Legality of FS payware

[Guest DanWalloch]

I was just thinking if most of the FS payware, mostly from small groups is legal. What I'm talking about is the selling of textures that feature airline paint schemes. Do these payware groups get permission from every airline, that they paint, to sell their name and logos without having to dish out royaly fees. Or is all this done behind the airline's back. Take for instance, Flight 1/ Project AI's upcoming payware AI release that is too feature close to every airline in the world, I can't imagine that they got signed permission from everyone. I know years back, Midwest Express (now Midwest) wouldn't grant rights to people to sell airplane models with their paint scheme. In today's world with airlines be driven into the ground, they need every penny that they can get. It'd be nice to see payware groups to donate a few dollars to help the airlines out, after all they are making profit off of them. Hope I didn't spark any trouble here. Also, would you need to have permission from the aircraft company itself to sell payware, after all it's their name and their design. (Why do you think Microsoft doesn't paint their default jets in real schemes, they'd have to pay royality fees...and of course they wouldn't want to lose money, they'd have to raise the price of the software.)

[Guest]

Tabs, did you ever think that maybe he didn't put the cost of fuel into the equation when he wrote his question, cut the guy some slack, and lay off.It is a very legitimate question, and I for one, wouldn't want someone else making money off of something I created. Sure fine, great if someone wants to make stuff for free, but some commercial add on software companies who sell paintjob textures(this being only one livery for one plane), well, they sure as heck should be paying royalties. If I was a stockholder, or held a management position I'd want my money that I invested. Who DESIGNED THE paintjob? Thats stealing someone elses idea.In the U.S. the song Happy Birthday is owned by Michael Jackson. If someone wants to sing anywhere where they are making money, like a restaraunt, or on TV, they have to pay MJ a royalty. Most of the time, they change the words, so they don't have to pay the royalty.I am sure the commercial add on companies could change the paintjobs, and make British Airways, British Airlines, and then change the red to Orange. But then who's gonna buy it?I don't even know how much a royalty should be paid for each commercial paintjob sold just as a set of textures, and nothing more. Thats up to the two companies to figure out.Now, I wouldn't disagree that people are just paying for the aircraft, and that the paintjob is free. The thing that bothers me is some companies DARE charge you for paint job textures. Maybe charge you for blank textures, okay, thats their stuff they created it. They did not create the paintjob, they copied it.Money is money my friend, no matter how little and insignificant it is compared to something like thousands of pounds of JP.Paul Meyer - Morris, C09http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/Us...7b45404593a.jpg

[gosta 0]

Hi Dan,your argument is, in legal terms, bollocks, I'm sorry to say. While the owner of a trademarked logo may charge a fee for the use of his/her logo, the representation of such in an environment where, in real life, it can be observed at or from a publicly accessible place, actually or hypothetically, the latter being based on the logo owner's previous pattern of logo placement, as part of a depiction and/or description of a situation, recurring or unique, does not fall into this category. A software product that simulates the movement of air traffic meets these criteria, as long as it does not attempt to defame or otherwise tarnish the logo owner's reputation, or that of the product the logo represents.It would be a different story, if airlines put their logos only on the inside of planes, which would not meet the display in a publicly accessible place criterion. But instead they chose to paint them on the outside of their aircraft and fly through the skies with them for everyone to see who happens to look up, regardless of the observer's wish to note that particular logo. Therefore, the depiction of such activity does not violate any laws.In fact, most airlines and other logo owners consider it free advertising.Cheers,Gosta. http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest]

He's just been taken in by Peter Tishma and his attempts to monopolise the FS addon market which used that very argument (i.e. he held an exclusive license towards using airline liveries in an FS context).

[Guest jason2112]

I have thought about these issues as well, and I really hope we don't face any problems with this. It is a fact that Lago's Tornado payware package does not contain any British Airforce insignia because the British Airforce is known to be very strict about their licensing.Paint jobs and logos are one thing, another issue to think about are user interfaces and technologies in advanced jetliner packages. For example FMC or MFD details could be protected by patents, or couldn't they? I'm not an expert in copyright issues.All I can hope for is that the airlines and aircraft manufacturers realize what a great form of advertisement this flight simulation thing is for them. You hear of a lot of people on these forums who want to become pilots, and airlines should be happy that these people already have an idea of what they can expect later on in their job. Aircraft manufacturers get great advertising as well, so I think everybody benefits from this.Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

[Guest Ashleigh Davidson]

Alleged "exclusive license", I don't recall anybody having ever seen it. Whilst in principle I can see where the origanal poster is coming from. Post's like this can only give Tishma a hard on and no doubt set his twisted mind off again. Though on thinking about it, how could he sign off a legal document in a false name such as "Bobbo" ?I think most airlines do see the FS hobby as promotion and free advertising, it would be interesting to see if anybody has ever asked permission, simply from a courtesy point.I'm of the opinion, exclusive licence deals do nothing but harm, both to the airline and the community. Am I correct there was a call to boycott American during the Tishma fiasco ?The potential revenue and cost of enforcing, Policeing (?)cannot be practical in real terms...surely ?Ashleigh

[gosta 0]

Hi Volker,> [...] the British Airforce is known to be very strict about their licensing.For example FMC or MFD details could be protected by patents, or couldn't they? I'm not an expert in copyright issues.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest pez_man]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember it right I think that TAP VA got a deal with Air Portugal to become their official VA! I even think that they would have an article about them in their inflight magazine! Maybe some of our portugese friends know more about this? It's fun with an airline that actually understands what wonderful pr this is!

[Guest Ashleigh Davidson]

Don't know about the Portugese. Keep money out of the equation, no fighting. Introduce money...all hell breaks loose !TAP VA must be a great advertisment for Air Portugal. It's great to see endorsment of this kind. It's a pity in so many VA's bickering leads to the collapse...Lord, anybody would think it was real..!AD

[gosta 0]

Hi there,while virtual airlines are sometimes endorsed by their real-life counterparts (another example to be found here www.bavirtual.co.uk), it has nothing to do with the issue raised by the original poster.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest H_Kev55]

In my experience, some companies do in fact see this as 'Free Advertising"While some are more accepting than others, it seems that during the life of this great hobby, only 1 bad incident has arisen.Also, some companies are seeking out designers in order to display their products thru flight sims.This hobby is getting great exposure in almost every available way.KJhttp://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...8a521552cbb.jpg

[Guest Captain Barfbag]

Regardless of the legalities here, consider the economics. The dollar amount of license fees which could be gathered from this niche market is miniscule. However, the airlines would have to hire people to deal with this, or more likely, contract the job out. It's hard to see that any reasonable licensing fee would suffice to cover the administrative expenses of monitoring and collecting it.

[Dillon 2,197]

Go to Avsim's main page and do a search on "tishma".

[Guest Joshieca]

I had heard that in the past AA got really ###### at sim users having their trademark logo on a virtual plane. They had thought that it was a violation of their corporate trademark image. I could see that some airlines might get upset at this. Some might think that it was "free advertising", while others might get concerned that if a virtual airline of theirs crashes, it might be bad for their business..dont ask me how, but stockholders are rather funny that way...airlines like stockholders to be happy....there must be something to it, otherwise I would think that MS would use real world airline companies in their program.