Porsche, RUF and GT5 - trying to figure out the legal situation

That's exactly my point - "someone" at Porsche. What's that going to prove? Nothing. Who is that "someone" and is she (I believe it was) even competent and/or entitled to give information on such matters as licensing? Nobody knows, how convenient.

I'm only sticking to what I know, some experience in business matters - and reason.

Believe what you want. Have fun speculating and talking about some conspiracy. But don't blame me calling this whole subject anything other than an urban myth. Because that's what it is.

A letter from Porsche, or some guy on the internet claiming to have been there.

I'll have to think about this one.
 
That's exactly my point - "someone" at Porsche. What's that going to prove? Nothing. Who is that "someone" and is she (I believe it was) even competent and/or entitled to give information on such matters as licensing? Nobody knows, how convenient.

I'm only sticking to what I know, some experience in business matters - and reason.

Believe what you want. Have fun speculating and talking about some conspiracy. But don't blame me calling this whole subject anything other than an urban myth. Because that's what it is.

Most likely (as someone in business, this is what I'd assume) is that anyone communicating information to a customer would probably go through the proper channels to verify that is what is being sent from a Porsche corporate e-mail is actually stating factual information. It's really not that difficult, and I'm sure they have more than enough people in PR and marketing to spend a few minutes fact checking an e-mail.

If you were contacted through a public inquiry message, what would you do? I'd forward the message to the relevant department, get an answer, and respond. Not that difficult.

Like you said, Porsche made massive amounts of money through things other than licensing and German copyright law is a nightmare, so why do you think it'd be so hard to imagine giving rights to EA to sublicense the Porsche name? They have a longstanding relationship with EA, know it's in EA's best interest to protect Porsche, and allows license negotiations to take place without having to involve Porsche directly.
 
Honestly, I'm just really pleased that someone has actually done the legwork on this for once, instead of just irately chewing out the porsche fanatics. Cheers to you, Interceptor.
 
That's exactly my point - "someone" at Porsche. What's that going to prove? Nothing. Who is that "someone" and is she (I believe it was) even competent and/or entitled to give information on such matters as licensing? Nobody knows, how convenient.

I'm only sticking to what I know, some experience in business matters - and reason.

Believe what you want. Have fun speculating and talking about some conspiracy. But don't blame me calling this whole subject anything other than an urban myth. Because that's what it is.

She can simply ASK the appropriate department, as said in her job description, it's what she's TRAINED TO DO, if she sent out an email on pure personal speculation and false information then she would not only lose her job but she may also face charges or legal action. Stop trying to adamantly make sure you're right and that your word is final because your doing nothing more then opening yourself to ridicule from others here.
 
So why is it that T10 can have licence and not PD? Is it something to do with that PD are Japanese?

Only PD and EA know probably. Could be that the asking price was too high, could be the fact that Gran Turismo is the largest racing franchise and EA didn't want to sell to them, it's not really clear.

Kaz has said repeatedly he wants Porsche in the game. He owns and races one in real life. They just weren't able to secure licensing rights for whatever reason.
 
MSFT has been more than willing to throw gads of money that SCEI hasn't had with the PS3 being in the red until relatively recently. Gads of money will convince anyone to do a licensing deal.

I still hope there's a Porsche DLC pack one day. All premium 997, 998, Cayman S/R and the Carrera GT
 
Didn't Sony spend something like $60+ million with PD on GT5?? MS might be more willing to spend money than Sony, most of which is nothing more than fanboy rumor, but GT5 didn't necessarily have the same budget that T10 did with FM3 (or FM2).
I would LOVE Porsche in GT5. Even if I have to pay DLC for it. It's still blasphemy in my book that the biggest racing franchise of all time doesn't even have one of the most, if not the most, successful brands in motorsports.

Doesn't GRID have a Porsche? Add Codemasters to the same list as T10. I do think it might be EA/Porsche asking for more money than what PD wants to spend. Note my word 'think', unlike most here who preach it as fact ;)
Something just doesn't add up..
 
Adding my unsubstantiated opinion to this thread: I'm sure I read in a thread much like this one that PD aren't willing to pay anyone for a license to use cars - all cars in the game have to be given freely by the manufacturers. EA owns the license for Porsche and demanded a fee, and PD stuck to their guns and refused to pay it, not because they couldn't afford it (let's face it, they can afford w/e the hell they want), but because of this policy. I vaguely recall something about Porsche wanting to let them, but being locked in with EA for X years and being unable to.
 
