PDA

View Full Version : What if SMS added a real life location street track?



RacingAtHome
25-02-2016, 18:08
This isn't a track request at all, it's just a general question.

If SMS added a real life location street track which doesn't exist and used real life names, how would licensing work for that or will it be used like Monaco?

What I mean by this is if somebody went and designed a (For example) Southampton Street Circuit which doesn't exist but is clearly in a real location?

It's just a general question and i'm just wondering. It's not a wishlist of any kind.

Mahjik
25-02-2016, 18:12
Public streets are public domain. Similar to Azure Circuit, you can use the streets but if the "collection/organization" of streets has a licensed name then the licensed name cannot be used.

Umer Ahmad
25-02-2016, 18:12
Public streets/roads do not require a license

Awong124
25-02-2016, 18:17
I remember Ian saying that actual track layouts don't require a license either. They just wouldn't be able to use the name without the license. Like Sakitto, Ian said they could have replicated the layout 100% without the license, but they didn't want to piss off the owners of Suzuka, so they made changes to the layout and called it Sakitto.

Ian could correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Mahjik
25-02-2016, 18:22
I remember Ian saying that actual track layouts don't require a license either.

That is not correct. Tracks are privately owned property, thus do require permission/licensing. That said, a developer could just create the track and ship it without talking to the owners. The owners may or may not care, but that's a risk most aren't willing to take (which is why we don't have a 100% recreation of Suzuka). Look at Porsche and Ferrari; they are going after mod teams now.

Alexandre Bardet
25-02-2016, 18:22
holy crap I woundered how could that sakitto track look so similar to suzuka... I never asked, which was dumb I guess, but it has confused me ever since I saw it.

it makes me a bit disappointed that it turns out to be a fake... oh well

Awong124
25-02-2016, 18:32
That is not correct. Tracks are privately owned property, thus do require permission/licensing. That said, a developer could just create the track and ship it without talking to the owners. The owners may or may not care, but that's a risk most aren't willing to take (which is why we don't have a 100% recreation of Suzuka). Look at Porsche and Ferrari; they are going after mod teams now.

I googled and dug this up in the PCARS forums archive.

"Ian Bell
06-07-2015, 13:37
@GamingCanuck plagiarism is not only about literature afaik. the "thoughts" of another author are also designs that he has come up with, for instance. so when you copy the design of a track and call it your own design, it is indeed plagiarism. at least that's what I understand from the various definitions I have seen.

We didn't do that though. That's some potentially serious legal implications there so please be careful what you're bandying about.

Fact, no one can own a shape of a road. Fact, anything fixed in place can be used without licensing. Fact, we did not use the shape as is and the name wasn't used either.

Final fact, trademarks for circuits extend just as far as the name and logo. No one has really tested it yet though."

Umer Ahmad
25-02-2016, 18:40
Something about "3 differences"

So if you change the shape enough you can operate under the "inspired by" cover i think.

Mahjik
25-02-2016, 18:44
I'm not sure the "Fact, anything fixed in place can be used without licensing." is correct in all areas of the world. Not that this is the thread to discuss it. That is true for non-commercial use. However, there are limits within commercial use. Photographers run these issues/limitations today (i.e. certain structures you can use for personal use, but require permission when used commercially).

Awong124
25-02-2016, 18:51
I'm not sure the "Fact, anything fixed in place can be used without licensing." is correct in all areas of the world. Not that this is the thread to discuss it. That is true for non-commercial use. However, there are limits within commercial use. Photographers run these issues/limitations today (i.e. certain structures you can use for personal use, but require permission when used commercially).

You may be correct, but that post by Ian was referring specifically to track layouts.

But I guess the point is really moot, as any self-respecting developer would not do that anyway. No sense in potentially burning bridges with track owners.

Mahjik
25-02-2016, 18:53
You may be correct, but that post by Ian was referring specifically to track layouts.

A track layout is a design that is commissioned by someone to create. There is IP around it. Different countries likely have different laws around those types of things.

FS7
25-02-2016, 18:56
I liked the street tracks in Shift 2. If SMS designed some street tracks like those for PCars I'd be really happy.

Awong124
25-02-2016, 18:58
A track layout is a design that is commissioned by someone to create. There is IP around it. Different countries likely have different laws around those types of things.

You could very well be correct about all of what you're saying. I don't know what the actual laws are, but just that what you're saying is conflicting with what Ian has said, and I don't know which is correct.

Konan
25-02-2016, 19:06
I liked the street tracks in Shift 2. If SMS designed some street tracks like those for PCars I'd be really happy.

