Not necessarilly. Capitilizing on someone elses design is typically not okay. Hence copyright laws, trademark laws, etc. etc. There's all sorts of laws which prevent people from capitilizing on the work of others. Technically, Gulfstream has every right to defend their work, and prevent people from capitilizing on their ideas.

Aircraft are not copyright, otherwise photographing one would be a breach of copyright. Grumman's trademarks wouldn't be used. Under UK law making an article to another's design is only an infringement if it's done for commercial purposes so freeware should be OK. Also, it seems doubtful that an add-on would be an "article" under UK law so payware might be OK too. So, what's left?

Incidentally, there is at least one 1/72 plastic kit of a Gulfstream on the market from Minicraft together with a number of solid wood versions.

likely worked with gulfstream and received OK to create ... or share % of sales ... or paid for use of of image.--

So General Dynamics are just bullies?

sure (like ryanb said).--

Aircraft are not copyright,

yes they are

otherwise photographing one would be a breach of copyright.

if you pictured you can sue ... this is why you see 'fuzz outs' of person (and things) on TV and pictures. depending on location you must ask permission before taking someone's picture ... even person(s) in the background.

Grumman's trademarks wouldn't be used. Under UK law making an article to another's design is only an infringement if it's done for commercial purposes so freeware should be OK. Also, it seems doubtful that an add-on would be an "article" under UK law so payware might be OK too. So, what's left?

the thing is ... you are a developer. get letter saying 'STOP'. you can stop, pay a lawyer to say it is OK (or not), pay a lawyer to get a judge to say it is OK (or not), etc etcagain ... Ed's #1 lession.--

It doesn't matter if its a copyright, or something else:There are a lot of Intellectual property rights covering Everything General Dynamics has ever done.There are easily thousands of clauses that protect intellectual property in one way or another - Gulfstream Airplanes belong to Gulfstream, and Gulfstream belongs to its parent company General Dynamics.Protecting these airplanes does not make them bullies. A lawyer, who is certified with a bar association in one way or another says to cease and desist - you cease and desist or you make sure that you have the law on your side covering all of those thousand different clauses protecting Gulfstream. (with your own lawyer and the interpretation of a judge)Cost does not equal benefit for an FS developer. Neither Freeware nor Payware, Thus gulfsteam wins by default.Being that Gulfstream's airplanes are Gulfstream intellectual property - this is not bullying, this is protection of intellectual property.It really is very simple. It's not even a copyright that may be of concern, it is all of the intellectual rights that protect Gulfstream, and there are a Lot of them.

Aircraft are not copyright, otherwise photographing one would be a breach of copyright. Grumman's trademarks wouldn't be used. Under UK law making an article to another's design is only an infringement if it's done for commercial purposes so freeware should be OK. Also, it seems doubtful that an add-on would be an "article" under UK law so payware might be OK too. So, what's left?

Legal Lesson #1: He who has the most money, wins.Litigation is expensive. Very, very, very expensive. An FS developer couldn't afford the cost of a legal battle against General Dynamics.

SubLogic found that out the hard way!!!

It really is very simple. It's not even a copyright that may be of concern, it is all of the intellectual rights that protect Gulfstream, and there are a Lot of them.

Intellectual Property Rights are Copyrights, Patents, Designs, Trademakes, and Trade Secrets. If there are a lots of others you can surely name some of them?

And of these laws,That is a lot, consider that each clause in the above matters of subject is interpreted in protecting intellectual property and gulfstream is covered head to toe from most things, one way or another. In other words the number of laws doesn't even matter - the fact is they only have to find one law, in many cases only one or two clauses from. (You seem to think the laws stop at the name of the subjects mentioned, when infact there's a lot pertaining to each law)But I digress, the fact of the matter is not which law, but just that there is a law that gulfstream has acted on. The only thing that matters beyond that would be a go/no go decision for settling it in, or out of, a court. Which we've already gone over, you're just getting stuck on which law, but neither you 'nor I (Unless I'm sadly mistaken) are lawyers. our interpretation of laws is totally meaningless. We can only decide to hire said lawyer, and move forward in proceedings to rectify an issue at hand.Gulfstream has an issue, thus say cease and desist?Cease and desist or proceed with legal mitigation. (Shrugs)Ryan.