Adding my unsubstantiated opinion to this thread: I'm sure I read in a thread much like this one that PD aren't willing to pay anyone for a license to use cars - all cars in the game have to be given freely by the manufacturers. EA owns the license for Porsche and demanded a fee, and PD stuck to their guns and refused to pay it, not because they couldn't afford it (let's face it, they can afford w/e the hell they want), but because of this policy. I vaguely recall something about Porsche wanting to let them, but being locked in with EA for X years and being unable to.

No offense, but this is the most incorrect thing I've ever read on here. It's the exact opposite. They have to pay licensing for every car used in the game. They spend tens of millions of dollars on licensing.
 
So why is it that T10 can have licence and not PD? Is it something to do with that PD are Japanese?

T10 is owned by MS so likely MS gave them a discount in XBOX licencing or something similar. Kaz do not want to waste a lot of money to licensing as GT is so good product marketing that companies should pay to PD.
 
No offense, but this is the most incorrect thing I've ever read on here. It's the exact opposite. They have to pay licensing for every car used in the game. They spend tens of millions of dollars on licensing.

OK, and I realise I haven't backed up my claim in any way, but have you got any evidence to that fact? Because I've never seen anyone at PD or Sony claim to have spent any money on licensing.
 
OK, and I realise I haven't backed up my claim in any way, but have you got any evidence to that fact? Because I've never seen anyone at PD or Sony claim to have spent any money on licensing.

I think there's some posts just a few pages back.

Either way, that's how licenses work.
 
this thread has been runied by narrow minded idiots that only see things 1 way and will not allow for anyone else to have an opinion different to theirs.

FACT
 
this thread has been runied by narrow minded idiots that only see things 1 way and will not allow for anyone else to have an opinion different to theirs.

FACT

Most of this thread has been factual, with people coming in with baseless ideas. Those people get shot down with facts.
There is a difference between "opinion" (I think Porsche is the best), and incorrect statement (I think PD didn't want Porsche in the game because its German).
 
this thread has been runied by narrow minded idiots that only see things 1 way and will not allow for anyone else to have an opinion different to theirs.

FACT

Not sure who you're calling an idiot, but I think the point of this thread was to gather FACTs on the licensing situation of Porsche, RUF (and other Porsche derived tuners/manufacturers) in relation to GT5 and PD.
 
For the sake of the argument, that's how I understand the situation

1. The eMail
1.1. The contents of the "Porsche" eMail are quoted regularly, yet I haven't seen a post pointing to the original thread where the contents of the eMail were first posted.

1.2. Because publishing RL names is very evil, there's no info about who received the eMail nor who sent it.

1.3. As the sender of the eMail is unknown to me, I cannot judge whether this person was in a position to give a qualified answer at all, if he or she had all the information at hand or was indeed in a position to make claims towards the legal business affairs. This would make things indeed very simple, because either there is some info on the interweb about the person's function at Porsche. Or one could simply phone Porsche and try to get hold of that person. You get the idea.

So, in summary, the eMail is of no help as it can't be cross-checked.

If I disregard the eMail, I have to make (other) assumptions

2. Copyright law in Germany

An "exclusive" license means two things. (a) Party A has the right to use copyrighted material from Party B. (b) Party B agrees not to sell these rights to another Party C.

It does not mean, that Party A is in any position to do anything further with its exclusive rights. If the contract between A and B is breached by C, it can either sue B or C. But it can not grant C to use the rights from B.

So if C wants to use said copyrighted material, it has to achieve an agreement with A (they don't enforce the "exclusive" part of the deal with B) and B (to license the material at all, and probably a modification to the exclusive deal with A).

In summary, either way Porsche plays a major part in the affair.

3. Company culture, both in general and at Porsche

You have to understand, that internal business matters are hardly ever discussed in public. It's, mildly speaking, highly unlikely that Porsche discloses such information at all or in detail.

Furthermore, Porsche used to be a patriarchic "shop" deeply influenced by tradition, a no-nonsense mindset and a passionate rivalry between Piech and Porsche. They don't do funny.

When I said "I was there" I meant when NFS:Porsche hit the shelves. There was quite some media coverage, many went to great lengths explaining why EA finally got hold of the Porsche license.

Porsche doesn't sell its license to make money, they manage it to protect first and foremost their intellectual property. They make sure nobody does anything to damage the brand. That's their main interest.

And it's very very hard indeed to believe these delicate matters are put in the hands of a video game company that was that big back in the days.

To sum it up:

If you disregard the value of the eMail (because it can't be cross-checked), stick to facts about German copyright law (limited possibility of selling original copyright holder's rights) and look at the history of Porsche management (which can be learned by reading the financial pages of any good newspaper) it is highly unlikely that Porsche grants a third party (EA) such influence over managing their brand.

