1 minute ago, pmb said:

I choose this word deliberately as it isn't directed against anyone explicitely. In fact, I am sure there's been much more going on behind the curtain which I - and maybe even you - don't know.

Kind regards, Michael

I understand and it's all good. I'm only advocating for more sympathy with the plight of the developers in this case. I think most people don't know the full story - and that includes me - yet a number of people (certainly not everybody) like to rail against the developers where I think it's not the developers that are fundamentally at fault here.

Everyone is talking about liveries and models of real aircraft. The IP to the use of likeness and branding belongs to the original creators (Boeing, Airbus, the airlines whose liveries are represented, etc..). Aren't the people creating these models and liveries also pilfering IP from someone else?

I guess I'm having a hard time with people getting upset about someone else using their IP when the basis of their IP belongs to someone else.

If someone creates a new livery for am imaginary airline, then there's no argument at all. They own it, and all of the rights to it. Although in the US, most contractual obligations are also tied to the exchange of "consideration", which is usually money. If there is no exchange of anything of value, a contract is very weak and hard to enforce.

If someone simply puts a copy of Delta Airline's logo into texture files, and then tries to claim "rights" to the IP, I think that there is a huge grey area. Delta, or their designer owns that IP already. I'm quite sure that there was considerable "consideration" involved in the creation of Delta's livery so they would absolutely win in court. 

So who owns the likeness for a 737 AI model? The guy who used 3D views to recreate a 3D object in a simulator or the folks at Boeing who used the protractors and slide rules?

I appreciate the time and effort it takes to create a 3D 737 and the textures to apply to it, I work for a company that sells software. If you write original code, you own it. So I support the rights of all creators of original content. But if you copy someone else's code, you do not own it.

Not entirely sure where I stand on it, but I don't know the facts beyond this thread.

The only important thing. @Kaiii3 - What is the expected impact to AIG and AIM? Are we going to lose what we already have?

2 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

Simple: if you can't agree to all the terms outlined in the accompanying readme, then don't use the product, freeware or not is irrelevant. It it not up to you to decide what rationale is 'sufficient'. The developer, the person who spent time and money make the thing that you are now using expressed the terms and conditions for the product's use. The only thing you can do is abide by those rules or not use the product. That is it. There is no debate here.

You are allowed to disagree with the terms - but it doesn't change them! I know we live in something of a post-truth world, but the terms are right in front of you in this case: you can't deny that when you open the Readme file, your computer show you its content - and that content matters, whether you like it or not.

[...]

Honestly, it is beyond me that we are even debating this.

We're debating this because I feel that the use of freeware licences as they are currently used has detremental effects on the overall community.

As already pointed out, time and again, we have lost great pieces of freeware either because of strict usage rights being stipulated or due to a withdrawal from the public domain.

In spite of being incredibly appreciative of freeware, and as someone who has regularly donated to freeware projects, I'm at the point where I ask whether some freeware content creators are actually being altruistic or are they looking for acclaim?

I will continue to abide by EULA of any content, I just don't agree that restricted-use licences are beneficial to us in our niche hobby.
 

53 minutes ago, Bruce Nicholson KMFR said:

What about the scenario where your photos were placed into a public album that was downloaded by thousands of people and you were credited along with the other photographers for what was in that album, but then others started to take your photos from that album and represent them as their own in other usages? Would that upset you?

No. I accept that unless I use copy protection methods, once my material is out in the public domain, it is going to be used however the end user chooses.

My personal view is that if someone gets enjoyment from whatever I've produced and publicly shared, they can use it as they see fit.

 

 

44 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

Everyone is talking about liveries and models of real aircraft. The IP to the use of likeness and branding belongs to the original creators (Boeing, Airbus, the airlines whose liveries are represented, etc..). Aren't the people creating these models and liveries also pilfering IP from someone else?

I guess I'm having a hard time with people getting upset about someone else using their IP when the basis of their IP belongs to someone else.

Interesting point. All the manufacturers purchase patents on the designs of their aircraft. The airlines take out copyright on their liveries and logos.
AIUI, reproducing either without express permission from the airlines and/or OEMs is a breach of usage rights.
I'm glad that neither group of comapnies seem interested in demanding payment for their IP. This would not have been a topic of conversation if it were otherwise!
 

8 hours ago, MDFlier said:

The only important thing. @Kaiii3 - What is the expected impact to AIG and AIM? Are we going to lose what we already have?

no impact at all

9 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

But my message for the both of you is that I think you're being critical of/angry at/having a bad taste left in your mouth by the wrong group of people.

