as well go and play Mario Kart.
Click to expand...

This. The close relationships sim and other racing games attempting to be realistic, have to manufacturers is t something they'd be willing to sacrifice to loophole something like this. I see this benefitting the likes of ea and need for speed if it'll benefit anyone.
 
Famine
First-party games are even easier. Microsoft is already a US company. Sony would simply need to publish as SCEA.
Click to expand...

Isn't selling worldwide covered by the fact that CoD is? Then it would indeed only matter where the publisher sits?

Tornado
Let's see what the first company to try to put out a FIFA or NFL game without the permission of FIFA or EA or the NFL gets hit with before we declare licencing things for use in games has been declared null and void when it hasn't for films and television.
Click to expand...

But it has? Showing trademarks is understood as product placement and there are contracts with advertising money going to the film production, the same way it should be for video games. What production company has to kindly ask and pay Ford just to be allowed to show a Thunderbird, even as the film's protagonist?

Of course big sports events are a different deal.
 
ElieTheStig
It will never happen in a Gran Turismo title. They have too much official partnerships, brands, historic facts, data, they would need to get rid of the dealership mode and the pricing of cars and the ability to buy them etc. They won't take any unnecessary risks to just add some more unofficials, unlicensed cars.
Click to expand...

Especially brands that are protective like Ferrari. Whatever happens in the usa does not apply to other countries regarding rules and laws when it comes to copyright and licensing.
 
This not only appears to affect vehicles but rally stages run on public roads.
"That is not a stage,That's art",Your honour.
 
Here's a question. How many arcade racers have included cars which are blatantly, say, a current model of Ferrari, but have simply not referred to it as such or included the Ferrari branding within the game?

SestoScudo
copyright
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with copyright.
 
Call Of Duty is a shooting game that just happens to have a real vehicle in it. I feel like this is a subjective case which will not be applied to dedicated racing games. Most, if not all manufacturers will be pissed off if racing game developers used their vehicles without receiving money. However Activision does not intend to advertise or promote the Hummer to the consumer. They just use it as a means of creating a realistic atmosphere, and I think that's the key here.
 
Roger the Horse
Here's a question. How many arcade racers have included cars which are blatantly, say, a current model of Ferrari, but have simply not referred to it as such or included the Ferrari branding within the game?



This has nothing to do with copyright.
Click to expand...

Toca racing driver 2 I think had a Ferrari 360 under the name of Keonig.

No Ferrari logos what so ever.
 
Seriously, I feel that everytime the topic of licensing comes up, gamers will use any angle to justify getting more of what they want. That's not to say this isn't an interesting ruling, I wonder which title would a sim racer be more likely to buy, one that 150 unlicensed cars, or one that had 50 licensed cars? Which would they have more faith in being an accurate representation of the cars they were using? I'd suggest it should be the latter, but I suspect they'd fall back on some argument around tyres, and then buy the one with more cars in it. Maybe with eSports that doesn't matter anymore anyway. An accurate representation of the cars is falling behind the need to provide a level playing field for competitors, in real life, BOP has to account for this... in gaming, they can just say... LOL and give everything the same physics model.

Personally, I'd rather licensing found a more a favourable level for gamers naturally, rather than relying on the courts to take manufacturers IP out of manufacturers hands. If games provided more tangible benefits for car makers, licensing would be less about money, because they'd be getting more back for giving away their brand equity... at the moment that's seemingly done with money, it would be nice if it was value instead.
 
I think this instance is limited to US law. Also there should be a distinction in the scale and nature of the vehicles pictured in the game :
- in COD this is only one or a very few vehicles, and they are not available for purchase to the public
- if a racing game tried to stretch this ruling to its limits and argue that they can include hundreds of cars that are actual products, I believe there should be a different interpretation of the intent.
 

Latest Posts

Back