Hi,I've always wondered about this.If you're an add-on developer like so many and you charge money for re-paints of specific airlines, and thus are making money off that specific airline's livery, aren't you in violation of some kind of copyright law unless you have a license to use that airline's logo?Or do the airline lawyers even really care about this?Also, I've seen some payware addon stuff that seemingly take stuff right out of an airlines flight manuals, and use it in their product. Is that not a copyright violation?If I for example develop a payware addon, and include some, say, Southwest SOPs in the manual or addon, am I violating copyright law?Just wondering about how this works.

I don

Americam Airlines is protective of there copyrights and you'll find licensing information within the PAI downloads of AMR aircraft. R-

This is a VERY good question and one that I do not know the answer to but I hope that somebody that does know chimes in and offers us a glimmer of understanding.Airline liveries are trademarks and are indeed protected to the best of my knowledge. This is why a new startup airline couldn't use the Delta logo, for example. This is why I believe, Microsoft Flight Sim does not ship with any real airline liveries.Now, I've always understood that "technically" you are not really allowed to paint a plane in any airlines livery and release it. Seeing as how most repaints are free, I don't think anybody from the airlines (or their lawyers) are keeping tabs. However, when a company charges you for a repaint of their commercial product, this seems like a totally different issue to me.In essense, they are making money by reproducing protected, trademarked logos, etc. without permission? It sure seems that way to me.I am going to investigate further, but if anybody has better knowledge of this issue, please chime in!

It is indeed a sticky question. Microsoft, can't put copyrighted Liveries because it can't "make" money off someone elses copyright, yet MyTraffic 2004 and Ultimate Traffic can, because they are simply redistributing freeware material (project AI) and the source of revenue is not from the "sale" of the freeware, but rather the sale of the program UI that "manages" it.Not only that, it has always been a point of contention when the old "freeware" piracy debate comes out. For example, certain freeware developers get highly irrate when someone uses their model or "paint" without their permission, yet this same "developer" created the paint without the Airline's permission.The truth is that eseentially it is a violation of copyright but the airlines turn a blind eye because it is seen as harmless. This was highlighted in the famous/infamous case regarding the attempt of Papa Tango to use it's licensing agreement with American Airlines to attempt to shut down websites and freeware developers who distributed AA liveries. This was eventually ixnayed by AA when AA informed Mr. Papa Tango, that his "licensing" agreement did not give him that authority. But that hadn't stopped him from trying. In fact it was the general ire and anger from the community, and pressure placed on AA that forced AA to take action. Planned AA boycotts were staged, and when PT's attempt got the notice of AA officials, (ie, no longer harmles), they clamped down on him.So it seems that this is a legal gray area, and will remain so as long as the "airlines" don't mind, no one else does. A good deal of payware and freeware developers out there should consider themselves lucky that the airlines are less retentive about their copyrights, than the developers are of theirs.

hi folks,this thing differes a little bit depending on the countrys law, you are citizen of. in germany for example, its forbidden to use "trademark-logos" from other companys for your own commercial interests. so if a payware company wants to bring an airbus a320 lufthansa for example, they have to get permission from airbus industries AND from lufthansa first before they release their product. interesting thing is that german law does not make any difference between freeware designer and payware designer. the german law is called "MarkenGesetz" (trademark-law) and other contries do have similar laws too. so you see that it is indeed illegal to use company-logos without permission, even for freeware releases. but good thing is that most airlines usualy dont care about their logos being used on freeware releases (except for AA for example) because of the "freeware advertisements" they get for their silence and the "bad promotion" they would get if they react to harsh.tom

>It is indeed a sticky question. Microsoft, can't put copyrighted >Liveries because it can't "make" money off someone elses copyright, >yet MyTraffic 2004 and Ultimate Traffic can, because they are >simply redistributing freeware material (project AI) and the source >of revenue is not from the "sale" of the freeware, but rather the >sale of the program UI that "manages" it.I don't think it really matters that they are redistributing freeware material.They are still making money, 'if' it's a trademark violation it would mean the freeware distribution is also a trademark violation.So using freeware works does not insulate you from this legally.Regards.Ernie.