Intellectual Property Rights are Copyrights, Patents, Designs, Trademakes, and Trade Secrets. If there are a lots of others you can surely name some of them?

Gulfstream will have fun with them.

Not so far - it's still on sale!

And of these laws,That is a lot, consider that each clause in the above matters of subject is interpreted in protecting intellectual property and gulfstream is covered head to toe from most things, one way or another. In other words the number of laws doesn't even matter - the fact is they only have to find one law, in many cases only one or two clauses from. (You seem to think the laws stop at the name of the subjects mentioned, when infact there's a lot pertaining to each law)But I digress, the fact of the matter is not which law, but just that there is a law that gulfstream has acted on. The only thing that matters beyond that would be a go/no go decision for settling it in, or out of, a court. Which we've already gone over, you're just getting stuck on which law, but neither you 'nor I (Unless I'm sadly mistaken) are lawyers. our interpretation of laws is totally meaningless. We can only decide to hire said lawyer, and move forward in proceedings to rectify an issue at hand.Gulfstream has an issue, thus say cease and desist?Cease and desist or proceed with legal mitigation. (Shrugs)Ryan.

Until I find out what law Grumman is relying on (if any), I'll still regard it as bullying.

Until I find out what law Grumman is relying on (if any), I'll still regard it as bullying.

that is fair.also remember that 'law' isn't ethical, or even the 'right thing to do'.--

It is in fact bullying. They know that the developers haven't the financial resources to fight them. They rely on that.There is actually law on the side of the developers... but, no developer has the financial position to afford chasing it.As example: A patent only applies to a process/design. The oval windows are patented with regards to how they're used. Pretty certain that doesn't cover 3D game modelling of a likeness.Also as example: An aircraft name can be a copyright/trademark... but how far you can enforce it is based on actual damages/damage potential. Gulfstream doesn't make 3D game products of any kind. Proving damages would be difficult.

In the US there is the concept of common law trademark as well as registered trademark, and the related concepts of service marks and trade dress.scott s..

It is in fact bullying. They know that the developers haven't the financial resources to fight them. They rely on that.There is actually law on the side of the developers... but, no developer has the financial position to afford chasing it.As example: A patent only applies to a process/design. The oval windows are patented with regards to how they're used. Pretty certain that doesn't cover 3D game modelling of a likeness.Also as example: An aircraft name can be a copyright/trademark... but how far you can enforce it is based on actual damages/damage potential. Gulfstream doesn't make 3D game products of any kind. Proving damages would be difficult.

Under UK law: Copyright only covers a literary work (which includes a table or compilation, and a computer program), a dramatic work, a musical work, an artistic work (which include a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building. It doesn't cover others works such as an aircraft.Design right is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in an original design where

Under UK law: ...

all good points, now prove your interpretation is correct :( .PROVING you are correct is the challenge. to be correct, or NOT, will cost money.once you are told to 'stop' and don't you are in court. again ... cost money. it cost money even if the order to 'stop' was illegal.the low US cost for a copyright/business lawyer is going to be $750/hr ... and maybe a minimum fee just to look at the situation.you are looking at least a week of billable hours = $30,000now if you actually need to be with a judge the fee may double for the time in chambers/court ($1500/hr).let us say best case you are in for >$45000 to state your case.now ... the judge makes a decision that may support your POV, ... or not.--

Yup, which is why cease and desist letters (and in the internet age, takedown notices) are so popular.scott s..

Grumman?I'll agree to disagree then, imo General Dynamics should take every step they see fit in protecting their design within the law. If you're interested in which law they're citing, you could always ask them.

Not so far - it's still on sale!Until I find out what law Grumman is relying on (if any), I'll still regard it as bullying.

all good points, now prove your interpretation is correct :(

I am not interpreting the law I am paraphrasing it.Check Sections 1 to 4 of this http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1 for definitions of copyright. Check Sections 213 and 226 for Design Rights.Check Section 1(1) and !0 of http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga...2#pt1-pb3-l1g10 for Trade Marks.