Sponsor Logo Licensing

[Chrunch Houston]

I expected GT5 to have dynamic ads and sell the ad space to current advertisers, especially on the original tracks.

Imagine a big billboard facing turn one of Grand Valley and there is the latest McDonalds ad, or maybe in 2010 an ad for the Christmas season movie "I Love You, Phillip Morris".

I guess I'm just kind of surprised they didn't take advantage of this.

 

[Yarf]

Why do you guys want accurate ads on a race track, what, so you can see this?

 

[twitcher]

I have an off topic question for those of you who understand copyright law and licensing agreements better than I.

If I design my own racetrack in a "coarse creator," how close to a real world track can it be before legal issues arise?

And would it be recreating the actual track layout that is the issue, or is it the recreation of the entire venue along with using the name? Or is it both?

 

[snowgt]

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'?

Apart from the unprecedented censorship and hypocrisy that such advertising bans constitute (how on earth can a product be legal, but advertising it be forbidden by law?), it is questionable how depicting a car that in actual fact existed with a certain livery can actually be treated like it was actual advertising. If that was the case, smoking in movies would have to be outlawed as well as showing documentaries with clips from the past that contain tobacco ads that weren't illegal then.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I have an off topic question for those of you who understand copyright law and licensing agreements better than I.

If I design my own racetrack in a "coarse creator," how close to a real world track can it be before legal issues arise?

And would it be recreating the actual track layout that is the issue, or is it the recreation of the entire venue along with using the name? Or is it both?

If you try to profit, or distribute not-for-profit, by using a likeness of something they own, then they can take issue with it. How much profit for you (or, loss for them), how alike it is, and how much of an issue they make could vary wildly though.

In your example, firstly, I doubt PD would give you the tools to make it that accurate, but let's say you modeled your local track:

-If you made it 95% accurate, and named it with the the circuits real name, and shared it freely (assuming we could do that in GT), then your local track owners could take issue, that their likeness is being used without their permission - and therefore they are probably loosing out on $. It could be they don't care, and let it slide. It could even be they are flattered, and just see it as a bit of fun. Or, it could be they want a slice of that $ and pursue the issue. It could be, it turns out they have an agreement with another software developer for the rights to the track and have to pursue you to avoid repercussions from their other agreement.

-In these cases, it would be pretty indefensible, because you've even named the track as being theirs, and you've made it look like theirs as much as possible. I don't know whether it would be you, PD, Sony or all that would be liable though. Probably Sony, then PD, then you (since no doubt in the T&C's you've agreed not to breach any copyright laws)

-I suspect that the track layout counts as much as the buildings in the 'likeness' of the track, but similarly, it wouldn't surprise me if the track layout was protected in some fashion as a logo, or device, by which the circuit is known. It could just be registered as a design.

-If you made it 49% accurate, and called it the twitcherring, it would be much harder. They would have to prove that what you had attempted to do, was use their likeness (and done a 'bad job'). Again, how much they care will be the same as in the example above. If it's an F1 track with an official agreement with Codemasters for instance they will probably care a lot, if it's your local quarter-mile speedway, they might not.

-if you made it 1000% accurate, and didn't share it, no problem.

-In any case, there is also the issue of the materials you used to re-create the track, in many cases, these are copyrighted too.. how do you know what shape the track is without ripping off someone elses work?

-Totally hypothetical situation now.. but let's say you modeled a circuit that's been in disrepair and under grass for 60 years, and lets assume any rights to likeness have been lost in the sands of time, and there's no way anyone can prove they have the rights to object, or license it.... Let's say there is only one set of photographs of the venue available, and they belong to a historic archive, you find them on the web, you disregard the copyright on the images and you use those to reproduce it. The historic archive could potentially take issue, and ask you to prove you have prior knowledge of the venues appearance and layout, if you couldn't then they could potentially claim that you used their material without written permission/agreement/license.

_______

I'm not an expert, but I've some experience with patenting, trademarking, copyright, registering and licensing products, logos and and IP, but not venues or anything with a 'back story' of it's own. It's an expensive, long winded process.

