Weapons in media.

Depends on if they hold a patent/copyright to the name or not. Most military arms are public domain (especially SAA's, which are arguably the most copied revolver of all time) so there's no issue. Some games have knockoff names just because.

>>32040429
I'm not too familiar with the copyright system. I know the Colt Single Action Army name is copyrighted, though the patent expired (obviously) years ago. So you can have the SAA design in a game, but naming it is something different I would imagine.

File: PW MG3.jpg (82KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1920x1080px

>>32040413
This is a long argued grey area.
For the longest of time, people didn't give a fuck, and nobody really cared either. Movies and books had mentioned real deal guns for a good century, and they def did not pay any licensing or shit to manufacturers.

Same used to apply to games too, though people have now started tip-toeing around the subject thanks to internet bringing information immediately around the world.

Like already mentioned earlier, you can freely copy the looks of a gun, and also use the military designations (ie. M16, M4, AKM, M9, StgW...).
Some games even test the limits, like calling an obvious Remington 870 shotguns "M870".

tl;dr: If you got a legal guy or two who'd be willing to aid you (for free), ask him. I know that at least the Red Cross is VERY anal about people using "their" symbol in media so carefreely. They've started sending C&Ds everywhere; from videogames having first-aid kits w/ red cross symbols, to music videos showing generic nurse-fetish suits with said symbol on them. Hell, even a donation campaign advertizements for a new children's hospital was hit few years ago for having a crude cross-like form in the ads.

>>32040413
It's a legal argument about fair use. Its almost certainly legal to do however if the gun was shown in a negative light the company might be able to sue for slander. On the other hand gun companies have been asked (and have) paid before to have their gun names included in a game and, its been argued, to make their guns more powerful etc.

>>32041220
>They've started sending C&Ds everywhere; from videogames having first-aid kits w/ red cross symbols,

That is just fucking ludicrous.

>>32041305
I mean.. define negative. We talking about "Opps, my FAMAS jammed" or serious bashing here?

Also thanks for the responses, The whole legal aspect of this was always just over my head since I was never able to find a clear answer.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/do-i-need-permission-from-gun-manufacturers-to-use-857525.html

This helped a bit too.

>>32041305
>make videogame
>let people use a glock
>it blows up in their hand and kills them if they try to fire it

The most popular guns don't have any patents on them anymore (AR15, AKM, 1911, etc). If anyone can manufacture them without having to pay royalties, there is no reason why a video game developper couldn't portray said guns.
As for MGS, it's because they are faggots, there is no reasonable explanation for the bullshit they did with MGS5

File: FB_IMG_1479498990532.jpg (39KB, 960x632px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 960x632px

Every company is different besides Glock. Glock will literally sue anybody for anything involing their design even airsoft guns http://www.guns.com/2014/03/06/glock-filing-lawsuit-airsoft-vendor-replica-pistols/

File: Metal-Gear-Solid-Snake-Eater-PachiSlot-Ocelot.jpg (185KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1920x1200px

>>32041720
Or at least changing the Pachinko Ocelot revolver from a SAA to.. to.. whatever that was.

MGSV I guess was for the memes of gun customization, but changing the revolver was still silly.

>>32041720

>AKM

Didn't Izhmash successfully sue Molot for patent infringement on the AK patterns, though? Unless patents work differently in Russia.

>>32040413
In addition to everything else said so far, for the longest time, in Europe, Video Games were considered TOYS, not works of art. This is an important distinction to make, legally, since works of art are subject to certain protections under various auspices of free speech and the artistic license and vision of the artist(s) involved. Toys are not - they're just toys. This is how, technically, a World War II historical video game released in Germany in 2016 *could legally show swastikas and Hitler* since, now, it's classified as a legally protected work of historical art. One of the few exceptions for showing swastika in Germany is for historical recreation, educational art, and educational programs.

Getting back to Guns, though, initially, it was the Wild West for Video Games. Gun companies didn't care, and until the invention of the ESRB and similar video game classification and censorship (let's call them what they are) committees in various nations, the governments didn't care what was in Video Games, either, by and large.

