They are at it again...

MadMonkey said:
You'll also see copyrights and date written all over those add-ons. Not so on these models.
Click to expand...
That could be changed easily, just put it there.

MadMonkey said:
Show me where the recording industry decided to make music tracks for the express purpose of giving them away for free online.
Click to expand...
Umm...I said exactly the opposite, so I think we already agree. They usually do sit on their claims like a dragon on his hoard.

MadMonkey said:
You can't expect some of the more immature individuals around here to play nice...
Click to expand...
Maybe if we tell them consistenly what behaviour is expected, they'll mature a little bit in the process?

Regards
 
Last edited:
I think we need something on the swap pages that says:

LICENCE FOR USE:
The products provided here are free for your personal, non-commercial use. You are prohibited from re-distributing these items without the express consent of the original designer.

etc etc
Click to expand...

And in the Readme for each airplane, the designer should include his e-mail address. That way, we can contact him to ask about re-distributing modifications.

For me, it's about reputation more than anything. I take pride in what I create, and the worst thing in the world for me is to see something beautiful trashed.

Now if their changes were improvements, I'd probably be all over letting them post it - as long as they gave me credit for the design and clearly stated that they were modifying my original work, not creating the thing themselves.

Where does this pay off? Certainly not now in monetary terms, but what about down the road, when you're trying to get a job in the computer world? One of the job qualifications might be 3D modeling. It'd sure be nice to be able to pull out a gorgeous aircraft model and say, "See, I did that."

Just my 2 cents. :)
 
MadMonkey said:
My suggestion? If you build a 3D model of a plane for G3 or any other sim, put your mark on it (like a hidden "Made By So-And-So" stuck inside the fuselage)
Click to expand...

What we need is a maker's mark feature built-in to 3DS2Kex. Have that mark show up whenever someone views the aircraft inside of RF. If it's part of the original kex file, it'd be hard to accidentally lose. That wouldn't stop someone with a hex editor from changing it, of course, but at least it's a step toward preserving the heritage of a model.
 
Hi,

talking about copyright and potential infringement I'd like to call your attention to this discussion:
http://www.military-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2340
It's about Boeing asking Turbosquid to take offline all content mentioning their company name. Turbosquid is a well known provider of (mostly commercial) 3D-content and Boeing....well, you've heard the name.
So we're not just dealing with the copyrights of the model creator, but the rights of the original aircraft builder as well. They did already pick upon the full-scale simulator scene, remember the case of Northrop-Grumman versus Maddox Software (non-licensed use of the name "Grumman Avenger" on the packaging of IL-2 Forgotten Battles). The same thing is going on between Lockheed-Martin and arthouses (cafepress.com) offering prints of the F-16 (letters of Cease and Desist).
Why do you think the rc-sim-modelers have been left alone so far? Because everything put online for free is automatically legal? :rolleyes: Hmmm...I wouldn't place my bet upon this - the Big Boys beam of attention has simply not reached into this little niche yet.

Regards
 
Last edited:
If KE used Boeing's logo without their permission, It would be shut down real quick. It will be ages before Boeing goes after a single user of RF who uses their logo, as long as he's not selling his model. Profit: that is the difference. You will not see it happen. Now, before you mention people downloading music, since they want it for themselves, so they're not making any profit - the downloaders are not paying for the music. It's a case of lost profit for the label/artist. The music is created to sell, the models made by the designers are not.
 
jeffpn said:
It will be ages before Boeing goes after a single user of RF who uses their logo, as long as he's not selling his model. Profit: that is the difference.
Click to expand...
You may be right that commercial copyright holders will only go after violators if their profit margin is seriously affected. But then again, they might protect their intellectual property no matter what. There was no real loss for them when a flight simulator company included a WW2 divebomber and there is no substantial loss if someone sells a print of a F-16. But they do have a claim to make (sometimes), and they do employ the legal department to make it. I know that I will not be the one to put either theory to a test...

Regards

P.S.: What does Bill Watterson say about your avatar, Jeff? Comic authors are presumably easy going folks, but the publishing house of "Calvin and Hobbes" is probably not...
 
Last edited:
You're showing your age, recognizing my avatar. Please, oh please, don't tell Bill!!! :D ;)
 
Calvin and Hobbes is, in my opinion, among the greatest comics ever, and I never saw it in the newspapers.
 
efinkg said:
Calvin and Hobbes is, in my opinion, among the greatest comics ever, and I never saw it in the newspapers.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, Calvin and Hobbes is not among the greatest, it IS the greatest!!! (And likewise, by not seeing it in the papers, you are showing your age!)
 
jeffpn said:
You are wrong, Calvin and Hobbes is not among the greatest, it IS the greatest!!! (And likewise, by not seeing it in the papers, you are showing your age!)
Click to expand...

I haven't got enough exposure to the various comics of old to be able to state unequivocally that it is the greatest, my apologies. Obviously I am showing my age, though there is still a fairly wide range of ages I might posses.
 
Sigh ...

Too many lawyers and pseudo-lawyers, and not enough pilots. Once upon a time, this was a forum for R/C modeling, and the simulation thereof. Now? Well ... don't ask me ... ask my lawyer.
I'd rather be flying.
 
TreeHugger said:
But then again, they might protect their intellectual property no matter what. There was no real loss for them when a flight simulator company included a WW2 divebomber and there is no substantial loss if someone sells a print of a F-16. But they do have a claim to make (sometimes), and they do employ the legal department to make it.
Click to expand...

There is a certain degree of enforcement necessary lest the courts rule that a company is not interested in retaining rights over their trademarks and IP.

This was the case with the infamous American Airlines versus Flight-Sim.com instance.

AA's lawyers acknowledged that the use of their logos, etc. on FS planes actually helped the company's recognition, but that they were required to protect their properties.

Fortunately the voice of reason won out, and AA decided to issue a blanket permission to the flight sim plane download sites that requested usage.
 
I seem to remember that shortly after this incident, a commercial add-on pack for MSFS hit the stores. The planes were all jetliners, and several of them were sporting American Airlines livery. Having just read all about the AA issues on flightsim.com, I had to laugh.

The constitution giveth and the lawyers taketh away.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top