Sponsor Logo Licensing

[gnorman]

Amongst the many side discussions on the Senna thread this was said in relation to the lack of 80s track furniture and period sponsors.

Bingo. Removing current sponsors from a current track and replacing them with old ones from companies who no longer have rights to those spots or pay for that sponsorship space would be a legal mess. The current sponsors are at the track and paid for that space. The concept of sponsorships and licensing seems quite obvious, but apparently there are many who are unaware.

Regardless if this is the actual cause of the licensing delays of this week, I found this particularly interesting because after reading the disclaimer before the intro movie it says how sponsor logos being in the game don't necessarily mean the owner of it have sponsored or endorsed their use in GT6. Or rather thats how I read it without having the exact working to hand.

Going further I interpret it to mean that when you see a logo on the side of the track it is there because it is there in real life and the game has faithfully reproduced the track and the disclaimer is the legal blurb way of saying this is ok because the game is not claiming financial gain or ownership of them. Crowshop's point that they have paid for the space and their contract with the track owner would presumably cover them for any reproduction of the track whether it is in a game, photo, video, tv broadcast or anything. That would imply that it is ok to reproduce them but how does the 30 year period between the contract being written and GT6 affect things?

The concept of sponsorship and licensing is indeed simple, like most concepts, but the implementation and details are unfortunately complex and a legal minefield. Anyone know more about this area to be able to offer some enlightenment?

 

[Jawehawk]

80's Brands Hatch is, as far as I can tell, the exact same track as the modern one in game.
It's just half assed. The buildings are so out of place.

 

[gnorman]

80's Brands Hatch is, as far as I can tell, the exact same track as the modern one in game.
It's just half assed. The buildings are so out of place.

Track is different. Graham Hill Bend, Westfield, Sheene Curve/Dingle Dell should all be different, maybe Stirlings as well.

Check the Senna update content thread please. I set this one up about logo licensing to discuss something else to avoid it being off topic in a thread discussing the Senna update content. Cheers 👍

 

[MatskiMonk]

Sorry to be a negative nelly, but really, unless PD/Sony, or MSV (current owners of Brands Hatch) tell you the answer, this will just be futile guessing. It is not a fixed and rigid system. There could be lengthy agreements draughted by every party involved over the last 30 years, or, there may be nothing but a handshake, forgotten decades ago.

 

[gnorman]

Very true, but when has futile guessing stopped anyone on .

Just hoping for some futile educated guesses.

 

[Jawehawk]

Track is different. Graham Hill Bend, Westfield, Sheene Curve/Dingle Dell should all be different, maybe Stirlings as well.

Check the Senna update content thread please. I set this one up about logo licensing to discuss something else to avoid it being off topic in a thread discussing the Senna update content. Cheers 👍

Yeah, my bad. Just done some more laps on it, and a lot of the bends are a lot smoother, allowing for more throttle through them. Still, the scenary....

 

[crowhop]

If I signed a contract with the owners of Le Mans to have "crowhop" displayed at Dunlop, depending on how the contract was worded, crowhop could become "part of the track". And as such, no other name could legally be there in its place for the duration of the contract. Crowhop could become as much a part of Le Mans as the tarmac, if the contract was worded in such a way.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

A lot of sponsors in the 80's were tobacco or alcohol. I'd suggest it's easier leaving sponsors out (or current ones in) than try and use other sponsors (that may not have ever been there in the first place).
Monza feels like the 80's to me, even though there are some differences, as most of the sponsors were contemporary (and the whole circuit is 'dirty')
At Brands, there are MSV logos everywhere and everything is clean. It makes everything look too modern and sterile

 

[RACECAR]

A lot of sponsors in the 80's were tobacco or alcohol. I'd suggest it's easier leaving sponsors out (or current ones in) than try and use other sponsors (that may not have ever been there in the first place).
Monza feels like the 80's to me, even though there are some differences, as most of the sponsors were contemporary (and the whole circuit is 'dirty')
At Brands, there are MSV logos everywhere and everything is clean. It makes everything look too modern and sterile

Well Monza's scenery isn't all that different (Apart from the Seating and sponsors) so with it being in a deep forest as its always been, its not nearly as big a discrepancy between the 1980s configuration and the current configuration.

And maybe its just me, but Monza sort've feels like its an old world track with only some modern Touches (same goes for Monaco).

 

[Divinus]

This is an interesting debate.