Around the 1999 - 2003 era, they STARTED to care. Both ESRB and similar programs, and the internet, suddenly showed gun companies that all sorts of video games were using what they considered THEIR sole intellectual property to make profit. This, they saw as a sin, because, as stated, Video Games were classified as TOYS, not protected works of art like MOVIES, which relied on prop masters to provide guns when needed (and, thus, were often subject to random chance and inevitable inaccuracies). Thus, as TOYS, the gun companies (some, not all) started to feel that the video game makers owed them a piece of the action.

(1/2?)

>>32041830
What about something like animation? Wouldn't that fall under the Movie category?

>>32041720
>there is no reasonable explanation for the bullshit they did with MGS5

Because they wanted to let people mix guns up

>>32041771

Uhh... I doubt it because
1.) the AK was never patented (lol communism)
2.) Molot makes AK pattern guns right now, and makes RPK-74s for the Russian military
3.) Those are both quasi state-run companies anyway

>>32041830


Of course, game designers didn't feel that way. Responding to this, most game companies (the vast majority of which were based in Japan) started to take advantage of what's come to be called "The Airsoft Loophole." Resident Evil was especially good about this. The basic idea is that Game Company "A" (Capcom, let's say) wants to use Gun "B" (the Smith & Wesson 3566, let's say) in Video Game "C" (RE: Revelations). Well, they don't want to go to Smith & Wesson for whatever reason, so they hit up Airsoft Company "D" (Tokyo Mauri), and instead of depicting the S&W 3566, they depict Tokyo Mauri's licensed copy of that design, and in the game, reference it by Tokyo Mauri's own designation for that pattern of airsoft gun (the Tokyo Mauri PC356).

Of course, not every gun company appreciates this, and some (I think it was FN?) started complaining about this, demanding royalties for using their guns in games. Some game companies said to fuck off, they weren't paying, and to see them in court about it. One of them did so very publicly, but I can't be assed to Google which one it was.

This changed in the mid-2000s/early 2010's when Video Games started to get recognized as works of art instead of toys, bringing them in line with movies in that regard. Movies are works of art, thus, depicting firearms in them is part of the artistic process, much like painting an historical scene and including what might be copyrighted materials in them (ex. a scene from the Bin Laden raid, and painting HK416's). At least, from a legal standpoint, this is how it's all considered.

(2/3.. prolly)

>>32041747
that SAA is seriously ill and should see a doctor

>>32041912


Currently, the issue really has not been resolved one way or another. No gun company wants to be dumb enough to be the Test Case and, thus, possibly spoil their PR image to the current generation of Call of Duty fans that might buy civvie legal versions of their products when they turn 18. Equally, no video game company really wants to be on the receiving end of this litigation, as it would cost them far more thna the sales of the game would make up for in their profit margins.

Thus, it's a stand off, with neither side wanting to fire the first honest shot. So, some game companies will play ball with gun companies and get endorsements, some will take the Airsoft route to have SOME legal backing to use the guns they want to use (even if they're using airsoft guns), some will use totally fictional names for real guns, some will use totally real-looking but fake guns (the latest MGS entry, for example) in real world scenarios, and other game devs might just say "Fuck it, alternate universe/future/etc." and use completely fictional weapons altogether (Bioshock).

>>32041895
And we wouldn't be able to do the same with real guns?

>>32041852


Strangely enough, game engines and animation processes and algorithms in video games are copyrighted, if that's what you're asking. It's one of the reasons why game development in the current age is so hard - if you want to model the animation algorithm of making a character's face respond in a specific way to specific situations, you have to either license a game engine's code from someone, be farmed to use an engine from a publisher that they own, or write one yourself from scratch.

>>32041967
I was talking more of 2D animation. I ask I know a few friends of mine are trying to set up a animated webseries.

