I was wondering if sny of you had run into this earlier or know something about the subject.
If I want to make a game with racing cars, can I just buy a model from TurboSquid that is based on Dodge Viper and use it? I think not, but trademark should only be about the brand name, not it’s shape I think (or 3D model based on the shape).
So is using a model that looks like Dodge Viper OK if you don’t call it Dodge Viper? Kinda like GTA took popular cars and changed their names.
Nope. The design of the Dodge Viper is protected by copyright and thus you can’t legally use their design without asking for permission first.
Of course, you could use a model that sorta kinda looks like a Dodge Viper but is not quite a Dodge Viper. You may or may not get sued for that depending on, amongst other things, the success of your game and how strongly GM (the company behind the Dodge brand) feels about suing you for infringement.
Trademark is all about brand recognition and consumer confusion. If you’re model looks like a Dodge Viper enough that a consumer is going to think it’s a Dodge Viper, then you’re in troubled waters.
Best thing is to have a design which is modified sufficiently so it’s not recognizable as a well known model.
This is all good advice. I often do stock illustrations of electronics equipment, cell phones, pda’s, TV’s, etc. and they can be similar to the actual product but not exact. You can be inspired by the Viper but don’t copy it exactly.
But doesnt this get into sticky situations for companies of said products if they sue you for models made of things you own.
For example, if you model a vehicle you physically own (or other things you own), then how can that be brought into court, because it would signify that ownership is forfeited. Therefore anyone who has a photo of themselves standing next to their vehicle (or said products) on a publicly viewable form (such as a website, facebook, myspace, etc) may be construed as promoting the brand in a negative way if the company sees fit.
And say they took you to court for modeling your own vehicle and won, that would signify that they still retain ownership, therefore people could send them the repair bills of the vehicle because it would technically be the property of the company.
stuff like this is primarily a problem when you try to sell the product. So building a dodge viper knock off and selling it on the us market is not going to go well for you. you’d have marginally better success in asia.
on the other hand using a digital model of a dodge viper in a game is arguably not the same thing as the real car, and the argument about brand confusion is not a sure thing for the company suing you. nevertheless it is better to play it safe, and avoid the whole problem. corps with deep pockets will bend the law in their favor any chance they get.
if you show good faith, by not using the name of the vehicle you should be fine. if you slightly modify the vehicle model then - well i am no lawyer - but I can’t see how anyone would have grounds to sue you.
Anyway GM has more to worry about right now than some indie using the viper model in a game. i believe dodge is also currently up for sale. Personally i would not worry about it as long as you show good faith and don’t use the dodge name.
No. You own the vehicle, not it’s design. In principle, you do not have the right to copy the design in any way shape or form and that includes making a 3d model.
If that were true, Flickr would not exist.
In general terms, copyright is concerned with commercial uses of an original work and not with pictures you put on the web to impress your buddies.
Good faith doesn’t buy you much if GM/Dodge do demand you hand them all your money for using their property to enrich yourself…
Besides, you can probably design a cooler car anyway!
Actually it does because if you are not technically using their trademark (in this case the name) which I likened to “good faith” then they don’t have much of a case.
Showing good faith makes a world of difference in the sentence carried out on you as well. Law does not function like code. Not even close. Human judgement is required.
True, but when have you ever known human judgment to be 100% accurate? At least code gives you a definite result, each time.
The problem comes in that you still copied their design, even if you decided to name it something different. It is about the same as cloning a Mario game almost to the pixel, but calling it Stellar Andredi Brothers. You may not have used the Trademarked name, but you still copied the design.
No you haven’t. You haven’t copied the car, you’ve copied an image of the car.
A digital car is not the same thing. You only have cross over in a few niche areas of digital media - advertising for example. You couldn’t use the image of the car in an advertisement of another car. However if you put it in a game scene, and do not call attention to the brand, its VERY VERY difficult to make a case that the Dodge brand has been compromised, stolen, misused etc…
As for copyright, if you are using a design you did not develop, any design, as a design element to make money, then it is infringement. If you are standing next to a Dodge viper in a photo, you are making a new piece of art using an actual object as an element of the art.
That is why if you sell a fuel enhancement, you can stand next to a Dodge Viper and sell it, but you cannot sell a Dodge Viper replica because you would be selling the design that you did not create.
So, always ask yourself “is it a design element to make money” and “did I create a unique and substantially different design from my inspiration.”
Also not a lawyer, but I did take copyright law and ethics in art school.
This is the reason why major game publishers have a cadre of lawyers to go over everything you are going to publish and clear it for legal usage.
My last company had a guy in the legal department that was a car nut and would stop by, look at a model, and tell you exactly what car model and make was associated with a specific headlight shape.
If you are modeling a BMW, you can’t use the kidney shaped front grill, because that is one of the things that “says” BMW.
If you actually got permission to use a Dodge Viper in your game, you would then have to deal with the Viper designers breathing down your neck to ensure that the in game version of the car performed exactly as the real life version (I know, I have made racing games before, and they can suck the life from you).
Design your own vehicles. It will be easier and more satisfying in the end.
But are not games a form of interactive art. So who says what is or is not a form of art.
If you sell a game, you’re not selling the brands in it, much like a photograph (nor are the models real in the physical sense). They are simply there as objects or filler of the total whole to accentuate the other art.
Now comes the question, what if you model a city or famous landmarks (or things that are considered public). Someone designed and owns said buildings, so shouldn’t the same rule apply.
Or what about things that are “tax-payer” owned, such as Air Force One for example. Boeing designed it. So does that mean it, or other public things, cant be modeled without fearing lawsuit.
What about weapons, how many people include models of real-world weapons in their game (or sell models of them), and I guarantee a good chunk of them didnt ask permission from the manufacturers.
How about agencies or departments? Are you able to include say the US Army or FBI (like the game Alien Hominid did) in a game? Or would you need explicit permission from the government body?
Just a minor point, but there is a separate category of intellectual property for design protection (the design of physical goods). It’s not governed by the same rules as copyright or trademark, so much of what you know about those may not apply.
I don’t know if design rights would be infringed with a 3D model though, as the law only covers physical goods and not representations of them (so if you made a car that looked like a Viper, you’d be in trouble).
3D trademarks do exist too, but while they could trademark the shape of the car, that type of mark is so rarely used that it’s pretty unlikely.
Something’s are covered under fair use. Content owners may not agree and sue you anyway. Fair use under trademarks is also murkier then under copyright.
If you are making a racecar game, the cars are a major part of it and likely not covered under fair use especially if you have say a ford logo on a modern car.
Where as a 1950 ford in a historical setting, without a ford logo used in a cut screen would be covered under fair use as long as you have a good lawyer.
In simplified terms, you can start with a model of a viper, grab the -entire- car and put it in a lattice (or ‘FFD’ in Max terminology), and reshape it with a few bold movements.
Then grab the wheel arches, and the nose, and tweak it a little.
Take the badges off.
Chances are, you’ve just made a stylized Viper. However, changing the body might not be enough, you might need to swap out some wheels too.
Also keep in mind that certain sports cars have very specific mirrors and tail lights. For example, even though they’re similiar, you can tell a Skyline from a Corvette even if the car is totally invisible.
If you do not have a logo but do have cars that resemble a given model like that mustang, for example you can still be sued for brand dilution aka damages.
