> Not to stir up a hornets nest,..That's just what might be going on here...Amazing really...Jan :-roll

I try to not personally say anything derrogatory about Mr. Tishma and his company. He has a legal team that is very good and efficient at litigation, and I personally do not want to be involved in any litigation.Lets just say that I do not purchase products from his company for personal reasons and leave it at that. And having never purchased any products from him, I can not comment on their quality good or bad.Will.

I know this topic has drifted off to a discussion of the AA/Tishma fiasco, however no one has been able to answer the original question which is worthy of an answer from those who are actually in the know.Maybe some developer/painter here is interested in doing some commercial paints and would like to know how to do it legally.Brent Hebert

Yes, I've been monitoring this thread to see whether PSS, Flight1, Ariane, PMDG, etc, etc, can chime in about addon liveries. With PSS and Ariane, you are actually charged for each Addon livery. I thought the original argument was whether or not these companies are breaking copyright laws. It has already been shown that through the efforts of Avsim, freeware developers can release these liveries if they're not for profit, but what about PSS and Ariane who are obviously releasing liveries ....for profit?I'm not trying to bash PSS or Ariane here.....I've purchased liveries from PSS, and I've never bought anything from Ariane. But since the situation with the freeware developers has been cleared up, then the situation with the Payware developers needs to be cleared up too.

Why do you assume there is a "situation" with Payware developers when it comes to liveries or trademarks? I haven't detected one. No payware author with an ounce of brain matter would dare to release a copyrighted livery without the explicit permission of the copyright holder, whether that be through a no-fee license or otherwise. To do so could end up in financial disaster. If there are payware authors out there that are using liveries without permission, time will take care of the issue and that developer. If there are payware developers out there violating copyrights, it is not up to us to "police" them. It is up to the copyright holder to do so. And even if we were so presumptious as to take on that task, how would know if a developer was in violation of a copyright or not?

Wow, Wow, Calm down Tom. I never suggested that anyone here at Avsim Police any developer. That would be rather foolish. The thread started by asking the same question I did. It then went into a Bash Ariane mode, then talked about the great work you did to secure freedom for freeware developers, but never answered the original question. No one here ever suggested that you police anyone.Some one asked the same question about Ariane selling liveries but once I put in the letters P S S ....it seems to strike a nerve.I will repeat, I have nothing against PSS...I have no ported liveries for the A320...I purchased all 14 or so that I own....so dont let the mention of their name make your blood pressure rise.:-) I just figured that the thread went off track and like the poster before me, I'm trying to get it back on track.

'nuff said.

come on people...... That's not our business....Jacek

Let's face facts. The original question has been more or less already answered. -We now know that airlines will look the other way regarding repaints made by freeware authors.-We know that to sell a repaint of a copyrighted livery without permission and/or a license is illegal.-We know that PSS and Arianne charge for each livery that you purchase.-We DON'T know if Arianne or PSS have come to an agreement with the airline companies regarding making money off the sale of the livery.-We DON'T know if Airlines are looking the other way regarding commercial repaints.I don't think you're going to get an answer as to if Arianne or PSS have come to an agreement with the airlines. None of us actually think that either Arianne or PSS are going to come in here and tell us they haven't secured an agreement to sell them if they have not. If they have, I'm sure there is no harm in them stating so and they could if they wanted to. But don't expect them to come in here and say the are breaking the law in a public forum if they don't have their ducks in a row!Tom is right. We are not the police, we are simply consumers asking questions. Lest we forget, if you purchase a copyrighted work illegally, you also have some liability (to the best of my knowledge), so it does give us the right to discuss and inquire about this.I "personally" find it difficult to believe that PSS or Arianne (or anybody else who sells liveries) individually secured permission from each airline they distribute, but this is simply wild speculation on my part and not part of the factual record.Then there is always the issue of historical liveries. Eastern or PanAm for example. Who owns those now? And who would you contact to get permission to sell them. :-)

I am calm and my blood pressure if fine. You read more into my response than was there. The original question was answered. If an author uses copyright material without permision for either freeware or payware, shame on him. If he uses copyright material without permission and charges for it, he can be open to loosing his shirt in a court of law. Nothing to do with PSS, Ariane, or anyone else. Just a matter of fact. It does not matter what the copyrighted material is, livery, POH, a/c manual, whatever. The same rules apply. Freeware or payware. The liveries discussion is a small subset of the larger discussion of copyrights and as it has turned out, is pretty much allowed for freeware authors by the majority of airlines (prudence, common sense, and common courtesy would seem to me to dictate that you ask anyway, but that doesn't seem to be the case these days). As far as whether a company has permission via a license or not is none of our business IMHO (unless, like Tihsma, they assert privelages under that license that do not exist while trying to manipulate the community in the process), and it is not our (the community's) responsibility to try to police them. If someone wants to naively try, good luck. I know how I would react were you to challenge me to prove I have permission to do anything; I would tell you to go climb a tree (only probably not so nicely worded).The part of this that amazes me is that people actually believe they have the right to challenge the commercial vendors in the first place or have some perceived right to know.

I believe consumers (or potential consumers of the product) do indeed have the right to know if the liveries have been duly licensed, as them not being licensed would potentially make the customer a party to an illegal act.I don't mean that full disclosure should be sought from commercial vendors, nor am I even implying that it needs to be public record or knowledge. But if I as a potential consumer were to post the question to a company, I feel they should be compelled to answer, in private if they wish.

i have spoke with SWISS International Airlines adn they gave me clear indication on what their policy is, as an example.

Aus diesen Gr

Greetings all!"(...) the right to know if the liveries have been duly licensed, as them not being licensed would potentially make the customer a party to an illegal act (...)"True. If a vendor has duly licensed the stuff they sell, I see no reason why they wouldn't make a statement to that extend on their website or box or CD or whatever. To look at it from the other direction: if a vendor does NOT clearly state that his stuff is sold with permission/license from the copyright or trademark owner, I have a strong suspicion that such license or permission has NOT been obtained, and that said vendor is in fact committing a felony. Be well!Jaap Verduijn.