Jump to content

Beretta 92FS (weapon suggestion)


RichardKeerman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is there a dedicated thread for this, I could not find one.

"The Beretta 92FS has been setting the standards for best military, police and tactical pistol for over a quarter century."

Would be amazing to have this weapon in Tarkov.

http://www.beretta.com/en/92-fs/

 

Berretta 92FS.jpg

Edited by RichardKeerman
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also an licensing question. there are rumors that they are still missing full colt license, we are lucky that we have m1a and m4 so far. I am waiting for my favourite military duty handgun. M45A1 (military version of M1911 .45 acp)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MKev said:

It's also an licensing question. there are rumors that they are still missing full colt license, we are lucky that we have m1a and m4 so far. I am waiting for my favourite military duty handgun. M45A1 (military version of M1911 .45 acp)

No it isn't. "Licensing" very over exaggerated as an issue. In the 1990s video games would outright use names and companies such as the resident evil and metal gear solid without any permissions. DICE (the company that produces battlefield games)  announced they don't ask permissions. Here's a good quote from another thread:

 

Quote

https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/trademarks/enforcement/

Here's an interesting article on trademark law. Because the products do not compete (a video game and a firearm are quite different) there is no infringement. They could argue dilution, but BSG could assert first amendment protection as video games are a form of art, and therefore protected by freedom of expression...honestly the companies involved would be cutting off their nose to spite their face, and the cost of litigation well outweighs any perceived losses (especially since most of these trademarked items are the best performing in the game, which would arguably drive consumers to consider purchasing the real products, as opposed to damaging their reputation.)

If anything firearms companies like being shown in video game media as people tend to buy their products. An example of this was Sage ordinance, the company that produces the M14 EBR chassis that was backed up for several months with civilian orders due to the M14 EBR appearing in  Call of Duty 4. Also colt does not have the IP for the M4/M16. This is why several companies in the US and Europe can produce AR-15s without any fees or permissions from/to Colt Defense. This is also the case with the M1911 design, which is why companies like Kimber, Sig, Rock Island Armory produce their own 1911 pistols.

 

On another note, I can provide some some photos of the M9 field and detail stripped when I come back from leave if any BSG team member would be interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Yukari_Akiyama:

No it isn't. "Licensing" very over exaggerated as an issue. In the 1990s video games would outright use names and companies such as the resident evil and metal gear solid without any permissions. DICE (the company that produces battlefield games)  announced they don't ask permissions. Here's a good quote from another thread:

 

If anything firearms companies like being shown in video game media as people tend to buy their products. An example of this was Sage ordinance, the company that produces the M14 EBR chassis that was backed up for several months with civilian orders due to the M14 EBR appearing in  Call of Duty 4. Also colt does not have the IP for the M4/M16. This is why several companies in the US and Europe can produce AR-15s without any fees or permissions from/to Colt Defense. This is also the case with the M1911 design, which is why companies like Kimber, Sig, Rock Island Armory produce their own 1911 pistols.

 

On another note, I can provide some some photos of the M9 field and detail stripped when I come back from leave if any BSG team member would be interested.

Thats not 100% right. U can go and design a copy of the m4 in a video game with no problems. the model and design is not a copyright issue, the branding is. To be on the safe side many Dev Studios tend to give the weapon a different name. R4A1 instead of M4A1 for example. But there is no need for it, u only need permission if u want to give this gun the branding COLT or HK for Heckler & Koch. In order to do that you need a license agreement with the named company. Especialy Heckler & Koch. I am from Germany and have seen several attempts to get specific weapons in video games without permission of HK that have ended in court. Italy is a special case too. Some Gaming companies needet to pay a lot in order to get clearance to use original branding and model name. Guess why the Beretta 92FS has so many different names in some video games. I dont know if u know the history about the M9 (military version of 92FS) all Beretta weapons are produced in Italy only. The Military had planned to get the M9 as additional option and later replacement of the M1911. They almost decided against Beretta because US Military only uses weapons that are manufactured in the united states. Because Beretta did not give license for production in the US, they almost lost the chance to get the contract. Because there was no good alternative to the 92FS, the US military, congress and everyone else involved in this decision made an exemption.

