Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 window. I do this since 2004 and she has never complained. So I believe it is ok to go on with that as proprably she finds this acceptable. Since she doesn't know about it she cannot have an opinion either way, but since she leaves the curtains open she must accept the possibility of it happening. Now back to that damn guy who regularly puts his trash in my can. I'll hit him with a large stick. Good solution, if you can catch up with him. You would of course be guilty of a serious crime. P.S.: Noted the sarkasm? P.P.S. The sarcasm? Not really, I thought you were just using clever metaphor. 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 window. I do this since 2004 and she has never complained. So I believe it is ok to go on with that as proprably she finds this acceptable. Since she doesn't know about it she cannot have an opinion either way, but since she leaves the curtains open she must accept the possibility of it happening. What I wanted to point out is that it is illegal anyway whether she has taken notice or not. You can not blame the victim for giving you the occasion of commiting a crime. In other words: The trademark owner has the right to decide how his work is being used and (whether or we like it or not) we have to respect his rights the same way as we have to respect the privacy of others in their own gardens and bedrooms. Now back to that damn guy who regularly puts his trash in my can. I'll hit him with a large stick. Good solution, if you can catch up with him. You would of course be guilty of a serious crime. 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? Oliver -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 products displayed , within reason.Of course , if most are asks directly , what else would the response be ? I'd assume no is a first response to prevent opening the floodgates.You'd think flight sims would be the first place they looked if they were out to stamp out any infringements. Cheers On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Oliver Fels oliver.f...@gmx.net wrote: 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 window. I do this since 2004 and she has never complained. So I believe it is ok to go on with that as proprably she finds this acceptable. Since she doesn't know about it she cannot have an opinion either way, but since she leaves the curtains open she must accept the possibility of it happening. What I wanted to point out is that it is illegal anyway whether she has taken notice or not. You can not blame the victim for giving you the occasion of commiting a crime. In other words: The trademark owner has the right to decide how his work is being used and (whether or we like it or not) we have to respect his rights the same way as we have to respect the privacy of others in their own gardens and bedrooms. Now back to that damn guy who regularly puts his trash in my can. I'll hit him with a large stick. Good solution, if you can catch up with him. You would of course be guilty of a serious crime. 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? Oliver -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 can get away with, whether one will be sued or not. It's about having respect for the rights of others. Btw, for the record, I wasn't intentionally making fun of a certain person's name. I changed the first letter so that the name would be more generic. I suppose I could have (and maybe should have) wrote Joe Blow but didn't If I offended anyone, I apologize. Anyway, this is my last post on this subject. Frankly, as an end-user my opinion is just that... a personal opinion. Take it or leave it. With that in mind, I don't have much else to add to the discussion. 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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! 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. What Vivian wants to say is, that there is certain degree of margin. Or do you want me to tell you are able drive exactly 55mph 100% exactly without tempomat anytime needed? The fact is: there are some Trademarks which can be used without any problems. Police, Post or Red Cross and a lot of others. I know one company which even put up a detailed set of their paint scheme including their Trademark for Download just for modelers. 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. If you would take a look into the forums of FlightGear, X-Plane, MSFS you would see that it is very popular to repaint aircrafts and that it is very attracting to fly their own aircraft. There is high number of payware addons companies who certainly don't pay any fee because they use any trademark for a livery. Ever heard of this sentence? An aircraft which looks good and pleasant, also does fly like that Of course mostly of their shape, but often the painting completes their well-designed shape. We have people flying aircraft in FGFS due to their flight behavior. We have people flying aircraft in FGFS due to their nice modelling. We have poeple flying aircraft in FGFS due to both. You have to acceppt that there are more people involved than just you. And yes, I fear also that we may loose attraction compared to other sims when we start to delete liveries with any trademark. 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! What's wrong with *make believe* icons? Depending on the owner of the real icon it can be that you still be sued for. There have been a lot of examples (especially Red Bull) like that. Juist google for Blue Bull. The fact is- no one, not you, not me, not anybody here does really know what we may, and what not. I discussed this issues with Oliver Off-list, and he pointed to me that we may have use in germany some trademarks just because they are part of the daily life. So it would be possible to use Lufthansa without any problems. And indeed: they just don't like VirtualAirlines with their name, but don't mind any repaint. And there are some examples more. Trademarks not of the daily life (like Red Bull) can't be used that easily. If someone wants still to use it, he is in the risque to be sued. Of course, this is in germany- how it is in UK? or in australia? In russia? Even in each country the different courts may decide different on the same issue. I can can only follow John Holden's statement: we should make us aware of what we are allowed to and what not. What are our rights? Nice summary: I think you have answered your own question :-). Your rights? You have copyright over anything that is your original work. Anything else, someone else probably has a right over. If not trademark, then copyright. They may chose not to exercise that right (yet), or give you permission. There is some latitude: Fair Dealing (where that exists) and as you mentioned above etc. Don't assume that because a trademark exists that it can't be used in a different context. That depends on the Class(es) in which it is registered. That's probably it. I thought I would do a bit of research over at X-Plane. I see that they have registered X-Plane as a trademark in the US - that would seem sensible. I don't see any reference to other trademarks or copyrights. I half expected to see something like All logos and trademarks are reproduced with the kind permission of their respective owners. I couldn't find anything. It's only a courtesy, so we can't read too much into that. One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 they aren’t looking or aren't bothered. Of course, I'm inviting disaster to strike us Monday morning. While we're on the subject of branding I've got some generic billboard models which are in need of some posters to go on them - so if anyone wants to design them (I thought it might be nice to have some flightgear themed ads on them) then feel free to drop me an email and I'll let you know the dimensions. It's tempting to do one that flips over to show different ads too. Jon -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 the rights holder to go to court and seek damages. Some legislations (certainly the US and UK) have the concept of Fair Dealing, There is no strict definition of what this means but it has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use. Where the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as fair dealing. I have stated this before at various occasions- lawyers are able to approach an infringing party without being directly related to the trademark owner as soon as they are aware of an infringement. They simply have to seek permission to represent the trademark owner. Afterwards they can go own their own charging fees. For file sharing issues this procedure is applied daily. 6. Way Ahead. When I use the term we or us I really mean Curt, since it his name which appears on our website. So over to you, Curt. The registrant of the web site, GIT server and scenery database. In other words: Every facility which is able to distribute the information to the public. Oliver -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 window. I do this since 2004 and she has never complained. So I believe it is ok to go on with that as proprably she finds this acceptable. Now back to that damn guy who regularly puts his trash in my can. I'll hit him with a large stick. Oliver P.S.: Noted the sarkasm? -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 dumping problems in the fg communities lap is not my intention.I've also noticed that most aircraft designer's already have their own webpages to distribute what is in the git repository already.Cleaning up the Aircraft directory could be a major task though , and I don't feel too concerned about the whole issue , but if it comes to it , I hope those with write access wont hesitate to remove any of my work. If I might wrap this one up by summarizing my research and our interesting and valuable discussion here: 1. Trademarks. We might or might not infringe a particular trademark depending on the terms of the registration. I have given examples across the spectrum. 2. Copyright. I wasn't going to address this one on the assumption that we aircraft developers, as copyright holders ourselves are well aware of the law, but: Copyright is infringed where either the whole or a substantial part of a work is used without permission, unless the copying falls within the scope of one of the copyright exceptions. The exceptions do not apply to us. Copyright does not have to be registered, it exists if the work is original. 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 the rights holder to go to court and seek damages. Some legislations (certainly the US and UK) have the concept of Fair Dealing, There is no strict definition of what this means but it has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use. Where the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as fair dealing. 4. Permission. A developer may seek permission from a rights holder. I would assess that would be more likely to succeed if permission were sought under copyright to reproduce the logo, rather than use their trademark since: a. that describes most accurately what we do and b. trademarks are a valued resource and not lightly given away or licensed. You could then put reproduced with the kind permission of ... on your work. However, we have been informed very unofficially by one company that if we do ask they will have to say no, but they are unlikely to enforce their rights. If you ask, and get the answer no, then I think you are duty-bound not to go ahead regardless. 5. Scope. This affects a relatively small number of items in our data, principally, but not exclusively, the logos or trademarks of extant airlines. 6. Way Ahead. When I use the term we or us I really mean Curt, since it his name which appears on our website. So over to you, Curt. Enough already. I now know more than I wanted to about trademarks, but I have enjoyed the intellectual exercise. Now what was that about FlightPro Sim ... 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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? Orb. 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 Project to take the high road and only allow trademarks in liveries where it can be explicitly shown that the trademark owner has agreed to the use. 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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! ... Regards, Chris The man's name is Jack Mermod. While I may not declare for any position here, when taking a position it seems discourteous, unnecessary and counter-persuasive to make sport of someone's name. -Gary aka Buckaroo -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 risk, not the FG Project! Chris, I would have thought that poking fun at someone's name would have been below you at your age. If you are unsure of someone's name, find out... It doesn't take long and make you look less puerile, even if making a cheap gag wasn't your intent. Regards George -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 that doesn't include a trademark on the livery makes that aircraft (or livery) dodgy. ..I agree, I either read Vivian 180 degrees wrong, or he lost a not in his message. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 still puts the maintainer(s) of the respective download- or mirror-servers at the risk of getting into trouble. To my opinion the only sane solution would be to let creators of disputable content host this stuff at their own responsibility. ..yes, and on their own servers. A little less convenient for us auto-builder script-runners, but safer for FG.org. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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
