rec.autos.simulators

>[some thoughtful comments snipped throughout for brevity]

>>Okay, I am going to try and state my case one more time. First of all for
>>your saying that Indianapolis has " intellectual rights" to the likeness
>>of it's track. Wrong answer - Copyrights pertain to works of art and
>>literature, not real estate. Indianapolis has trademarks.- their logos and
>>emblems are protected by law, anything else is not. If one wants to buy a
>>piece of property and make a replica of Indianapolis they can. The thing
>>that they cannot do is use the name, logos, or emblems that belong to
>>Indianapolis.

>It's not clear to me exactly what property rights IMSC licensed to Papyrus,
>since I don't have access to their license agreement. I believe that IMS
>could very well make the case that their speedway is the expression of an
>idea, and if somewhat creates an exact likeness of it, then they have
>violated a copyright. I don't know that this has been tested in court, but
>I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a subpoena if they
>decided to test it. And as you mentioned, there are trademarks and logos
>that were licensed in the deal.

>>1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a
>>non-profit, educational or of a commercial value. If one gives someone a
>>copy of these files it is a nonprofit and a non commercial nature.

>It's been awhile since I reviewed the "fair use" statutes, but I'm pretty
>sure that the current court interpretation is much narrower than the
>statute appears to read. In particular, the court has narrowed the fair use
>of copyright materials for educational uses, and also use by the press.
>Audio and video clips are typically limited to 15 seconds, and written
>excerpts restricted to a single paragraph.

>>2) The amount and importance of the material in relation to the work as a
>>whole. These are just a few files in relation to the program as a whole.

>The IMS track was sold as a separate track pack, which also included a
>paint kit. I would think it would be relatively easy for Papyrus to make
>the case that the IMS track itself represented the majority of value of the
>work.

>>3) The nature of the copyrighted work. These are files that are no longer
>>of any use to Sierra.

>Yes, but they do have value to IMS, who have now licensed their rights to
>another company.

>>4)The effect of the use on the potential market or value of the
>>copyrighted work. Their is no potential market, because Sierra no longer
>>sells this product. The copyrighted work also has no value, because they
>>can no longer sell this product.

>Again, the value is not so much to Papyrus, but to IMS, who holds the
>ultimate property rights in the product.

>Again, you have to consider that Papyrus is highly dependent on licenses in
>its business. If they give an impression of weakness in enforcing those
>licensed rights by refusing to crack down on infringement, they stand a
>good chance of losing out to someone more aggressive in that area. The
>licensing market is very hot right now, sometimes just having the right
>name on the box can double or triple sales. Imagine what would happen to
>sales if Papyrus had to release a stock car racing title without the NASCAR
>name on the box.

>Dave Sparks
>IWCCCARS Project: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>Late Night League: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>Hawaii Handle: davids

> I'll jump in here.  IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of
> their track.  It's called "Tradedress".  The main factor in
> determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the
> property.  In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it
> "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what
> I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I
> must stop using that logo or find myself in court.  

> > I'll jump in here.  IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of
> > their track.  It's called "Tradedress".  The main factor in
> > determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the
> > property.  In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it
> > "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what
> > I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I
> > must stop using that logo or find myself in court.

>         You mean "McDougals".....
>         Sorry, reference to "Coming to America"....

> ~G

> I'll jump in here.  IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of
> their track.  It's called "Tradedress".  The main factor in
> determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the
> property.  In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it
> "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what
> I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I
> must stop using that logo or find myself in court.  Same with making
> an identical IMS and calling it "Indiana".  Just won't work.  But,
> your welcome to try it :).  Just have the money handy for the lawyers
> you'll need.

> The important thing to remember here is that if the property doesn't
> protect their mark and rights, then they can actually "lose" them.  If
> I make a track like that, IMS doesn't do anything about it, then they
> don't have much legal room when the next guy makes a copy and sells it
> for a ton of money.

> Adam Levesque
> General Manager - Papyrus

> This is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. The way a piece of
> pavement is laid out has nothing to do with intellectual property.

> Bart seems to think he's an attorney. Man, did you ever hear of Ontario
> Motor Speedway. It's a track that was very close to the one that Penske
> has built. It was the same exact dimensions as Indianapolis Motor
> Speedway.

> Copyrights do only deal with works of art and literature. You people are
> so fool of yourselves. Go read a law book instead of using this
> thoughtless conjecture.

> Coming to America:

> I thought it was McDowells.