A lot of licensing is actually common sense and logic, the reason why it can appear immensely convoluted to an outsider is usually because the outsider isn't privy to all the other parties that maybe involved, or the history of any agreements already in place. Just put yourself in the position of the person who's IP/imagery/copyright you think you would be using and ask yourself, "Could I make money, or loose out on money, because of this?", and "Should I protect my investment". Just getting lawyers involved is an expensive process, even if there is money on the table to be had, you'd have to ask, is it worth it? We've got £156,000 worth of correspondence in one ring binder alone. We've been contacted by 'big companies' turning over €16,000,000,000, and asked to pull press releases, because other people/third parties have mentioned the 'big companies' own trademarks in response/review of OUR press releases.



Just my two cents...

 

[Samus]

From what I've learned being part of Project CARS development you can't copyright a track as intellectual property the same way you can a car. As long as you don't use the name/logo or anything like that which would be legally protected you can go ahead and model any track you like.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

Apart from the unprecedented censorship and hypocrisy that such advertising bans constitute (how on earth can a product be legal, but advertising it be forbidden by law?), it is questionable how depicting a car that in actual fact existed with a certain livery can actually be treated like it was actual advertising. If that was the case, smoking in movies would have to be outlawed as well as showing documentaries with clips from the past that contain tobacco ads that weren't illegal then.

This already happens in the UK to an extent. Numerous scenes are cut from the old Batman tv series due to smoking or drinking, while in the famous Abbey Road Beatles cover, Paul McArtney's cigarette was photoshopped out (although they seem to have changed it back now)

 

[snowgt]

From what I've learned being part of Project CARS development you can't copyright a track as intellectual property the same way you can a car. As long as you don't use the name/logo or anything like that which would be legally protected you can go ahead and model any track you like.

Hence the track "Côte d'Azur" in Gran Turismo.

 

[tankuroded]

Why do you guys want accurate ads on a race track, what, so you can see this?

It is the "rival brand" situation. No company is willing to advertise something from a rival company. For instance, in the 80s, Scuderia Ferrari and Equipe Renault prevented their drivers from racing in the BMW ProCar Series.

 

[Samus]

Hence the track "Côte d'Azur" in Gran Turismo.

This 'Redwood Park' track in Supercar Challenge also seems extremely familiar.

 

[twitcher]

If you try to profit, or distribute not-for-profit, by using a likeness of something they own, then they can take issue with it. How much profit for you (or, loss for them), how alike it is, and how much of an issue they make could vary wildly though.

In your example, firstly, I doubt PD would give you the tools to make it that accurate, but let's say you modeled your local track:

-If you made it 95% accurate, and named it with the the circuits real name, and shared it freely (assuming we could do that in GT), then your local track owners could take issue, that their likeness is being used without their permission - and therefore they are probably loosing out on $. It could be they don't care, and let it slide. It could even be they are flattered, and just see it as a bit of fun. Or, it could be they want a slice of that $ and pursue the issue. It could be, it turns out they have an agreement with another software developer for the rights to the track and have to pursue you to avoid repercussions from their other agreement.

-In these cases, it would be pretty indefensible, because you've even named the track as being theirs, and you've made it look like theirs as much as possible. I don't know whether it would be you, PD, Sony or all that would be liable though. Probably Sony, then PD, then you (since no doubt in the T&C's you've agreed not to breach any copyright laws)

-I suspect that the track layout counts as much as the buildings in the 'likeness' of the track, but similarly, it wouldn't surprise me if the track layout was protected in some fashion as a logo, or device, by which the circuit is known. It could just be registered as a design.

-If you made it 49% accurate, and called it the twitcherring, it would be much harder. They would have to prove that what you had attempted to do, was use their likeness (and done a 'bad job'). Again, how much they care will be the same as in the example above. If it's an F1 track with an official agreement with Codemasters for instance they will probably care a lot, if it's your local quarter-mile speedway, they might not.

-if you made it 1000% accurate, and didn't share it, no problem.

-In any case, there is also the issue of the materials you used to re-create the track, in many cases, these are copyrighted too.. how do you know what shape the track is without ripping off someone elses work?