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 Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote: 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 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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, 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. ..depends on your jurisdiction. ;o) 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. ..depends, here I'd suspect RB's litigation team would be fired for proving the satire, _truthful_. ;oD ..RB's gold fish bowl law team managed to charge themselves onto defendants alleged satirical word plays like salad bits onto barbeque pins, _totally_ blowing their own case out of the water and beyond all galactic orbits. ;o): http://www.markify.com/trademarks/ctm/bullshit/000777847 http://www.cobaltlaw.com/news/ttab-calls-red-bull-appeal-bullshit http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/2aissues/2006/75788830.pdf ..now, RB law sharks also does _proper_ trademark enforcement: ;o) http://ipwatchdog.com/2008/05/02/red-bull-wins-trademark-lawsuit/id=169/ http://www.ameinfo.com/25260.html 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 Orb. 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. ..depends, even red Bullshit logos _might_ fly in court. ;o) 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. ..sissy, IME (Norway), 20%, and VNE every time you manage to deny the cops a starting point for their video etc evidence. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 This is the official UK government site, so I think we can take that as good evidence. UK law conforms to European and International standards: the classes are set by international agreement. I would expect US law to be very similar. If we think of ourselves as a computer game, I don't think we are liable to any action by Red Bull, or pretty much anyone else on _trademark_ grounds. If on the other hand we believe that we are a software flight simulator, then we are getting closer to, for example, Boeing business activities. Copyright, hmm ..., the laws on copyright are draconian. That's hornets nest that I'm not going to poke with a stick. Vivian -Original Message- From: S. Berndt [mailto:jonsber...@comcast.net] Sent: 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! 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 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=../articl es/ 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. ..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. For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 ..no? ;o) The language below can all be construed as relevant to a RB v FG trademark on Red Bulls computer game trademark, square bracket comment [samples] are mine: Class 09:Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; electric apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; ... ; magnetic data carriers, in particular video tapes, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; ... ; coin-operated fruit machines and entertainment machines; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers only; ... , calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; machine readable data carriers of all types with programs installed; Class 28:Games and playthings; ... ; electric or electronic games, [..is FG a game? Can FG be run on non-electric things?] including video games; ... ; practical jokes (novelties). [..pranks? Or physical items to execute a prank? Or, are they trying to trademark satirical etc jokes? Etc.] Class 35:Advertising, in particular promotion of the aforesaid goods and of competitive events, including competitive events of a sporting nature; arranging of advertising; distribution of goods for advertising purposes; ... [..product placement?] Class 41:Education; providing of training; entertainment, in particular musical performances and radio and television entertainment; sporting and cultural activities, in particular the staging of sports competitions; organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs for cultural and educational purposes; rental of video tapes and cassettes, video tape film production. Class 42:... ; scientific and industrial research; exploitation of industrial property rights; technical consultancy and providing of expertise; computer programming; ... ..yes, it's overbroad, RB tries to trademark jokes on themselves, and yes, IBM is still waiting to clear its name slam dunk style, and case law will tell you guys, satire is our safest defense, despite all it's flaws, Red Bull is neither Microsoft nor tSCOG. This is the official UK government site, so I think we can take that as good evidence. UK law conforms to European and International standards: the classes are set by international agreement. I would expect US law to be very similar. If we think of ourselves as a computer game, I don't think we are liable to any action by Red Bull, or pretty much anyone else on _trademark_ grounds. If on the other hand we believe that we are a software flight simulator, then we are getting closer to, for example, Boeing business activities. Copyright, hmm ..., the laws on copyright are draconian. ..yes, but more uniformly so, so they are easier to live with and to enforce on e.g. GPL violations. That's hornets nest that I'm not going to poke with a stick. Vivian ..neither is Microsoft ;o) ... except by tSCOG etc proxies... -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 law. When a trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. ..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. Not at all - that is commonplace. So what? For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 ..no? ;o) The language below can all be construed as relevant to a RB v FG trademark on Red Bulls computer game trademark, square bracket comment [samples] are mine: Class 09:Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; electric apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; ... ; magnetic data carriers, in particular video tapes, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; ... ; coin-operated fruit machines and entertainment machines; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers only; ... , calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; machine readable data carriers of all types with programs installed; We would come under Class 09 - Computer Software - which is not listed as a trading activity by Red Bull. Class 28:Games and playthings; ... ; electric or electronic games, [..is FG a game? Can FG be run on non-electric things?] including video games; ... ; practical jokes (novelties). [..pranks? Or physical items to execute a prank? Or, are they trying to trademark satirical etc jokes? Etc.] We are not a Game or Plaything, certainly NOT an electronic game Class 35:Advertising, in particular promotion of the aforesaid goods and of competitive events, including competitive events of a sporting nature; arranging of advertising; distribution of goods for advertising purposes; ... [..product placement?] What has this got to do with us? Class 41:Education; providing of training; entertainment, in particular musical performances and radio and television entertainment; sporting and cultural activities, in particular the staging of sports competitions; organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs for cultural and educational purposes; rental of video tapes and cassettes, video tape film production. We don't do education do we? Class 42:... ; scientific and industrial research; exploitation of industrial property rights; technical consultancy and providing of expertise; computer programming; ... Class 42: Services - which you omitted to say - we don't offer any services. ..yes, it's overbroad, RB tries to trademark jokes on themselves, and yes, IBM is still waiting to clear its name slam dunk style, and case law will tell you guys, satire is our safest defense, despite all it's flaws, Red Bull is neither Microsoft nor tSCOG. Do we need any such defense? There is no sensible overlap between our business activities and those registered by Red Bull. But I chose that only as an example. This is the official UK government site, so I think we can take that as good evidence. UK law conforms to European and International standards: the classes are set by international agreement. I would expect US law to be very similar. If we think of ourselves as a computer game, I don't think we are liable to any action by Red Bull, or pretty much anyone else on _trademark_ grounds. If on the other hand we believe that we are a software flight simulator, then we are getting closer to, for example, Boeing business activities. Copyright, hmm ..., the laws on copyright are draconian. ..yes, but more uniformly so, so they are easier to live with and to enforce on e.g. GPL violations. That's hornets nest that I'm not going to poke with a stick. ..neither is Microsoft ;o) ... except by tSCOG etc proxies... Well, that's good to know 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 matter further, I think we have gotten ourselves unnecessarily wound up about trademarks. At least in UK law. When a trademark is registered here in the UK, the company declares in which business it trades within classes. ..