I am no way educated in the legal issues that this situation brings forward, but will try to put forward a different approach than the one presented by @crowhop .

If I sign a contract to a spot between the years X and X+30, then between those years the track has my logo. In the year X+31 a new company signs a deal for the same spot until X+60 and I lose the right to display my logo on said spot.
The interesting question arises when, in the year X+37 someone wants to reproduce the track from the year X+20.
In my opinion, if the point is a simulation of X+20, even if the present year is X+37, the logo on said spot should be mine. Effectively in the year X+20 I had the rights to that spot, even if in the present I don't.

Moreover if crowshop's reason is expanded a bit further one may as well argue to correct every piece of promotional material (videos, photos, ....) to reflect the current sponsor. That is trying to hide the past.

If I am trying to represent Germany from the 1935 I won't use the current flag just because it is the current flag. It is a fact that in 1935 the flag was another so to faithfully reproduce that period the flag of said period should be used. The same with the sponsors on the track. The current sponsor doesn't have the rights for that spot for the year X+20, the year of the replica, but I do - I paid for those (even if today is X+37).

Thinking otherwise is like saying the NY skyline from 2000 should not have the twin towers because today they aren't there.

 

[glassjaw]

Why not just use old logos of existing brands like Pirelli, Total, Michelin, etc.? Those brands were all over racetracks then and still are today. Considering how rights change hands I think it would be ridiculous to expect every old sponsor to return, but if PD just used historic logos of brands already present in the game that would certainly go a long way and it wouldn't even take much effort.

 

[crowhop]

This is an interesting debate.

I am no way educated in the legal issues that this situation brings forward, but will try to put forward a different approach than the one presented by @crowhop .

If I sign a contract to a spot between the years X and X+30, then between those years the track has my logo. In the year X+31 a new company signs a deal for the same spot until X+60 and I lose the right to display my logo on said spot.
The interesting question arises when, in the year X+37 someone wants to reproduce the track from the year X+20.
In my opinion, if the point is a simulation of X+20, even if the present year is X+37, the logo on said spot should be mine. Effectively in the year X+20 I had the rights to that spot, even if in the present I don't.

Moreover if crowshop's reason is expanded a bit further one may as well argue to correct every piece of promotional material (videos, photos, ....) to reflect the current sponsor. That is trying to hide the past.

If I am trying to represent Germany from the 1935 I won't use the current flag just because it is the current flag. It is a fact that in 1935 the flag was another so to faithfully reproduce that period the flag of said period should be used. The same with the sponsors on the track. The current sponsor doesn't have the rights for that spot for the year X+20, the year of the replica, but I do - I paid for those (even if today is X+37).

Thinking otherwise is like saying the NY skyline from 2000 should not have the twin towers because today they aren't there.

Theoretically, depending on the language within the contract, we could both be correct.

But in issues of modern advertising, sponsorships and licensing, the current contract rules and eliminates the contract before it. If I have a spot at Le Mans sponsored until 2030, any time Le Mans allows for a recreation of their track between now and 2030, my sponsorship should be included...so long as I made that clear in the original contract. Dunlop has a huge sponsorship with Le Mans. Any LEGAL recreation of Le Mans must include Dunlop, even if someone wanted to recreate a 1930's version of the track because Le Mans wouldn't allow you to do it otherwise.

All that being said, it is all pure speculation as to whether or not the track was the actual licensing holdup.

If I were Lotus, I'd take issue with PDI calling the '85 97T an Ayrton Senna car and not a Lotus. Same with the F3 car or even the kart, for all I know.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Who says the people licensing the track have to stipulate the billboards are the same? Who says sponsorship/advertising deals then (even now) extend to reproductions in computer games? Why would a circuit agree to handing over the rights to an electronically recreated bill board to the sponsor, if it would mean the circuit lost control of it's own image rights?

Not to mention many sponsors sponsor the series, not the tracks... I've never seen the Palmer sponsorship on the bridge at Druids, it's either been Carlube or Comma from recent memory.. and they tend to sponsor for the season in use. Not much point spending the money to advertise at the track in December, so maybe the tracks are modelled (for legal purposes) out of season...

All I'm getting at, is there is no hard and fast rule regarding this stuff... and in most cases, it will favour the circuit anyway... just like the disclaimer on the back of any race day ticket.

edit:

It could even be that the current owners of the circuit only took over the rights to the layout, and not the circuits previous imagery/image rights, and therefore, PD might have had to relicense the whole thing from the previous owners.


