Yeah, because there's lots of games that don't even refer to their real names. Counter-Strike (post-1.0), or any James Bond video game for example, and of course all those violent open world city games

Yes you are not allowed to do it, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

And there has been even a case of an actual lawsuit aganist EA: http://www.shacknews.com/article/71880/ea-sued-for-battlefield-3-helicop...

However most car designs today are so generic anyways, that with slight mixing of various designs you can come up with something that would be probably ok to use.

I can't understand these companies who do not tolerate such things, i mean its the best advertising they can get and it doesn't cost them anything. A pictured object is not the real thing anyway, so they will not lose their marked share anyway.

Most products don't have a design-patent so they don't apply but copyright *may* hold in artistic cases.

Btw. there are design patents because copyright has gaps but design patents need to be registered like patents.

Reads like EA is firing back and they may create a precedence case.

To be rather safe otherwise: Just stay away from well known notorious company's products and their names - they should pay for comercials anyway - maybe one should ask them for advertising money instead.

I would try to stay clear of clearly uniquely distinctive designed things which are precious to these companies and where the company is obviously aggressive. Otherwise I think they may only ask you to remove infriging things as long as you havn't harmed their market or reputation.

Hm, how about if I ask for money when I include a fruit shaped mech? Hm ... that's an idea for freegamedev ... sponsoring.

I'd argue a weapon (or weapon-system) is mostly (with exceptions) designed for mechanical and or ergonomic reasons not for artistic reasons. Therefore the optical outer shape is a byproduct which isn't that strongly protected - but don't try to copy their design in a real product that could be another matter. As you can read the gap is right there in the descripion of the design patent: It's for non-functional ornamental parts/designs. A gun that is all functional has no non-functional ornaments - and even if then you can still remove the ornaments and be safe (talking about design patent only). But a design patent is against copying these ornaments in the same medium (eg. glass of a bottle, pixels of an icon). Oh and interesting that there isn't a novelty search in a lot of countries.

Here by the way an example that in the "real-world" would be without doubt no problem:

Make a nice photography of a gun with nice lighting and sell the picture or print it in a magazine.

Make a similar toy gun and sell it - Matchbox like exact models may be another topic.

The problem is: The laws are made to protect actual goods (not even abstract products) from cheap copying competitors but some companies/lawyers may be tempted to abuse laws and get away with it. Same as in the other copyright related discussions: It's three pairs of shoes what one's good intention is and what is sued and what is decided in court.

But you can find public domain pictures of branded objects, for example guns , so basically you should be allowed to make a 3dimensional model of it.

Heres an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beretta_84F-JH02.jpg?uselang=en

This one even has the original company brand and name on it and even a writing that says "patented" and it's officially released under public domain.

@Duion: Yes, that's what I am saying, it *should* be ok. (Besides, just because somebody on wiki claims a license means nothing at all legaly, also I agree, but this isn't about opinions. So let me explain...)

The patent doesn't matter, Julius link is very good to describe what when applies.

patent: functional mechanical apparatus only. (needs to be registered)

design-patent: non-functional ornaments only. (needs to be registered)

copyright: expression that can be removed from the functional parts without making them wreaked only like logos. (applies automatically) (For source code there are btw special laws in some countries - it's functional expression)

trademark: names and logos of products of a similar kind or on the same market. (needs to be registered)

I may add patent-pending: There is no patent they only asked for one yet - it may be granted or not.

All these legal mechanisms are meant to *protect* against direct competition by fakes or rip-offs - they aren't meant as weapons, as a source of income from other markets you aren't even competing in. But shields can be used as weapons.

Back to that picture => The patent only states: You may not build a gun that uses a *certain* patented principle of the gun without permission. You can safely ignore any patents on objects when making a digital copy - even if you could 3d print a gun (say in 10 years from now) then you can safely ignore the patent except if you plan to sell the 3d printed gun. And if you can change that patented part then you can even sell it without paying any royalities.

So again: Given the intention of those laws it is ok. They may sue you anyway as that company sued EA. And EA got away. => It seems safe to do it but anyway I would always consider the aggresivity of the company. And consider that EA got enough money to stampede them.

IMHO it is safe to use gun models - ask your local lobbyist for some money....hm...more sponsoring opportunities...

I may add: That if there is the word "patented" on a product either it's just to give the halo impression that the product is supperior OR it is scare tactics - printing the word has no legal implications and I am sure there are uncountable products that just print it because it helps in selling without having a clue. (Gun makers sure have a clue but their patents may be void anyway - another topic).