It's far more plausible that (a) PD didn't cough up enough money at all (b) PD didn't cough up enough money to satisfy EA for loosing exclusivity (c) Porsche can't be bothered because PD is just some small Japanese outfit (d) Porsche wants exclusivity and PD doesn't want to drop RUF (e) RUF wants exclusivity and doesn't allow Porsches besides them.

All these reasons are quite probable and sound and follow simple reason and deduction.

They do not rely on any "evidence" that can't be cross-checked.

As I said before, this whole subject qualifies as an urban myth. It depends heavily on hearsay. Everybody knows about this eMail, yet nobody has seen it in person. But knows someone who knows someone who has.

This myth provides an easy (and emotion provoking) explanation. It even has a bit of conspiracy in it. Whereas in reality, it's all about tedious legal matters and boring financial news.

That's about all there is to say on this matter.
 
For the sake of the argument, that's how I understand the situation

1. The eMail

The email is from a link in the OP, I quoted it from that link. I believe the OP posted it in that thread as well.

edit: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3565233#post3565233

If you don't believe the guy, fine, but I can't imagine why someone would make a fake letter from Porsche just so they can make a thread about licensing from tuners..
Occams Razor comes to mind.
 
For the sake of the argument, that's how I understand the situation

1. The eMail
1.1. The contents of the "Porsche" eMail are quoted regularly, yet I haven't seen a post pointing to the original thread where the contents of the eMail were first posted. You must not have read the first page because the link is contained in the first post. - https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3565233#post3565233

1.2. Because publishing RL names is very evil, there's no info about who received the eMail nor who sent it. I think it's normally considered good practice to get the consent of the other party prior to publically publishing their name and e-mail. Since he probably never got consent, I don't think this is that questionable.

1.3. As the sender of the eMail is unknown to me, I cannot judge whether this person was in a position to give a qualified answer at all, if he or she had all the information at hand or was indeed in a position to make claims towards the legal business affairs. This would make things indeed very simple, because either there is some info on the interweb about the person's function at Porsche. Or one could simply phone Porsche and try to get hold of that person. You get the idea. The sender of the e-mail does not have to be qualified to answer. They only have to be qualified in obtaining and relaying information via e-mail. Most children could probably do this sufficiently well.

While I generally agree with your sentiment, the OP does seem to be putting in the leg work to get this information, so we can either assume:
A) He's lying and making up a substantial amount of information over a prolonged period from which he stands to gain nothing.
B) Someone at Porsche felt comfortable enough to send out specific yet inaccurate and unvetted information to an inquiry from the public.
C) Porsche actually responded accurately to an inquiry through normal corporate methods.

I'm inclined to assume "C" because the first two options make no sense.
 
Glad you asked 👍

http://issuu.com/usplaystationmag/docs/pschronicle01_11/19

Page 17. "We pay a license fee for all the cars to include in GT".

Not the only mention I've seen of it, but that's a nice direct quote.

Excellent, consider me educated. Which seems to imply that EA are withholding the license for Porsche - it's hard to imagine PD/Sony not being able to afford it (unless EA hiked the price ridiculously to try and gouge them, and Sony aren't biting).
 
I knew this argument would come up sooner or later. I didn't disclose any full names in this thread because I respect privacy.

However, I herewith offer you, ItsHim, to forward the original Porsche mails including the name of the spokesperson to you. Just PM me your e-mail address.
 
I knew this argument would come up sooner or later. I didn't disclose any full names in this thread because I respect privacy.

However, I herewith offer you, ItsHim, to forward the original Porsche mails including the name of the spokesperson to you. Just PM me your e-mail address.

Thanks very much for the offer.

All I can say is that the first eMail, which is news to me, is quite how I would have expected. As I said in my previous post, I would expect Porsche giving permission to T10 and EA consenting to this, giving up a bit of the "exclusive" bit in their deal with Porsche.

It's the second eMail I find hard to believe. On second thoughts that's quite outrageous: Porsche "... accept their entrepreneurial decisions to give out sublicenses."

Well, not much left other than to say: I wouldn't have believed it if you were to prove it to me, but you just have.

I'm speechless.
 
near as I can tell, EA gives the sublicense to turn 10 because they are given other sublicenses in return, such as the ferraris they were able to use in the xbox 360 only shift 1 DLC.
 
Excellent, consider me educated. Which seems to imply that EA are withholding the license for Porsche - it's hard to imagine PD/Sony not being able to afford it (unless EA hiked the price ridiculously to try and gouge them, and Sony aren't biting).