> mykey

>> I'll jump in here.  IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of
>> their track.  It's called "Tradedress".  The main factor in
>> determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the
>> property.  In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it
>> "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what
>> I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I
>> must stop using that logo or find myself in court.  Same with making
>> an identical IMS and calling it "Indiana".  Just won't work.  But,
>> your welcome to try it :).  Just have the money handy for the lawyers
>> you'll need.

>> The important thing to remember here is that if the property doesn't
>> protect their mark and rights, then they can actually "lose" them.  If
>> I make a track like that, IMS doesn't do anything about it, then they
>> don't have much legal room when the next guy makes a copy and sells it
>> for a ton of money.

>> Adam Levesque
>> General Manager - Papyrus

>  Adam, I agree with you on your points about IMS and likenesses and so
>forth, but I've got a question.

>  About 4 years ago, there was a Super NES game out called ESPN
>Speedworld. I don't know how many of you remember it, but it was a
>pretty crappy game, even though at the time it was the closest I could
>get to simracing NASCAR. It even had Jerry Punch on it!

>  Anyway, it had 16 tracks (I believe) and they had a Tally, a Daytona,
>and an Indianapolis-type track. All were not even close to being true
>representations of the real tracks, but they were "likenesses" of the
>real thing. "Indiana" had the four turns and short chutes of Indy,
>"Florida" had the high speeds and tri-oval of Daytona, and "Alabama" had
>the same features of Talledega.

>  So how can the makers of this game get away with making these tracks
>for their game without getting busted for it, and Papy (or anyone else
>for that matter) could get the death penalty for changing bankings a few
>degrees, creating not-quite-the-same objects around the track, and
>calling them by a different name ?

>  I'm not saying that's what I would want; I'd rather have the licenses
>and the real thing.  But I thought of that game that sits in my
>entertainment system gathering dust, and wondered how it got away with
>"simracing ***" :)

>Darin Carr

>Night Owls racer who seems to always end up having to be out of town on
>Friday nights  >:(

>Actually, if I remember correctly, they did have to get permission.
>It was probably something worked out between ESPN and those tracks.
>But, even if they didn't get their approval, that's what we have been
>doing for a long time now.  If all of a sudden, we did some tracks
>without their approval, if they did take us to court, it would be
>tougher for us.  Not to mention we would be angering some pretty big
>people in the racing industry.  Since we do licensed products, that
>could hurt much more than not doing the track.

>Adam Levesque
>General Manager - Papyrus

>>> I'll jump in here.  IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of
>>> their track.  It's called "Tradedress".  The main factor in
>>> determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the
>>> property.  In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it
>>> "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what
>>> I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I
>>> must stop using that logo or find myself in court.  Same with making
>>> an identical IMS and calling it "Indiana".  Just won't work.  But,
>>> your welcome to try it :).  Just have the money handy for the lawyers
>>> you'll need.

>>> The important thing to remember here is that if the property doesn't
>>> protect their mark and rights, then they can actually "lose" them.  If
>>> I make a track like that, IMS doesn't do anything about it, then they
>>> don't have much legal room when the next guy makes a copy and sells it
>>> for a ton of money.

>>> Adam Levesque
>>> General Manager - Papyrus

>>  Adam, I agree with you on your points about IMS and likenesses and so
>>forth, but I've got a question.

>>  About 4 years ago, there was a Super NES game out called ESPN
>>Speedworld. I don't know how many of you remember it, but it was a
>>pretty crappy game, even though at the time it was the closest I could
>>get to simracing NASCAR. It even had Jerry Punch on it!

>>  Anyway, it had 16 tracks (I believe) and they had a Tally, a Daytona,
>>and an Indianapolis-type track. All were not even close to being true
>>representations of the real tracks, but they were "likenesses" of the
>>real thing. "Indiana" had the four turns and short chutes of Indy,
>>"Florida" had the high speeds and tri-oval of Daytona, and "Alabama" had
>>the same features of Talledega.

>>  So how can the makers of this game get away with making these tracks
>>for their game without getting busted for it, and Papy (or anyone else
>>for that matter) could get the death penalty for changing bankings a few
>>degrees, creating not-quite-the-same objects around the track, and
>>calling them by a different name ?

>>  I'm not saying that's what I would want; I'd rather have the licenses
>>and the real thing.  But I thought of that game that sits in my
>>entertainment system gathering dust, and wondered how it got away with
>>"simracing ***" :)

>>Darin Carr

>>Night Owls racer who seems to always end up having to be out of town on
>>Friday nights  >:(

>     Ok Adam,

>         What's your excuse for not getting Datona after this July?
> Sega's rights expired then.