This thread has taken an "interesting" turn.
Speaking as someone who spent many years licensing technology, users don't own the scenery and textures contained in Flight Simulator (or Prepar3d); they have simply purchased a right to use them in accordance with the Microsoft's (or LM's) EULA. Any other use constitutes infringement of the rights not expressly granted in the EULA.
In most countries, the fact that a product (e.g., add-on airport scenery) infringes someone's intellectual property rights does not grant a user of that product any special rights vis-à-vis the infringing material. In fact, I think you'll find if a user knowingly re-uses the infringing material in an infringing manner (i.e., other than as set out in the original EULA), he/she is as guilty of infringement as the developer of the infringing product, i.e., the original developer's copyright is still in effect. Further, I think you'll find that should that product's EULA contain a "no commercial use" restriction, users are bound by that restriction irrespective of any infringement.
In other words, users don't get a "free ride" simply because a developer did something wrong; i.e., "two wrongs don't make a right".
On the other hand (not to suggest this is the case here), the original developer rights are sometimes conditioned/diminished by his/her efforts to enforce them (or lack thereof).
Don
Speaking as someone who spent many years licensing technology, users don't own the scenery and textures contained in Flight Simulator (or Prepar3d); they have simply purchased a right to use them in accordance with the Microsoft's (or LM's) EULA. Any other use constitutes infringement of the rights not expressly granted in the EULA.
In most countries, the fact that a product (e.g., add-on airport scenery) infringes someone's intellectual property rights does not grant a user of that product any special rights vis-à-vis the infringing material. In fact, I think you'll find if a user knowingly re-uses the infringing material in an infringing manner (i.e., other than as set out in the original EULA), he/she is as guilty of infringement as the developer of the infringing product, i.e., the original developer's copyright is still in effect. Further, I think you'll find that should that product's EULA contain a "no commercial use" restriction, users are bound by that restriction irrespective of any infringement.
In other words, users don't get a "free ride" simply because a developer did something wrong; i.e., "two wrongs don't make a right".
On the other hand (not to suggest this is the case here), the original developer rights are sometimes conditioned/diminished by his/her efforts to enforce them (or lack thereof).
Don