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

41–50 of 199 posts

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

#41

Post by kube-system »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #36
tinkertamper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?

If not making a fool of themselves in the process, yes. Common sense is much needed in such situations, I would say.

What's the cost-benefit analysis between choosing to do so, or not?

I'd guess that the cost of making a fool of one's self for trademark enforcement is usually pretty low... especially if your target customer doesn't make purchasing decisions based on it.

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

#42

Post by SahAssar »

baq wrote: post #29
solinent wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard example I've heard is for Trampoline. No one calls them rebound tumblers anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampoline#First_modern_trampo... I think this is really just a case of lawyers being super-protective. It also pays well, I'm sure. I think a words like Humvee or even Google have coloquially already lost their meaning--their meaning is polymorphic, it's only a matter of time (100 years is a m…

I’ve always liked escalators and xerox machines.

On xerox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE

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

#43

Post by alkonaut »

Alupis wrote: post #26
skocznymroczny wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Humvees become the worst vehicles in the game because of balancing reasons? If I were the owner of the brand I'd be pissed. Even worse in case of other vehicles like racing cars. Imagine a racing game in which Porsche cars are slowest and break more often than other cars. You wouldn't want your brand to be associated with that, even if it's a videogame. Or imagine a completely broken game with popular car. Bi…

> What if Humvees become the worst vehicles in the game because of balancing reasons? If I were the owner of the brand I'd be pissed. Pretty much exactly what happened with the Glock in the Counter Strike PC game.

They were really concerned about the use of the gun names in the 1.6 era I remember. Guns had alias names for some reason, presumably out of legal concerns.

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

#44

Post by WaxProlix »

babypuncher wrote: post #35
Alupis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if Humvees become the worst vehicles in the game because of balancing reasons? If I were the owner of the brand I'd be pissed. Pretty much exactly what happened with the Glock in the Counter Strike PC game.

And yet nobody bases their decision whether or not to buy a Glock based on its performance in Counter-Strike. It's a non-issue.

I grew up playing Counter-Strike and have in the past few years bought a few guns; despite their solid reputation and the fact that they do what I want, I never even considered a Glock. Was this causal? Who knows, but I wouldn't rule it out.

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

#45

Post by danShumway »

saagarjha wrote: post #16
CM30 wrote: post #15

Have to be honest, I've always thought complaints about trademarked products in works of fiction were a silly thing to begin with. Why shouldn't a fictional universe feature products and businesses found in the real world? Are we supposedly to randomly assume all other universes don't have humvees or macbooks or the Red Cross? Who's to say the same people/companies/organisations would even be responsible in that work…

What if I took your product and had it fail spectacularly in my movie?

Why should your product be protected from that?

Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. If we're not protecting products from negative reviews, opinion peices, or satire -- then fictional stories seems to me like a really weird place to draw a line.

What if I took your product and made a joke about it having ties to a cult?[0] I don't see any reason to treat fictional movies and games like they're a special medium.

I also assume we're not proposing that people should be banned from making fictional stories that feature real events and people. So jumping off of that point, what makes a movie that incorporates a public, trademarked brand different than a movie that incorporates a living public figure?

[0]: https://entertainment.theonion.com/new-sesame-street-charact...

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

#46

Post by ummonk »

I'm not sure how this will go on appeal and to what extent it will have general applicability as precedent. It would be great if e.g. racing simulators could depict cars without needing licensing (and imo it's ridiculous that they can't already do so, given that there isn't really any scope for confusion as to who is actually selling the car).

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

#47

Post by KingFelix »

tinkertamper wrote: post #4
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…

I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?

I too don't know what I am talking about, but I think I prefer Halo of Call of Duty. Console LAN parties, the good old days.

I agree with Smabie though, I think it would bring more to the brand. Also tinkertamper your thoughts appear pretty sound too. Carry on

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

#48

Post by kube-system »

babypuncher wrote: post #32
skocznymroczny wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Humvees become the worst vehicles in the game because of balancing reasons? If I were the owner of the brand I'd be pissed. Even worse in case of other vehicles like racing cars. Imagine a racing game in which Porsche cars are slowest and break more often than other cars. You wouldn't want your brand to be associated with that, even if it's a videogame. Or imagine a completely broken game with popular car. Bi…

Too bad? I think most people are smart enough to separate entertainment from marketing materials. I think this ruling is great, maybe we can finally get racing games with real cars and realistic damage modeling.

Just because people know the difference doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on people's memories, opinions, and associations. The representation of a product in entertainment does make a difference -- product placement marketing works and has been academically studied.

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

#49

Post by macintux »

caymanjim wrote: post #19
djsumdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, so this serve the companies interest because they're trying to defend their trademark; even if they failed. I doubt Humvee is in danger of becoming a generic term (Jeep is more likely; I cannot tell you much my it annoyed me my ex called her Suzuki 4x4 a "Jeep" .. it's not a Jeep! It's a 4x4 or off-roader.." but if they enter into other trademark battles, the opposing council can't say "Well they haven't tried t…

I was about to comment in your ex's defense that "Jeep" originated from General Purpose ("GP"), so it's only fair that it reverts to the generic, but it turns out that story is apocryphal.

Nonetheless, there does seem to be a tradition of the term "jeep" referring to military vehicles prior to it being given to the Willys/Ford WWII trucks, so it's all more than a little fuzzy, and it's understandable that outside the U.S. the word is more broadly applied.

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

#50

Post by filoleg »

DenisM wrote: post #21
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…

Another word is внедорожник, or off-roader: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE... The legend has it that when economic restrictions were relaxed towards the end of the SU someone bartered a huge quantity of a natural resource (coal?) for a huge number Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles. So around that time they were only types of cars in SU - subpar Soviet cars and fancy American Jeeps.

Oh yeah, thanks for bringing it up, totally forgot about this one. Ironically, I've only heard of it being used when it comes to the actual Jeep-made vehicles and stuff like Rav4/Land Cruiser, so it seems to be used pretty accurately.
Post reply on HN