1 hour ago, BrianW said:

Boeing offers several licensing options, my understanding is that PMDG has the simulator data license, not just a license for the logos and names.

Highly doubt this.  That licensing level from Boeing is for level D data (though it is simplified and most good operators will refine and maintain their own data for their sims).  This data wouldn't be remotely applicable to a sub-$100 consumer video game.  It wouldn't do them much good from a development standpoint, and even if it were helpful, it would be entirely cost prohibitive for a niche game developer.  This is stuff Boeing markets to large corporate customers; a product they can't get anywhere else.  You can imagine the cost structure.  PMDG isn't buying that 😉.

PMDG dropped their licensing level with the 2020 release of their NG, which is why the product no longer came with Boeing documentation (in previous sims, it shipped with a Boeing FCOM and QRH).

At this point, PMDG isn't maintaining a licensing level any higher than anyone else - the ability to use the Boeing name.  They aren't paying any more than Revell or any model kit maker... And they certainly never had any exclusivity agreement. 

You have to understand, a niche game market is absolutely meaningless to Boeing.  I could see them enforcing a prohibition on damage modeling so they don't have to contend with photorealistic screenshots of their aircraft on fire etc. (though with advancements in AI image capability this is probably an obsolete concern), but otherwise... They absolutely do not care about anyone or anything in desktop flight simming.

1 hour ago, BrianW said:

Boeing offers several licensing options, my understanding is that PMDG has the simulator data license, not just a license for the logos and names.

They possess gaming software with specific quality features. Obtaining a "simulator data license" is a lengthy and stringent process. A few examples include needing regulatory approval from the FAA, EASA FSTD, compliance for professional ATPL, and aircraft OEM, in addition to demonstrating accuracy. Unfortunately, they do not meet these requirements.

 

The computer-based training (CBT) licensed by the FAA or EASA part ORA, utilized by a few airlines, only included the Level D 767 and Aerowinx 747. 

5 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

All airlines and manufacturers names and products are registered trademarks. LM had to drop the i350 from P3D due to this, when your a multi billion dollar company your worth taking to court. when your a small thousands of pounds company the litigation can cost more than case is worth.

Names and logos are indeed registered trademarks. Products are not.

Large corporations attempt to sue small companies for supposed breach of copyright every day of the week to protect their 'brand'.

Protecting actual products from being copied is actually much more difficult.  A digital representation of a real aircraft is not an infringement of copyright or intellectual property.

 

4 hours ago, rmeier said:

Wow...pleasant to see so many simmers that still recall the Dreamfleet 727 and the Level-D (PIC) 767. Yup, I've been around long enough to fly the (you know what) out of both of those aircraft "back in the day".

Many fond memories of both of those aircraft. I do smile at the comments here of the Level D 767...yes, it was undeniably the best available (with the caveat) at the time. With the port to P3D (32 bit), the graphics were getting very dated...today, it wouldn't stand a chance. I do recall their FMS was very comprehensive.

I hope that everyone's enthusiasm for a quality 767 translates into a ballpark success for Bluebird.

I had been a painter for SGA, FFG and a few other freeware groups "Back in the day".  The LevelD 767 was my 1st commercial paint project.  Still to this day...I show these screens to demonstrate how good the models were back then (and were very easy to paint compared to today's complex models).  (I played with the Dreamfleet 727 textures as well...but it had a "challenging" texture map layout) 🤔

She was a joy to fly and paint, and the 767 is my favorite airliner, so I'm anxiously waiting for BlueBird @sherv_BBS to get theirs' to market! 🙂 

3 hours ago, BrianW said:

Boeing offers several licensing options, my understanding is that PMDG has the simulator data license, not just a license for the logos and names.

Data packs are to put it softly, prohibitively expensive for an add on developer to even consider. Not to mention the hefty restrictions placed on the usage of said data packs. I’m extremely doubtful of any dev having data packs because of the legal ramifications that come with owning one. They’re primarily reserved for airlines and licensed FTDs

13 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

A digital representation of a real aircraft is not an infringement of copyright or intellectual property.

 

I don't know about that. Here is a discussion in a Blender forum on whether a 3D model of an actual real life design is subject to copyright or not: https://blenderartists.org/t/copyright-issues-for-3d-artist/1427078/17

You can see in that Blender forum discussion, it's a grey area, and the company, such as Boeing or Airbus, may have an actual legal basis to stop companies like PMDG, iFly, Fenix, etc, from selling their add-ons because their add-ons are pretty much a straight up rendition of the actual real life plane. If PMDG, iFly, Fenix, had modified the add-on such that it looks quite different from the real life plane, then I think the legal case for Boeing or Airbus is much weaker. But since PMDG, iFly, Fenix, etc, try to reproduce an exact replication of the plane as a 3D model, the case is much stronger for Boeing and Airbus.

In practice though, it seems that a lot of plane manufacturers don't really go after 3rd party developers in the flight simulation market because they probably don't see much harm in what the 3rd party developers are doing. But the sense I get is they could, if they wanted to, and based on that Blender forum discussion, they might even have a legal case to as well.

Edit: I just found another case on this. BMW sued for, and stopped TurboSquid from using 3D models of BMW cars:

https://polycount.com/discussion/174378/bmw-suing-turbosquid-over-car-models

https://forums.cgarchitect.com/topic/76707-bmw-suing-turbosquid-over-car-models/

I don't think it's as simple as you claim.