File: Doom - original vs BFG Edition - medkit censorship.png (864KB, 1607x601px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1607x601px

>>32041631
>That is just fucking ludicrous.
I agree, but it's still a sad truth.

While is can be seen as a relatively minor thing, it still annoys me that they are going after even some old classics and forcing changes in any re-releases, like in case of pic related & the latest re-release of Duke3D. Tons of game devs seem to self-censor their games pre-release nowadays, just to be sure.

I actually sent RC an email couple years ago, asking what'd be their view on using "their" symbol in a say, a game set in historical real-life events, like the big wars, where you might see medics, ambulances and other medical things with that big, red cross stamped on everything. On top of taking their sweet time even coming back to me (well over 2 months), they didn't even give a straight answer, and just told me to take contact to my local RC administration or some shit.

>>32041220
See, I think of it as free advertising if you just let people put your weapons in a game (providing it's not negative). From experience, seeing Ocelot use the SAA in Metal Gear is the main reason I've always wanted one.

>>32042126
Simple, they don't have an answer to give, they are just being silly.

>>32042142
I personally would agree with ya, but you know how corporations tend to work these days. If it's THEIR imago in the line, they can start demanding piece of the pie. It's even more hilarious if a manufacturer of tools meant for killing shit throws a fit out of the way a digital recreation of their products might be seen butchering countless digital avatars.

>>32040429
>most copied revolvers of all time
that's not how you spell schofield or bulldog

>>32042114
Well, I'm not sure on that, honestly. I know that if it's a parody (like DeathBattle's use of 2d sprites from games), you can use certain things under the Fair Use provisions, but beyond that, I really don't know. I'd have to know the particulars and then probably look it up. If you're using copyrighted characters for a fanfic type thing, it's debatable. A lot of Bronies got in trouble with Hasbro, for example, during the initial Brony surge of things, for making MLP-themed games and flash animations, but.. like I said, I don't know the particulars, and I don't honestly know where the line is, compared to what your friends are trying to do. Also, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

>>32042173
Switzerland should sue the Red Cross for stealing their national flags and claiming it as their own

>>32041942
Very good information my friend

Very good info all around, thanks /k/.

File: 6080553920_3b57ef497f_m.jpg (29KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 240x240px

>>32041830
Semi-related, but Brickarms, a private company that makes realistic guns for lego figures, had to stop making their MP5 and G36 equivalents by request of HK as I recall.

File: 302dba44229f6128a3b0eb972280c892.jpg (60KB, 1183x843px)

60KB, 1183x843px

>>32042512
That's... C'mon... Fucking Legos even?

>>32042252
Copyright Law in the US is so fucked up if not just for the fact that it's confusing as all hell (and super exploitable).

It reminds me of those rumors that games like Gran Turismo feature no car damage model because car companies objected against the image of their cars being bashed up and destroyed.

>>32042607
Or Gran Turismo skirting around EA's complete ownership of the Porsche trademark and lineup by using RUF cars.

File: re2 H&K VP70 pistol.jpg (121KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x720px

It's kinda weird if gun manufacturers care of their "image" in fictional media. Even more so if it's slightly older material and firearms. Like said earlier, it all should be just good, free publicity to them.

I bet no one would even know pic related exists if it wasn't for RE2, or wouldn't want a .45acp Socom Mk17 with a underbarrel flashlight device + suppressor if it wasn't for MGS1.

Plus, I doubt Valve's paying for the gun names in CS:GO ?

>The real thing that ruined MGS5 for me wasn't the shit story
>It was them not paying the fees to use licensed products
I don't even care if we got a gun crafting system out of

>>32044215
>250+ hours
>still didn't catch all the animals in TPP
Fuck

>>32041730
Then how did Valve get away with straight up naming one of the guns in the latest CS the "Glock-18" (despite being a Glock 26).

Did they actually blow money on buying the rights?

>>32044215
That's never stopped anyone.
Hell, even Peace Walker, the direct prequel of MGS5, had all real guns, just no manufacturers mentioned. The names were simplified, like Colt 1911 -> M1911, ithaca 37 -> M37, and so on.