Ultimately, I'm not angry (I don't fly on Vatsim and so never even used FLAI). I am kind of sad, but mostly I'm just sort of bewildered. Why? Because the pros/cons of enforcing their right to withdraw permissions in cases like this always looks more or less like this, from the developer's perspective:

Pros

• I will strike a blow for strong IP enforcement, even for freeware
• Possible deterrent (?) in future for uncredited inclusion of my work

Cons

• (Many) fewer people will see and enjoy my work
• I will damage or destroy another freeware project that brings people joy
• I will create significant ill will in the relatively small community I am a part of

It's hard for me to see why anyone would then say "yeah, better go ahead and do it," and yet sooner or later it seems like literally every freeware developer does when faced with this kind of situation.

You noted a concern about getting credit for your work. I'll confess this concern may be unusually hard for me to fully appreciate since I work in an organization where my work product, even stuff that takes weeks or months to produce, usually doesn't have my name on it. But appreciate it I do. Who wouldn't want to be properly credited for their hard work? 

But steps like this don't force groups like FLAI to credit developers. Steps like this just take your work away from projects like FLAI. The only sense in which this kind of "stick" approach helps get developers credit is an indirect one, based on the supposed deterrent it provides. So you've got one guaranteed result that I have to assume any developer would prefer to avoid -- "fewer people see my work at all" -- in exchange for one possible result -- "down the road, some group decides not to take my work and package it without crediting me because they know I could make their lives harder later."

I promise I'm not being purposely obtuse here. Obviously, most freeware developers seem to see things much closer to the way you do than the way I do. But I still just don't get it. I've shared some things with the community (ironically, mostly liveries), and my overriding goal was always to share them with the largest possible number of people. I'm not clear how a freeware developer could value some other goal more highly.

James

Reading trough the usual sim sites I can see a fair amount of anger against Alpha India Group. But I think that many users do not appreciate the contribution AIG made to FLAI. In a nutshell, and of course oversimplified, is virtually all content (textures and models) included with FLAI originating from AIG. FLAI "only" (and only is still a lot of work here) created the model matching definitions.

AIG is not so much a group but more like a community like Avsim where all persons interested in AI traffic come together and with roots dating back nearly 14/15 years ago. The whole community is working on a simple principle: working together, but respecting the work of others.

What does this mean? There are AI flight planers compiling schedules, painters for textures, modelers, AFCAD tweakers, Voicepack tweakers, and so on. Even though most of them work independently they all coordinate their work. If a flightplan is lacking a livery variation it will be put on a list so that the painters can chose from what is needed and who is doing it. And guess what happens when a model for v4 or v5 is not working? It will be converted by modelers, who also coordinate their work. And for new models in development will all contributors come together and coordinate the production of the model, the flightplans, and the paints. Also, most of the fees (e.g. server cost) are individually paid by the contributors who host them.  

So, there are actually a lot of "egos" working happily together since a long time and enhancing our experience as freeware. And it takes a lot of dissonance to provoke such a strong measure from the AI community as we are seeing it now with FLAI.

This will most likely not change the opinion of most people here. But jabloomf1230 analogy about the farmer's community is quite fitting. And just blaming AIG and their painters is far too one-sided with the whole events of FLAI and FSLiveTraffic Liveries. AIG and the painters are all actually willing to share their work for VATSIM model matching:
"The only option the group of painters were willing to consider, outside of simply having all their work removed from the platform, was to distribute FLAi exclusively through their own free installer / flight plan downloads."

Hence, after being a part of the AIG community (as a forum member, not in any official role) since 2008 I simply find it sad and utterly disrespectful to read statements like "that this kind of behavior is driven by a lack of achievements in other areas of life" from people who only benefit from FLAI and never experienced the passion and  community spirit going on over at AIG: Nothing could be farer away from the reality.

And to finish with a bit of optimism for all of you: I never used FLAI and only use my AIG installation for model matching (simply pointed vPilot to my AI folder). Believe me when I say that I am not missing much (if any?) traffic. Nobody will be without model matching in the future.

Edited January 12, 20215 yr by Wolkenschreck

The anger towards AIG is totally unjustified.. AIG didn't block FLAI.. let's get this clear.. over 50 freeware developers for AI models felt threatened their work was going to be used wrongly by other 3rd party individuals. Their overall feeling is they only trust AIG for their best interest since they have done so correclty for over 10 years. therefore all these individual freeware modelers and re-painters withdrawn the rights for FLAI to use their products in order to protect their intelectual rights.