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. Not at all - that is commonplace. So what? For example, Red Bull declares all sorts of things, but NOT computer games: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E698506 ..no? ;o) The language below can all be construed as relevant to a RB v FG trademark on Red Bulls computer game trademark, square bracket comment [samples] are mine: Class 09:Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; electric apparatus and instruments (included in class 9); apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; ... ; magnetic data carriers, in particular video tapes, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; ... ; coin-operated fruit machines and entertainment machines; amusement apparatus adapted for use with television receivers only; ... , calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; machine readable data carriers of all types with programs installed; We would come under Class 09 - Computer Software - which is not listed as a trading activity by Red Bull. Class 28:Games and playthings; ... ; electric or electronic games, [..is FG a game? Can FG be run on non-electric things?] including video games; ... ; practical jokes (novelties). [..pranks? Or physical items to execute a prank? Or, are they trying to trademark satirical etc jokes? Etc.] We are not a Game or Plaything, certainly NOT an electronic game ..depends on your jurisdiction. ;o) ..in bad jurisdictions, on the plaintiffs choice of venue. In reasonable jurisdictions, you're able to have your lawyer succeed in having the case either thrown out or moved closer to your home jurisdiction. Class 35:Advertising, in particular promotion of the aforesaid goods and of competitive events, including competitive events of a sporting nature; arranging of advertising; distribution of goods for advertising purposes; ... [..product placement?] What has this got to do with us? ..some movie makers and game makers get paid for logos on game rendered billboards, FG livery logos are an fairly obviously possible next step. Class 41:Education; providing of training; entertainment, in particular musical performances and radio and television entertainment; sporting and cultural activities, in particular the staging of sports competitions; organisation of exhibitions and trade fairs for cultural and educational purposes; rental of video tapes and cassettes, video tape film production. We don't do education do we? ..training is part of many kinds of education, and I believe a few here has taken part in online FG airshows. Class 42:... ; scientific and industrial research; exploitation of industrial property rights; technical consultancy and providing of expertise; computer programming; ... Class 42: Services - which you omitted to say - we don't offer any services. ..no, my understanding is FG.org does not offer a service other than supporting, developing, offering etc FG itself, in this trademark context. ..yes, it's overbroad, RB tries to trademark jokes on themselves, and yes, IBM is still waiting to clear its name slam dunk style, and case law will tell you guys, satire is our safest defense, despite all it's flaws, Red Bull is neither Microsoft nor tSCOG. Do we need any such defense? ..do we need safety belts? Not IME. ;oD Do I dare drive without them? ;o) Am I stupid enough to push my stupid luck? ;oD There is no sensible overlap between our business activities and those registered by Red Bull. But I chose that only as an example. ..no sensible overlap, nor any sense at all is needed in frivolous lawsuits. The only problem with frivolous lawsuits, is you need to put some money into defending yourself against them, and, you need to do so until the judge get's it, or you will lose. ..once the judge get's it, you'll get your money back. Satire and humor helps speed up that process, also because media likes to do funny news stories in prime time news shows. ..and I believe we fairly soon,
[Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 to predict the outcome of any lawsuit in any country, about: Are we allowed to -- and if we are - in which country are we ... and what do other companies do ... and how does a private guy think about it and how a lawyer and how a freak and how -- I could not care less: That will not reduce the risk for FlightGear at all. And I personally do not really see the reason for FlightGear to take any risk in that matter. Yes: Also I would like to see different Logos on the models - but I really do not care if that now is the realistic original actual Logo of a company -- or if it is a look alike -- or even a completely new invented one -- with some imagination it should be even possible to invent FlighGear-Logos where someone can claim his rights in order to get some money from third parties (of course outside FGFS). And even promotes FlightGear by that!!! We should have some designers with some fantasy!! 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! So I strongly vote to continue the discussion of how to support those designers with home-pages or special distributions or whatever -- without FlightGear taking the risk! I thought there was already started a very nice thinking in that direction! How about directing the attention of our lawyers, designers, old guys, young guys, etc. etc. etc. into that direction -- instead of what one lawyer says about one unique country in some world in some universe -- that will not really help at all!! Judges seem to reside in a world not known to anyone like us! Sorry that I am not that deep in that technicalities to offer a complete solution! But count on me if I can help in that direction! joe -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 the fg communities lap is not my intention.I've also noticed that most aircraft designer's already have their own webpages to distribute what is in the git repository already.Cleaning up the Aircraft directory could be a major task though , and I don't feel too concerned about the whole issue , but if it comes to it , I hope those with write access wont hesitate to remove any of my work. Just my 2 cents. Syd -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 acceptable I'll shut up because, after all, I'm just a lowly end-user who happens to read this mailing list. Therefore, my personal legal and/or financial risk is fairly minimal. I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: 1. I take a digital photograph of you. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. Me B. You 2. I take a digital photograph of you standing next to your car. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. Me B. You C. The motor manufacturer 3. A professional photographer stands in my place and takes a digital photograph of you standing next to your car. The images are almost indistinguishable from mine. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. The professional photographer B. Me C. You D. The motor manufacturer 5. I make a drawing on paper of you and your car from the same viewpoint. Who owns the copyright of the images produced? A. Me B. The professional photographer C. You D. The motor manufacturer 6. I make a drawing using Photoshop or similar of you and your car from the same viewpoint. Who owns the copyright of the images produced? A. Me B. The professional photographer C. You D. The motor manufacturer 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 first. Does the professional photographer have to ask my permission, or the motor manufacturer or you to publish his work? A. No B. Yes Right. Hands up anyone who answered anything but straight As. Oh dear - in Germany apparently I must seek permission from the motor manufacturer. I expect BMW are very busy handling all the requests. That's probably why they can't fix mine ... but that's another saga. Bear in mind that almost all cars have their logo prominently displayed front and rear. Does that change your answers? Self-evidently the answer must be no. Otherwise, any image containing any object owned or manufactured by anyone in the last 50 years would breach someone's copyright or trademark. Professional photographers and artists could not exist. The art world, of which we aircraft developers form a small and esoteric part could not exist. Try telling that to http://www.airliners.net/ or http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/ Here's one I did earlier. Anyone want to sue me? http://img571.imageshack.us/f/lotus7.jpg/ Last question. Does Flightgear operate under different rules or laws? A. No B. Yes C. In Germany Anyone still confused? Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Hi Vivian, I'm currently short in time, but some things here are wrong. I photograph in my free time, and I'm beeing a webmaster, so I do know a bit about laws, copyrights etc. regarding photos. I will come with the corrections up today later. But the law in germany is 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 vivian.mea...@lineone.net schrieb am Do, 3.3.2011: Von: Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing An: 'FlightGear developers discussions' flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Datum: Donnerstag, 3. März, 2011 10:43 Uhr 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 acceptable I'll shut up because, after all, I'm just a lowly end-user who happens to read this mailing list. Therefore, my personal legal and/or financial risk is fairly minimal. I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: 1. I take a digital photograph of you. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. Me B. You 2. I take a digital photograph of you standing next to your car. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. Me B. You C. The motor manufacturer 3. A professional photographer stands in my place and takes a digital photograph of you standing next to your car. The images are almost indistinguishable from mine. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. The professional photographer B. Me C. You D. The motor manufacturer 5. I make a drawing on paper of you and your car from the same viewpoint. Who owns the copyright of the images produced? A. Me B. The professional photographer C. You D. The motor manufacturer 6. I make a drawing using Photoshop or similar of you and your car from the same viewpoint. Who owns the copyright of the images produced? A. Me B. The professional photographer C. You D. The motor manufacturer 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 first. Does the professional photographer have to ask my permission, or the motor manufacturer or you to publish his work? A. No B. Yes Right. Hands up anyone who answered anything but straight As. Oh dear - in Germany apparently I must seek permission from the motor manufacturer. I expect BMW are very busy handling all the requests. That's probably why they can't fix mine ... but that's another saga. Bear in mind that almost all cars have their logo prominently displayed front and rear. Does that change your answers? Self-evidently the answer must be no. Otherwise, any image containing any object owned or manufactured by anyone in the last 50 years would breach someone's copyright or trademark. Professional photographers and artists could not exist. The art world, of which we aircraft developers form a small and esoteric part could not exist. Try telling that to http://www.airliners.net/ or http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/ Here's one I did earlier. Anyone want to sue me? http://img571.imageshack.us/f/lotus7.jpg/ Last question. Does Flightgear operate under different rules or laws? A. No B. Yes C. In Germany Anyone still confused? Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 first. Does the professional photographer have to ask my permission, or the motor manufacturer or you to publish his work? A. No B. Yes Right. Hands up anyone who answered anything but straight As. Oh dear - in Germany apparently I must seek permission from the motor manufacturer. I expect BMW are very busy handling all the requests. That's probably why they can't fix mine ... but that's another saga. When photographing *people*, if you plan to publish *and profit from* your photographs, then you may need a model release form. I've been involved several times in group events where photographers would not profit from the photographs they took, but got people to sign release forms anyhow out of courtesy, at least (see, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release, which expresses the same sentiments I have seen at professional photographer periodical web sites). This is interesting, but I don't know if it offers any assistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark. Jon -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 countries. Often it just depends on the court where a case is taken to. As I said, I photgraph in my free time and I'm a webmaster of a s,all group of a life saving organisation as well. So I think I know a bit about copyrights and personality rights. My answers: I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: 1. I take a digital photograph of you. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. Me B. You A. But: in germany as an example Me, as the one who is phtographed has the a right on this picture as well. Means, if the photographer want's to publish the picture of me, needs my permission. Similar thing you will find in other countries as well. 2. I take a digital photograph of you standing next to your car. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. Me B. You C. The motor manufacturer A. 3. A professional photographer stands in my place and takes a digital photograph of you standing next to your car. The images are almost indistinguishable from mine. Who owns the copyright of the digital images produced? A. The professional photographer B. Me C. You D. The motor manufacturer A 5. I make a drawing on paper of you and your car from the same viewpoint. Who owns the copyright of the images produced? A. Me B. The professional photographer C. You D. The motor manufacturer A 6. I make a drawing using Photoshop or similar of you and your car from the same viewpoint. Who owns the copyright of the images produced? A. Me B. The professional photographer C. You D. The motor manufacturer A 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 B. You have to ask me. 8. I got there first. Does the professional photographer have to ask my permission, or the motor manufacturer or you to publish his work? A. No B. Yes B. He has to ask me to publish the picture taken of me Right. Hands up anyone who answered anything but straight As. Oh dear - in Germany apparently I must seek permission from the motor manufacturer. I expect BMW are very busy handling all the requests. That's probably why they can't fix mine ... but that's another saga. That's wrong. In germany and in other countries you don't have to ask the motor manufacturer. It's a thing without any personality. But you have to ask the owner of the car unless it is not just decorative part of the image. This belongs to the called Panoramafreiheit aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama. As long I'm standing in place which can be reached free and with common possibilities, (ladders doesn't belong to this) I can taken photos of groups of peoples, buildings and things and publish without any ask for permission. If I take a photo from places not open to the publicity or can't be reached free without help of anything like a ladder, I have to ask for permission from the owner of that thing I want to photograph. Mostly An exception are aerial photos- you are allowed to take aerial photos of any house, things, people etc. taken out of an aircraft. I may photograph any house, when I stand on the publicity street. When I stand in the front garden I may not without permission of the owner of the house or ground. Try telling that to http://www.airliners.net/ or http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/ The first one doesn't make any problems, and the most photographers there at airliners.net does exactly know that what I told you above. The later one here is different. Trademarks are copyrighted- for an sim aircraft painting they have to be redone and recreated. This is what most trademarks laws not allows. As an example: ADAC tells me on their website that their logo and sign is trademark and copyrighted, and may not be used on other things without their permission. On avsim.com, the biggest repository for repaints for any flightsim including FlightGear, you can find many discussions about this issue. And indeed the serious repainters there indeed ask often for permission Last question. Does Flightgear operate under different rules or laws? A. No B. Yes C. In Germany No one knows it, and that's the problem. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud.
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 8. I got there first. Does the professional photographer have to ask my permission, or the motor manufacturer or you to publish his work? A. No B. Yes Right. Hands up anyone who answered anything but straight As. Oh dear - in Germany apparently I must seek permission from the motor manufacturer. I expect BMW are very busy handling all the requests. That's probably why they can't fix mine ... but that's another saga. When photographing *people*, if you plan to publish *and profit from* your photographs, then you may need a model release form. I've been involved several times in group events where photographers would not profit from the photographs they took, but got people to sign release forms anyhow out of courtesy, at least (see, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release, which expresses the same sentiments I have seen at professional photographer periodical web sites). This is interesting, but I don't know if it offers any assistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark. There is no equivalent requirement in UK law. It might be useful, or courteous, but there is no legal requirement for a model release: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law In the UK there is almost no privacy law, and photography is virtually unrestricted. It is clear, however, that the photographer holds the in copyright almost all situations - there are some minor exceptions. Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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. 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. 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. 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. You are trying to boil a complex issue down to simple answers. It is not that simple. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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. 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. 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. 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 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 space for separately downloading those. I'm starting to believe that a separate repository for clearly labeled GPL models and other freeware or shareware models would be a good idea. GPL'ed models can be put on the same CD/DVD ad the main program ..yup, we're getting very close to a solution here. :o) but non-GPL models can only be downloaded form the site. ..say from their sites, with links from FG with the appropriate disclaimers that states why we cannot distribute non-GPL non-FG or un-licensed-by-FG trademarks in FG-compatible liveries. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 trouble. To my opinion the only sane solution would be to let creators of disputable content host this stuff at their own responsibility. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 is one's own work (or borrowed with suitable permission from the original author, or borrowed from a work that explicitly allows copying and modification.) With all due respect, I fail to see a distinction between the two. On the surface, they do look like separate issues, but your next paragraph sure muddies the waters, at least for me. I'm not sure we'll ever fully agree on #1. However, on item #2, I believe we have a long history of making it very clear what we allow or don't allow within the FlightGear project. Work submitted for inclusion in the FlightGear project, must be licensed in a GPL compatible way. It must be either an original work created by the author and licensed for inclusion with FlightGear, or it must be an adaption of another author's work either with appropriate permission, or of work previously licensed in a gpl compatible way. Okay, that sounds simple enough. But, how is a trademarked icon *not* a work nor content in the context of it being used on a livery for an aircraft included in the FlightGear package? If I take Red Bull's logo (or MacDonald's, or Trojan's, or any other trademarked icon) and slap it on a aircraft livery, am I not using a work that: (a) is not licensed in a GPL compatible way, (b) is not my original creation, and (c) is being used without the appropriate permission of the original author? What you seem to be saying Curtis, is that it's okay to use someone else's original work without appropriate permission if it's a part of an aircraft livery, but it's *not* okay to use someone else's work if it's computer code, an FDM, etc. We depend on an honor system--that all content authors vouch for the originality of their own work. It's impossible to independently verify every author's claim, so within the FlightGear community contributors build up a reputation of trust. And unfortunately some authors have developed a track record in the other direction. Works that include borrowed portions with dubious origin simply cannot be included within the core FlightGear project. Pardon me for being dense but, again, I'm confused. How is it impossible vouch for the originality of an aircraft livery? If the livery includes an obvious reproduction of a well-known trademarked icon, then isn't it pretty obvious this is *not* an original work of the author of the livery, and isn't also pretty easy to then ask that person to document that they have the appropriate permission of the original author of the work to use the trademarked icon for that purpose? Our policy with respect to point #2 is well defined and not open for debate. It is not my intention to reach through the computer screen and tell anyone what they can or can't do on their own time, but we are very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project ... what we commit to our central repository and what we distribute as core portions of FlightGear. Again, with all due respect it seems to me that we're very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project *except* when it comes to using trademarked icons. Pardon my being blunt, but IMHO what we're really saying when we act this way is, It's okay for me to steal *your* work, but please don't steal mine! By the way, everyone seems to be focused on whether (or not) there's a risk of legal exposure (i.e. someone getting sued), and if that were to happen whether (or not) there would be financial consequences (incurring legal costs, losing a suit, etc.). However, I respectfully submit that the *real* issue is much simpler... is borrowing (i.e. using without permission) the artistic work (i.e. a trademarked icon) of another person (e.g. Red Bull, MacDonalds, whomever) *morally* right? If we allow this to occur, can we *really* say that we're serious about maintaining the integrity of the Project? 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 acceptable I'll shut up because, after all, I'm just a lowly end-user who happens to read this mailing list. Therefore, my personal legal and/or financial risk is fairly minimal. Regards, Chris -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 is one's own work (or borrowed with suitable permission from the original author, or borrowed from a work that explicitly allows copying and modification.) With all due respect, I fail to see a distinction between the two. On the surface, they do look like separate issues, but your next paragraph sure muddies the waters, at least for me. I'm not sure we'll ever fully agree on #1. However, on item #2, I believe we have a long history of making it very clear what we allow or don't allow within the FlightGear project. Work submitted for inclusion in the FlightGear project, must be licensed in a GPL compatible way. It must be either an original work created by the author and licensed for inclusion with FlightGear, or it must be an adaption of another author's work either with appropriate permission, or of work previously licensed in a gpl compatible way. Okay, that sounds simple enough. But, how is a trademarked icon *not* a work nor content in the context of it being used on a livery for an aircraft included in the FlightGear package? If I take Red Bull's logo (or MacDonald's, or Trojan's, or any other trademarked icon) and slap it on a aircraft livery, am I not using a work that: (a) is not licensed in a GPL compatible way, (b) is not my original creation, and (c) is being used without the appropriate permission of the original author? What you seem to be saying Curtis, is that it's okay to use someone else's original work without appropriate permission if it's a part of an aircraft livery, but it's *not* okay to use someone else's work if it's computer code, an FDM, etc. We depend on an honor system--that all content authors vouch for the originality of their own work. It's impossible to independently verify every author's claim, so within the FlightGear community contributors build up a reputation of trust. And unfortunately some