On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Oliver Fels oliver.f...@gmx.net wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
...
Oliver
P.S.: Noted the sarkasm?
Yes, you spelt sarcasm wrong! :-P
--
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN
Oliver
Vivian Meazza wrote:
One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've been
involved - 2004 and probably longer. In that time we have not had a
problem. Are we saying that no rights holder has ever noticed it
anywhere?
I find that a bit improbable; perhaps they
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I find that a bit improbable; perhaps they aren't looking or aren't
bothered. Of course, I'm inviting disaster to strike us Monday
morning.
Ah, yes, at night, I am sneaking into my neighbors garden and take
photographs
of her in her bedroom through the
My own thought on the matter .
I still don't think it's as big a problem as has been stated here.
Erickson Aircrane goes so far as to supply data just for aircraft
modellers providing they model it accurately with proper paint schemes
and dimensions. To me this suggests that they enjoy having
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 20:36 +0100, Oliver Fels wrote:
I am not sure if you really noticed what I was going to say. If we do not
respect the rights of trademarks owners (unless somebody slaps us) what would
be the motivation for FPS to respect ours?
My point, exactly. It's not about what one
Heiko
Or maybe Company A hasn't yet noticed that Company B is
using the
trademark without permission?
I doubt that!
X-Plane is very well known already, much more than FlightGear. Austin has
laywers, he certainly knows what he is allowed to do. (on the contrary to
us! ;-))
LOL!
On 06/03/11 23:42, Vivian Meazza wrote:
One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've been
involved - 2004 and probably longer. In that time we have not had a problem.
Are we saying that no rights holder has ever noticed it anywhere? I find
that a bit improbable; perhaps
Vivian Meazza: wrote:
3. Enforcement. In the event of an infringement, rights have to be enforced
by the trademark/copyright holder. In the first instance, this is most
likely to be an instruction to remove the offending item. If we comply that
is likely to be the end of it, but it is open to
Vivian Meazza wrote:
One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've been
involved - 2004 and probably longer. In that time we have not had a
problem. Are we saying that no rights holder has ever noticed it anywhere?
I find that a bit improbable; perhaps they arent looking
Syd wrote
But definitely: The designer should take the risk for it - and if too
young: The parents should support it - that is standard in any legal
business matter for youngsters!
I agree here ... being mainly a 'content creator' , I think I'm
responsible for content I create , and
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:21 +, Vivian Meazza wrote:
1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright?
A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK.
I'm glad you recognize that because, in your first quiz you focused
strictly on copyright and didn't mention
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 19:31 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..in some jurisdictions, trade marks need merely be established, to
become enforceable. In others, established trade marks needs to be
registered before they become enforceable. Can of worms indeed.
All the more reason for the FG
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Chris O'Neill chrison...@yahoo.ca wrote:
Wait a minute! If we're going to look the other way and breach
someone else's trademark rights, then why would we get snotty with
someone who breaches our copyright? It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
I don't know, I
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Chris O'Neill chrison...@yahoo.ca wrote:
the livery. If Mack Jermod (or anyone else for that matter) wants a Red
Bull (or any other trademark) on their livery, then so be it but let
Mack Jermod (and the others) distribute it themselves and assume any and
all
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:58:18 -0500, Chris wrote in message
1299358698.2186.105.camel@Chris-Laptop:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:21 +, Vivian Meazza wrote:
So we would have to ask our users to
...not...?
add dodgy liveries to our AI aircraft?
I don't accept that having an aircraft
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:03:02 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
ikjqem$s86a$1...@osprey.mgras.de:
Oliver Fels wrote:
What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the
liveries in the distribution but provides further web space for
separately downloading those.
This
Chris
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention
because I'm only going to say this once:
Okay, now it's my turn. Please answer the following:
1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a
I suspect that msfs and xplane have licensing agreements with trademark
holders. It would of course be good to know this!
Jon
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT
Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote:
Chris
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm going
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:21:11 -, Vivian wrote in message
CAF41F9FE93C43068EA84DE676CC87C8@MAIN:
Chris
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay
attention because I'm only going to say this once:
Okay,
To: vivian.mea...@lineone.net; FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
I suspect that msfs and xplane have licensing agreements with trademark
holders. It would of course be good to know this!
