> The USG likes to pay for and own source code and weapon system designs.
Surprisingly, the contractors retain copyrights and trademarks somehow. For example, apparently you need a license to put an f-22 or an f-35 in a game (or movie etc?), I think those things necessarily belong to the taxpayers. Weird licensing.
Apparently the contracts for the F35 didn't mention "Intellectual property" at all, and now the government now regrets the oversight (especially with regards to the source code for the software running on those planes) [1]
As for licensing to put the f-22/f-35 in a game/movie, I wonder how much of that is actually needed from a legal perspective, and how much is "lets just do it anyway".
The name is covered by trademark so you need a license to call it "F-35 Lightning", but I don't think the design or shape of an aircraft is covered by copyright or trademark law, so it should be fine if you just avoid the name.
Car and aircraft bodies generally fall under the “useful articles” exception, so they are not copyrightable. Otherwise they would be sculptures.
There is a separate regime that covers useful articles: design patents, which have a much shorter term. The design patents can AFAIK cover things like toys, I don’t know about game assets. You might have to look at the actual grant of patent rights to see what is claimed. I don’t get the impression that the big aircraft manufacturers care about games for plane nerds.
Surprisingly, the contractors retain copyrights and trademarks somehow. For example, apparently you need a license to put an f-22 or an f-35 in a game (or movie etc?), I think those things necessarily belong to the taxpayers. Weird licensing.