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 work replicating the original. > > If you take pictures from a person you enter his privacy which can be > enforced > by civil law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights > I believe this is also covered by chapter 8 of the european human rights > convention: > http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/92DB8BAC-7D8D-4C28- > B927-1C1360A17DC3/0/FICHES_Droit_%C3%A0_sa_propre_image_EN.pdf > > In various countries the rights of such a picture are with the person on > the > picture. Court rulings however make here exceptions eg. when photographed > in a > crowd or rights are transfered by contract (eg. somebody is paid for being > pictured). > Further exceptions relate to persons of public interests like celebrities > and > politicians. However court rulings vary in this area but often tend > towards > the pictured person.
In the UK there is definitely no such restriction on photography in law and as far as I can see no court rulings (yet). There is, as yet, no right to privacy, and no right to prevent photography or publication, expect in a fairly narrow set of circumstances to do with security and terrorism, obscenity etc. There is some concern here that privacy laws will do nothing but benefit corrupt or pompous politicians, and there are quite enough of those already. > > This has been said multiple times before: Photographing an item, > trademarked > or not, is not an infringement. It is a documentation. The only issue (not > trademark related) would be if that picture was taken by bypassing > measures > which should prevent from being pictured (eg. the item is placed at non- > public > locations or explicit denial of photographing has been stated). > The same applies if you do a drawing of the same scene. This concept doesn't seem extant in UK law. > If you draw a picture of the trademark as the central part this is > creative > work in the sense of doing derivate work of the original. This is still > free. > However if you distribute this item there is an issue as distribution is > prohibited by trademarking laws- it could be mistaken as originating from > the > trademark owner. > It might be in Germany, but in the UK you have to register your trademark in one or more of 45 classes. If your business does not fall within the same class as the trademark, then there can be no infringement. For example we would be in Class 9, while fizzy drinks are in Class 32. We should be OK in the UK for most trademarks on aircraft. I haven't checked them all but for example British Airways has registered in 2 or 3, and not in Class 9 AFAIKS. Except Red Bull - who have registered in all 45 in 2009. However, they would need to show that they had traded in our class in the UK though, which they might or might not be able to do (I'm not aware of any Red Bull trading in any computer related activity in the UK but ...) AND they would need to show that there was a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public. In any case, we are not using the Red Bull logo, or anything similar, as OUR trademark or logo. After 5 years their trademark will lapse in all the classes in which they haven't traded. So in summary - you say there is a problem in Germany, I say that there probably isn't one in the UK and the US looks as if it might lie somewhere in between. Finally, FG doesn't actually trade the UK or Germany in that we don't offer a product for sale in those countries - does that matter? So where does that leave us? > Now what if you take a photograph and place it as a picture on a > helicopter? > Nice try. But invalid. If you make a texture from the photograph it is no > longer documentation but a derivative work used for a different purpose > than > looking at it in a photo album. I think we are in much more trouble with copyright law though. This is an issue which we have long since ignored for current or nearly current liveries. I don't really want to open that box. > You are trying to boil a complex issue down to simple answers. It is not > that > simple. It had better get simple, if we are to understand the problem and possibly do something about it. Vivian (not Viviane) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