Jon
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT
Vivian
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:48:52 -, Vivian wrote in message
2E88AF8A470944229CC999467FDABD4D@MAIN:
Jon,
MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know.
As I research this matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves
unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK law.
When a
Arnt
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:48:52 -, Vivian wrote in message
2E88AF8A470944229CC999467FDABD4D@MAIN:
Jon,
MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know.
As I research this matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves
unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:07:03 -, Vivian wrote in message
16373ABF59E34F43A8017B95E50766E4@MAIN:
Arnt
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:48:52 -, Vivian wrote in message
2E88AF8A470944229CC999467FDABD4D@MAIN:
Jon,
MSF probably, X-Plane, possibly, I don't know.
As I research this
After being one party myself in one lawsuit based on business law,
lasting over 15 years now, and having already 3 contradicting verdicts
by 3 different High Courts (OLG's in Germany) (and of course hundreds of
suggestions by lawyers!) - I am sure there is no lawyer anywhere on
world who is able
But definitely: The designer should take the risk for it - and if too
young: The parents should support it - that is standard in any legal
business matter for youngsters!
I agree here ... being mainly a 'content creator' , I think I'm
responsible for content I create , and
dumping problems in
Chris wrote:
...snip...
In my personal opinion, knowingly allowing the use of trademarks in
aircraft liveries without the permission of the trademark holder
*damages* this Project's integrity. However, if the consensus of the
core development team is that this kind of hair splitting is
in other countries.
Heiko
still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html
But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html
--- Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net schrieb am Do, 3.3.2011:
Von: Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net
Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos
I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention
because I'm only going to say this once:
7. Do I have to ask permission of the motor manufacturer, the
professional
photographer, or you to make or to publish my work on the internet?
A. No
B. Yes
8. I got there
Hi,
To make it clear again: trademarks are copyrighted mostly arround the word. At
least in USA and good old europe.
Inproper use of trademarks is not allowed. How this inproper use is defined
is different in many countries. USA has the Fair Use thing, but this isn't
accepted in other
I have to add something about arial photos (german law):
Aerial photos doesn't need permission to be published unless it hurts the
privatsphere of anyone.
--
Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and
Jon
I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention
because I'm only going to say this once:
7. Do I have to ask permission of the motor manufacturer, the
professional
photographer, or you to make or to publish my work on the internet?
A. No
B. Yes
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention
because I'm only going to say this once:
Viviane you are on the complete wrong track, sorry.
Taking pictures is documenting existing items while creating or redrawing
items is a creatie work replicating
Oliver
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention
because I'm only going to say this once:
Viviane you are on the complete wrong track, sorry.
Taking pictures is documenting existing items while creating or redrawing
items is a creatie
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention
because I'm only going to say this once:
Okay, now it's my turn. Please answer the following:
1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright?
A. Yes
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:31:34 +0100, Erik wrote in message
1298982694.11820.1.camel@Raptor:
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 12:33 +0100, Oliver Fels wrote:
Jörg Emmerich wrote:
What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the
liveries in the distribution but provides further web
Oliver Fels wrote:
What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the liveries in
the distribution but provides further web space for separately downloading
those.
This still puts the maintainer(s) of the respective download- or
mirror-servers at the risk of getting into
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 16:09 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote:
In the spirit of shifting the discussion. I would also like to point
out there are two separate issues to consider here:
1. use of copyright/trademark/logos when building realistic 3d models.
2. ensuring that all content creation
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 16:09 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote:
In the spirit of shifting the discussion. I would also like to point
out there are two separate issues to consider here:
1. use of copyright/trademark/logos when building realistic 3d models.
2. ensuring that all content creation
Martin Spott wrote:
Oliver Fels wrote:
What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the
liveries in the distribution but provides further web space for
separately downloading those.
This still puts the maintainer(s) of the respective download- or
mirror-servers at the
My apologies for the duplicate posting last night. Apparently, I had a
system glitch so the message got sent twice.
Sorry!
Regards,
Chris
--
Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in
It seems to me that this becomes a never ending discussion. For me it
would be a pity if we could not have models with whatever (legal) Logo -
but for me it would be an even bigger pity if the FlightGear -Community
would get into a lawsuit because of this with incalculable risks. So I
get the
Gene wrote:
Why do I have the intense image in my head of you saying the exact same
thing to your parents as they're carted off to the re-education camp?