It's all still guess work, it simply is not that simple.

 

[NICKname]

How about the photo's in the slideshows? It doesn't have to be a huge problem every time.

 

[Conquerer]

At least Agip advertising isn't out of place at Monza since it's been there nearly forever.

 

[danardif1]

At least Agip advertising isn't out of place at Monza since it's been there nearly forever.

Even though Agip doesn't really exist anymore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agip

 

[Conquerer]

Even though Agip doesn't really exist anymore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agip

Well, from what I understand it continued to exist as a brand after it was acquired by eni, but I think within the last few years it's been retired completely. So when GT5 was released in 2010 Agip still existed as a brand. My point was that Agip signs were all over the place at Monza in the 80s so there's no real reason to change them.

 

[danardif1]

Well, from what I understand it continued to exist as a brand after it was acquired by eni, but I think within the last few years it's been retired completely. So when GT5 was released in 2010 Agip still existed as a brand. My point was that Agip signs were all over the place at Monza in the 80s so there's no real reason to change them.

I agree... it's nice to have some historic branding on tracks. I wouldn't think it'd be that much of a stretch to contact Pirelli, Dunlop, Shell etc. and see if they would licence some historic logos for use as trackside furniture on GT tracks. There's something about the classic trade logos that looks good on race circuits. I'm surprised we don't see it for real at races like Le Mans etc. It would give a real nostalgic feel to the tracks.

 

[NJ72]

Thinking otherwise is like saying the NY skyline from 2000 should not have the twin towers because today they aren't there.

I agree with your points apart from the relation to both the twin towers and the german flag. The difference being that neither of those items are copyrighted and neither of those are causing potential loss of earnings for the current sponsors.

Afterall, this world is all about money.

The owners of the rights between years X+31 and X+60 may have a complaint with the previous licence holders getting 'free' advertising - especially if the wording in either contracts haven't taken this into account (baring in mind that when the initial contract was signed 37 years previously video-games weren't something people cared about).

Just my 2 cents, but comparing it to something which isn't advertising is wrong. It is more closely related to changing billboards in TV show re-runs or something.

 

[snowgt]

Personally, I don't particularly need the correct sponsors in the correct spots on the 80's tracks, but to remove tobacco and alcohol company brands from the cars and even photoshop them out of the Senna gallery images is just a falsification of history.

 

[Divinus]

I agree with your points apart from the relation to both the twin towers and the german flag. The difference being that neither of those items are copyrighted and neither of those are causing potential loss of earnings for the current sponsors.

Afterall, this world is all about money.

The owners of the rights between years X+31 and X+60 may have a complaint with the previous licence holders getting 'free' advertising - especially if the wording in either contracts haven't taken this into account (baring in mind that when the initial contract was signed 37 years previously video-games weren't something people cared about).

Just my 2 cents, but comparing it to something which isn't advertising is wrong. It is more closely related to changing billboards in TV show re-runs or something.

I understand your point, but i think regardless of being advertising or not the principle still stands.

The interest to change the past because of present interests is not legit. It is the case with the communist editing of photos or with the logos on the track in GT6.

I understand that my argument is more of a ethical one than a legal one. I really have the tendency to understand what is the reason for the law (instead of a draconian approach) and in this case supporting the case against a faithful reproduction of the past due to present interests (ie.g. money) doesn't hold.

However you and @glassjaw presented an approach based on the current law (what it is not what it ought to) which I think is the point of thread, and for that I recognize merit in your comments.

Remains the question if my reason has enough leeway to be successfully argued in court.

Just some commentaries about specifics of your comment:

I don't think the previous licence holders are getting free ad. They paid for that period of time. The current holders did not. In fact they only hold rights after X+30, not before. It doesn't matter if videogames were not a thing back then. When the contract was signed there was knowledge that between X and X+30 the spot would be filled with a certain ad and any recreation of that spot in the future, regardless of form, would need to have that logo.

 

[MatskiMonk]

When the contract was signed there was knowledge that between X and X+30 the spot would be filled with a certain ad and any recreation of that spot in the future, regardless of form, would need to have that logo.