Actually AA I believe doesn't really care too much either. The whole AA thing started when Papa Tango licensed the AA logo and trademark for flight sim purposes.PT took this as an exclusive license, and then began threatening websites and VA's to 'cease and desist' even so far as sending legal notification.The freeware community was indeed alarmed, and as a result pulled all the AA stuff out. Angry Simmers began to flood the AA website, as well as letter writing campaigns, criticizing AA for being so uptight about it's logo, and how the use of the AA trademark wasn't really causing harm.AA's legal department had been taken aback at this sudden burst of ill-will, and thus started investigating the cause. They then realized that the legal threats were not coming so much from AA, but from PT. It was then that PT was informed that they did not have exclusive rights, and soon the business relationship between AA and PT fell apart.More and More AA liveries are showing up now but there is some reluctance in the community simply because AA's name was tied to the legal action of PT.At least that's what I was witnessing when this whole thing came up. I'm not sure if AA actually got involved in cracking down on "websites" or if it was just simply PT flaunting AA's name around.

First, read this link:http://www.avsim.com/pages/0401/aa/aa_letter.htmlAnd on April 19th, 2001, we posted this on the front page:QUOTEAfter nearly two weeks of discussions between American Airlines and AVSIM Online, AVSIM is pleased to announce today that those discussions have successfully concluded. In brief, the discussions between AA and AVSIM have centered around the use of the AA trademarked logo and livery by the freeware community, and the continued use of those by flight simulation enthusiasts. As a result of these discussions, AVSIM will host an online registration system, whereby freeware authors may automatically register their use of the AA trademarks. Once registered, the author is free to use the livery and logo in accordance with the terms that will be placed in the form. The simple term of agreement required by AA is as follows:"I acknowledge that American Airlines, Inc. (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) is the sole and exclusive owner of the trademarks, logos, designs, and trade dress constituting the Livery of American Airlines, American Eagle, TWA, TWE, BEX, Air Cal, and Reno Air. I affirm that I have not made, nor will I make in the future, any direct or indirect commercial use of these Liveries (or any other American Airlines intellectual property) in creating or distributing these Liveries for flight simulator programs or otherwise. If I give (as opposed to sell) the product of my hobby to others, I will include the following language in a conspicuous place:

Thanks Tom for the clarification. And thank you for clearing up my own misconceptions.

I beleive this also explains why my version of Ultimate Traffic did not include AA liveries in the purchased package, but the AA liveries was available as a free download to add to my product post purchase. It is a small distinction between packaging them in the product at the time of sale, and allowing "others" to create updates to be put in at a later time. But quite an important distinction none-the-less.

Thank you Tom for shedding some much needed light and factual accuracy to this discussion. So, it seems that the original poster's point is quite valid. Developers who sell repaints of trademarked liveries are playing with real fire if the airline decided to pursue legal action.Hmmm, maybe we shouldn't have brought this up for discussion after all. :-)

This also mean in my opinion that you may expect a price raise for a payware aircraft with real life liveries if such payware release requires financial agreement with the airline company to reuse their logo / trademark...

Whats ironic about this is,this was a man (Tishma) who at the time said (and correct me if I'm wrong please) He would not make money by the use of unlicenced logo's ect ect. Now here he is in another disguise doing exactly that and charging extortionate fees for the privilage. I wonder if Mr, Tishma / Ariane studios design or whatever he calls himself today has indeed any permissions or agreements with the airlines or for his very dubious Boeing looking logo ? He blatently is making money on the back of the airlines directly i.e. United packs ect so on so forth. Not to stir up a hornets nest, would anybody know ? Anybody consider asking the airlines ? What goes around, comes around perhaps ?Ash

To add my 2 cents, there are still some paint schemes not allowed for legal upload do to Copyrights owned by someone other than the Airline in which has the paint scheme. Some of these would be Continental's B777 with the Perer Max NYC 2000 SchemeAlaska's B734 with the Disney schemeJAL's varous B744s with Disney shemes.ANA's B763s withe the Pokemon schemes.There are others I'm sure, and I'm sure somewhere about the internet these above schemes are made available by someone who doesn't know of the copyright violation, and/or doen't care about it.

:-outta

http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/User_files/3e72a43942b48d2b.jpg

There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".- unknown

"My daddy gives me up, to fight for you"- a US Military Members Child