authors have developed a track record in the other direction. Works that include borrowed portions with dubious origin simply cannot be included within the core FlightGear project. Pardon me for being dense but, again, I'm confused. How is it impossible vouch for the originality of an aircraft livery? If the livery includes an obvious reproduction of a well-known trademarked icon, then isn't it pretty obvious this is *not* an original work of the author of the livery, and isn't also pretty easy to then ask that person to document that they have the appropriate permission of the original author of the work to use the trademarked icon for that purpose? Our policy with respect to point #2 is well defined and not open for debate. It is not my intention to reach through the computer screen and tell anyone what they can or can't do on their own time, but we are very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project ... what we commit to our central repository and what we distribute as core portions of FlightGear. Again, with all due respect it seems to me that we're very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project *except* when it comes to using trademarked icons. Pardon my being blunt, but IMHO what we're really saying when we act this way is, It's okay for me to steal *your* work, but please don't steal mine! By the way, everyone seems to be focused on whether (or not) there's a risk of legal exposure (i.e. someone getting sued), and if that were to happen whether (or not) there would be financial consequences (incurring legal costs, losing a suit, etc.). However, I respectfully submit that the *real* issue is much simpler... is borrowing (i.e. using without permission) the artistic work (i.e. a trademarked icon) of another person (e.g. Red Bull, MacDonalds, whomever) *morally* right? If we allow this to occur, can we *really* say that we're serious about maintaining the integrity of the Project? 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 acceptable I'll shut up because, after all, I'm just a lowly end-user who happens to read this mailing list. Therefore, my personal legal and/or financial risk is fairly minimal. Regards, Chris -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 risk of getting into trouble. To my opinion the only sane solution would be to let creators of disputable content host this stuff at their own responsibility. Well I don't think this would necessarily be the case. If FlightGear just acts as a provider where content is transparently hosted and where users have agreed to terms of use stating that trademarked items are not allowed and liability is with the uploaders then we are on a pretty good side. FlightGear admins would still have to remove this content as soon as they get knowledge about it but liability would not be an issue. At least this is what court rulings in Germany and Austria indicate and I can imagine that this is valid for most other countries also. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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: Why not try to put the risks where they belong? It should be possible to post other people things without taking the responsibility for that - i.e. if FGFS proves it did its best to avoid any legal problems. So how about an legal agreement in writing between FGFS-Server-Resposible and the designer, that the later - has been informed about possible risks (e.g. when using such Logos) - has the approval to use that Logo from the owner of that logo - and that he is of legal age - and that he agrees that FGFS can remove his design from it's server whenever opportune I would say a copy of that should also go into the package of that model To my knowledge that is a usual procedure for any Server providing something for others. Dow we have Legal-People who could come up with something like that? And would designers accept to take that risk for themselves? joe -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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, history or the era you have been talking about. Well, everybody has the right to make out a fool of himself so there you go. You have of course the right to continue to transport that ridiculous image of a typical American to the outside world. I am glad to know it better that this image is an exception from the rule. Now that I know what to expect I can furtherly ignore your postings. Back on-topic. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 other people things without taking the responsibility for that - i.e. if FGFS proves it did its best to avoid any legal problems. So how about an legal agreement in writing between FGFS-Server-Resposible and the designer, that the later - has been informed about possible risks (e.g. when using such Logos) - has the approval to use that Logo from the owner of that logo - and that he is of legal age - and that he agrees that FGFS can remove his design from it's server whenever opportune First we have various contributors which are not of legal age, starting from 13 years and up. This would exclude them from contributing to GIT. Their work is often of very high quality so it would be a pitty if they'd be discriminated against. Second I believe that besides the inclusion there is another legal problem to consider which would not be solved. By contributing to GIT a trademarked item is not only put on a server but also repackaged into FlightGear which is then distributed as a whole including those items. IMHO legally FlightGear can in this case not get back on the blame the designer standpoint- while on a webserver data is just transparently uploaded to be available for download, FlightGear does an active step for distribution by packaging and could be liable for spreading the item. So the responsibility for the distribution package is with FlightGear. 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. Everything which goes on this server requires signing the letter of liability by the creator. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 outside. However I see again some practical issues we would have to get around: It should be possible to post other people things without taking the responsibility for that - i.e. if FGFS proves it did its best to avoid any legal problems. So how about an legal agreement in writing between FGFS-Server-Resposible and the designer, that the later - has been informed about possible risks (e.g. when using such Logos) - has the approval to use that Logo from the owner of that logo - and that he is of legal age - and that he agrees that FGFS can remove his design from it's server whenever opportune First we have various contributors which are not of legal age, starting from 13 years and up. This would exclude them from contributing to GIT. Their work is often of very high quality so it would be a pitty if they'd be discriminated against. Second I believe that besides the inclusion there is another legal problem to consider which would not be solved. By contributing to GIT a trademarked item is not only put on a server but also repackaged into FlightGear which is then distributed as a whole including those items. IMHO legally FlightGear can in this case not get back on the blame the designer standpoint- while on a webserver data is just transparently uploaded to be available for download, FlightGear does an active step for distribution by packaging and could be liable for spreading the item. So the responsibility for the distribution package is with FlightGear. What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the liveries in the distribution but provides further web space ..nope, _links_ to _separate_legal_entities_ that _may_ have FG-compatible litigation bait on their own web servers. for separately downloading those. ..we need _one_ livery, with more.liver...@13yr.kid.fg.home.linux.net style links painted all over it. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 clearly labeled GPL models and other freeware or shareware models would be a good idea. GPL'ed models can be put on the same CD/DVD ad the main program but non-GPL models can only be downloaded form the site. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 deceive there was never any need to seek anyone's permission. Red Bull is a fizzy drink of some kind. FlightGear is not. Simples. Can we please stop going in circles caused by ignoring any posted facts about RB, its business model and rights to do so? The question is not whether there is a legal issue. There is one. The question is how to deal with that. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 wouldn't allow it to happen. They bought themselves a few legislators and got copyright extended to protect the rights holder. Well, trademarking is a little bit older than Disney and its lobbyism on politics. In fact questioning legislation (which is your democratic right to do so) is in no way a justification to ignore rights derived from such laws. Distributing trademarked items is wrong in terms of legal affairs the same way as violating the GPL is. Whoever does not care has no right to complain about FPS lack of adherance to the GPL. Why should they then... Let me set that strawman on fire for you FPS is claiming work done by others as THEIRS. This has nothing to do with depicting an aircraft or billboard as it exists in real life. As far as I know they don´t as they use pictures for advertising which they have no usage rights for the same way FG is using trademarked items it has no usage rights for (liveries etc.). Besides they are false advertising and refuse to stick to the GPL. However to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that they explicitely and illegally changed ownership of items by saying we did it. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 exceed your disrespect for legal affairs. The above quoted section is not only extremely offensive, it is rubbishly ridiculous and disqualifies yourself from any serious discussion. I will not bring myself down to that small brain level - it seems you are ways more experienced on it than most of us. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 disrespect for people does by ways seem to exceed your disrespect for legal affairs. The above quoted section is not only extremely offensive, it is rubbishly ridiculous and disqualifies yourself from any serious discussion. I will not bring myself down to that small brain level - it seems you are ways more experienced on it than most of us. 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? You creep me out. Deeply. *plonk* g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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, 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 disrespect for people does by ways seem to exceed your disrespect for legal affairs. The above quoted section is not only extremely offensive, it is rubbishly ridiculous and disqualifies yourself from any serious discussion. I will not bring myself down to that small brain level - it seems you are ways more experienced on it than most of us. 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? You creep me out. Deeply. *plonk* g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 MSFS does have some support from the Fokker company I believe. Also the situation for JSBSim is slightly different since it only concentrates on the Flight Dynamics part of the simulator and configuration files therefore could be misinterpreted as being accurate. If, after simulated tests, some oddity shows up and someone decides to contact the manufacturer of the particular aircraft then that pushes JSBSim right in front of the radar. So stating that the FDM is in no way endorsed or backed up by the manufacturer actually makes sense. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