-Totally hypothetical situation now.. but let's say you modeled a circuit that's been in disrepair and under grass for 60 years, and lets assume any rights to likeness have been lost in the sands of time, and there's no way anyone can prove they have the rights to object, or license it.... Let's say there is only one set of photographs of the venue available, and they belong to a historic archive, you find them on the web, you disregard the copyright on the images and you use those to reproduce it. The historic archive could potentially take issue, and ask you to prove you have prior knowledge of the venues appearance and layout, if you couldn't then they could potentially claim that you used their material without written permission/agreement/license.

_______

I'm not an expert, but I've some experience with patenting, trademarking, copyright, registering and licensing products, logos and and IP, but not venues or anything with a 'back story' of it's own. It's an expensive, long winded process.

A lot of licensing is actually common sense and logic, the reason why it can appear immensely convoluted to an outsider is usually because the outsider isn't privy to all the other parties that maybe involved, or the history of any agreements already in place. Just put yourself in the position of the person who's IP/imagery/copyright you think you would be using and ask yourself, "Could I make money, or loose out on money, because of this?", and "Should I protect my investment". Just getting lawyers involved is an expensive process, even if there is money on the table to be had, you'd have to ask, is it worth it? We've got £156,000 worth of correspondence in one ring binder alone. We've been contacted by 'big companies' turning over €16,000,000,000, and asked to pull press releases, because other people/third parties have mentioned the 'big companies' own trademarks in response/review of OUR press releases.



Just my two cents...

Thanks for the response

The reason I asked has more to do with the GPS course maker that we hope to see one day. If we ever do we it, we will have a tool that enables us to accurately model (within the boundaries of the tool) any real world circuit (at least the layout of real world circuits, not necessarily the entire venue).

Since it was first mentioned, people are saying "I'm going I recreate Watkins Glen, Donnington Park, Ebisu, etc, etc." I started to ask myself, "I wonder if the owners of Watkins Glen would have anything to say about that?"

If a GPS course maker that allows you to drive any section of road/track, and then load it into a video game...and if there's nothing track owners can do to stop it, I don't see the need to ever ask for track licensing again (unless you want to create a 100% accurate model of the track and venue, and use the official name). If there is something that track owners can do to stop this, maybe this is one of the reasons we haven't seen the course maker yet?

Hence the track "Côte d'Azur" in Gran Turismo.

Good point! Can't believe I forgot about this track

I would guess PD could get away with that due to that track being comprised of public roads. I have a tough time imagining them recreating a private race track with that much detail, and then simply naming it something else to avoid licensing issues.

 

[ed24]

Didn't expect them to put in 80s adverts, but leaving them blank - like they did in F1 2013, would have been an easy thing to do. A bit of a pity that in terms of appearance, the Codemasters classic version of Brands was better than the PD one.

 

[Roger the Horse]

It is the case with the communist editing of photos or with the logos on the track in GT6.

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.[3] The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the communist states in the Eastern bloc and the most developed capitalist states of the Western world.[4]

Communism was first developed into a scientific theory by German philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx,[5] and the collective understanding of this scientific approach is today commonly referred to as Marxism. In the Marxist understanding, communism is the endpoint of human social evolution which will inevitably come into fruition through economic and social advances in socialism. Socialism, being the new order established after the demise of capitalism, is herein characterized by the working class having state power and undertaking the process of abolishing capitalist property and economic relations and establishing social (i.e. public, collective) ownership and management of society's political, economic, and cultural institutions. In accordance with the socialized processes of production, appropriation also becomes socialized as goods and services become consumed on a social basis with free access for the individual. Communism becomes fully realized when the distinction between classes is no longer possible and therefore the state, which has been used as an instrument of class dictatorship, no longer exists.[6][7] In the communist economy, production and consumption are fully socialized, and the processes for which are advanced into maximized automation, efficiency, and recycling. This results in the end of individual money calculation, hence relationships between individuals being based on free association and free access to all goods and services according to need.[8]

