Hi.Just the take off with the Meljet B77-200 Continetal "Peter Max"I finish today this repaint....not the easyest.Comments welcomes.EDIT :: Sorry, but you can't post pics of this bird in this forum for legal reasons surrounding this paint. Sorry :(

Very nice! Just don't tell anyone you've done it! Oops too late! :-lol ;)[table][tr][td]http://www.iol.ie/~shamrockstudios/Signature.jpg[/td][/tr][tr][td]

| [link:www.iol.ie/~shamrockstudios|Shamrock Studios] | [link:library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=root&SearchTerm=john+massey&Sort=Added&ScanMode=0&Go=Change+View]My Files at AVSIM]

[/td][/tr][/table

LOL yeah I thought noone repainted this bird for legal reasons, but You did do a great job!!! I love the pics.

let me be the first to say, WHAT THE.........You cant post shots of this for "legal" reasons? are you serious? following that, you cant post shots of ANY copyrighted repaint, so no American, United, Continental, etc.Give me a break

Could you explain exactly why this is not legal ?As far as I know Meljet's models (and repaints) are still freeware. Thanks

This is serious. I don't know how long you have been around the Flight Sim Community, but back in the late 90's there was a huge legal battle ramping up where some of the largest airlines (AA, BA, etc.) were sending cease and desist letters to anyone who repainted their livery, hosted any repaint files of their livery, and threatened legal action for copyright violations because repaint artists were using their registered schemes and logos without permission.Long story short... the airlines backed down given a few restrictions (mainly from AA) on the use and distribution. Peter Max however did not back down and enforces the copyright protection on his art work. This included sending cease and desist for any web site that displays ANY non-authorized reproduction and/or representation of his work. As a result, any web site caught hosting or displaying images of a non-authorized reproduction and/or representation of his work is in violation and can be taken to court. Because of this, the web site (AvSim) is legally obligated to take appropriate actions to assure that they are in compliance with this order.Is Peter Max's position unreasonable? Peter Max has the legal right to protect his artwork and how it is used. It is as simple as that. We don't have to agree with it, but legally we have respect his request.

>Is Peter Max's position unreasonable?Since no one is having monetary gain from using his designs on freeware repaints, he is indeed unreasonable both ethically and legally because every reasonable court would shoot him down.But since it had to be brought to court first, and this would mean cost involved I fully understand the reason why websites comply with his cease and desist orders, even though I am quite convinced he would lose. That's after all why all other Airlines stopped giving the community trouble.

>Because of this,>the web site (AvSim) is legally obligated to take appropriate>actions to assure that they are in compliance with this>order.It is legally obligated only when there is a conclusive court order or decision. Anyone can threaten anyone with scary sounding legalese. It is only enforceable when a court says it is so. on a related note, just to cite a friend of mine who worked for a summer job at the customer complaints department of a major amusement park (that shall remain unnamed) upon learning basic contract law in law school: "I never realized that all the things I was telling people about the disclaimers on their ticket stubs is not enforceable in a court of law."

>Peter Max however did not back down and enforces the copyright>protection on his art work. This included sending cease and>desist for any web site that displays ANY non-authorized>reproduction and/or representation of his work. just more bored overpaid lawyers trying to find something to do. they obviously need to go back to law school and learn patent law before they keep up with these scare tactics. If somebody is selling a peter max repaint livery, that is one thing, but free? Youd have no chance in court. End of discussion. Some people just dont know the law and are too intimidated by lawyersWhat you are doing is not taking away sales and doesn't need to be "authorized"it is somebodies representation of an airplane. Does that mean Rathyeon can sue me because I posted screenshots of their Baron without "authorization"?GIVE ME A BREAK!! Why do people have to do everything they can to ruin a hobby?

Last time I checked Peter Max had not ruined my hobby. Like I said before, nice paint job!

Alex, I read that this is more about Peter Max than the over paid lawyers, "HE" doesn't want his work copied and it's his right. I am probably sure he has no idea he is ruining your hobby ;-)You would be surprised at what one can be sued for these days.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

>You would be surprised at what one can be sued for these>days.Like if someone ruins your hobby? I think that would be something to get sued for. :-lolIMO, this "artist" Max is quite narrow minded to say the least..oups..can I be sued for saying that?..:-hahhttp://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gif

>Is Peter Max's position unreasonable? Peter Max has the legal>right to protect his artwork and how it is used. It is as>simple as that. We don't have to agree with it, but legally>we have respect his request.And the great thing about free society in general is freedom of expression (with the caveat that private settings, like a privately owned discussion forum on the internet, for example, have the right to enforce rules that may limit freedom of speech). Meaning? Peter Max has the right to enforce his copyright, just like I have the right to say his stuff is garbage. I just looked at his website, and honestly, my 2 year old neice has come up with better masterpieces using things like spaghetti sauce and chocolate milk. His stuff looks like something you'd find on cheap and not funny greeting cards in the neglected back corner of a Hallmark store.While I'm sure the technical quality of the OP's repaint looked great, I wouldn't want to fly around with that pastel, paint-splattered, juvenile celebration of non-talent crap that he calls "art" on my aircraft. It'd be like flying a pink F-18.Ah.. criticism is a beautiful thing.

Ah.. criticism is a beautiful thing.interesting how critical you are of one mans "art" and at the same time have a sig that chastises anyone that shows their preference (criticism) of only flying aircraft with a VC (such as myself)just an observation ;-)Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Well, when one chooses to criticise, one must be ready to accept it as well as he gives it. And I do. If you're going to be sane and participate in anything online, you have to do it with a sort of detachment. Never take anything personally. Never wrap yourself around one singular concept so much that you're blind to anything that doesn't fit into that concept (in other words, don't become a "a really excited user"). Etc., etc.Incidently, I prefer VCs over 2D 'pits, myself. The difference with me is that I don't consider myself to be so important that flying a freeware offering that doesn't include one is beneath me. The signature that I am lampooning implies that, and from being a silent member of these forums for the last 7 years, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Don't like planes without VCs? Fine. Don't fly them. Just be prepared to have your arrogance checked if you decide to display it.Nothing personal, of course. ;)