If you use real brands in your videogame you as a developer need to know that it's on a death clock.
If you use real brands in your videogame you as a developer need to know that it's on a death clock.
Offering a perpetual license would limit the licensor's options (e.g. they could never offer someone else an exclusive license, nor could they adjust the rates if the brand becomes more popular, nor could they terminate if the developer/publisher becomes toxic), so I guess while it's theoretically possible I just don't see why they'd want to offer such a license.
The license should be to use the likeness for a given purpose. Either make it perpetual or per copy, not per time. Product breaking licenses should not be allowed in most situations.
That's no good and should be prevented.
Developers could pony up for perpetual licenses if they cared but they don't.
A smart brand would be eager to undercut their competitors for licensing-- even to the point of giving them away free, assuming the negotiate positive brand exposure.
It was always unpopular to be seen as a manipulator, the control freak who "manages" their image with punitive measures. But it has probably never been as unpopular as it is right now. John Deere would be more popular from tossing their brand management lawyers from the fifth floor than they would from listening to them.
The ONLY time a big brand has anything to complain about, is when they are said to have endorsed something they didn't.
Here's my John Deere™ tractor:
_____
|o | !
|:`_|---'-.
'_'.-JD--.|
'._.' (-)
It's a heap of shit, overpriced and unrepairable. It smells like farts, but does have a sweet green paintjob.#+ END_ART
Should I have asked the corpos for a license before exhibiting my art?