Leninism refers to the organizational principle of the vanguard party as a revolutionary strategy both to achieve revolution and to secure political power after the revolution in the interests of the working class. Marxism-Leninism is a combination of Marx's theory of socialism with Lenin's theoretical contributions, namely the understanding of imperialism and the development of monopoly capitalism as predicted by Marx, as well as organizational principles applied within the context of the 20th century communist movement. This body of thought formed the basis for all existing communist movements in the 20th century and, as such, in the Western world, the term "communism" came to refer to social movements and political regimes associated with the Marxist-Leninist Communist International (or "Comintern"). However, the distinction should be made that the systems that these movements presided over were in fact not fully developed into communism, and the degree to which they had achieved socialism in itself is debated.[9]

Council communists, Orthodox Marxists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party. Anarcho-communists advocate for the establishment of full communism immediately following the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems—or even whether to do so at all.[10]

In the modern lexicon of what many Western sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used as a broad term to refer to the policies of communist states, i.e., the ones governed by communist parties, in general, regardless of the diversity of economic models over which they may preside. Examples of this include the policies of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam where the economic system incorporates "doi moi" and the People's Republic of China (PRC) where the economic system is described as a "socialist market economy".

The European Union and World Health Organization (WHO) have both specified that the advertising of tobacco should not be allowed. TheWHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which came into effect on 27 February 2005, requires that all of the 168 countries that agreed to the treaty ban tobacco advertising unless their constitution forbade it.

Some countries also impose legal requirements on the packaging of tobacco products. For example, in the countries of the European Union, Turkey, Australia[28] and South Africa, cigarette packs must be prominently labeled with the health risks associated with smoking.[29]Canada, Australia, Thailand, Iceland, Mexico, Brazil and some EU countries have also imposed labels upon cigarette packs warning smokers of the effects, and they include graphic images of the potential health effects of smoking. In Canada, cards are also inserted into cigarette packs, explaining reasons not to smoke and different methods of quitting smoking.

Such similarity. Much wow.

 

[flynch3211]

Hence the track "Côte d'Azur" in Gran Turismo.

This brings a new dimension to all this. Suppose we ca re-create all the circuits used in the past and present in the F1 industry, There would be a puzzle just to identify the re-created circuits that are the same as a currently used of existing track. For an exemple, the F1 circus goes to Montreal this week end. If we were to recreate Gilles-Villeneuve Circuit, baoth past and present... what could it be called... We cannot call it Montreal, Nor Gilles-Villeneuve.

 

[Divinus]

Such similarity. Much wow.

Since you like quoting, here you go:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.1 In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

Censorship of images in the Soviet Union curtailed access to pornography, which was specifically prohibited by Soviet law. Visual censorship was also exploited in a political context, particularly during the political purges of Joseph Stalin, where the Soviet government attempted to erase some purged figures from Soviet history, and took measures which included altering imagesand destroying film.

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



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?

And I will try to explain were I come from and were I want to go, unlike you, that offered no context for your post.

The 1st quote refers to a principle that you have violated and that is expected at all times in a civilized conversation between two or more rational beings.
The second was to explain to you what I mean with the communist editing of photos. Go to the wiki page and see the examples for yourself.
The 3rd and last quote was to show you the point of the thread, because it seems you missed it. The case isn't with tobacco and related ads, but with ads with expired contracts and their faithfully reproduction within the game.

Please be more careful when quoting someone.

 

[flynch3211]

Back on topic, the Decision about banning the alcohol and tobacco sponsors differ from Country to country. One thing should be common though. The laws and regulations of country should always supersede business decisions, especially if these business decisions are dangerous to a citizen's own health. And yes the companies tried to prevent this, at least here in Canada, and they failed.

I have to say that Alcohol and Tobacco ads are also banned from magazines and newspapers around here.

 

[RACECAR]

This brings a new dimension to all this. Suppose we ca re-create all the circuits used in the past and present in the F1 industry, There would be a puzzle just to identify the re-created circuits that are the same as a currently used of existing track. For an exemple, the F1 circus goes to Montreal this week end. If we were to recreate Gilles-Villeneuve Circuit, baoth past and present... what could it be called... We cannot call it Montreal, Nor Gilles-Villeneuve.

You actually could, you just wouldn't be allowed to call it "Circuit Gilles Villenueve", its actual proper name.