Gene, with that statement of yours it is pretty obvious you are talking about
things you have not the slightest idea of- be it trademarking,
Jörg Emmerich wrote:
Why not try to put the risks where they belong?
This is of course the best strategy to follow. I have opted a few times for
this way which will keep the trouble outside.
However I see again some practical issues we would have to get around:
It should be possible to post
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:33:16 +0100, Oliver wrote in message
201103011233.16590.oliver.f...@gmx.net:
Jörg Emmerich wrote:
Why not try to put the risks where they belong?
This is of course the best strategy to follow. I have opted a few
times for this way which will keep the trouble
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 12:33 +0100, Oliver Fels wrote:
Jörg Emmerich wrote:
What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the liveries in
the distribution but provides further web space for separately downloading
those.
I'm starting to believe that a separate repository for
Vivian wrote:
Glad you found that. Looks like we really have shot ourselves in both feet
by asking Red Bull. On the other hand - they might be overstepping their
rights at least in U.S (and I think U.K law).
Since our use is NOT likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or
to
Gene Buckle wrote:
You're delusional. Legislation is built on whomever supplies the most
money in order to purchase that legislation. Do you know why copyright
was extended in the US last time? Because Mickey Mouse was going to enter
into the public domain within a few years and Disney
Gene Wrote:
Vichy FlightGear Overlords. Zey hav
vays of makingink you comply.
[...]
you mouth-breathing back-biters
[...]
In another era, you're the kind that would report your parents to the State
for discussing forbidden ideas.
Gene, your disrespect for people does by ways seem to
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Oliver Fels wrote:
Gene Wrote:
Vichy FlightGear Overlords. Zey hav
vays of makingink you comply.
[...]
you mouth-breathing back-biters
[...]
In another era, you're the kind that would report your parents to the State
for discussing forbidden ideas.
Gene, your
I'd like to second Syd Adams suggestion!
By the way, is there any legal entity that represents FGFS, like
Wikimedia or the Document Foundation represent Wikipedia and
LibreOffice?
Cheers,
Jeronymo
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Gene Buckle ge...@deltasoft.com wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011,
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 18:37 -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
To be safest we probably ought to rename the Fokker aircraft models as F100
and F50.
I hardly believe that's necessary. I've never heard any complaint about
using the Fokker name in any flight simulator. In fact the Fokker
project for
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 01:57 -0500, Chris O'Neill wrote:
I'm no lawyer, and I'm certainly not up on the law around the world, but
there's a concept in North American common law that one must take
reasonable and prudent steps to avoid liability. With this concept in
mind, I respectfully ask
Erik wrote
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hofman [mailto:e...@ehofman.com]
Sent: 27 February 2011 09:09
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 01:57 -0500, Chris O'Neill wrote:
I'm no lawyer, and I'm
J. Holden wrote:
To all currently arguing:
Consider it is going to be difficult for whoever would sue us to show how
we've cost them any financial damage. Likely, someone being aggressive
with trademark infringement is probably going simply to ask us to stop
distribution of whatever
Erik Hofmann wrote
To be honest I don't see any legal difference between creating an
accurate livery for a virtual aircraft or publishing a photograph of the
real aircraft.
Then you have missed various points in legal trademarking ;)
Repainting a trademarked item is an explicit reproduction
syd adams a écrit :
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely rather than demands and
threats might work better ;)
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
better see my livery in the
Alexis wrote
-Original Message-
From: Citronnier - Alexis Bory [mailto:alexis.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 February 2011 14:01
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
syd adams a écrit :
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the association concept.
Shouldn't have asked.
In the same sense as FlightProSim did not ask to use the IP of others and
violate their license?
Oliver
--
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the association concept.
Shouldn't have asked.
In the same sense as FlightProSim did not ask to use the IP of others and
violate their license?
