Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 199 posts

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#181

Post by wodenokoto »

duskwuff wrote: post #23
save_ferris wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh, I think Humvee saw a company making a truckload of money and felt they had a right to some of it given that they own a major vehicle that's used in the game. I could easily see an ego-maniacal CEO or founder getting pissed that he's not getting paid for something he feels entitled to. Maybe they're seeing how pro athletes are licensing their likeness to games and thought they could make a compelling argument for…

The flow is typically in the other direction, though -- companies pay for placement of their products in media, like movies and video games, as it's seen as a form of advertising.

It goes both ways. Back when James Bond was sorta new, they had to buy or rent Aston Martins in order to make Bond look cool, now Aston Martin has to pay for Bond to drive one, in order for Aston Martins to look cool.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#182

Post by ceejayoz »

Supermancho wrote: post #150
hannasanarion wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple can't stop you from using their products in a movie. Trademarks only protect brand confusion, nobody is going to watch Transformers 17: Age of Voltron and think that the whole movie is an apple product because a robot turns into a iPad. It's just a case of "if you don't use our product this way, we won't do cross promotions or pay for product placement with you anymore"

Apple does not do product placement at all, so licensing fees make no sense for Apple . I stand corrected.

They absolutely do, just not in the standard way.

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-product-placements-in-...

They give away devices, to studio, cast, and crew. Apple puts your movie prominently in ads or on the iTunes Store. etc.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#183

Post by HBKXNCUO »

danShumway wrote: post #137
HBKXNCUO wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that we don't ban deceptively positive depictions of branded products is strong evidence that we do trust consumers to know the difference between fiction and reality. I would definitely not classify that as strong evidence. I'm not sure I'd classify it as evidence at all. There are many people that benefit considerably from consumers not being immune to psychological tricks in advertising, and they have a…

It's strong evidence that our law doesn't consider fictional portrayals of real products to be a problem. More importantly, it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks. If it's not a serious problem that brands are able to pay to portray their products in a positive light, then it also shouldn't be a serious problem that people can portray a brand in a negative…

>it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks.

Again I'm not sure how it's evidence of that, but I agree that we should not be uniquely concerned about negative portrayals.

I see what you are saying now though, and I agree with you on that point.

Of course the people who make a lot of money off of positive advertising generally are the ones who stand to lose a lot of money from negative portrayals, and they also happen to have a lot of money, so it's not surprise that the law does not treat them equally.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#184

Post by jmalicki »

dsr_ wrote: post #180
bonestamp2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough and technically, I think you're right that it's not a "defense" with legal precedence (and therefore not an actual defense). But, I don't think that reality stops many companies from trying to stop the use of their brand or product in other fields because they believe they're protecting the brand. That said, this AM General case seems to be a licensing case -- they want money for the use of the of their d…

Suppose Activision sets a game in Los Angeles. A crucial mission involves a running battle down Hollywood Boulevard. Should Graumann's Chinese Theater be entitled to money for the use of the appearance of their famous building? To what extent should Google pay AM General, Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and so forth for the use of their vehicles' appearances in Streetview? Finally: someone makes a Mail Simulator game, in wh…

If you film the Hollywood sign in a movie, then yes you do have to license that image.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trademark-...

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#185

Post by kyuudou »

doperroper wrote: post #93
filoleg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you bring up a point about Jeep. Never once in the US I've heard of a non-Jeep-made SUV referred to as a "Jeep". But back when I lived in Russia, every single SUV was referred to as a "Jeep". I don't even know of another word for SUV in Russian. Not trying to argue against you btw, I just personally find stuff like this interesting. EDIT: just checked the wikipedia page for SUV in russian, and yep, in the…

i can answer that. russians are retarded (source: am russian). they see a new thing, and think anything written on the side is the name of it. Examples: marker =flomaster. clearly flow master, name of the guys who made the first marker seen in russia. hard drive =winchester. the model of the first hdd seen by russians. and don't try to tell them black olives are olives. they're masleeny, translating to 'oily'. becaus…

Very common in the US too - Kleenex, Super Glue, Scotch Tape, Tylenol... trade or corporate terms become vernacular.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#186

Post by kyuudou »

Alupis wrote: post #109
tomatotomato37 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glock does kind of have a reputation as a low-end plastic Walmart gun. I doubt Counter-Strike is causing that reputation, but it certainly isn't helping

It also has a reputation of being one of the most reliable, simplistic and easy to use/maintain guns used by military and law enforcement around the world. So much so that other highly reliable Striker Fire handguns all basically cloned the Glock design (Smith & Wesson's M&P line, among others). I'd bet there's influence coming from both ends - those who used them in video games and decided their first gun just could…

Yea I was gonna say, most real gun owners understand that reliability, recognizability and using ammo that's very common and available trump anything else. Glock 9mm is always a good choice.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#188

Post by filoleg »

doperroper wrote: post #119
filoleg wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god, I completely forgot about "winchester", since it's been over a decade since I've heard someone say it. And yup, fully agree on all your points.

even with das coolz english words sneaking in, and markers becoming markers, it's half-assed, in true slav style. the new russian cool-kids did ditch 'winchester.' and replaced it with 'stiff disk' however anything that's a usb stick, be it a modem or wifi card, is still 'flashka.' sticking a cell modem in a usb port makes it flash memory. i hear with usb-c new lingo will take over. anything usb-c will be called djes…

“Stiff disk”? I thought “zhestkiy disk” would translate to “hard disk” just as well, which is not that far off from the actual english name for HDD/Hard Disk Drive.

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#189

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

smabie wrote: post #2

I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…

Does the game accurately depict them not starting or having a multitude of problems?

Re: 'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

#190

Post by Nasrudith »

jonathanpierre wrote: post #129
KeytarHero wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this an example of trademark erosion? Fiat-Chrysler still owns the rights to the name and would easily be able sue a competitor that tried calling their vehicle a Jeep. Sure, it's colloquially used as a genericized trademark, but it's not a true example, unlike ones like aspirin, cellophane, escalator - or yes, trampoline.

People using it colloquially is exactly the thing that leads to trademark erosion. Most eroded trade marks were previously owned and registered. It's not the registration that gives trademark protection. Trademark protection exists to protect the market place. It prevents companies from piggybacking on someone else's success. But if the consumer doesn't think that "Jeep" is a mark, but a form factor, then no one is p…

Really I think this illustrates best that trademarks are of dubious sanity. They attempt to police language but have no real control over it - pouncing like attack dogs to try to set an example to the kind of people who call all game consoles "Nintendos". In practice it seems like makework for lawyers which we need like a hole in a head - while to defend imaginary property in pursuit of imaginary lost profits.

I can't help but think society would be better served by using the court system for just about anything else including seeking damages from the gentleman who sold them the brooklyn bridge.

Post reply on HN