 

[Roger the Horse]

@Divinus, ignoring the fact that the USSR was never truly communist, to describe the removal of tobacco and alcohol sponsors from motor racing photographs by Sony and/or Polyphony Digital as communist because the USSR were rather infamous for removing individuals who they had "disappeared" from photographs through similar airbrushing techniques would be a hasty generalisation.

The reasoning behind Sony's removal of tobacco and alcohol imagery is likely down to one or both of two possible causes, one being a desire not to associate themselves with products and an industry which cause significant damage to people's health and (particularly in the case of alcohol) lives, as well as the lives of those around them. The other is legal reasons, such as inability to secure the rights to show such imagery (although admittedly that should not apply to photographs used in the slideshows before the events), local laws disallowing tobacco or alcohol advertising, and fear of reprisals from parents groups and anti-tobacco or anti-alcohol groups. None of these reasons are in the least bit related to communism.

I agree, the decision to airbrush the images was ill-judged and possibly somewhat distasteful, but considering that they were doing this whole Senna memorial event thing as part of a campaign in collaboration with a children's charity, I can honestly see their reasoning.

 

[Divinus]

I'm sorry but it seems one of us is having a hard time understanding the other, and so I am compelled to ask you to read my posts again, as many times as necessary.

@Divinus, ignoring the fact that the USSR was never truly communist, to describe the removal of tobacco and alcohol sponsors from motor racing photographs by Sony and/or Polyphony Digital as communist because the USSR were rather infamous for removing individuals who they had "disappeared" from photographs through similar airbrushing techniques would be a hasty generalisation.

The reasoning behind Sony's removal of tobacco and alcohol imagery is likely down to one or both of two possible causes, one being a desire not to associate themselves with products and an industry which cause significant damage to people's health and (particularly in the case of alcohol) lives, as well as the lives of those around them. The other is legal reasons, such as inability to secure the rights to show such imagery (although admittedly that should not apply to photographs used in the slideshows before the events), local laws disallowing tobacco or alcohol advertising, and fear of reprisals from parents groups and anti-tobacco or anti-alcohol groups. None of these reasons are in the least bit related to communism.

I agree, the decision to airbrush the images was ill-judged and possibly somewhat distasteful, but considering that they were doing this whole Senna memorial event thing as part of a campaign in collaboration with a children's charity, I can honestly see their reasoning.

I understand that technically there hasn't been any communist country yet, because no one got past the proletariat dictatorship, which means the relations of production were never really changed and consequently that the superstructure didn't reflect that. However when you argue like that you forgot the charity principle that I quoted for you in the previous post. The Soviet Union is widely known as communists, mainly due to the cold war. So you had a better interpretation to go but you preferred not to. And that means you violated the principle of charity.

Secondly, I don't understand were you got the tobacco/alcohol issue. Neither OP, neither I brought the issue up and I clearly and explicitly told you that in the previous post. It is beyond me why you keep bringing the subject up. I even quoted the OP for you to read.

Lastly I will list relevant post from this thread in order to help you correct your misinterpretations:

1. OP #1

2. My first post #10

3. My second post #21

4. Your first post #43

5. My third/previous post #45

6. Your second post #48

7. This post #49

Edit: 2 words were repeated

And my comparison wasn't an "hasty generalization", You would see that if you were able to quote the whole paragraph in the first place.

Edit 2: And Senna has nothing to do with this. This discussion is just about the tracks.

 

[AXEofGOD]

I have questions on the copyrights issue...

First, the layouts are probably trademarked and copyrighted. So does that kill our dreams?

BUT Second, how does Grand Theft Auto get away with all their infringements? Does the simple statement that "All depictions are fictional and any real-world resemblance is coincidental" work?

I think that a fake name and moving the S/F line(Only 100 feet would do) would be sufficient enough.

I don't see PD giving us the freedom to scale it to exact proportions with real world track width, or proper degrees on banked corners, or putting in buildings and such.

But aside from all that I would love to see the track editor with unlimited possibilities, I was so disappointed when I opened gt5's, sooooo mother 🤬 disappointed!