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 AT&T Vivian Meazza <vivian.mea...@lineone.net> wrote: >Chris > >> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +0000, 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 >> B. No >> C. It doesn't matter because we should be able to ignore either of them >> and include well-known logos on aircraft liveries if we want. > >A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK. In turns out that >Trademark protection is really quite limited. For example, the Cessna >trademark (word and logo) is registered only in Class 12. We would be able >to use Cessna in Class 9. Just like Polo (a sweet) and Polo (a car). > >Copyright of the logo - different question. "Well known" or not doesn't >change the equation. > >Interestingly, Red Bull was once refused an injunction in the US against a >fizzy drinks company marketing a drink called Bullshit. > >http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/ >Red Bull Trade Mark is Bullshit.htm > >Which made me smile (yes, I'm easily amused) and perhaps sums up Red Bull's >corporate behavior pretty well IMO. > >> 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes >> trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... >> >> A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. >> B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. >> C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* >> do. > >A and B. Precedent is important. If Company A does not pursue Company B for >unlicenced use of their trademark or copyright then it is reasonable to >assume: > > a. Company A doesn't care about such unlicenced use, or indeed might >see it as free advertising >Or b. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna >above) > >If we are in exactly the same business or class as Company B and we are sure >that the use is in fact unlicensed, it is also reasonable to assume that we >will get the same treatment. > >> 3. Scenario: It's against the law to drive 60 mph (100 kph) in a 30 >> mph (50 kph) zone. I drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone but I always: (a) >> make sure there are no police around, and (b) don't ask the police if I >> can do this. Which of the following statements is true? >> >> A. It's only wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone if you hit >> something or run over somebody. >> B. Because I didn't ask permission (and so I couldn't be told I >> couldn't do it) and because no police are around, it is now okay to >> drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. >> C. No matter what, it's wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. > >D. It is however tacitly accepted that it is OK to drive at an _indicted_ 79 >mph on UK motorways (the unwritten 10% + 2 rule). Same as the answer above. > >> 3. Scenario: The FlightGear Project decides they will only distribute >> aircraft with liveries containing trademark icons if the trademark owner >> grants permission. This means there are very few liveries containing >> trademarks in the distribution package. However, anyone wanting to have >> liveries with trademarks can easily obtain them by Googling "flightgear >> liveries" and then going to a multitude of independent sites that have >> livery repositories. Which of the following statements is true? >> >> A. That will spell the end of the FlightGear Project >> B. That would work >> > >So we would have to ask our users to add dodgy liveries to our AI aircraft? >If they are classed as "FlightGear Liveries", and we take no steps to object >to other websites use of our name/logo, could we not also be guilty of a >infringement of the law by association? I don't know, I haven't researched >it, but shoveling a problem around is not solving it. It would certainly >lead to fragmentation of the project, but I think that's already happening >to a certain extent. Not really a good idea. > >Personally, I don't care if I never see another airliner in FG, but there >are others who do. > >Hmm, all thought provoking, and stimulated more research, > >Thanks, Chris > >Vivian > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
