Game development copyright issues (Gun related)

[Kirill]

Hi, I got an interesting question. For games like Counter-Strike for example, they rename firearms such as the Glock 18
to "9x19mm Sidearm". I believe that is to avoid copyright issues.

But isn't the ingame model you see the same as the real life counterpart? If the handgun model ingame looks similar to the real life
counterpart, wouldn't that be a copyright issue? I think I'm missing something here...

[ManiacallyChallenged]

Luckily for Counter Strike, the model isn't the same.
As in most shooters nowadays, gun models are made with certain parts flipped around. This is why ejection ports are on the left side in most games.
However, there are a lot of games that do get permission or licensing rights for the guns.

[k9870]

Do you really need a licence to call it it's name? And besides, what gun manufacturer will refuse FREE advertising?

[Kirill]

Originally Posted by k9870

Do you really need a licence to call it it's name? And besides, what gun manufacturer will refuse FREE advertising?

That's what I realise for many games. They could've easily named an smg HK MP5 but no I don't see it. I've never seen a game that names a weapon exactly as the real counterpart. Counter-strike is a perfect example. Then I realise it actually has something to do with copyrights.

Originally Posted by Kirill

That's what I realise for many games. They could've easily named an smg HK MP5 but no I don't see it. I've never seen a game that names a weapon exactly as the real counterpart. Counter-strike is a perfect example. Then I realise it actually has something to do with copyrights.

In resident Evil 5 most of the guns had authentic names, up to and including the manufacturer. The M9 in game was called the “Beretta M9F,” the P8 was called the “H&K P8,” the MP5 was called the “H&K MP5”. The weapon features where also realistic, you could even distinguish the P8 from a regular USP by the reversed safety lever. Most game developers take the “easy” way, but some do shell out the extra money for licensing rights to make the weapons head-to-toe legit. If you look closely at the pistol slides, you can even see authentic trademarks.

[BeardedHoplite]

Originally Posted by k9870

Do you really need a licence to call it it's name? And besides, what gun manufacturer will refuse FREE advertising?

Maybe because if the gun's not depicted as the BFG people'll think it's bad, or something

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by k9870

Do you really need a licence to call it it's name? And besides, what gun manufacturer will refuse FREE advertising?

Apparently you've never heard of the copyright wars between real gun makers and airsoft copies. That "Well it's free advertising" doesn't cut it with the lawyers of such gun makers as Heckler & Koch and Glock. Why do you think most Airsoft gun makers STOPPED making Glocks, because Glock copyrighted the SHAPE of the weapon. H&K did the same thing. Note that now the only approved weapons are those which pay a license fee to the original manufacturers. Why do you think that only a few of the AR-15 manufacturers are listed in Airsoft copies. Because those are the only companies who granted licenses to use their names/company logos.....

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Why do you think most Airsoft gun makers STOPPED making Glocks, because Glock copyrighted the SHAPE of the weapon. H&K did the same thing.

Wow, Glock actually got to copyright the shape of its pistols? It's so boxy and generic it's no wonder that the original Half-Life FPS game made it the standard sidearm there, since in those days they could get away with such a limited polygon budget and still make the pistol look realistic.

If I had more time I would have made this thread myself, because something about guns in video games greatly confuses me: just how much is the licensing fee to use the real names of guns? Anyone got a ballpark figure? Is it so high that only the best-financed companies can get real names for all their guns?

I'm also very confused as to why H&K didn't give its permission for something like SWAT 4. Isn't the HK MP5 one of the most iconic guns for Counter-Terrorist units like SWAT teams? Why wouldn't they want the MP5 to be associated with that game? Colt and Benelli agreed; why not H&K?

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I'm also very confused as to why H&K didn't give its permission for something like SWAT 4. Isn't the HK MP5 one of the most iconic guns for Counter-Terrorist units like SWAT teams? Why wouldn't they want the MP5 to be associated with that game? Colt and Benelli agreed; why not H&K?

Wasn't there a UMP in that game?

[Kirill]

Originally Posted by ManiacallyChallenged

Luckily for Counter Strike, the model isn't the same.
As in most shooters nowadays, gun models are made with certain parts flipped around. This is why ejection ports are on the left side in most games.
However, there are a lot of games that do get permission or licensing rights for the guns.

Ah... so they change minor parts unseen by many. Interesting