Crye Camo pattern vs MTP vs 1001 Clones
There has been in recent weeks some intense debate about the issue of Crye Precision's Camouflage (aka MultiCam) pattern.
Specifically, that creating any addon with it is in violation of Crye's Copyright. This is wrong for many reasons. But ultimately its wrong because the US Court system says it is...
Court dismisses Crye Precisions suit against Duro Textiles"
US Army can't escape camouflage controversy
Now Established Case Law and Rulings
- https://casetext.com/case/navajo-air-llc-v-crye-precision-llc-1
- https://casetext.com/case/crye-precision-llc-v-printing-2
A bit of Background.
You can read the history on Multicam on the Wikipedia page. I don’t need to repeat it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiCam
- Almost every claim was about breach of contract or non-compete agreements. Not about the actual Pattern.
- The one case where it was specifically about the pattern (US Army vs Crye Precision); A US Federal Judge ruled that the pattern, colours etc in the cases being heard (and there are quite a few) were not exact copies of the pattern in several ways. i.e., use of differing materials and dyes making exact matches impossible and therefore not enforceable under the current IP protection. Upshot, the claims where it was not a direct 1:1 copy were unenforceable. Which led to Crye adding the word "MultiCAM" into all the patterns in future runs)
- A misuse of a trademarked design/logo was used. Specifically, the word "Multicam" which is included in all Crye Precision Camo Patterns. (It was added after they lost the first case where the courts ruled that the pattern was not unique enough to be protected.)
In fact, 90% of the "Multicam" pattern items out there are now nothing to do with Crye Precision. An example of which is the US Army. It does not use any "Multicam" patterns. They use "Scorpion" - A similar pattern with a slightly different colour pallette.
https://ufpro.com/gb/blog/multicam-vs-scorpion-w2-whats-difference
British MTP, was designed by Crye Precision for the UK
Ministry of Defence. But Crye does not
own any rights to it. The British Crown
does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Terrain_Pattern#Development
Lovely article explaining the different types here: https://www.joint-forces.com/kit-camo/27127-know-your-multicam-oefp-or-ocp
Anyway. For the purposes of Arma...
...the term “Artistic expression or re-creation of an existing product” applies. Something that has plenty of case law behind it.
But the deniers like to pretend that’s not a real thing. But they also forget that IP Laws come with a
lot of Caveats and Trademarks can only be registered within one of 45 categories.
And for a successful prosecution to happen you need to be either:
- Competing with the Trademark holder in the same category.
- Dishonestly Implying you are connected to; or are in business with the Trademark holder
- Bringing the holder’s Trademark into disrepute. Slandering it or somehow damaging their brand etc.
- Producing products purposely designed to be mistaken for the Trademark Holder’s own products
While IP is sometimes hard to explain and understand the
Rules for initiating legal action are not.
The easiest case to cite that proves the point is AM General vs Activision. The final ruling set the right to make an
Artistic representation of an existing product for the purpose of entertainment,
even a commercial enterprise, firmly in the Law Books.
In Summary
So, unless you are scanning a sheet of Crye Precision
Multicam (TM) fabric to use in your addon complete with its trademark printed
into the pattern. You have very little to worry about.
But even then, unless you are competing with Crye Precision
to produce military clothing and accessories they have no legal right to stop
you making an addon with a Multicam style texture to it.
Simple solution, is don’t use their Trademarks. Then it is all legal.
Comments
Post a Comment