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 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 position that we'll look the other way when a possible copyright infringements are occurring? Likewise, is the if we don't ask permission they can't say no position reasonable and prudent? 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. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 position that we'll look the other way when a possible copyright infringements are occurring? Likewise, is the if we don't ask permission they can't say no position reasonable and prudent? 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. Yes!! At last some common sense. And if you publish a photograph or other artwork YOU own the copyright. We are not using a trade mark. But if we ask a company to do so they bound to say no, or they run the risk of losing their rights to their trade mark. So we don't need to ask, nor should we. We are not looking the other way, or infringing copyright etc. While we are on about it - FlightSim Pro, or whatever they call themselves this week, aren't breaking any laws either - they do comply with the terms of the license. It is a scam, yes, but caveat emptor ... Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 trademark we are using. I wrote it about a week ago: Enforcing trademarks is a business model for various lawyers nowadays which they will not simply abandon just because we are nice guys. They will simply estimate how often the documents in question have been downloaded and calculate the lost license revenues from that number. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 while taking a picture is documenting an item shown on a publically accessible place (unless you take a picture from it on a non-accessible place, eg, corporate location). Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 database lickity split! For those who don't read the forum: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=10130p=116069#p116063 -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 database lickity split! For those who don't read the forum: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=10130p=116069#p11606 3 Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the association concept. Shouldn't have asked. Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 would be for FPS to sell the associated livery for a profit. Which if you hadn't brought this up would have been the case. …not a bad idea. Peter -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 see my livery in the database lickity split! For those who don't read the forum: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=10130p=116069#p11606 3 Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the association concept. Shouldn't have asked. Congrats guys! Anything else you'd like to f*ck up while you're at it? Keep it up, we'll have Trainer, Single Engine Land in no time. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 would be for FPS to sell the associated livery for a profit. Which if you hadn't brought this up would have been the case. …not a bad idea. FlightGear is distributing trademarked items by providing all means of infrastructure to do so - multiplayer servers, download facilities (web server, GIT server, scenery database, etc.) and spreads them into the world. From a legal standpoint there is no denying that at least the owners of the aforementioned distribution channels are violating trademarking rights. With the full knowledge of the infringement now. The trademark owner has the full right to define who does what with his items and trying to hide the violation from him is in no way better as if FlightProSim is trying to hide that they are violating the aircraft owners rights. It is not a question of commercial or not but a question whether people stick to the values and borders defined by legislation. And of personal moral. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 aircraft created in a realistic manner. A proper analogy would be for FPS to sell the associated livery for a profit. Which if you hadn't brought this up would have been the case. …not a bad idea. FlightGear is distributing trademarked items by providing all means of infrastructure to do so - multiplayer servers, download facilities (web server, GIT server, scenery database, etc.) and spreads them into the world. From a legal standpoint there is no denying that at least the owners of the aforementioned distribution channels are violating trademarking rights. With the full knowledge of the infringement now. The trademark owner has the full right to define who does what with his items and trying to hide the violation from him is in no way better as if FlightProSim is trying to hide that they are violating the aircraft owners rights. It is not a question of commercial or not but a question whether people stick to the values and borders defined by legislation. And of personal moral. Oliver 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 that manner. Peter -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 today. If I get the green light, I better see my livery in the database lickity split! For those who don't read the forum: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=10130p=116069#p11606 3 Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the association concept. Shouldn't have asked. Congrats guys! Anything else you'd like to f*ck up while you're at it? Keep it up, we'll have Trainer, Single Engine Land in no time. g. And now, who is going to remove every Redbull occurence in Git ? I also hope we wont have this kind of sterile discussion ever and ever. KEEP AWAY OF ANYTHING LOOKING LIKE AN ADVERTISING LOGO OR NOT OBVIOUSLY USEFUL USE OF A TRADE MARK. Keep also in mind that, though funny for lammers, fancy liveries don't make the aircrafts fly better. My 2 cents, Alexis -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 that manner. Legislation is built on social values and enforces those. This is the origin of legislation. A trademark protects the interests of its owner in various ways. One of them is to protect from false association harming the reputation of a company, another is to establisch revenue from licensing it. There are more Whatever it is in the case of RB we have not the right to question it just to make it fit into what we think is right or wrong. Distributing trademarked items is wrong in terms of legal affairs the same way as violating the GPL is. Whoever does not care has no right to complain about FPS lack of adherance to the GPL. Why should they then... Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 interesting- wasn't it you (beside Martin) telling us that Google Earth can't be used anymore for scenery models due to legal issues? What's so bad about discussing legal issues? Repainting liveries is a big grey zone- it always have been, and unless the laws will change, it will. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 John Really? 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? What's so bad about discussing legal issues? 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 -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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, MSFS... nearly all available Frewware-addons, but also a big number of payware addons uses trademarks. They are still alive. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 legal problems with the use of Google Maps imagery. 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. There is a big distinction with the trademark issue here and the copyright issue presented with FlightProSim. With the trademark issue, you have a whole spectrum of opinions but none of the opinions are geared toward working to a final solution. There's a general we should avoid litigation vibe here, but part of avoiding litigation is being smart and understanding our rights as software developers. It's quite frustrating because I don't think we are consistently achieving being smart and understanding our rights as a community, and we have been blundering along as a result. What's so bad about discussing legal issues? Nothing, except when the discussion breaks down because no one really knows what OUR rights are. We need to be working toward achieving concrete solutions on these problems, figuring out how we handle these issues as a community when they arise, and also working to minimize the threat of litigation while still maximizing the usefulness and realism of our program. I've made proposals in the past based on my understanding of copyright law and the Lanham Act. For instance, there is no reason why we shouldn't have a prominent disclaimer saying FlightGear is not associated or endorsed by any companies possibly represented in the program, either in the base distribution or through add-ons. There is no reason why there is no umbrella copyright notice anywhere within the executable file, except some people seem to think there is no copyright on GPL software - but then what does the GPL protect? Repainting liveries is a big grey zone- it always have been, and unless the laws will change, it will. So why not make it easier on ourselves if someone whose livery is in our database takes umbrage? I'm just very frustrated, I'm still going to use the software, I'm probably still going to contribute to the scenery database because that is a very small pool of developers all of whom seem to understand what the legal limits are in that area, but I've got better things to do than to not get anywhere arguing about the law on this list. Cheers John -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 litigation is being smart and understanding our rights as software developers. It's quite frustrating because I don't think we are consistently achieving being smart and understanding our rights as a community, and we have been blundering along as a result. Agree. Nothing, except when the discussion breaks down because no one really knows what OUR rights are. We need to be working toward achieving concrete solutions on these problems, figuring out how we handle these issues as a community when they arise, and also working to minimize the threat of litigation while still maximizing the usefulness and realism of our program. I've made proposals in the past based on my understanding of copyright law and the Lanham Act. For instance, there is no reason why we shouldn't have a prominent disclaimer saying FlightGear is not associated or endorsed by any companies possibly represented in the program, either in the base distribution or through add-ons. There is no reason why there is no umbrella copyright notice anywhere within the executable file, except some people seem to think there is no copyright on GPL software - but then what does the GPL protect? So the question is: what are our Rights? What are we allowed to do? What not? I'm still surprised that our project we don't have a laywer like other OpenSource Projects like Blender etc. So why not make it easier on ourselves if someone whose livery is in our database takes umbrage? I'm just very frustrated, I'm still going to use the software, I'm probably still going to contribute to the scenery database because that is a very small pool of developers all of whom seem to understand what the legal limits are in that area, but I've got better things to do than to not get anywhere arguing about the law on this list. 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. Heiko -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 out what we can or can't do. I also wouldn't say I understand more about laws and legal issues because I am not yet a lawyer. (Give me a couple years on that.) I'm honestly just trying to help the project. 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 get included into git. (Not calling out Jack here, just using an example.) Cheers John -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 get included into git. (Not calling out Jack here, just using an example.) Cheers John It would help me a lot, if I would know that my work will be more or less beeing protected by the Lanham Act though beeing german, just because FlightGear Project is sitting in the USA. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 more reading but that is why I proposed a disclaimer saying we are not affiliated or endorsed by anyone. I'll do some more reading later today to make sure this is correct. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 the end is the important part. I'll have to do more reading but that is why I proposed a disclaimer saying we are not affiliated or endorsed by anyone. IANAL, but I'd thought I'd throw the disclaimer below out as an idea starter.I imagine that, as long as we're disclaiming things, we probably ought to add things in the this isn't a real (certified) flight simulator and it's not our fault if you crash your RL Cessna category. -- Disclaimer FlightGear is a collaborative, open source flight simulator project, the products of which are licensed under the GPL.A primary aim of the project is to accurately represent in simulation the characteristics of aircraft of all types, real and imaginary. Many types of data are used in constructing the simulation of aircraft and the world in which they are flown.Among others, these include aerodynamic flight characteristics, mechanical/structural characteristics and identifying markings that make objects in the simulation recognizable and enhance realism.Flight performance data are collected from published sources wherever possible and calculated, estimated or guessed at when not.Scenery and aircraft models are rendered with visual textures that enhance their ability to be recognized as realistic representations of real world objects.Many aircraft available in the simulation are modeled to represent real world aircraft.These aircraft are generally referred to in the simulation by their common and/or original manufacturer designations so that they may be recognized as simulations of specific, real world aircraft. Some visual textures and manufacturer designations used within the simulation may be recognizable as protected trademarks or service marks owned by parties not associated with the FlightGear project.In all such cases, the FlightGear project specifically disclaims any association or relationship with related real world products or entities.The project further asserts that the inclusion of any protected material is an effort, in good faith, to make an accurate simulation. If an Intellectual Property owner has reason to believe that their property is being used by the FlightGear project in an objectionable manner, they are urged to contact the FlightGear project at www.flightgear.org so that the project may be made aware of the concerns and can quickly provide a remedy -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 important part. I'll have to do more reading but that is why I proposed a disclaimer saying we are not affiliated or endorsed by anyone. I'll do some more reading later today to make sure this is correct. 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 deceive there was never any need to seek anyone's permission. Red Bull is a fizzy drink of some kind. FlightGear is not. Simples. Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 and most protective answer they can give. And it doesn't matter one bit if they have a leg to stand on legally! It's probably a gray area in many jurisdictions, but isn't what we do sculpting and painting, hence *art*? So what you end up with is an almost certain questionable no. How much better is that than a questionable maybe? ..like I said earlier today, there _are_ ways to encourage a boring yes, we just need to make the alternative_s_ exiting enough to move from the legal departments to the Boards. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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). It's actually a battle between the people that like to create and those that are determined to apply their iron fist of compliance to everyone, no matter how damaging the concequences. 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. In another era, you're the kind that would report your parents to the State for discussing forbidden ideas. Yeah, I'm pissed off. The people directly contacting rights-holders are GUARANTEEING by the very act of contact, that permission will be denied because the companies have no mechanism in place to permit any other answer without money changing hands. So thanks to you all for screwing over good work in order to enforce compliance with imaginary property laws. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 with personal moral, unless you direct it in that manner. Legislation is built on social values and enforces those. This is the origin of legislation. 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 wouldn't allow it to happen. They bought themselves a few legislators and got copyright extended to protect the rights holder. A trademark protects the interests of its owner in various ways. One of them is to protect from false association harming the reputation of a company, another is to establisch revenue from licensing it. There are more Whatever it is in the case of RB we have not the right to question it just to make it fit into what we think is right or wrong. Distributing trademarked items is wrong in terms of legal affairs the same way as violating the GPL is. Whoever does not care has no right to complain about FPS lack of adherance to the GPL. Why should they then... Let me set that strawman on fire for you FPS is claiming work done by others as THEIRS. This has nothing to do with depicting an aircraft or billboard as it exists in real life. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 point Godwin.*
Vous pouvez aller le découper au burin
sur votre écran... »
/ __) () () () () () (__ \
|_| |_|
_ __ __
| |/ | _ __ ___ (_)_ __ | |_ | |
| || | | '_ \ / _ \| | '_ \| __|| |
|_|| | | |_) | (_) | | | | | |_ |_|
_ |_| | .__/ \___/|_|_| |_|\__| _
| | |_| | |
| | | |
|_| _ _ |_|
_ / ___| ___ __| |_ _(_)_ __ _
| | | | _ / _ \ / _` \ \ /\ / / | '_ \| |
| | | |_| | (_) | (_| |\ V V /| | | | | | |
|_|\|\___/ \__,_| \_/\_/ |_|_| |_| |_|
__
| |__ __| |
\) () () () () () (/
So, we haven't solved the issues with trademark law - but at least
fulfilled Godwin's law. Congratulations.
Another discussion on this list turning ugly/personal/offending eventually.
--
Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in
Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data
generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual
or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business
insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 attention to the project , and i dont feel it's worth this BS because of add-ons ... just my opinion.FG should be about flight dynamics / simulation , addons are the bonus. Syd On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote: 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-.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 more reading but that is why I proposed a disclaimer saying we are not affiliated or endorsed by anyone. IANAL, but I'd thought I'd throw the disclaimer below out as an idea starter. I imagine that, as long as we're disclaiming things, we probably ought to add things in the this isn't a real (certified) flight simulator and it's not our fault if you crash your RL Cessna category. -- Disclaimer FlightGear is a collaborative, open source flight simulator project, the products of which are licensed under the GPL.A primary aim of the project is to accurately represent in simulation the characteristics of aircraft of all types, real and imaginary. Many types of data are used in constructing the simulation of aircraft and the world in which they are flown.Among others, these include aerodynamic flight characteristics, mechanical/structural characteristics and identifying markings that make objects in the simulation recognizable and enhance realism.Flight performance data are collected from published sources wherever possible and calculated, estimated or guessed at when not.Scenery and aircraft models are rendered with visual textures that enhance their ability to be recognized as realistic representations of real world objects.Many aircraft available in the simulation are modeled to represent real world aircraft.These aircraft are generally referred to in the simulation by their common and/or original manufacturer designations so that they may be recognized as simulations of specific, real world aircraft. Some visual textures and manufacturer designations used within the simulation may be recognizable as protected trademarks or service marks owned by parties not associated with the FlightGear project.In all such cases, the FlightGear project specifically disclaims any association or relationship with related real world products or entities.The project further asserts that the inclusion of any protected material is an effort, in good faith, to make an accurate simulation. If an Intellectual Property owner has reason to believe that their property is being used by the FlightGear project in an objectionable manner, they are urged to contact the FlightGear project at www.flightgear.org so that the project may be made aware of the concerns and can quickly provide a remedy ..worth adding a wee note that frivolous abuse of such rights _might_ inspire satirical artwork. ;o), to encourage thorough work in legal departments, rather than boilerplate No.'s. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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. Hmmm. Stuart wrote: snip I agree with Jon on this - ideally we should be pro-active about asking for permission, even if we don't like the answer. Very good points mentioned. Especially the point that this will increase FGs appearance on some radars. However lots of people are nowadays using Google so the debate has become public anyway. I would to point out that besides the two results yes and no there might be a third one worth considering which is: No answer from the TM holder. This might be treated the same as yes or no. In case of treating it as yes we should agree how to treat potential consequences ;) Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
* 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 of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 if they (or some of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. I thought about that, but hoped no one will raise this up The question is still: how to proceed? One of my liveries uses like Jack a copyrighted logo (taken from an own phto) and may not be used without permission. -- http://www.adac.de/impressum/default.aspx?ComponentId=6019SourcePageId=6729#ank6019-5 On the other side: there are many hundreds liveries with this Logo out there available. Feeling a bit helpless -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 ATT Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de wrote: 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 if they (or some of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. I thought about that, but hoped no one will raise this up The question is still: how to proceed? One of my liveries uses like Jack a copyrighted logo (taken from an own phto) and may not be used without permission. -- http://www.adac.de/impressum/default.aspx?ComponentId=6019SourcePageId=6729#ank6019-5 On the other side: there are many hundreds liveries with this Logo out there available. Feeling a bit helpless -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
