A must read!

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Manny,It's a bit more subtle than that, actually.Meshworks was paid to build the model by Saatchi and Saatchi, an ad agency hired by Toyota, which owns the copyright to the design.Saatchi and Saatchi then used the model they paid for in ads for Toyota, which owns the design.They did so in a way that Meshworks claims they didn't agree to. Meshworks attempted to assert copyright law to prevent Saatchi and Saatchi from using the work they paid Meshworks to create.That's pretty lame, in my view, on the part of the model builder. They're clearly trying to pick the pocket of S&S after the fact in my opinion.If I pay you to build a model, what gives you the right to tell me I can't use that model however I see fit?Fact is, no model building company is going to get work under those terms, and Meshworks knows it.I'm glad they lost.Model builders have nothing to fear as long as they don't copy other people's work. There's nothing much groundbreaking in that view. If it's an exact copy, it's not copyright-able. You can still build it, you just can't copyright it. If you want to copyright it, it just can't be an exact copy ... a slightly different copy would then be required.And I would argue that a model as complex as an aircraft can be slightly different than the original and nobody would notice. An extra pitot tube would be all that would be required to make it an original artwork, I would bet.

[1mikel151 71]

Kevin, you should re-read the PDF, Meshwerks was contracted by Grace and Wild who was contracted by Saatchi and Saatchi (Toyota's people). What it looks like is that Grace and Wild were not up front to Meshwerks about the use of the models they contracted for, which could have gotten them a discount on services, etc. Meshwerks should have had a clearer, more concise contract with Grace and Wild which would have dictated the full use of said product and they might have not had this issues happen to them. Looks like Grace and Wild knew they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court and deceived them, wouldn't be the first time.I wish they would have won! Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[ahuimanu 50]

The judges admitted the challenges of new technologies where exact precedent was not available. I thought their use of previous technology shifts was appropriate and well reasoned. If you want to make money by selling exact models of an Embraer aircraft and then copyright its use for adverstisement, there might be a problem. However, if you want to make a copy of an Embraer aircraft for entertainment purposes, where the likeness of the Embraer aircraft is your artistic impression to be solely used in a non-competitive domain apart from that of the holder of the intellectual property, the court decision has illuminated the acceptable path. They haven't said, no you can't, they've said, take it a step further and "make it yours."Models for public consumption aren't new, surely this subject has been dealt with with plastic/wood/resin/die-cast models?In any case, with the size of the gaming industry and the demand for simulating reality in pixels, we were bound to start seeing tug-o-wars over who gets the money.

[tf51d 284]

I think the stronger argument Meshwrks should have used was not that the model itself was copyrightable, but the digital code that created it. Toyota can't claim that isn't theirs. If they used though any 3rd party software, to do it though, that would depend on the license agreement they have with them.

[Guest player1]

Oh PapaTango where art thou? Oh great owners of everything AA and would be killer of freewhare...where are thou?I'm no attorny but Copyright infringement and Trademark infringement are two differently litigated subjects depending on many things such as Registered or not, Industrial implicaions and more...Example is your work is copyright protected the moment you create it, as long as you can prove its your original work and you can show damage$ you can collect. If you register and all the above is true you not only collect damages but also collect ALL Legal fees. Industrial Tradmark infringement on the other hand is incredably costly...

[Guest fsxmissionguy]

Mike,Thanks for that clarificiation, but I still think my point is the same.A client paid Meshworks to create digital 3d models.Meshworks then attempted to tell the client what they can or can't do with those models, and that's where I think Meshworks loses my sympathy.It's pretty clear that Meshworks wants the copyright upheld so that it can extract more money from its client. It won't succeed, of course, even if the copyright were to be upheld.At any rate, the issue for model makers in the FSX context is their ability to copyright their copies of Boeing's (or other manufacturers') intellectual property. And the solution is simple: Don't make copies.Make it different in some subtle way that has no effect on the flight dynamics or visual appeal, but that ensure's it's not a copy of the original design, which, after all, is somebody else's intellectual property.

[n4gix 4,947]

"But your Honor, my model is not an exact copy of the XXX, if you note carefully, in my version the handle for the aft lavatory on the starboard side is not only shaped differently, but it's on the opposite side from the real aircraft......and further, the screws on the cockpit panels are torx head, whereas the real aircraft uses phillips head screws." :-lol

[mgh 89]

True you can sue for damages but n many jurisdictions (the UK included) damages are limited to your actual losses. In the case of individuals, the losses are often so small that it isn't worth suing.