On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:21 +0000, 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 trademarks. I just wanted to make sure folks recognize that they're two totally different things. > > 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 maybe Company A hasn't yet noticed that Company B is using the trademark without permission? > Or b. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna > above) Or maybe Company B did, indeed, get permission to use the trademark? Actually, my "correct" answer, at least from a moral point of view, was C... what matters most is what *we* do and not what others do. I'm trying to point out that just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't mean I should be able to say, "Well *they* are doing it" and use that to justify doing the same (wrong) thing. > > 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? > 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. LOL! No fair adding answers! ;) Btw, while 99.9% of the time the cops will "look the other way" for speeding just slightly above the posted limit, it's *still* against the law and you *could* get pulled over and at least get a warning. So, no, "unwritten rules" don't change the law, they just change how the law is enforced... two totally different concepts. > > 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? I don't accept that having an aircraft that doesn't include a trademark on the livery makes that aircraft (or livery) "dodgy." Personally, I don't fly an aircraft because of the livery it has but, rather, because I like the way the aircraft flies. I know there are those who say that the FG Project will be "ruined" if we don't include trademarks in the liveries, but personally I doubt that would be the case. Secondly, you're assuming that if we ask trademark owners if we can use their trademark in FG that the answer will 100% always be, "No!" While it's true that some (maybe even a lot) of trademark owners would deny the request (in which case I maintain we *shouldn't* be using the trademark), it's possible there will be some trademark owners who will, as you said, see it as free advertising or won't object because, as has already been pointed out, the FG Project isn't a "for profit" endeavour. And, finally, if it's really the case that FG simply *must* have symbols on our aircraft liveries, what's wrong with *make believe* icons? Is it *really* such a "disaster" if we don't have Red Bull, Macdonalds, Guinness, United Airlines, TWA, or any other trademarked symbol on our aircraft? Frankly, i think not! > 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? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but if someone else makes a livery that includes a trademark symbol and offers that via their own web site repository, I don't see how the FG Project can be held accountable if they're using the FG name/logo merely to inform people that the livery is for the FG flight simulator. However, if they use the name/logo to imply (or explicitly state) that their site (and therefore the livery) are associated with or endorsed by the FG Project, then their breaching the FG Project's copyright rights, and we should get darned snotty about letting that happen. 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 haven't researched > it, but shoveling a problem around is not solving it. I agree, but removing trademarks from the "official" FG distribution doesn't "shovel the problem" but, rather, removes the Project's risk and places it exactly where it should be placed... solely on the author of 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 risk, not the FG Project! > 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. Then let those folks assume the risk and responsiblity themselves. Regards, Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