Oliver
No, not in your
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely rather than demands and
threats might work better ;)
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
better
Am Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011, um 16:23:47 schrieb Peter Brown:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
No, not in your twisted logic. FG is not creating income based upon others
work. FG is representing the environment and aircraft created in a
realistic manner. A proper analogy
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
Am Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011, um 16:23:47 schrieb Peter Brown:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
No, not in your twisted logic. FG is not creating income based upon others
work. FG is representing the environment and
Gene Buckle a écrit :
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely rather than demands and
threats might work better ;)
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull
It has been very frustrating to watch this community repeatedly trip over legal
issues. This has finally become a great enough source of frustration to me
where all I can say is good luck in the future and enjoy the scenery (whenever
it comes out).
Yours
John
Peter Brown wrote:
By this definition FG would cease to exist.
Legislation does not define values, and commercial trademarks are just
that, commercial. The purpose of enforcing them is to protect their
_commercial_ business. It has nothing to do with personal moral, unless
you direct it in
Hi,
It has been very frustrating to watch
this community repeatedly trip over legal issues. This has
finally become a great enough source of frustration to me
where all I can say is good luck in the future and enjoy the
scenery (whenever it comes out).
Yours
John
Really?
I find this
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
It has been very frustrating to watch
this community repeatedly trip over legal issues. This has
finally become a great enough source of frustration to me
where all I can say is good luck in the future and enjoy the
scenery (whenever it comes out).
Yours
I believe what John is saying is that it is frustrating to
see how people just
step over legal issues without caring.
If one day we have to move away the debris then it will be
But how should we
have known
Oliver
Well, looking at other sims I'm not sure about. X-Plane,
I find this interesting- wasn't it you (beside Martin) telling us that Google
Earth can't be used anymore for scenery models due to legal issues?
Yes. The Google Maps/Google Earth license is not compatible with the GPL. If
you are interested in this OpenStreetMap has a good discussion of the
Hi,
That is one of the rare instances where
we have been able, as a community, to figure out what we can
or can't do legally and apply the reasoning consistently.
Exactly that's what I want to know in this case.
There's a general we should avoid
litigation vibe here, but part of avoiding
Well, until now you didn't say much about in this topic here. But as I can
see, you are the one in the whole Project who does understand much more of
laws and legal issues than anyone others here.
I cannot tell if this is sarcasm but in defense I have done a lot of reading to
try and figure
Hi,
Another problem is contributors come from all over the
world so reading the Lanham Act won't necessarily help us if
the angered corporation and data contributors are German.
That's why we need a community effort to figure out what to
tell Jack when he's presenting his next model to
This is the code section I've found so far, 1114(1)(a) is the most relevant:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1114000-.html
I don't know much about this but it does appear the confusion, mistake, or
deception part at the end is the important part. I'll have to
On 2/27/2011 12:06 PM, John Holden wrote:
This is the code section I've found so far, 1114(1)(a) is the most relevant:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1114000-.html
I don't know much about this but it does appear the confusion, mistake, or
deception part at
John Holden wrote
This is the code section I've found so far, 1114(1)(a) is the most
relevant:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1114
000-.html
I don't know much about this but it does appear the confusion, mistake, or
deception part at the end is the
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:51:54 +0100 (CET), Melchior wrote in message
11311.7445.1298757114543.javamail.r...@warsbl214.highway.telekom.at:
* Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net:
[...] but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very
carefully inform them of the project and ask them for
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, J. Holden wrote:
It has been very frustrating to watch this community repeatedly trip
over legal issues. This has finally become a great enough source of
frustration to me where all I can say is good luck in the future and
enjoy the scenery (whenever it comes out).
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Oliver Fels wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:
By this definition FG would cease to exist.
Legislation does not define values, and commercial trademarks are just
that, commercial. The purpose of enforcing them is to protect their
_commercial_ business. It has nothing to do
On 27.02.2011 21:18, Gene Buckle wrote:
I for one, do NOT welcome our new Vichy FlightGear Overlords. Zey hav
vays of makingink you comply.
Until you mouth-breathing back-biters understand the concept of no harm,
no foul, I don't want to have a thing to do with you.
*« Bravo, vous avez gagné 1
too many emails to read but if i understand Tim , I happen to
agree that there's no reason for every aircraft to be inserted into
the fgdata repository . Why not keep them separate from the main FG
project and leave the onus on the content creators ? There the one's
bringing the undesired
Hi,
Just out of curiosity:
anyone already asked for permissions?
