>Last time I checked Peter Max had not ruined my hobby. Like>I said before, nice paint job!the actions of his sad overpaid staff WILL ruin the hobby if they are allowed to get away with this nonsense. That means later on more companies will catch on to his BS and also restrict the fair use usage of an artists rendition

Peter Max Posts Shootdown Stats2004 = 82005 = 42006 = 1 (and counting)Any predictions?

Well this is just ridiculous! ....so one is allowed to photograph the a/c and upload pics to airliners.net but not show a screenie of the same photo on a freeware paint? :-eekAn artist who does not want his/her work to be seen :-hmmmIs Peter Max a member of Ariane? :-hah j/kA fantastic paint anyway Cyril! :9

regardsEd

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/edley.gifAMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 128Mb DDR Nvidia 6600GT PCI Express, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant

I just got a copyright accepted for the use of a tshirt. Any tshirt. I hereby proclaim that no unauthorized use of a tshirt shall occur. Anyong violating this will cease and desist immediately

For those wondering what this is all about here is a link :http://www.airliners.net/open.file/989613/L/Personally I don't hink much of it. Yes, it catches your eye but that's it.I think it is Peter Max's loss more than anything else. He is turning down free publicity..:-hmmm

Hi everyone.Wow... I'm sorry but I did'nt want to cause polemic with this plane.I'm sorry to have upload pics on avsim server.Next time, I would put my images on airliners, considering that Peter Max does'nt break their ######. ("it's a French expression, but it lost somethink with the translation") :-)

I hereby declare rights to the act of inhaling. Everyone is free to exhale, however, I demand a nickel's royalty for every breath taken in. Failure to comply will result in C&Ds, and perhaps further legal action. You have been warned. ;)

>Peter Max Posts Shootdown Stats>>2004 = 8>2005 = 4>2006 = 1 (and counting)>>Any predictions?Welll I guess 3 this year... You know Mr. Ford your repaint caused the problems :-lol

Does anyone know if Max has an agreement with airliners.net? Furthermore, how can airliners.net mark the copyright as owned by the photographer on such photographs, when, in accordance with at least US copyright law, the photos are reproductions of copyrighted works of art? Every single paint scheme is a copyrightable work, not just these by Max or the other case that springs to mind the Pockemon (deliberately misspelt) 747 paints... (JAL?)The guy needs to lighten up. Nobody here is selling repaints, nobody makes a cent or penny out of it here, the fact that the name Peter Max is visible on the fuselage clears up any discussion of original artist.He is, as stated, within US law. But that doesn't change the feeling that he is unreasonable.It is a sad world we live in... The most frightening thing is that something like this would stand up in court. That's copyright law in the US... (whether it is like this in other countries, I cannot say, I only checked US copyright law). I was surprised by the other legal battle concerning the airlines. Surely, in a world of competition as hot as it is, with some major carriers facing bankruptcy, one could be led to think that an airline would be happy for the extra free publicity...;) Oh well...Andrew

*sigh* Ah yes... public debate... 'tis a wonderful thing. ;-)This is an old old topic guys... and what I enjoy about it is that every time it resurfaces, there are a new group of people debating the same ol' points. Sorry guys, all of these points, whether for or against, have been debated many many times regarding the whole copyright application enforcement issue. And guess what... nothing has changed regarding them. Peter Max is still a tool, JAL's Pokemon and Disney liveries are taboo, and AA will not allow any commercial add-on product to include their livery.I find it just as frustrating as the rest of you. I am a believer that one of the most sincere forms of appreciation is imitation. However, there are those out there that do not feel this way and Mr. Max is one of them. Oh well... game-on. *:-*

I thank you all for messages and infos which you gave.Well, it'nt all that, but I will be frustrated to don't make you more screens with this P.M paint scheme.Which new painting for Meljet 777-200, I had thought of the Heliconia... Who have an other idea...

Very nice paint Cyril. :-waveDespite the turbulent issue, it seams that Simviation doesn

Saw some picks of the real thing over at airliners.net and it is a very cool paint scheme.

I would assume that this Peter Max guy was paid to design the scheme for Continental. So surely the copyrights to it are theirs???I can't belive that Continental own the plane and he owns the paint, that just wouldn't make sense. The painters at Boeing and Airbus don't claim copyright to every plane they work on right.David G

Good point, if an artist is commissioned, then the the commissioner is generally the holder of copyright in the first instance. However, if Continental signed an agreement, you don't know who is the copyright holder. I can well believe that the airline agreed to waive all rights to the design in order to be able to say "we have pop artist Peter Max doing our paintjobs"... He doesn't own the paint, either, he owns the image which the paint creates...The painters at Boeing and Airbus, if employees of Boeing and Airbus cannot claim copyright, that belongs to the respective airlines, since they are commissioning the paintjobs, unless they sign some waiver agreement, which Max probably forced Continental to do... he could have gone to whoever else... maybe...I can't believe why airlines are anti the FS community because of copyright infringements. We aren't acting as airlines, we aren't selling tickets and flying freight and passengers around the globe and cutting in on their revenue. If anything, everytime someone posts a BA/AA/USAir/JAL/LH/ or whatever picture on a site such as avsim, well, we're giving them free advertising. Or do they think that "what we do here" is disreputable to the company name?Why don't they all just give us a break?That's my 2 cents' worth, for what it's worth. Yes, I know it won't make a blind bit of difference...Andrew