I agree,that would be nice.
But if they haven't designed them yet,i don't think they will be in this game....it would take months to design a completely new track and the manpower has shifted to Pcars2 as we all know...
Since the engine of this game isn't adequate for much more improvements,i think they made the right decision on that...
But....as i said in another thread: you never know what cunning plan the WOOKIE still has up his sleeve :cool:

Mahjik
25-02-2016, 19:56
You could very well be correct about all of what you're saying. I don't know what the actual laws are, but just that what you're saying is conflicting with what Ian has said, and I don't know which is correct.

Mine is correct for the USA, his is correct for the UK.. ;)

Just kidding. I know how it works with photography and commercial use. I don't see how photo representations would differ from digital representations for commercial use. As mentioned in other threads, some sims don't care and create/ship tracks without licensing. It's likely not a big deal if you aren't selling millions of units.

I'm hoping the whole licensing thing turns the other way around in which the owners are begging the sims to use their venue in their products.

Ryzza5
25-02-2016, 22:01
They kind-of have made city tracks for World of Speed. Not sure what the latest is on that.

bradleyland
25-02-2016, 23:26
You could very well be correct about all of what you're saying. I don't know what the actual laws are, but just that what you're saying is conflicting with what Ian has said, and I don't know which is correct.

Don't overlook the last portion of what Ian said:

"Final fact, trademarks for circuits extend just as far as the name and logo. No one has really tested it yet though."

If you intend to sell a game in the US, then you subject yourself to US laws (to some degree). When he says no one has tested it yet, he means that no one has copied a track without licensing, been sued, and fought it in court. The reason for this is that it is extremely expensive to go through that process. Keep in mind that US Civil Law is different than US Criminal Law. You don't need probable cause to bring a civil suit. If SMS were to copy (for example) Road Atlanta exactly without licensing it, but call it Southern Circuit, the owners of Road Atlanta could sue SMS. SMS would have to respond in court.

Now, they might win. The problem is, they'd have to pay to find out. There's also the risk that the trial goes to jury, in which case they might lose, which would probably bankrupt them. Why risk it? There are plenty of tracks that are open to licensing, so why take the risk?

There's a difference between what someone in Ian's position believes, what they can say in public, and what they'd be willing to take to court. The balance SMS has chosen is to license tracks in order to avoid any legal hassles. This isn't an admission that tracks must be licensed; just that it's probably more sensible/economical to go this route. This is especially true when you intend to sell your game in many different countries with differing IP laws. It is almost always cheaper to pay a licensing fee and get a signed list of permitted countries from an IP holder than it is to pay lawyers to research IP law in said countries.

Panopticism
26-02-2016, 00:02
Don't overlook the last portion of what Ian said:

"Final fact, trademarks for circuits extend just as far as the name and logo. No one has really tested it yet though."

If you intend to sell a game in the US, then you subject yourself to US laws (to some degree). When he says no one has tested it yet, he means that no one has copied a track without licensing, been sued, and fought it in court. The reason for this is that it is extremely expensive to go through that process. Keep in mind that US Civil Law is different than US Criminal Law. You don't need probable cause to bring a civil suit.

That's exactly right. If the track owner(s) is/are the particularly litigious sort, you may be committing financial suicide.

It's also quite dissimilar to the photographer's exception.

JessicaWalter
26-02-2016, 00:22
Manhattan loop!

Burtonrs
26-02-2016, 00:28
Poznań Track Poland

http://www.aw.poznan.pl/tor/index.html

Umer Ahmad
26-02-2016, 01:00
The OP said: "real life location street track"

So i'm thinking Long Beach, Toronto, Baltimore, St. Pete

Stuff like that. Public roads. These do not require a license.

Codemasters already did a Chicago track that was well modeled after actual streets, intersections & bridges that i recognize. Also Watchdogs did a great job recreating the Chicago streets and famous sites/buildings.


http://youtu.be/VrnScDRlNw4


http://youtu.be/OEgsi0VqE3E

m355y
26-02-2016, 08:00
I'd give anything for a couple of street circuits. For the Indycar, for the Falcon. Like, anything. I'm expecting nothing till PCars 2 though. :(

To be fair, Asetto Corsa is another which only has road courses isn't it?

Rambo_Commando
26-02-2016, 08:20
Surfers Paradise....by far the best street circuit imo. But I would like to see a Canadian track in this game so I'll go with Toronto. But....who doesn't want to drive the 2014 Dallara's around a 4.5 km street circuit.

konnos
26-02-2016, 08:26
Actually this would be a great idea. Similar to California Road, there are many scenic routes in Spain, Greece, Italy and France, I m sure in many other countries too. I would love more circuits like the ones in rally games.

