Humvee is suing Activision over Call Of Duty

[Bouzoo]

 

 

It seems that the success of Call of Duty is so big that everyone wants a piece of their cake. This time we're talking about the people behind the prominent Humvee which we all know of, and their claims are pretty ridiculous.

 

They claim that the franchise is highly successful thanks to them. 

Quote

But AM General said that success came “only at the expense of AM General and consumers who are deceived into believing that AM General licenses the games or is somehow connected with or involved in the creation of the games.

 

Furthermore, Eurogamer cites:

Quote

AM General said Call of Duty's use of the Humvee "is a key selling feature of the games"

 

They did their research regarding the games as well on the appearance, or at least they went to the M1026 HMMWV CoD website:

Quote

"In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, multiple in-game missions and multiplayer levels include depictions of vehicles bearing the (or substantially similar) distinctive design elements of the AM General Trade Dress ("Infringing Vehicles").

"In some instances, the game player is able to (and even required to in order to progress in the game) climb onto the Infringing Vehicles and climb into (viewing the interior) and ride in the Infringing Vehicles while controlling and firing a weapon on the vehicle.

"In others, the player is tasked with manning a weapon from a helicopter to protect Infringing Vehicles that are seen driving on the ground below. At various points in the game, the Infringing Vehicles are explicitly and misleadingly identified using AM General's marks as, E.g. ,'HUMVEE 01 M1026 HMMWV.'

"In other instances, the characters explicitly and misleadingly refer to the Infringing Vehicles as the 'Humvee,' including dialog that states 'We're leaving on Hunter Three's Humvee, over.'"

 

What they want are compensation, punitive and triple damages from Activision. Apparently this is the result of failed negotiations that lasted a year. 

 

Here is the thing, licencing exists for a reason, and I do not blame Humvee for wanting someone to license it with their names. But this obviously stinks at this point. It's very peculiar that AM General wasn't interested in this when the franchise just started using their vehicles, naturally it wasn't that big so not enough money to get I reckon. Also their claim that on of selling key features is the Humvee is ridiculous. We all know most people play CoD due to MP, and it was barely in few maps. You can see more at the link above. 

 

Sources: 1, 2

[ARikozuM]

Yes, because we all bought CoD for that sick driving sequence... /s

 

This reeks of "We failed in the consumer market and need a second chance" and I would like to think they'll still rate their SUV's in gallons per mile.

[xRAGExSounDxRIOTX]

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Yes, because we all bought CoD for that suck driving sequence... /s

 

This reeks of "We failed in the consumer market and need a second chance" and I would like to think they'll still rate their SUV's in gallons per mile.

AM General and Hummer are two very different companies.

 

I forget where I saw it, but I think there was a previous ruling about a weapon in a game that was used without licensing. The judge ruled against the manufacturer saying that because the weapon was used by the government, it fell under public domain and could be copied without a license.

[SansVarnic]

About 15 years to late there ...

[Ryujin2003]

55 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Yes, because we all bought CoD for that suck driving sequence... /s

 

This reeks of "We failed in the consumer market and need a second chance" and I would like to think they'll still rate their SUV's in gallons per mile.

They sell this with these items in it. Kids buy the toy sets explicitly because of the toy marketed in it.

I can understand making something that looks exactly the same, marketing it for money, and wanting compensation because your personal products are being utilized for the benefit of someone else who didn't get permission.

 

 

[Drak3]

Inb4 Activision, Sledge, Infinity, and Treyarch all draw up agreements with GM to use the Hummer H2 from here on out.

[Bouzoo]

30 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Inb4 Activision, Sledge, Infinity, and Treyarch all draw up agreements with GM to use the Hummer H2 from here on out.

Hey hey, Hummer != Humvee. Hummer is a civilian vehicle.

 

EDIT: Misread

 

36 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

About 15 years to late there ...

To be fair MW was released only... 10 years ago.

[Drak3]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

Hey hey, Hummer != Humvee. It's under a different company as well. GM doesn't have anything to do with Hummer anymore.

The Hummer is to the Humvee as the Wrangler and CJ5/7 are to the MJ5/7.

And unless GM sold off patents on the H2 and H3, which they wouldn't because those also deal with the Suburban and the GMC counterpart. they still own aspects of those models. Hense why I specified the H2 specifically.

[SansVarnic]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

To be fair MW was released only... 10 years ago.

There are other things I am referring to that predate MW ... Lol.

[Taf the Ghost]

This feels a decade or two late, but was there any recent copyright legal decisions that changed the ground on which they can sue?

[Bouzoo]

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The Hummer is to the Humvee as the Wrangler and CJ5/7 are to the MJ5/7.

And unless GM sold off patents on the H2 and H3, which they wouldn't because those also deal with the Suburban and the GMC counterpart. they still own aspects of those models. Hense why I specified the H2 specifically.

I thought the sell to chinese passed, edited before you responded.

[Bouzoo]

11 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

There are other things I am referring to that predate MW ... Lol.