Unless you have sight of the wording in the contract all you are doing is making a supposition. Peoples views are pretty irrelevant, unless it becomes a legal battle, and then it is only between the person taking objection, and the person using the material. In which case, for anything that was not stipulated in a contract,.... I'm guessing a judge would take a number of things into account, and probably look for precedent (?), in which case, I'd imagine they would look to see if reproductions of period materials (i.e. Copies of photographs taken at the time) are commonly distributed today without the permission of all copyright holders of logos in the picture (which is plainly going to be the case). Where current advertisers expect to be included in reproductions of the circuit historically, again, they would need it to be in the contract specifically (I would imagine), which would probably not happen very often because of the risk of legal battles with prior sponsors.

edit 2: I'm not actually disagreeing with you @Divinus I just think we need to be careful of assumptions.

Here's another example to work through....

Who owns the rights to reproduce this photo:-

edit: In the case of Brands Hatch, I'm still betting that the issue would be more related to the fact the circuit ownership has changed during the period, and it the circuit that probably holds most of, if not all of, the cards when it comes to licensing their likeness, current or historical.

 

[FoRiZon]

Whats gripe me most is that PD can atleast remove some or all the sponsorships OR replace them with older logo/apperance. Surely the brands are still happy as long as their brand is still there right? I cant stand that modern Seat Sponsors on 80's Monza.

The infrastructure are also have to be altered. I mean, driving the 80's Tracks looks weird when there are modern buildings all over the place.

 

[Samus]

I'm not going to get into the whole new/old track hybrid debate again but regarding the hoardings/adverts I can't really think why any company would actually object to being essentially advertised for free in a game, unless they disagree with the ethics of the game or that sort of thing. With something arcade like NFS you could understand, but I can't see why anyone would object to being advertised in a realistic driving game like GT.

Of course on the other side of things PD might not want to display certain adverts either, but they could just be left blank.

 

[Spongeinside]

The sponsor logos we normally remember are from the events helt at the tracks. But different events (and different racing series) come with different sponsors.

The tracks are from the 'eighties'. That's a 10 year period. In that time probably many different events were helt at those tracks. So if PD were to put up sponsor logos they'd probably have to be from a certain event as lots of tracks don't have much, if any, sponsor logos when there's no event being helt.

So I guess PD went for a minimalistic route, to make the tracks look like as they would on a average day.

But as the Lotus is from 1985, they could have gone for the 1985 F1 event at those tracks for sponsorlogo placement, but that brings along all kinds of issues, licensing and stuff... As I have no clue on all that, I'm going for safe and say PD went with an 'average everyday' look.

 

[mistersafeway]

Personally, I don't particularly need the correct sponsors in the correct spots on the 80's tracks, but to remove tobacco and alcohol company brands from the cars and even photoshop them out of the Senna gallery images is just a falsification of history.

Why does it need to be repeated that tobacco advertising is illegal in most countries and alcohol is in at least a few? It's not happening... even the Martini liveried Lancias have always been censored in GT. I can sort of agree with you on the gallery pictures, but GT6 is still a product marketed as being okay for children, how long until some opportunistic American parents sue if the game is 'trying to sell cigarettes to our kids'?

 

[Polsixe]

80's Brands Hatch is, as far as I can tell, the exact same track as the modern one in game.
It's just half assed. The buildings are so out of place.

The four big right handers in the new version are almost symmetrical and seem like four 135 deg angular bends. In the old version those curves are progressively tighter, smaller radius and more curved. Always hard to handle a decreasing radius turn. Turn 3 is also different, old one can be flat out, almost, new needs more braking and still end up on turf stone on right side.

Old and new are different.

 

[mwoodski]

Just make it look like that.

 

[Gerarghini]

Why does it need to be repeated that tobacco advertising is illegal in most countries and alcohol is in at least a few? It's not happening... even the Martini liveried Lancias have always been censored in GT. I can sort of agree with you on the gallery pictures, but GT6 is still a product marketed as being okay for children, how long until some opportunistic American parents sue if the game is 'trying to sell cigarettes to our kids'?

Do I need to repeat myself...

The thing is it was PD's choice to alter the livery. Just look at the Audi Quattro Rally Car with an HB logo and a Porsche 962 with a Rothmans logo in Forza 4, as well as the F2007 in GT: PSP with a Martini logo. As long as they're provided to player via free or paid DLC, there is nothing anyone can do since they are not obligated to purchase and download said DLC and because DLC is unrated. I've not heard of T10 getting into a claim over that stuff.

 

[mistersafeway]

They're not selling it.

Edit: Or requiring a separate download, it goes in the game if you're connected to the Internet. I'm also extremely surprised Turn 10 get away with it, tobacco advertising has been illegal in many countries for a long time, and they're even considering banning branding on packets of cigarettes here.