Thats exactly what it is, I know two people at EA who have told me this, EA will lend licenses to anyone for a reasonable price or deal except for PD. And, yes, as with most things of this nature I will not name the two people or tell you how I know them because I've seen people get fired for things posted on forums by other people.
 
Neither GT1 nor GT2 had Porsches. GT1 was launched in 1997 whereas GT2 was launched in 1999. To my understanding, EA got the Porsche license for their NFS Porsche Unleashed title which was launched in 2000. So how does EA stop PD from using Porsche in GT if they only acquired the license in 1999-2000??

Don't get me wrong, my opinion is that EA/Porsche (or both) asked PD for a lot for the Porsche license but there is no proof nor statement on this. PD should come out and say why Porsche isn't in a GT game to date. Maybe we should all blow up Kaz's twitter account until we get an answer. You'd think with GT being the biggest racing franchise in history that one of the winning-est brands in motorsports would be fine with including their brand.

BTW, Ferrari is way more anal about their brand than Porsche is.
 
[...]BTW, Ferrari is way more anal about their brand than Porsche is.
I even suspect that the inclusion of Ferrari cars is the reason why there are no 0-400, 0-1000, and top speed tests anymore. They're very anal when it's about performance comparison.
 
As I said before, this whole subject qualifies as an urban myth. It depends heavily on hearsay. Everybody knows about this eMail, yet nobody has seen it in person. But knows someone who knows someone who has.

This myth provides an easy (and emotion provoking) explanation. It even has a bit of conspiracy in it. Whereas in reality, it's all about tedious legal matters and boring financial news.

That's about all there is to say on this matter.
Sorry I can't let this slip by. For someone who hates speculation so much and wants to go to such lengths to criticize other people, you sure do like to speculate yourself (and contradict yourself while you're at it). Lets look at some of your own speculation and unfounded theories you shared with us:

It's far more plausible that (a) PD didn't cough up enough money at all
Ok you're doing alright here. Sounds reasonable. You're still just providing your own heresay.


(it is highly unlikely that Porsche grants a third party (EA) such influence over managing their brand.
(stick to facts about German copyright law (limited possibility of selling original copyright holder's rights)
(b) PD didn't cough up enough money to satisfy EA for loosing exclusivity
Uh oh the train is derailing. In the first two quotes you claim its unlikely Porsche would grant EA influcence over their IP. Then you go on to speculate PD didn't pay enough to satisfy EA, implying that EA does have the influence. So which one is it??


(c) Porsche can't be bothered because PD is just some small Japanese outfit
So now were speculating that Porsche doesn't believe PD is big enough to have an impact on their public image. Facts: 11.06 million copies of GT4 sold worlwide by March 2010, 61.41 million copies of the GT series sold to date. It's also well known that the GT series played a huge part in the STI and EVO being brought to Norh America and the sales success of those models here. Another indicator of PD's influence: several manufacturers have used GT5 as a major PR tool for new car debuts (Lotus Evora, Ferrari California, Toyota FT-86, GT by Citroen). By making the speculation in the quote above you are assuming Porsche managment are completely ignorant to what is going on in the automotive world.

( Furthermore, Porsche used to be a patriarchic "shop" deeply influenced by tradition, a no-nonsense mindset and a passionate rivalry between Piech and Porsche. They don't do funny.
Seems to me like you hold Porche management in pretty high regards actually...


(d) Porsche wants exclusivity and PD doesn't want to drop RUF
This one's a real stretch. You're speculating that if for some crazy reason PD had to choose between one or the other, they would rather have RUF in the GT5 than Porsche?? Yeah ok....

(e) RUF wants exclusivity and doesn't allow Porsches besides them.
Basically the same thing as above but you're now also implying RUF has some control over GT development. Some more awesome speculation there.


(All these reasons are quite probable and sound and follow simple reason and deduction.

They do not rely on any "evidence" that can't be cross-checked.
No they don't rely on any "evidence" at all. Its all your own speculation, most of it worse than the rest in this thread.


One more to finish it up:
I was there when it first happened.

(EA acquired the Porsche license for NFS:Porsche, which was quite a struggle and they only pulled it off because (a) the game content was Porsche exclusive and (b) Porsche had major influence in the game design. That's gaming history.

(When I said "I was there" I meant when NFS:Porsche hit the shelves. There was quite some media coverage, many went to great lengths explaining why EA finally got hold of the Porsche license.
Well its good we had someone with firsthand experience to bring to the table. Because noone else "was there" way back in 2000 when NFS:Porsche was released. The thruth that most GTP members are under the age of 11 has finally been revealed!
 

Latest Posts

Back