I mean MW was the first one to use them, hence my comment. 

[SansVarnic]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

This feels a decade or two late, but was there any recent copyright legal decisions that changed the ground on which they can sue?

I highly doubt it, after allowing the use for so many years they have essentially given up the claim of copyright.

 

Just now, Bouzoo said:

I mean MW was the first one to use them, hence my comment. 

in a video game I believe so yes, but there are movies and toys and other such .. it all gets covered under the same copyright laws, at least in the US iirc.

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, SansVarnic said:

I highly doubt it, after allowing the use for so many years they have essentially given up the claim of copyright.

Following the findings in Federal Copyright law aren't my general area of interest, so it's why I asked. If some circuit found in a way in another case, it opens up legal avenues that simply weren't available. If they couldn't protect it in 1999, but they can in 2017 by new rules, then they have standing to protect it now. Something like that would make the most sense, though the "new idiots on the board" is also possible.

[Bouzoo]

3 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

in a video game I believe so yes, but there are movies and toys and other such .. it all gets covered under the same copyright laws, at least in the US iirc.

Ah, you're talking in general. Well unless the situation that @xRAGExSounDxRIOTX mentioned can be applied here. I've nothing about how you westerners do things. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, SansVarnic said:

I highly doubt it, after allowing the use for so many years they have essentially given up the claim of copyright.

 

 

That depends on when they started communicating with the developers expressing their concerns.  If they have been sending letters and in discussion for the last 5 years then the courts can look at that in their favor (avoiding court and trying to settle the issue without further action).  5 years is not a long time to consider any action regarding copyright.  There are noted cases in the music industry that took more than 20 years to surface and were still found in favor of the CR owner. 

 

 

To the thread:

CR is CR, it doesn't just stop being relevant just because a game developer is accused or you think the plaintiff is just a failed business looking for easy cash. 

[JoaoPRSousa]

When I saw this on the most recent posts thingy on the front page, I honestly thought this was old news and from a few years ago. I was wrong.

 

Humvee, wtf

[Bouzoo]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

To the thread:

CR is CR, it doesn't just stop being relevant just because a game developer is accused or you think the plaintiff is just a failed business looking for easy cash. 

I wouldn't think that, if it weren't for the timing which is too weird. First game with their vehicles came out 10 years ago, and they waited 9 years and ~7 games to decide to do something about it. Needless to say that their argument and taking credibility for success are obviously not what you would call valid for the FPS games. I can see it holding water for toys, but not the game. Also the franchise earned more than $15 billion at this point. My take is that it wasn't worth to do something before when the franchise earned far less, but not it is worth it.

Game studio or not, I'm looking this from objective stance. 

[Nup]

Lol. This has been a fun week for news. 

[Dabombinable]

3 hours ago, xRAGExSounDxRIOTX said:

AM General and Hummer are two very different companies.

 

I forget where I saw it, but I think there was a previous ruling about a weapon in a game that was used without licensing. The judge ruled against the manufacturer saying that because the weapon was used by the government, it fell under public domain and could be copied without a license.

Perhaps that's what's going to end up being the case here, since Hummer are extensively used by the US military.

[Bouzoo]

26 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Perhaps that's what's going to end up being the case here, since Hummer are extensively used by the US military.

Humvees are being used, Hummers are civilian vehicles. Humvee was the original that falls under AM General. Hummer (civilian Humvee) currently falls under General Motors. 

[bcredeur97]

what this actually means:
 

 

Humvee is short on money and was looking for some way to get some money. Someone at a meeting table the old call of duty suit they never followed through with. everyone at the table thought it was genius.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

I wouldn't think that, if it weren't for the timing which is too weird. First game with their vehicles came out 10 years ago, and they waited 9 years and ~7 games to decide to do something about it. Needless to say that their argument and taking credibility for success are obviously not what you would call valid for the FPS games. I can see it holding water for toys, but not the game. Also the franchise earned more than $15 billion at this point. My take is that it wasn't worth to do something before when the franchise earned far less, but not it is worth it.

Game studio or not, I'm looking this from objective stance. 

 

That's the problem people don;t understand when it comes to copyright/IP law.  Time is not expressly/explicitly tied to the argument.  CR is CR, it doesn't matter if it is music, cartoons, poems or games.   Whether damage has occurred is for the plaintiff to prove and for the courts to decide. CR law doesn't dictate a time frame in which said argument becomes invalid.

[Arika]

Quote

AM General said Call of Duty's use of the Humvee "is a key selling feature of the games"

i know that's the only reason why i buy a CoD game.

[Bouzoo]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

That's the problem people don;t understand when it comes to copyright/IP law.  Time is not expressly/explicitly tied to the argument.  CR is CR, it doesn't matter if it is music, cartoons, poems or games.   Whether damage has occurred is for the plaintiff to prove and for the courts to decide. CR law doesn't dictate a time frame in which said argument becomes invalid.

I never said they didn't have the right, they have it. But that is how it appears.