* 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. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 that someone will get a letter from a law firm saying Take-XYZ-down-or-else. You shrug, comply, and move on. There's a saying in English about bearding the lion in his den. It's probably better to stay beneath the lion's radar. -Gary -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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, Jari-- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 feels that a violation is taking place they would surely make a friendly request first. Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT Gary Neely grne...@gmail.com wrote: 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 that someone will get a letter from a law firm saying Take-XYZ-down-or-else. You shrug, comply, and move on. There's a saying in English about bearding the lion in his den. It's probably better to stay beneath the lion's radar. -Gary -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 because it is too hard to do things the right way? OTOH even if a company feels that a violation is taking place they would surely make a friendly request first. Jon I don't want to be misunderstood: I applaud Heiko's sentiment. But in this case, yes, I would feel good about it, and yes, I believe it's a reasonably ethical position for a loose collection of people who make non-commercial virtual aircraft and who are totally willing to comply with legal requests. -Gary -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 about anything. 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 it. Our consensus so far is not 100% internally consistent unfortunately. We have some arguing for a completely pristine do nothing without explicit permission approach. We have some arguing for a do whatever we can get away with approach. Think of the implications of doing nothing without written permission. We would literally do nothing in that case except for a few very rare cases where someone did manage to get written permission -- and we would need to remove most of the work that we have done to date. But those arguing for a more pristine policy, are unwilling to actually present a specific policy -- I believe because they realize to be logically consistent would require them to advocate removal of just about all FlightGear content. The implications of doing whatever we can get away with are equally bad. This sets us up as bad guys operating only in our own self interest and puts us in a position that we at least seem willing to break laws if we can get away with it. I think a reasonable way forward is to follow the commonly accepted standards in the simulation community: that it is fine to create virtual representations of real world vehicles, buildings, land marks, etc. and decorate them with the same markings they have in the real world. We are trying to have fun and create faithful representations of the real world. If a specific company has a specific issue, they are welcome to approach us and we will do whatever we can to accommodate their concerns. Our main constraint in creating content for the FlightGear simulator is that we make sure that our work is our own, or borrowed and adapted with proper permission. As many others have pointed out, we are creating an issue here where none existed and wasting a lot of time with it. The best we can do by pursing this issue is to shoot ourselves in the foot and harm our project. If we pursue this issue, and do not proceed in a pure, self-consistent manner, we also put ourselves in the position of knowingly violating our own policies or knowingly violating our own interpretation of the law ... that is the worst possible path we can take. As the project coordinator, I have *never* been contacted by any company with any concern that we have improperly used their logos or trademarks. I have never been contacted by any company with even the slightest concern or smallest question. Look at this another way: every man made object in the world is made by some person or company. Every building was designed by some architect and built by some company or group of companies. Every aircraft design is owned by someone, every vehicle, every livery, every logo. All those things that weren't built by specific companies were designed or built by governments or government sponsored groups. Can we not agree that it is ridiculous for people to suggest that we need to get written permission before we can model anything that has been designed, built, touched, altered by any individual, company, or government without their written permission? I know that a few out there will still assert that we need some permission from some companies to model some things. PLEASE!!! Tell me where you draw the line and how you draw the line; and if possible use LOGIC!!! Until then, I submit that we should be able to create realistic and fair representations of vehicles and buildings that are found in the real world including logos and trademarks. To disagree with this position means that you are advocating that we move a *HUGE* portion of the content of our simulator. 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, (New) Piper, etc. etc. all of which (and more) you have modeled in JSBSim and distribute on the official JSBSim web site. Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 the foot. What if they (or some of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. I thought about that, but hoped no one will raise this up The question is still: how to proceed? One of my liveries uses like Jack a copyrighted logo (taken from an own phto) and may not be used without permission. -- http://www.adac.de/impressum/default.aspx?ComponentId=6019SourcePageId=67 29#ank6019-5 On the other side: there are many hundreds liveries with this Logo out there available. Feeling a bit helpless As Melchior said - or nearly said - let sleeping dogs lie. Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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, (New) Piper, etc. etc. all of which (and more) you have modeled in JSBSim and distribute on the official JSBSim web site. Best regards, Curt. Curt, As you may recall, a few years ago myself and at least one other JSBSim developer did have an event that caused us to look over our operating procedures - and I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say that it was not a pleasant experience, although it turned out OK and in my case I was apologized to for the inconvenience. I never did figure out the exact reason why I was contacted and questioned. As you may also recall I did post the correspondence I received from Boeing IP personnel here in this thread a couple of weeks ago. It was that response that lead us to reevaluate our process and to withdraw some aircraft models from distribution for a while. We then added some disclaimers and statements in most of them and made sure that our data was traceable to public sources. We have it much easier than FlightGear does, since the reference to an aircraft type using the company name (such as Boeing 737) is far different than the use of a trademark or logo - particularly for a logo. I can't tell you guys what to do, but if it was me I would take maybe one of two approaches: 1) Make a README file that contains an appropriate disclaimer and distribute that with each model. I don't know what that disclaimer would state. 2) Continue as if nothing had changed, but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very carefully inform them of the project and ask them for permission. In any case, I strongly suspect that the worst that can happen is that if a company takes issue with the unauthorized use of its IP it will simply ask that further use be discontinued and that will be the end of it. Jon attachment: winmail.dat-- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 receiving permission? If you've only received permission from one company, then why? I assume it's because they contacted you and forced this issue. In any case, why is it ok to proceed with explicit permission from Boeing, and at the same time ok to proceed *without* explicit permission from every other aircraft manufacturer on the planet? If it's ok for JSBSim to proceed without permission from most companies, then why suggest that FlightGear should get permission before we model aircraft from various manufacturers with logos representing various owners of specific aircraft? I don't understand. By my reading of your messages, I feel like you are making ethical comments (or perhaps suggestions would be a better word) related to the actions of the FlightGear project without applying that same standard consistently to the JSBSim project? I don't see how (from a logical perspective) that getting permission from one aircraft manufacturer exempts you from asking for permission (and not proceeding without it) for any other aircraft manufacturer. And this is my difficulty with everyone who is arguing that FlightGear should get permission before modeling any aircraft or liveries ... I don't see any consistent application of these suggestions or any way to consistently apply anything close to them without either (a) gutting our project, or (b) acting in ways that would be completely inconsistent with these hypothetical policies. I'm not trying to be a PITA here, just trying to understand ... Thanks, Curt. On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote: As you may recall, a few years ago myself and at least one other JSBSim developer did have an event that caused us to look over our operating procedures - and I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say that it was not a pleasant experience, although it turned out OK and in my case I was apologized to for the inconvenience. I never did figure out the exact reason why I was contacted and questioned. As you may also recall I did post the correspondence I received from Boeing IP personnel here in this thread a couple of weeks ago. It was that response that lead us to reevaluate our process and to withdraw some aircraft models from distribution for a while. We then added some disclaimers and statements in most of them and made sure that our data was traceable to public sources. We have it much easier than FlightGear does, since the reference to an aircraft type using the company name (such as Boeing 737) is far different than the use of a trademark or logo - particularly for a logo. I can't tell you guys what to do, but if it was me I would take maybe one of two approaches: 1) Make a README file that contains an appropriate disclaimer and distribute that with each model. I don't know what that disclaimer would state. 2) Continue as if nothing had changed, but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very carefully inform them of the project and ask them for permission. In any case, I strongly suspect that the worst that can happen is that if a company takes issue with the unauthorized use of its IP it will simply ask that further use be discontinued and that will be the end of it. Jon -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
* 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 no -- tbe safest and most protective answer they can give. And it doesn't matter one bit if they have a leg to stand on legally! It's probably a gray area in many jurisdictions, but isn't what we do sculpting and painting, hence *art*? So what you end up with is an almost certain questionable no. How much better is that than a questionable maybe? m.attachment: winmail.dat-- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 over with. I can assure the gates of hell will not open the moment it is committed. Thanks, Jack -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 real and stay out of trouble. I could easily see Red-Bull complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Well I hope Red Bull doesn't see the following link. But hopefully they'll be so busy suing the jerks that painted their logo on a Cobra that they won't worry about us: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KYZKqfdOPt0/THfmWhBVvpI/ALQ/877pUiP9dtk/s1600/cobra+-+flying+bulls.jpg :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Well I hope Red Bull doesn't see the following link. But hopefully they'll be so busy suing the jerks that painted their logo on a Cobra that they won't worry about us: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KYZKqfdOPt0/THfmWhBVvpI/ALQ/877pUiP9dtk/s1600/cobra+-+flying+bulls.jpg Interesting, I didn't know that an frankly I'm a bit surprised .. was that authorized by Red Bull? If so then I think FlightGear will be safe too. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Well I hope Red Bull doesn't see the following link. But hopefully they'll be so busy suing the jerks that painted their logo on a Cobra that they won't worry about us: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KYZKqfdOPt0/THfmWhBVvpI/ALQ/877pUiP9dtk/s1600/cobra+-+flying+bulls.jpg Interesting, I didn't know that an frankly I'm a bit surprised .. was that authorized by Red Bull? If so then I think FlightGear will be safe too. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
