And then we didnt spoke about repaints, of lets say an KLM 747 for the original 747 what came with FS9.Most said its their work, copyrighted, and so on, but no one asked KLM in the first place to use it, let alone show pictures or youtube movies with it.It cant be copyrighted, only by KLM. (in this example, it can be anything)Did POSKY ask permission from Boeing to replicate their copyrighted 747 design shapes?Maybe the companies dont care, but its hard to put a EULA of copyright on a 'design' you didnt create, but just replicated.Or do I miss some point(s) ?

You have a valid point. An aircraft's livery is probably protected by being registered as a design rather than copyright. Either way, the airline would normally requires a licence to be granted before it could be used. There must therefore be a qustion it texture files can be copyrighted.This thread is in danger of arguing that no part of an add-on can be protected. Model (.mdl) and gauge (.gau & .exe) files are based on a format/structure determinmed bu Microsoft and use facts that are not copyrightable!

You have a valid point. An aircraft's livery is probably protected by being registered as a design rather than copyright. Either way, the airline would normally requires a licence to be granted before it could be used. There must therefore be a qustion it texture files can be copyrighted.......

Which brings me back to the definition of what the essence of copyright protection is (see post #9).Another example:I'm sure everybody agrees that if someone takes a photo of a real KLM 747, that photo can be copyrighted ..And can be sold without permission of KLM; because the picture *itself* is the result of the creative process.Because if not, professional photographers would not exist.And if so, I can't see any reason why texture files in MSFS of that same KLM 747 cannot be copyrighted.Even if I used that same photo to create my texture files for MSFS.And, as I see it, the same applies for the "transformation" of real-world data spec's into .air values or aircraft.cfg values. And to hand-painted bitmaps used in gauges. And to ...etc.Rob

Which brings me back to the definition of what the essence of copyright protection is (see post #9).Another example:I'm sure everybody agrees that if someone takes a photo of a real KLM 747, that photo can be copyrighted ..And can be sold without permission of KLM; because the picture *itself* is the result of the creative process.Because if not, professional photographers would not exist.And if so, I can't see any reason why texture files in MSFS of that same KLM 747 cannot be copyrighted.Even if I used that same photo to create my texture files for MSFS.And, as I see it, the same applies for the "transformation" of real-world data spec's into .air values or aircraft.cfg values. And to hand-painted bitmaps used in gauges. And to ...etc.Rob

Copyright protects the expression of ideas/facts/objects not the ideas/facts/objects themselves. An aircraft and its livery are objects so there is no copyright in it or in its image in a photograph.This was set out in the US In Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:06-CV-97-TC http://en.wikisource....S.A.,_Inccourt as follows , "the operative distinction is between, on the one hand, ideas or facts in the world, items that cannot be copyrighted, and a particular expression of that idea or fact, that can be". and that "Copyright protection exists only for the “incremental contribution” represented by their interpretation or expression of the objects of their attention." Also copyright protection extends to derivative works. It's not permisable to take other's work and create a derivative of it. - taking an airliness livery and turning it into a texture file would surely be making a derivative work?Airline liveries are really protected by the laws on design rights and trademarks. These laws are much tighter than copyright and generally give the owner the exclusive right to use the design or trademark commercially with very few exceptions. 3rd party developers have no right to use airline liveries without a licence. Airlines do grant licences - think of aircraft models an sale at airport gift shops - but they'll want paying for them and impose consditions on their use. Obviously airlines don't want their liveries on cheap-and-nasty goods. I suspect that the returns to the airlines from licencing 3rd party add-on developers would be so small the arlines wouldn't be interested. They'd just turn down any request.More importantly, the court in Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. ruled "that 3D models of physical objects, if faithfully and accurately representing the original, are not original enough to warrant copyright protection." Where does that leave .gmax and hence .mdl files?

Copyright protects the expression of ideas/facts/objects not the ideas/facts/objects themselves. An aircraft and its livery are objects so there is no copyright in it or in its image in a photograph.

Right. But the photograph itself can be copyrighted.

More importantly, the court in Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. ruled "that 3D models of physical objects, if faithfully and accurately representing the original, are not original enough to warrant copyright protection." Where does that leave .gmax and hence .mdl files?

Have no answer on that.Anyway, all of the above posts makes me feel this copyright issue on MSFS addons (whatever part of it) is far from trivial when it should get to a court of law. Up front, only the layers would be guaranteed winners :( Rob

Right. But the photograph itself can be copyrighted.

But not the livery.You'd agree that If you take a photograph of an aircraftr that gives you no rights to use the aircraft? Similarly, if you take a photograph of the livery that gives you no right to use the livery.