Edit 2: From VelvetElvis in the BMW vs Turbosquid thread:

Quote

All you need to do is change the design a bit and you are free and clear from copyrights. That's why Counter Strike has the Desert Eagle and not the IMI/Magnum Research Desert Eagle Mark XIX, which is the gun it is based on. The real life gun does not have slits down the barrel on the .50 cal versions, the CS version does. That little change is enough to get around copyright issues. That and not using the actual name or manufacturer logo.

PMDG, iFly, Fenix, etc, are trying to make an exact replication of the planes they are modeling. They are even using a portion of the name that Boeing and Airbus use for their planes in real life (ie. 737 NG, 737 Max, A320, A321, etc). This makes the legal case for Boeing and Airbus much stronger, if they want to sue (although for PMDG's case, they have an actual relationship with Boeing, so I doubt Boeing would ever sue them).

Edited April 15, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I don't know about that. Here is a discussion in a Blender forum on whether a 3D model of an actual real life design is subject to copyright or not: https://blenderartists.org/t/copyright-issues-for-3d-artist/1427078/17

You can see in that Blender forum discussion, it's a grey area, and the company, such as Boeing or Airbus, may have an actual legal basis to stop companies like PMDG, iFly, Fenix, etc, from selling their add-ons....

 

Edit: I just found another case on this. BMW sued for, and stopped TurboSquid from using 3D models of BMW 

I see a nine year old discussion between members of a Blender forum. I don't see any reports of legal judgements or opinions from copyright lawyers.

I also note TurboSquid were marketing 3D models of BMW cars with BMW badges = a clear breach of copyright. 

Again, no sign of any court judgement being made. I suspect the mere threat of legal action stopped TurboSquid selling BMW badges...

 

Edited April 15, 20251 yr by DD_Arthur

Not necessarily aircraft development (but rather liveries), for those who don't remember the "Papa Tango" affair; re: Ariane or specifically Peter Tishma.

I do wonder what kind of access to those data sets PMDG will have due to their commercial contract with Boeing (presumably the 737 max).

6 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

although for PMDG's case, they have an actual relationship with Boeing, so I doubt Boeing would ever sue them)

They can't even use the Boeing manuals anymore... Not sure what kind of "relationship" they might have, these days...

16 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I see a nine year old discussion between members of a Blender forum. I don't see any reports of legal judgements or opinions from copyright lawyers.

I also note TurboSquid were marketing 3D models of BMW cars with BMW badges = a clear breach of copyright. 

Again, no sign of any court judgement being made. I suspect the mere threat of legal action stopped TurboSquid selling BMW badges...

 

First of all, you must have missed the last quote from VelvetElvis from that thread, but don't worry, I can post it again:

Quote

All you need to do is change the design a bit and you are free and clear from copyrights. That's why Counter Strike has the Desert Eagle and not the IMI/Magnum Research Desert Eagle Mark XIX, which is the gun it is based on. The real life gun does not have slits down the barrel on the .50 cal versions, the CS version does. That little change is enough to get around copyright issues. That and not using the actual name or manufacturer logo.

The developer of Counterstrike is Valve.  Valve has their own lawyers.  And based on this quote, I would assume that Valve's lawyers recommended to the development team to change the version in game so that it's not the exact same as the real life version, to avoid copyright issues.

And you also missed the first post in that thread:

Quote

While I can understand the use of a logo in a model, what is different about this one is that they are also going after design elements of the digital model of the cars.

I don't think it's as black and white as you claim. 

 

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

First of all, you must have missed the last quote from VelvetElvis from that thread, but don't worry, I can post it again:

And you also missed the first post in that thread:

I don't think it's as black and white as you claim. 

No, I haven't missed anything that you posted. Let me reiterate; a discussion amongst 3D modellers on a Blender forum is exactly that - a discussion amongst people who by their own admission are not lawyers.

Mr Elvis isn't a lawyer either. As far as I have managed to establish,  BMW's case against TurboSquid was dismissed. This does not mean they lost a legal case. It means it never made it to court. I suspect BMW and TurboSquid settled out of court since it was an open and shut case; TurboSquid were selling BMW badges.

The mention of design elements is absolutely meaningless since we don’t know any of the details and in cases like this it can simply be part of an overall file of complaint. There would need to be a legal judgement delivered in court to establish case law. This hasn't happened. 

BMW's badge is a registered trademark and subject to copyright law. By selling an image of it TurboSquid simply would not have had a defence. Much easier and vastly less expensive to settle rather than try and defend the indefensible in court.

However, you're undeniably right; it is a grey area. Which is lawyers make a good living out of just the threat of litigation.

1 minute ago, DD_Arthur said:

However, you're undeniably right; it is a grey area. Which is lawyers make a good living out of just the threat of litigation.

Yes, that's my point. It's a grey area.

On 4/14/2025 at 1:31 AM, G-RFRY said:

As for the others who knows if they have permission.

I highly doubt they would sell products without the aircraft manufacturer's permission, they will essentially be breaking the law set forth by IP regulations.

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by CarlosF

On 4/15/2025 at 9:05 AM, Stearmandriver said:

They can't even use the Boeing manuals anymore... Not sure what kind of "relationship" they might have, these days...

I would imagine that it's not that bad considering MK and RSR confirmed that they are doing contracted work with Boeing, I believe.

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by Kevin_28