Sign in to follow this  
Tom Allensworth

This Peter Max mess....

Recommended Posts

With the post in the screenshot forum about Peter Max and there wishes not to have any of their work replicated in FS is Avsim going to take stock of their file librarys,members signatures and begin the removal of those files in a swift fashion.Here is a file that would be a candidate. ct_767.zipRegaurds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>With the post in the screenshot forum about Peter Max and >there wishes not to have any of their work replicated in FS >is Avsim going to take stock of their file librarys,members >signatures and begin the removal of those files in a swift >fashion. Just out of curiosity, flynman, why are you concerned about this? Since the post was made by a mod, and AVSIM is aware of it, it will probably be removed eventually. Why does it have to be "in a swift fashion?" Are you affiliated with Peter Max? Further, I fail to see how it is a "mess." A question was asked of the copyright owners, and an answer was given. I'm sure that it will be taken care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edam.No Im not related to Peter Max in any form. However I believe if the the mods are going to be our directors they also need to be able to lead as well. After all how long would it take for them to remove a certian Peter Max 767-400 in the library, what all of 2 seconds???.If I cant show my fleet of Peter Max AC in the screenshot forum then I expect that I shouldnt be able to find it in the librarys or on someones sig either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So will the file I presented in my intial post be removed??Otherwise Gary thank you for your clarification. So I can post screenshots of Peter Max.GARY!!!!BTW has Donald told you to pack your duffle bag yet and be ready to go and work on your tan yet. You know if you go youll be in many of ours thoughts and prayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>No Im not related to Peter Max in any form. However I >believe if the the mods are going to be our directors they >also need to be able to lead as well. After all how long >would it take for them to remove a certian Peter Max 767-400 >in the library, what all of 2 seconds???. Less than that, WHEN those that take care of the library can do so. Again, why are you so concerned about this? It WILL be taken care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a problem with this upload and believe that it violates someone's copyright, then send an email to library@avsim.com , the proper venue to report this type of thing, not the forum where it appears more as a public bash of AVSIM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that with a good lawyer you can easily break this statment as it is fundamentally flawed:when people were using the AA name and logo, all right there was a problem.But in this case it is the replica of a drawing. And drawing a hand copy of a work of art has never been a violation of copyrights. Let's think of all painters that make hand- copy of work of art.... You are 'hopefully' always entitles to try to reproduce a work of art as soon as you don't claim it is not a fake.I think that man is abusing of itd copyrights and his claims are not valid.(the same apply to disney, but here it is a bit more tricky as there are copyrighted names on the fuse) Greetings Minos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a copyright can be put on any piece of work whether it be cartoon, music, etc.. etc.. you dont even need to register it with the copyright offices as long as you can prove the original work is yours."And drawing a hand copy of a work of art has never been a violation of copyrights"no. but the moment you exclude the original author or try to make some type of financial situation without the agreemenr of the original author, then it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The plot thickens.......... Yes, it does. Two conflicting reports, both supposedly from Peter Max. But which one is correct? Obviously, one is inaccurate. Due to past history, I'm guessing that the one claiming that the repaints are allowed may be in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are not conflicting reports. Any statement made by Peter Max does not necessarily have to be viewed as a blanket statement.If I write the Rolling Stones, and get permission to use a sample from some of their music on a CD track on my own album, that does not grant EVERYBODY the license to do so. ONLY myself.So Peter Max decided that they want to allow this individual to upload his repaint, and he has documentary evidence of such permission, then HE is allowed to upload the repaint and nobody else... nor can anybody else do a repaint an upload it either. They would all have to go to Peter Max on a case by case basis.Now, the only reason I can see that Peter Max allows some and not others is either: A) Quality Control :( A personal relationship with the individual who asked. In either case, I'm not sure it's any of our business, but it would be nice to "be in the know" as to why Peter Max decided to allow this one repaint, when everything else in the past has been disallowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm not sure it's any of our business, but it would be nice >to "be in the know" as to why Peter Max decided to allow >this one repaint, when everything else in the past has been >disallowed.Indeed, IF that one repaint was actually allowed. Have you seen the "documentary evidence," or are you just taking that guy at his word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have personally not seen any documentary evidence, since I am not involved in that matter in any way, shape, or form. :-)He states that he attached the written permission (an email, I believe) from Peter Max to the fs.com staff in order to validate the upload.It would make perfectly logical sense (to me, anyway, if I were fs.com staff) to validate the originality of said permission before giving the go ahead. I have no knowledge of whether fs.com staff has done that or not either.I have no reason nor proof to state that the permission is false, as I have no proof that the permission if real.As far as I'm concerned, both statements involved in this are true until proven otherwise. One, that Peter Max disallowed the upload of a repaint, and Two, that they allowed the upload of a repaint. I cannot question either of those... only ask... why one, and not the other? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I cannot question either >of those... only ask... why one, and not the other? :-)That is my question also. Why one and not the other? I guess that we'll have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen many a screen shot of the Peter Max aircraft and heard its banned and not banned.Whatever...my guess is that an accomplished aircraft repainter could do a scheme thats close to what the PM job looks like but different enough to be his own in about oh....one hour or two Max--pardon the pun.Whats the big deal about that paint job?? Its a bunch of pretty colors just splashed on a big aircraft in a random order. Instead of wondering if PM would ever allow that paint job to be uploaded or downloaded see if you could talk a good painter into making a similar type of paint job.David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"With the post in the screenshot forum about Peter Max and there wishes not to have any of their work replicated in FS is Avsim going to take stock of their file librarys,members signatures and begin the removal of those files in a swift fashion."Why would anyone besides Peter Max care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of inconsistent statements in that e-mail authorization message. At the present time, I'm waiting for some clarification. It is my belief, (from that e-mail), that one can only use the images for personal use, and cannot be uploaded/shared in a public distribution. However, this is where the inconsistencies come into play. It is not worded in a clear enough manner to be able to reach any degree of certainty.Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But under which copyright law...And you can't know if the repaint was a handpainted reproduction of the original. It's so hard to tell a retouched scan from an original these days...Fair use would also not come into play if the original author (Peter Max) wasn't given credit in the work (a.k.a. repaint), and asking permission is just so easy isn't it?They probably just want to protect their corporate image a bit better than most by keeping some control over the quality of the repaints, something I can thoroughly understand. I've seen enough poor quality repaints (heck, I did some myself. I know it's easy to repaint but hard to do a good job at it).I don't know what kind of company we're talking about here, but if they live from graphics design or a related field, having a poor representation of your work floating around the web might have a negative impact on the image people have of your company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh... the plot thickens YET again. :-)I agree about quality control, and that is a very good point, and one that they are completely entitled to.Under fair use, you would indeed need to make sure all your t's are crossed and i's dotted. That would include all references to original authorship, etc. etc. etc.Interesting how this will pan out... I await the next chapter with eager anticipation. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the point about copyrights etc, but seems ironic. I've seen this plane at Newark Airport and twice this week at Narita in Japan on my way to Hong Kong. Its pretty ugly paint scheme in my view. My 6 year old can do that stuff (she is talented! :-)I was a heck of a lot more impressed with the JAL Reso'Cha 744 and the JAL Disney Mickey Mouse birds, not to mention the Thai Airways Royal barge 744 that were all on the same tarmac sunday afternoon!Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Heh... the plot thickens YET again. :-) If it continues to thicken, we may all turn into conspiracy theorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this