On 11/6/2025 at 4:05 PM, tdflightsim said:

Beautiful aircraft!  What's the price tag?

Us$82m

10 minutes ago, ttbq1 said:

Us$82m

Thank you.  Let me check the balance on my credit cards😉

And a few other countries.  What you do is setup a company in these other countries while doing the work remotely.

Point being Gulfstream wouldn’t bother because they would have no recourse and would be wasting money in lawyer time for zero benefit.

What are they actually trying to prevent or justify against a group/company that is creating 3D models and simulated avionics?

33 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

And a few other countries.  What you do is setup a company in these other countries while doing the work remotely.

Point being Gulfstream wouldn’t bother because they would have no recourse and would be wasting money in lawyer time for zero benefit.

What are they actually trying to prevent or justify against a group/company that is creating 3D models and simulated avionics?

The avionics on a Gulfstream are by Honeywell not Gulfstream, and that company has never had any objection to their products being emulated on flight sim platforms. MSFS itself includes an emulation of the Honeywell Primus Epic, which is the core of the Gulfstream “PlaneView” implementation found on the G-450/550. (Not sure about later GAC aircraft like the G-800).

Edited November 8, 2025Nov 8 by JRBarrett

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

And a few other countries.  What you do is setup a company in these other countries while doing the work remotely.

Point being Gulfstream wouldn’t bother because they would have no recourse and would be wasting money in lawyer time for zero benefit.

What are they actually trying to prevent or justify against a group/company that is creating 3D models and simulated avionics?

You set up a company in these 'other countries' and do what? Attempt to avoid proceedings filed in a US court that would have the ability to seize your assets through the international banking system?

Good luck with that. The fact is all large companies will defend their IP and their copyright. It will cost them money but as far as large corporations are concerned their 'brand' is all important. 

Every day large companies send out threatening letters to one man bands who trade on Etsy because they have similar trading names. It amounts to using the courts to bully the little guys; a game of financial brinkmanship.

They also threaten your distributors with legal action too. Merely briefing a specialist lawyer to defend yourself is going to run into tens of thousands of mostly unrecoverable dollars.

The obvious question is, do we have any evidence that Gulfstream do actively prevent the makers of pixel planes from modelling their products or is it that their reputation for this proceeds them?

I can think of one case, some twenty years ago now, where Grumman threatened to take a computer game to court.

UbiSoft were the western distributors for the game IL2 Sturmovik - a combat flight sim made by a small Russian company called Maddox Games. When they produced an expansion called 'Pacific Fighters' Grumman threatened to take UbiSoft - as the distributors in the US - to court for infringement of copyright. 

It never made it to court as UbiSoft agreed to settle before it got that far. They paid all Grumman's legal costs and agreed damages. This ran into six figures.

The game in question included several American aircraft of the Pacific war era including the Grumman F4F and F6F. However it wasn't these that had provoked Grumman's wrath as they were merely digital images of their aircraft and not subject to copyright law.

On the artwork for the DVD case Grumman's logo was displayed. This is what dropped UbiSoft in hot water.

As a side note; in the end none of this cost UbiSoft a penny. Even though the artwork in question was all the design and responsibility of UbiSoft, they merely withheld the equivalent amount they'd paid Grumman from what they owed to the creator of the game, a Russian guy called Oleg Maddox with the blunt message "Don't like it? We'll see you in court".

Another example of how large companies can bully the little guys through the legal system.

 

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Good luck with that

No luck required, not going to get into the details but working around US companies legal proceeding like General Dynamics happens all the time successfully.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in one’s protection of work for revenue … but in the case of replicating a Logo on simulated software, there is no infringement of any meaningful revenue loss or defamation or full scale replication or any other legal objection.

On somewhat related topic, this is becoming a huge issue with YouTube content creators and copyright strikes that can be initiated by anyone without consequences … and it’s getting worse (pretty soon we’ll have to blur/pixelate any footage we make in “public” places).  My hope is sensible people make significant adjustments to laws and patients that make no sense … like you say “corporate bullying” … it’s not a good thing and frankly has killed many a technologies that people want … but perhaps best discussed in a different thread.

I have discovered no evidence General Dynamics would or have come after companies that use their logo on 3D software representations of their aircraft … perhaps other’s can do?

Edited November 9, 2025Nov 9 by SayAgain