Diamond_Eyes
26-02-2016, 08:34
http://www.sheridans.co.uk/

havocc
26-02-2016, 09:08
I'd give anything for a couple of street circuits. For the Indycar, for the Falcon. Like, anything. I'm expecting nothing till PCars 2 though. :(

To be fair, Asetto Corsa is another which only has road courses isn't it?

AC has laserscanned real tracks and Trento-Bondone a track imported from another kunos game and is a rl narrow and twisty mountain road connecting 2 towns.

DreamsKnight
26-02-2016, 10:45
AC has laserscanned real tracks and Trento-Bondone a track imported from another kunos game and is a rl narrow and twisty mountain road connecting 2 towns.

A day i'll go there with my Civic. My father always talked about that road, done in an old Fiat 131. :D

blakeperez
26-02-2016, 11:22
If you intend to sell a game in the US, then you subject yourself to US laws (to some degree). When he says no one has tested it yet, he means that no one has copied a track without licensing, been sued, and fought it in court. The reason for this is that it is extremely expensive to go through that process. Keep in mind that US Civil Law is different than US Criminal Law. You don't need probable cause to bring a civil suit. If SMS were to copy (for example) Road Atlanta exactly without licensing it, but call it Southern Circuit, the owners of Road Atlanta could sue SMS. SMS would have to respond in court. Now, they might win. The problem is, they'd have to pay to find out. There's also the risk that the trial goes to jury, in which case they might lose, which would probably bankrupt them. Why risk it? There are plenty of tracks that are open to licensing, so why take the risk? There's a difference between what someone in Ian's position believes, what they can say in public, and what they'd be willing to take to court. The balance SMS has chosen is to license tracks in order to avoid any legal hassles. This isn't an admission that tracks must be licensed; just that it's probably more sensible/economical to go this route. This is especially true when you intend to sell your game in many different countries with differing IP laws. It is almost always cheaper to pay a licensing fee and get a signed list of permitted countries from an IP holder than it is to pay lawyers to research IP law in said countries.

CoproManiac
26-02-2016, 13:26
TL;DR
Compare it to FIFA and Pro Evolution Soccer (PES). FIFA has the license to use all the real names, PES doesn't. That didn't stop PES from creating a game, all the names are just slightly different from the real ones.

Riccardo De Rosa
26-02-2016, 13:56
ROMA - ITALIA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoPsUO_wDBI&feature=youtu.be

maxx69
26-02-2016, 18:56
The Village of Menheniot in Cornwall would make a marvelous street circuit....as all the 17 year olds think it's great racing through it , reving the begeezuz out of their 1000cc 106's at 60mph ....just a thought

McClusky
26-02-2016, 22:15
How about 318 curves in 11 miles Tail of the Dragon (http://tailofthedragon.com/)




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16YnmJN0fc

Schnizz58
26-02-2016, 22:28
Don't overlook the last portion of what Ian said:

"Final fact, trademarks for circuits extend just as far as the name and logo. No one has really tested it yet though."

If you intend to sell a game in the US, then you subject yourself to US laws (to some degree). When he says no one has tested it yet, he means that no one has copied a track without licensing, been sued, and fought it in court. The reason for this is that it is extremely expensive to go through that process. Keep in mind that US Civil Law is different than US Criminal Law. You don't need probable cause to bring a civil suit. If SMS were to copy (for example) Road Atlanta exactly without licensing it, but call it Southern Circuit, the owners of Road Atlanta could sue SMS. SMS would have to respond in court.

Now, they might win. The problem is, they'd have to pay to find out. There's also the risk that the trial goes to jury, in which case they might lose, which would probably bankrupt them. Why risk it? There are plenty of tracks that are open to licensing, so why take the risk?

There's a difference between what someone in Ian's position believes, what they can say in public, and what they'd be willing to take to court. The balance SMS has chosen is to license tracks in order to avoid any legal hassles. This isn't an admission that tracks must be licensed; just that it's probably more sensible/economical to go this route. This is especially true when you intend to sell your game in many different countries with differing IP laws. It is almost always cheaper to pay a licensing fee and get a signed list of permitted countries from an IP holder than it is to pay lawyers to research IP law in said countries.
That's exactly right. And to add to it, in a civil suit, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. So if SMS did try that, they would have to prove they're innocent rather than Road Atlanta having the burden of proving SMS guilty. In a criminal case, you are innocent until proven guilty....in theory at least.