A must read!

[tf51d 284]

I posted this last night over at Hanger Chat, but it looks like not many have seen it. I don't usually double post like this, but this issue has potentially very serious ramifications for this community and possibly the future of flightsim itself that I wanted to make sure everyone has seen it. Please make all comments though over at the posted thread, so there's not 2 separate conversations.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...36318&mode=full

[Mac_Paint 35]

I don't think this is as big a deal as it appears. As I interprate this ruling, modelers are still protected. No producer releases a bare bones model, as soon as they add any texturing to the model it becomes protected. Maybe I'm not seeing the problem here?IMHO.

[Guest JIMJAM]

I remember years ago,Oleg Maddox the creator of the IL2 series, told everyone he was contacted by lawyers from one of the plane manufacturers.I do not recall which or plane but we are talking a ww2 50 year old planes.He was told they owned the name,rights to the plane and he had to take the plane off the box cover and remove all references to it from his adverstsing,manuals ect.Everyone thought the sky was falling.No more Deltas,British Airways, all planes were going to be generic.Never happened though.I still do not understand the laws so maybe someone can explain them in a way, us pilots can underatand.For example, the Gulfstream series of planes have been one of the most ask about,sought after biz jet there is.But from what I heard from a old FlightOne posting, Gulfstream says NO so they cannot develop a sim model.So does that mean every developer has to contact the manufacturer?What if you copied it right down to the rivets and call it a Gulfstreem?

[Manny 1,293]

Very interesting.Man, I read through the entire thing."The copyright power is said to exist primarily

[Manny 1,293]

I would think Gulfstream would lose. But no one wants to spend time, money and effort to fight them.Does that mean Gulfstream would not allow me to take a pictire of their aircrafts and post them when I refer to it as Gulfstream?Manny

[tf51d 284]

>I remember years ago,Oleg Maddox >the creator of the IL2 series, told everyone he was contacted>by lawyers from one of the plane manufacturers.I do not recall>which or plane but we are talking a ww2 50 year old planes.>He was told they owned the name,rights to the plane and he had>to take the plane off the box cover and remove all references>to it from his adverstsing,manuals ect.>Everyone thought the sky was falling.>No more Deltas,British Airways, all planes were going to be>generic.>Never happened though.>I still do not understand the laws so maybe someone can>explain them in a way, us pilots can underatand.>For example, the Gulfstream series of planes have been one of>the most ask about,sought after biz jet there is.>But from what I heard from a old FlightOne posting, Gulfstream>says NO so they cannot develop a sim model.>So does that mean every developer has to contact the>manufacturer?>What if you copied it right down to the rivets and call it a>Gulfstreem?>Actually I think that was the reason MS never used real names for Airlines in the SIM. Essentially the way I read it, and others over at train-sim, is that creativity is not judged by the work that went in to making it, but only by the end product, since the end product of the replica model is a copy of it it is not protected. Only individual aspects such as lighting and shaders are. Since the skins are replica's of the real world liveries, I would guess it would apply to them also. (Except any individual touches as mentioned.) This opens a whole new can of worms. The original designer, for example Boeing I would assume does hold the copyright, and could theoretically take action against those copying it. This has always been a potential problem, but the theory that these models were protected, do to creativity as an art form (Which really they are, I think the court is wrong here) allowed it to continue. This decision creates legal precedence that says they are not protected. This has ramifications not only for freeware, but payware and MS itself. How many designers, including payware and Aces themselves, are going to continue to distribute their work, if it is not protected by copyright?

[Guest JIMJAM]

Alot of the racing games I own leave out certain teams,sponsors,drivers because they for what ever reason, refused.One racing sim had gamers complaining because they did not have damage modeling. The cars remained pristine at all times.Seems Ferrari and a few others did not mind being represented in the game but did not want their cars seen damaged,dirty ect.I know for years, Sega had the copyright to Daytona Raceway and Papyrus which at the time was the KING of racing sims, waited for years until Segas contract ran out.

[1mikel151 71]

Anyone that has spent countless hours in a 3D modeling program should take issue with this ruling. Amazes me how far from reality our judicial system really is at times.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[siggy 154]

Interesting. I have always wondered what the situation is in regard to having illuminated (neon) signs on buildings in scenery showing company names and/or logos. I guess one would be walking on thin ice here ?Siggy

[Manny 1,293]

>Interesting. I have always wondered what the situation is in>regard to having illuminated (neon) signs on buildings in>scenery showing company names and/or logos. I guess one would>be walking on thin ice here ?>>SiggyThat would be easy. Its the authors creative lighting and shading etc which is original work. Just like photography.:)Manny

[ahuimanu 50]

>Anyone that has spent countless hours in a 3D modeling>program should take issue with this ruling. Amazes me how far>from reality our judicial system really is at times.>>Regards, Michael>KDFW>>

Asus A8N32-SLI>Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Mike,Copyright never was meant to reward hard work. That's a common misconception.So the mere fact that someone spends a lot of time creating an exact copy of the Mona Lisa using the head of a pin instead of a paintbrush, doesn't mean the person can copyright her image.Wait ... what I meant to say is that just because someone spends a lot of time creating a copy of Boeing's intellectual property doesn't mean they suddenly can prevent anyone else from doing it.Cheers

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

>Interesting. I have always wondered what the situation is in>regard to having illuminated (neon) signs on buildings in>scenery showing company names and/or logos. I guess one would>be walking on thin ice here ?>>SiggyNot really. Just because the Coca-Cola company owns a copyright on the design of a Coke bottle, doesn't mean I can't depict it in my art.What it does mean is that I can't copyright my digital replica of the design of their bottle and prevent anyone else from creating one, which is what this modeller was trying to do.

[1mikel151 71]

>Mike,>>Copyright never was meant to reward hard work. That's a common>misconception.>>So the mere fact that someone spends a lot of time creating an>exact copy of the Mona Lisa using the head of a pin instead of>a paintbrush, doesn't mean the person can copyright her>image.>>Wait ... what I meant to say is that just because someone>spends a lot of time creating a copy of Boeing's intellectual>property doesn't mean they suddenly can prevent anyone else>from doing it.>>CheersI am aware of that Kevin, but things are much different today than they were when the constitution was drafted. considering there was no electronic media then.as stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution for the United States, : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.I would consider contributing 6 months to a year on a project for some form of entertainment media a "useful art".Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Manny 1,293]

>>What it does mean is that I can't copyright my digital replica>of the design of their bottle and prevent anyone else from>creating one, which is what this modeller was trying to do.I don't think the modeler was trying to prevent the defendants building a model of their own. They didn't want the defendant using their (The plaintiffs) built model. THATS what is controversial.