>>32045960
some devs just don't give a fuck anymore. DICE stopped paying for gun creators, and still dare to use real names. It was a reason of small controversy recently.

>>32044215
Who needs gun crafting if you put in a AK47, AKS AKM, AKMS, AK74, AK74S AK47M etc etc real life has done my crafting for me

I am curious about this cause I'm creating a tabletop wargame with real guns and I figure I'm too small fry to bother suing. But I wonder if there was any chance...

File: Twilight 2000.jpg (333KB, 1270x1632px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1270x1632px

>>32048282
I doubt anyone's gonna bother with you. This shit's so gray area material, plus no one cares about tabletops this day and age.

Hell, Twilight 2000 had dozens of pages of very detailed weapon and gear descriptions, and no one seems to mind. Or how about how people spread the term "Kevlar" in all media formats, eventhough it's technically a registered brand a firm gave to the Aramid fiber.
You could slap some "this work's all fiction" mentions to the covers and manuals, and that'd prolly help you avoid most flak.

>>32048307
Thanks bro that's reassuring you all will be pleased to know there's a Kommando class inspired by all the nutty denizens of this board

File: Fal_4-300x170.png (76KB, 300x170px)

76KB, 300x170px

>>32048341
NP mate.
While I wouldn't be too worried, I also would not take my words as the law. There's always party-poopers in crowds that just love making people's life miserable, all in the hopes of some pocket change.

I'm gonna copypaste few lines from a similar, older topic, originally concerning making realistic 3D models of IRL guns for games:

">Trademarks are not copyrights or patents. Trademarks are designed to protect consumers.

>The idea being that a trademarked M4 carbine, for example, is made by Colt Defense (or someone they have licensed to build them) and not by some other company making cheaper versions. The OEM can stop the cheaper company from calling its product an M4 but can't stop it from making the copies. Stopping manfuacturing can only be done through patents. Recently, there has been a dispute between Ford and the Ferari F1 racing team over the name F150. Although the two vehicles could never be confused, this was done primarily to keep hold of the trademark, not enforcing the trademark is one way of losing ownership of the trademark.

>There are many other things that appear in video games that have trademarks, are they all licensed? Why should the M4 be special?

>Do other media pay licenses to use the trademark. For example, if a James Bond novel had a description of someone hold an M4, would that require a license?

>You are not selling a gun. Trademarks can only be enforced against similar products. A game is not a gun, in the same way it's not a drink, shop, car, etc.

>In the USA, you can claim the First Amendment (free speech) and fair use.

>As for games like GT5, they are probably not licensing the trademark, and probably couldn't license it as they aren't building cars. They are probably licensing the copyright on the names and logos."

Also, check this article about EA's decision to not give a fuck about licensing:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/191864/EA_doesnt_want_to_pay_gun_manufacturers_anymore.php

>>32040467
In my country there is a 75 years limit. After this time is free for everyone and everything.
To have and idea, the M1911 is produced here by two local companies with the original name.

>>32042126

the use of the symbol in wartime is legally distinct under the geneva convention, so if its on something that SHOULD have it in a historical game it would not be a Red Cross organization symbol

File: 2011-11-24_00022.jpg (562KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1920x1200px

>>32048411
That's what I'd assume too.
However, they seem to be very anal about the general use of it in general. Here in Europe, the said symbol is used to signal presence of hospital and health centers. It's also been a common symbol on first-aid cabinets and such, but at least the latter are now being turned into green crosses by most manufacturers. The military F.-aid kits, ambulances and bandage packs have red cross too.

Also, what if the media product tells about a fictional war? Maybe even futuristic?
For example, the 1970s anime about space pirate Captain Harlock even did tell the right use of the Red Cross symbol in the war, and how vehicles wearing it should be helped and protected at all costs. Yet the villains used that as a way to set up a trap for the heroes and nearly managed to wipe them out.