AIG had nothing to do with such withdrawn, it was individual painters and developers who decided FLAI was not able to protect their intelectual rights anymore.

I personally contacted FSElite and asked them to get their facts right, because their latest article was saying AIG is who blocked the models, and this is not true.. so let's all stop spreading false information and understand what has really happened:

Another freeware group pretended to use FLAI as a mean to obtain all the models to create a project for MSFS, this despite FLAI saying they were not allowed to do such thing as they were not granting permission, this was more or less ignored, so the response from all those painters / modelers was to remove the rights for FLAI in order to protect their work.

FLAI decided to shutdown as they do not want to hurt the interest of such modelers / re-painters since they also love the hobby, so FLAI are not the bad guys here either.. think about it.. they took a very hard decision to shut down their loved project in the best interest of people that has worked for decades doing 3d models, repaints, etc.

That is the true behind the scenes.. so stop the hate.. and if we have something to learn from this entire exercise, is that what hurts the community is not freeware developers protecting their intelectual rights, it is people trying to cross the line at any cost to steal someone else work for their own interest.

My 2 cents,

Out..

S.

Edited January 12, 20215 yr by simbol

2 hours ago, Wolkenschreck said:

And to finish with a bit of optimism for all of you: I never used FLAI and only use my AIG installation for model matching (simply pointed vPilot to my AI folder). Believe me when I say that I am not missing much (if any?) traffic. Nobody will be without model matching in the future.

Thats good to know 😉 I got reports that the US Reginal Carriers flying for the big Airlines (UAL, AAL) are not working with the current way AIGAIM installs them (multiple parking codes), can you confirm this?

I find the whole discussion about intellectual property and asking permission kind of ironic considering all these repainters are using the protected brand imagery of real life airlines. 
Did they ask permission? No, they assume it’s fair use because the stuff they create is free. So is Flai, though.  

If I draw a digital image of a Picasso painting, is the intellectual property all mine or should I be just a little more humble because the original artwork surely isn’t my design? 😉

Edited January 12, 20215 yr by flycln

37 minutes ago, Kaiii3 said:

Thats good to know 😉 I got reports that the US Reginal Carriers flying for the big Airlines (UAL, AAL) are not working with the current way AIGAIM installs them (multiple parking codes), can you confirm this?

Ya know... I just noticed this last night. I'm doing a test at KMCO (flight time: 1-11-2020 1836z) right now. I have several smaller carriers present. Copa, Aeromexico, Spirit, JetBlue, and Sun Country, but zero Ameican, Delta, United, or Southwest.

I'll try a couple more airports and replay back again. I've got nothing better to do before my 10am call.

1 minute ago, MDFlier said:

Ya know... I just noticed this last night. I'm doing a test at KMCO (flight time: 1-11-2020 1836z) right now. I have several smaller carriers present. Copa, Aeromexico, Spirit, JetBlue, and Sun Country, but zero Ameican, Delta, United, or Southwest.

I'll try a couple more airports and replay back again. I've got nothing better to do before my 10am call.

we are talking about VATSIm here, correct? No offline based traffic

Just now, Kaiii3 said:

we are talking about VATSIm here, correct? No offline based traffic

No. I didn't notice that you said "regional". I seem to be having a problem with the major carriers. I had to do a full AIM reinstall the other day after I built a new system, so maybe I just need to reload them. I've done 3 flights at SWA hub, and haven't seen one yet...

Just now, MDFlier said:

No. I didn't notice that you said "regional". I seem to be having a problem with the major carriers. I had to do a full AIM reinstall the other day after I built a new system, so maybe I just need to reload them. I've done 3 flights at SWA hub, and haven't seen one yet...

I bet you have enabled AIGFP installation, so new flightplans are no longer isntalled as BGL. You need to disable this or use AIGTC. For more infos check the AIG Forum

So which group was trying to use the models in FLAi  to create their MSFS2020 project. Since AIG and FLAi have been mentioned and are complying with the creators wishes, why don't we know the name of the offending group.

1 minute ago, Kaiii3 said:

I bet you have enabled AIGFP installation, so new flightplans are no longer isntalled as BGL. You need to disable this or use AIGTC. For more infos check the AIG Forum

Will do. Thank you. Although AIGTC 0.3.3.5 is currently running. Maybe I'm outta date? I'll check your forum.

Thank you very much! (for the answer, the product(s), and for being a nice guy).