UPDATE: Just found out that Beretta had build a company and production line in the US later after contract was signed. This was a huge effort and work to get everything set up.

Sure u can decide as Game Company to not bother with licensing and some weapon manufacturers are pleased to see their weapon in the game, but licensing is additional profit. This goes for Media, Airsoft Weapons and Real Weapons. And if unlucky, this becomes a legal issue.

You wrote: "This is why several companies in the US and Europe can produce AR-15s without any fees or permissions from/to Colt Defense. This is also the case with the M1911 design, which is why companies like Kimber, Sig, Rock Island Armory produce their own 1911 pistols."

Thats not true. In order to build a weapon based on a patent and trademark "AR-15" u need a license to do so. In order to find out more about AR-15 and who owns this Trademark and Patent here are some wikipedia links:
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2951424
 

No clue how this is handled for russian weapons in russia, all i know is how it is handled in Germany and United States. But in United States you also have the problem of illegal copies. And you have a way more easy life in getting permit or contract to build your own M1911 or AR-15 style weapon. In Germany this is Hell.

If somebody wants to dig into this topic further i would love to see some document shares about this topic in this thread here.

best regards, mkev

Edited by MKev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit I am ignorant of EU laws, however in the US colt has attempted at least once and failed to sue another US company over IP issues https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Bushmaster_wins_trademark_lawsuit_brought_by_COLT/118-260152/

While they have copyrighted the name "AR-15",, Colt cannot claim the design of the weapon nor terms like M16 or M4A1. Many companies in the world build AR-15 rifles without license. This is the same with the M1911A1 design, for which the original patents expired long ago. Terms like "M4A1/M16A2/M9/M1911A1" are US military designations and not provided by the company that is contracted to provide these weapons (an example is the Beretta  is named "M92FS" while DoD designated the weapon M9. As these designations are given by the US military, US courts have rules firearms companies cannot claim them as IP, so you are wrong in your example with the M4A1. Most video games today avoid using real names of weapons due to over zealous lawyers who do not want to bother being dragged down in a frivolous lawsuit, however this is always not the case. US courts would have to be shown companies have lost income or taken damages for the use of their IP in a video game. I'm not sure how Russian courts would handle this, but I doubt US companies would even bother as all major ones have spent the later years of video game history ignoring companies like Capcom, Konami, DICE, Activision not only using their firearms but mentioning the company names and fine details and would have to explain in court why they ignored such use for several years if it causes damages to their IP. Here are some examples of video games using gun company names and firearm models without formal permissions:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_(1996)

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_2

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_3:_Nemesis

So while in the EU, some companies might have room to claim damages, in the US they do not and in the Russian Federation the distance and unfamiliarity would make this a costly action for potentially no benefit while losing free advertising as in the US and some European countries, there is profit to be made. Furthermore we see in Airsoft (as much as I detest the hobby for the amount of LARPers in it) companies in that trade use names and designs sometimes without endorsement. Lastly, also have companies like EA bragging about not paying or asking for permissions to score points with the gun control crowd (while still selling games where the objective is to shoot people, go figure) 

https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4311300/electronic-arts-distances-itself-from-gun-manufacturers

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-videogames-guns/video-game-maker-drops-gun-makers-not-their-guns-idUSBRE9460U720130507

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/21473422998/ea-says-its-going-to-keep-using-manufacturers-guns-its-games-its-just-done-asking-permission.shtml

 

If there was a company to sue, it would be one with deep pockets, like EA. After 5 years and counting there has yet been no word of any gun company taking action, even Euro companies like Beretta, HK, Steyr, Glock SIG ordinance and Fabrique Nationale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Yukari_Akiyama:

........

If there was a company to sue, it would be one with deep pockets, like EA. After 5 years and counting there has yet been no word of any gun company taking action, even Euro companies like Beretta, HK, Steyr, Glock SIG ordinance and Fabrique Nationale

Lucky for the company and us gamers i would say :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...