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 o
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 their
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
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; per
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Oliver Fels 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 Hurt You
This pa
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 looki
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
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; perhap
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! ;-))
Hi,
> 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! No f
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:03:02 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
:
> 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 maintaine
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 airc
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Chris O'Neill 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 risk, not the FG
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Chris O'Neill 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 haven't r
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 Pro
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 tra
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
> 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 i
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
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.
> >
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. A
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.
>
ent: 04 March 2011 12:29
> 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!
>
> Jo
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:21:11 -, Vivian wrote in message
:
> 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
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 wrote:
>Chris
>
>> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote:
>> > I'm going to set you all a si
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
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
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
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 replicatin
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. N
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 ot
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 coun
> 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 g
s not much different than in other countries.
Heiko
still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html
But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html
--- Vivian Meazza schrieb am Do, 3.3.2011:
> Von: Vivian Meazza
> Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
>
Chris wrote:
..
>
> 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 acc
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
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
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 cr
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 cr
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 tr
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 furt
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 f
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 troubl
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 pos
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
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 idea:
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 wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Oliver Fels wrote:
>
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 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 t
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 Disne
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
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 att
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:01:33 -0600, Reagan wrote in message
<4d6a9f8d.6030...@gmail.com>:
> 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
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
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
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 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" :
> > [...] but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very
> > carefully inform them of the project and ask them for permission.
>
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
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 par
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 do
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 mode
> 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 figu
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 av
> 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
>
> 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-Pl
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).
>
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
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 i
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
--
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
>>> wrote:
>>>
> I'm planning on contact
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
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 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
>> wrote:
>>>
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
bett
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 i
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
-
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
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 wrote:
>
>> I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
>> better see my livery in the database lick
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 reproductio
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 trad
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 wro
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 as
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 MS
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 whether it is "reasonable and prudent" to
explicitly take the
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 wrote:
> I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
> better see my livery in the database lickity split!
>
> ---
From: Curtis Olson
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 distr
On Feb 26, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Gary Neely wrote:
>
>> There's a saying in English about "bearding the lion in his den". It's
>> probably better to stay beneath the lion's radar.
>>
> Especially considering the rather top-heavy population of fuzzy bunnies
Jack:
I don't have commit power, but I strongly recommend you include text along with
the model which says Red Bull does not endorse your model or FlightGear. I'd
also write why you think it's okay to use the trademark in this instance, which
is to accurately reflect a real-life livery of a hel
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Gary Neely wrote:
> There's a saying in English about "bearding the lion in his den". It's
> probably better to stay beneath the lion's radar.
>
Especially considering the rather top-heavy population of fuzzy bunnies we
have around here. :D
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-00
Curtis Olson wrote:
> No one wants to remove existing content from the FlightGear project, even
> though some of that same content would not be allowed to be submitted by
> some authors as it stand right now. Because it was submitted by other
> authors or was submitted in the past we are ok with
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 virtu
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:08:32 -0600
Curtis Olson 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 representat
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;
> Ke
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
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
* "Jon S. Berndt" :
> [...] 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
"no" -- tbe safest
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
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,
Heiko
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > * Heiko Schulz" :
> > > 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 yoursel
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jari Häkkinen 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 about anything.
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jon S. Berndt 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 because it
> is t
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
