27 replies to this topic

[LtChambers]

If it's an "AR-15" no matter what kind of barrel, internals, support for attachments, and stock it has, then that's a very useless designation. Since there are many weapon systems with interchangeable barrels or stocks, those weapons have no single name that can describe the important features of the gun. So the easiest thing is to just call them by their most popular names. I bet most Canadian civilians would refer to the standard US Army rifle as an M-16, no matter who owns it. Are all series of M-16 (A1-A4) an "AR-15"?

We could go with Colt model numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variants#Numbered_Colt_military_models

[Phoenix]

I asked my friend who studies international law about this case.

* "Umarex" brand has bought lucrative license for H&K replicas, probably for names too.

how's the enforcement of these deals happening? On what law applicable base the license contracts between Umarex and HK?

Not every jurisdiction allows everything to be copyrighted. Brand names are one thing but weapon type designations probably another.

[akodo1]

how's the enforcement of these deals happening? On what law applicable base the license contracts between Umarex and HK?

Not every jurisdiction allows everything to be copyrighted. Brand names are one thing but weapon type designations probably another.

With Umarex vs HK, HK initiated a lawsuit and Umarex settled out of court IIRC. The key difference is that Umarex was creating a real gun that looked identical to the MP5 so the argument of someone could mistake the Umarex version for the real thing was actually fairly reasonable

[akodo1]

If it's an "AR-15" no matter what kind of barrel, internals, support for attachments, and stock it has, then that's a very useless designation. Since there are many weapon systems with interchangeable barrels or stocks, those weapons have no single name that can describe the important features of the gun. So the easiest thing is to just call them by their most popular names. I bet most Canadian civilians would refer to the standard US Army rifle as an M-16, no matter who owns it. Are all series of M-16 (A1-A4) an "AR-15"?

We could go with Colt model numbers
http://en.wikipedia....military_models

Actually, no it is not. It's the most important type of designation, the type that tells 'true type' So someone invents a new accessory like a new type of dust cover. All they have to say is it is an 'AR-15' then everyone knows it is compatable with their AR-15, no matter if it is a 24 inch varminter heavy barreled model made by Knight Armament Corporation or a 14 inch surpresed model with a folding stock.

And there aren't really many different weapon systems with interchangable barrels, but you've always been able to swap stocks.


Here's the thing. I own an AR-15. I own to barrels for it. It's an AR-15 when it has either barrel on it. It's an AR-15 with the barrel off of it.

Most Canadians would refer to the US army Rifle as an M-16 because that is what it IS. Of course what most Canadians or what most everyone would say isn't how we figure out facts. After all at one time most people would have said the world was flat.

Yes, EVERY type of M-16 (be it M-16, M-16A1, M-16A2) is an AR-15. Every model made by colt on your list is ALSO an AR-15. Plus there are about 30 different companies making AR-15s. Every model listed at http://www.dpmsinc.com/ (well, except for the models chambering the 308 family of cartridges, those are AR-10s) is an AR-15.

Remember these are MACHINES. What matters is how they function, not how they appear. Cosmetic differences are moot. Paint an AR-15 pink or purple and it is still an AR-15. Put a scope on it, it is still an AR-15, swap it's long barrel with a short barrel and it is still an AR-15.

Maybe a parallel from the world of cars would make sense. The Lamborghini Murciélago is a very specific car. A red one and a black one are different, but they are still the same car. Putting different tires on is maybe a better example, it's both a cosmetic change as well as alters performance, but the machine is still the same. It is still a Lamborghini Murciélago no matter what tires you put on it. Heck, it is still an Lamborghini Murciélago even when an alternate engine is put in, because the machine is the same. For an AR-15, replace tires with barrel. An AR-15 with an different length barrel is still the same machine. (just like changing tires on a car) An AR-15 with a 3 round burst feature or an AR-15 with a full auto feature is still the same machine (just like changing engine on a car)

[Phoenix]

With Umarex vs HK, HK initiated a lawsuit and Umarex settled out of court IIRC. The key difference is that Umarex was creating a real gun that looked identical to the MP5 so the argument of someone could mistake the Umarex version for the real thing was actually fairly reasonable

wait a second, they had a lawsuit? I misread your previous statement, nevermind.

Do you know of any cases where weapon brands did use litigation against game developers or publishers and how/ where they were decided? thx

[akodo1]

wait a second, they had a lawsuit? I misread your previous statement, nevermind.

Do you know of any cases where weapon brands did use litigation against game developers or publishers and how/ where they were decided? thx

No, and not any against movie developers either. I think in the game industry they've always been wary of the lawsuits rather than the law. Even if they could be won, most game developers don't have the deep pockets to handle a drawn out case.

BUT to my knowledge there has never been a movie/TV related lawsuit either. And here is why. Generally when a TV or movie show is being made, they find someone with the same name as the character, and then pay that person a very small amount of money for the right to use the name. This way when some other guy with the same name sues for them 'ruining his reputation' or 'using my name without permission' the studio can say 'nope, we aren't doing any of those things to YOU we are doing the to this OTHER guy named whatever'

Similarly, when presenting a weapon on screen that looks enough to be like a real one, that's usually because it IS a real one, brought to them by some movie armory company. If you own a Colt Python with serial number 15890640, you have every right to portray YOUR gun in a movie, photoshoot, TV show, play, whatever. Just like the name thing, you are not representing every colt python, but instead ONE SPECIFIC ONE.

I suspect that if a game company went out and bought one REAL gun for each type represented in a game, then they could freely make a representative of THAT SPECIFIC GUN in their games. The a picture of a Beretta 92 isn't representing any/all Beretta 92s which you don't have the rights to, but instead one specific one that you own...which you DO have the rights to display, use, sell, or place in TV shows, games, and pictures.

[Phoenix]

thank you for sharing your insights. I'm actually stunned about how ridiculously formalistic the reasoning seems to be, however. I mean c'mon, paying random named dude money for using "his" name (even though anybody in their right mind knows it's *not* dude xy portrayed in the film) or portraying only the specific weapon shown in the movie (even if the serial number is never visible) rather than all weapons of this type, that sounds absurd. But it does, on the other hand, perfectly fit into the perceived absurdity of IP law. I gotta have a chat with my friend who's a professor for IP law one day about this stuff

but keep it coming if you know about more anecdotes about the matter. it's got potential for entertainment

[BigFaTlaDy]

Similarly, when presenting a weapon on screen that looks enough to be like a real one, that's usually because it IS a real one, brought to them by some movie armory company. If you own a Colt Python with serial number 15890640, you have every right to portray YOUR gun in a movie, photoshoot, TV show, play, whatever. Just like the name thing, you are not representing every colt python, but instead ONE SPECIFIC ONE.

This is not the case if you can see the logo of the manufacture very clearly or in an close macro shot.