>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.

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

"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?

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

Well if you loook at Darrells last post at Flightsim.com you will see the he has found some inconsitancys in the aledged letter from Peter Max.http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DC...mID8/18261.html

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.

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. :-)

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

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

I think it has "thickened" so much that we'll lock this thread and request everyone to move it over to the Hangar Chat forum, where it should have gone in the first place.