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

>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.

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.

you can show pics of a plane...just cant paint it and upoad..the post was started by Rob cause I asked him too...I emailed Peter to see if I could upload a painting I did.So it has nothing to do with a screen shot...just his work.http://www.projectopensky.com/banners/gary_banner.gif

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.

I dont know about the file.and no I wont be leaving...Not my area ;)http://www.projectopensky.com/banners/gary_banner.gif

>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.

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

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

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.

The plot thickens..........http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DC...mID8/18230.htmlTomAFG.

>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.

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.

>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?

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? :-)