Martin Spott:
Thanks - well, to be honest, we're having a pretty relaxed time.
Apparently you had been in much bigger trouble wrt. nightly diaper
changes than we are now.
Lucky you :)
But don't feel to relaxed as I know pretty well this might change pretty quick
:P
Oliver
Curtis Olson wrote:
A huge !!!THANK YOU!!! to all the developers and contributors involved in
making this the best version of FlightGear ever!
I second this. Congrats to the outstanding work and thanks to all for making
this real.
Oliver
A thought which came to my mind now that 2.4 is out: As we also have tons of
current high quality screenies in the gallery, it would be a good idea to
protect them from being ripped off and used for marketing by you-know-who.
Besides adding the copyright statement in the bottom corner (which can
xsaint wrote:
We should also warn ppl that Flightgear being repackaged and sold by some
individuals and we encourage them to download the sim from Flightgear
instead of buying those craps
Note that by discouraging repackaging in general you will create a situation
in which we shoot
Groucho aka Oliver Fels
? Who are this people ? I have known people to justify their defamatory
used the names and peudos other people. But then, you're the best at
this game.
This is me. Obviously you do not seem to have read this as the circle goes on
and on and on.
Well, folks
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
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
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
we could have a better
modeled helicopter than the BO-105
I am wondering what makes you feel the Bo105 is not as realistic as others. It
has one of the most sophisticated helicopter FDMs in FlightGear which has been
approved by real pilots. Almost every other FDM is based on guessing more
Curs Olsen wrote:
So why aren't we *removing* all our existing uses of the redbull logo ...
or
at least the ones that I can find in 2 seconds? None of the people who
are
saying Jack can't submit his helicopter with a redbull livery are saying
anything about the 2 aircraft and several
Myself wasn't aware of that we have other models with the RD-logo as well.
I'm not sure if Oliver, the starter of this debate is.
I pretty much am since Jack pointed me to those *sigh* (never noticed it
before) and yes, I did say that we have to care about them to Jack. There is no
reason
Gene Buckle wrote:
Regardless, nothing relating to open source use of logos on aircraft
models in flight simulator.
It does not matter whether open source projects, private persons or commercial
enterprises.
In fact in certain areas (eg. file sharing) private persons are more frequently
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
First of all sorry for the reply format, I only have access to the weekly
digest currently so response are a bit out of context. Will change this soon.
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Problem is more the Eurocopter-logo which I should better remove.
Last year there was a high court decision in Germany
I think the problem is that someone got on their high horse and started
jerking him around. If I were him, I'd get just as snotty about it - more
so probably as I've got a much lower tolerance for that kind of nonsense.
[...]
stop. It has no basis in reality. Never has. Frankly I think
I'm sorry if reality offends your delicate sensibilities.
May I remind you of this quote here:
They're just a bunch of bloviating windbags with nothing better to do but run
in circles,
If that is your style it does not deserve more comments.
You can´t just walk through your neighbors
Jack wrote:
Hi,
The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release.
Jack, thanks for caring and removing the livery from the package. As I said
you can still provide it separately from your web site. This does not make it
legal but moves FlightGear out of the focus.
I find it
Hi,
My development of the Bell AH-1W Cobra is far enough along where
I feel it is time to commit it to GIT, especially in time for the new
release. I use GIT, but I don't know enough about it to commit it
myself. If somebody could commit it for me that would be really great.
Screenshot:
31 matches
Mail list logo
