Activision wins lawsuit against AM General regarding the depiction of Humvees in Call...

Humza

Posts: 639   +158
Staff member

AM General wasn't pleased with its Humvee being used in Activision's Call of Duty series and had decided to sue the publisher in 2017 for featuring the vehicle in-game without permission. The legal battle was concluded this week after a federal judge dismissed AMG's claim of alleged trademark infringement and false advertisement of the Humvee's depiction in the game.

Judge George Daniels applied the two-pronged "Rogers test" on Activision's games, which relates to the use of trademarked names in artistic works without facing liability, and observed that Humvees in Call of Duty had "artistic relevance" since they evoked a sense of realism in a video game simulating modern warfare. "If realism is an artistic goal, then the presence in modern warfare games of vehicles employed by actual militaries undoubtedly furthers that goal," the judge noted.

Activision was also cleared of the multi-factor "Polaroid" test that's used to determine if using a trademark is meant to explicitly mislead consumers from the original source. Since there was a possibility of AMG being associated with Call of Duty for its use of Humvees, the judge considered AMG's consumer survey pertaining to this issue and found that a turnout of "less than 20 percent" confusion among surveyed people was not enough to qualify as a legal precedent.

"Any degree of confusion that does exist is outweighed by the First Amendment interests reflected in the Rogers balancing test," the judge added, ultimately tipping the scales in Activision's favor and acknowledging the use of Humvees as integral elements of a video game as they "communicate ideas … through features distinctive to the medium."

Permalink to story.

 

Reehahs

Posts: 817   +529
Next thing you know, someone is going to sue Battlefield and other games for making Lockheed Martin products like the F35 and F22 appear to actually work properly.
I thought F22 worked properly so it's manufacturing got mothball as it was not suppose to?
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,056   +4,856
Wow! When I saw that Hummer in action, I had a sudden urge to run out and buy two, one for me, and one for the missus!

(This in spite of the fact I'm quite single).
 
Last edited:

Uncle Al

Posts: 6,946   +5,228
It's amazing that these big corporations can't afford to get some smarter lawyers. It's part of every military contract that the seller forgoes any clams of depictions of the product in any senereo and in fact if the military wanted to really put the hurts on them, the design of the product also transfers with the sale so the air force can have any contractor build any aircraft "at will". Now, in reality the pentagon only rarely enforces that (see all the companies making M-16 rifles during the Vietnam War) but it's there for a purpose. If the president were to actually enforce that wartime production act he could have all sorts of companies making ventilators, PPE, and anything needed "for the good of the country".
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,462   +805
I thought F22 worked properly so it's manufacturing got mothball as it was not suppose to?
Generally, it does. Manufacturing got mothballed because the US finished ordering all that they needed. The F-22 is not export compliant (as much as Japan and Saudi Arabia wanted to buy it), so it can only ever be owned or operated by the USA. Not being export compliant also led to some concerns with stationing them overseas, so all 200~ F-22s are tasked with homeland defense (and there are only so many planes you need when you sole mission is homeland defense).

The F-22 is an impressive machine, and there still isn't another air superiority fighter that can match its maneuverability or fire power.

The F-35 on the other hand is a misunderstood machine (with an admittedly dogged past - the Marine's fetish for VTOL/STOL was source of a lot of headaches), as it's not an air superiority fighter, but an air defense penetrator. The F-35 was never meant to get into dog fights. The F-35 was meant to slip through ground-based air defense systems and destroy them, so that 'lower-end' F-16s and F-18s could operate in contested airspace and function as air superiority fighters.
 

Capaill

Posts: 1,191   +726
The F-35 on the other hand is a misunderstood machine (with an admittedly dogged past - the Marine's fetish for VTOL/STOL was source of a lot of headaches), as it's not an air superiority fighter, but an air defense penetrator. The F-35 was never meant to get into dog fights. The F-35 was meant to slip through ground-based air defense systems and destroy them, so that 'lower-end' F-16s and F-18s could operate in contested airspace and function as air superiority fighters.
So it's like a stealthy F-4?
The VTOL nature of the F-35 B/C has never sat well with me. Having all that extra functionality onboard limits its take-off weight and the roles it can do to more of a harrassment role from isolated bases, like the Harrier and AV8B. The Harrier was useful for the British who don't have a large aircraft carrier with a flat runway. Really, its only purpose seems to be to take off from amphibious assault ships and any assault would surely be backed up by a carrier group anyway, where the F-35A could be used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,462   +805
So it's like a stealthy F-4?
The VTOL nature of the F-35 B/C has never sat well with me. Having all that extra functionality onboard limits its take-off weight and the roles it can do to more of a harrassment role from isolated bases, like the Harrier and AV8B. The Harrier was useful for the British who don't have a large aircraft carrier with a flat runway. Really, its only purpose seems to be to take off from amphibious assault ships and any assault would surely be backed up by a carrier group anyway, where the F-35A could be used.
Essentially, yeah. Or a stealthy A-10. The main point is it is meant to attack protected ground targets, not wrestle control of the skies from a defending adversary. Its makes the job of the actual dog fighters easier by eliminating fire and observation from the ground.

Personally, I agree. Congress should have told the Marines to go pound sand when they demanded VTOL/STOL, but the Marines got the USN on their side, so congress caved. VTOL/STOL adds very little to the capabilities to the aircraft, maybe let it operate out of captured or jury rigged runway, but costs so much in terms of payload and added a ton of headaches to the design process. Someone needs to take away the Marine's Sci-Fi movie privileges, maybe that will break them of their fetish of 'No forward! Only up!' when it comes to aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capaill