Regarding No answer from the TM holder I guess treating it as yes is our
all risque.
I must admit: I still can understand Jack very well when I browse through the
Internet and see the many, many liveries made.
I will write some
* Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de:
I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders this weekend
like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they react, but
I also fear a bit the answers and consequences.
Severe tactical error a.k.a. shooting yourself in the foot.
What if they (or some
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
better see my livery in the database lickity split!
--
Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in
Real-Time with
Hi,
* Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de:
I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders
this weekend
like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they
react, but
I also fear a bit the answers and consequences.
Severe tactical error a.k.a. shooting yourself in the
foot.
What
I think that a key with all this is that none of the models will be sold for
profit. You could argue that even if the models are on a cd that is sold for
profit since they are also available freely that the models are not the source
of the profit.
Jon
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on
* Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net:
I think that a key with all this is that none of the models will
be sold for profit. You could argue that [...]
No, the key is that all the arguing will be between their lawyers
and ours. Except, we don't have lawyers and can't afford them. ;-)
m.
I agree with Melchior. In the most situations they will be obliged to
say no. It's the easiest, safest, most proven course for them.
It seems rare that someone in our community is approached by a
copyright-holder and told to remove some objectionable element. Even
if it does happen, it's likely
26 feb 2011 kl. 19:37 skrev Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de:
The question is still: how to proceed?
Just pretend this discussion never was. That is, do whatever we did before the
issue was raised. Are we prepared for the consequences of negative responses?
Cheers,
Staying beneath the radar might be effective but do you feel good about it?
Is it the ethical thing to do? Unethical? Hoping that ignorance is bliss?
Trying to ignore a perceived problem and wishing it would go away because it is
too hard to do things the right way?
OTOH even if a company
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net wrote:
Staying beneath the radar might be effective but do you feel good about it?
Is it the ethical thing to do? Unethical? Hoping that ignorance is bliss?
Trying to ignore a perceived problem and wishing it would go away
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jari Häkkinen j...@flygarna.se wrote:
Just pretend this discussion never was. That is, do whatever we did before
the issue was raised. Are we prepared for the consequences of negative
responses?
We are trying to find a reasonable way forward, not forget
Heiko
Hi,
* Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de:
I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders
this weekend
like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they
react, but
I also fear a bit the answers and consequences.
Severe tactical error a.k.a. shooting yourself in
From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com]
Jon: I respect your position, but I humbly ask then that you
please post or send me your letters for usage permission from Boeing,
Airbus, Douglas, Lockheed, Aérospatiale, BAC, deHavilland, McDonnell,
Cessna, Fokker,
Hi Jon,
I apologize for being persnickety here, but I am searching for clarity and
consistency on this issue.
Has the JSBSim project asked permission from all the aircraft manufacturers
that you create and distribute models for?
If not, have you only dealt with Boeing in terms of asking for and
* Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net:
[...] but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very
carefully inform them of the project and ask them for permission.
Such requests go to the legal department, right? Their job is to
protect the company, so their response will almost certainly be
To be honest I think most companies would see their logo ending up on a virtual
aircraft as a way to get free advertising;
That is; as long as it's a genuine representation of their business.
In this case I would therefore argue;
Keep it real and stay out of trouble. I could easily see Red-Bull
Hi,
So, is there any ruling? Who's in charge right now?
If there are already instances of the Red Bull logo in the database,
why isn't my AH-1 getting committed? Why aren't the other logos
getting deleted?
I just want to see something done. Somebody just commit the aircraft
and get it
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Erik Hofman wrote:
To be honest I think most companies would see their logo ending up on a
virtual aircraft as a way to get free advertising;
That is; as long as it's a genuine representation of their business.
In this case I would therefore argue;
Keep it
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:08:32 -0600
Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Erik Hofman wrote:
To be honest I think most companies would see their logo ending up
on a virtual aircraft as a way to get free advertising;
That is; as long as it's a genuine
Hi,
That's their own heli- Red Bull owns it indeed!
This are the new colors.
-- http://www.hangar-7.com/de/the-flying-bulls/flugzeuge/
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Erik Hofman wrote:
To be honest I think most companies would see
their logo ending up
on a virtual aircraft as
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
