In a lawsuit that provides a fascinating glimpse into just how broad intellectual property rights have become, video game maker Electronic Arts (EA) has filed a preemptive lawsuit against US arms maker Textron Inc, who is seeking to compel them to remove attack helicopters from their video games.
The helicopters at issue include the V-22 Osprey, the AH-1Z Viper, and the UH-1Y Venom, which are manufactured by Textron subsidiary Bell Helicopter. They were developed for the US military however, and with US military funding.
And therein lies the rub. Textron is claiming it holds the “trademark” to the various weapons of war it manufactures for the US military, but the military has issued countless images of these vehicles, as well as data regarding them, and this is all in the public domain.
The legal question then, is if digital representations of a helicopter which are based on public domain information and images can be “trademarked” by the company that happened to make the helicopter for the military. Needless to say both companies have very different answers for this.
Good for EA.
Textron is part of the FedGov trough-feeding system, whereas it is unlikely that EA is. Ergo, Textron is handed the victory by an arm of the FedGov.
That having been said, the utter obnoxiousness of Textron defies belief. Next thing they'll demand is the right to charge an "eye fee" for looking at their machinery of slaughter.
I wonder if I, by virtue of the fact that I've "funded" said weapons through coerced taxation, can lay claim to these and any other weapon "imagery", because I paid for it? A silly question but it's a silly argument to begin with.