willing to pay 500 USD for a modeler to make a Cessna Mustang complete willing to pay 500 want to create a FS company we can do 50/50 on each sale and 500.
email michaelv2011@gmail.com
email michaelv2011@gmail.com
-
Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:
- Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
- Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
- Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
- Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
- Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
- Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.
Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.
By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.
Looking for Modeler
- Thread starter Mike_2011
- Start date
n4gix
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 11,674
- Country
Just so you are aware, Textron Corp. (parent company of Cessna) is now requiring that any company wishing to model any of their a/c for a commercial release (read: payware) must enter into a licensing arrangement with them.
Also, Flight1 has already entered such an agreement for the Citation Mustang. I don't know if their arrangement is exclusive, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't...
Also, Flight1 has already entered such an agreement for the Citation Mustang. I don't know if their arrangement is exclusive, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't...
n4gix
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 11,674
- Country
Contact Textron's Legal Department:
http://www.textron.com/contact/home.do?action=contact&bu=Textron Inc. (Corporate)
Here's an internal news article about their licensing dept and what they do:
http://www.textron.com/newsroom/featured_stories/09_01_2006.jsp
I spoke to someone at work about this today as we deal a lot in IP. I was told that you can't copyright the "look and feel" of something. So you could build a sim of their aircraft that looks just like the real thing, but the moment you use a logo, tradename or trademark, then you're liable.
I don't like the idea of exclusive licensing deals. They could really limit user choice and innovation. If a big publisher can pay for exclusive rights and build a payware aircraft half as good as others might, the users loose out. (I'm not suggesting Flight1 are like that. But we all know there are companies out there making money for quite poor payware with little or no innovation in it.)
A potential problem with exclusivity might also be that the licenser might make the licensee liable to pursue infringements in order to keep or renew their deal. There's not many that could afford that.
Si
http://www.textron.com/newsroom/featured_stories/09_01_2006.jsp
I spoke to someone at work about this today as we deal a lot in IP. I was told that you can't copyright the "look and feel" of something. So you could build a sim of their aircraft that looks just like the real thing, but the moment you use a logo, tradename or trademark, then you're liable.
I don't like the idea of exclusive licensing deals. They could really limit user choice and innovation. If a big publisher can pay for exclusive rights and build a payware aircraft half as good as others might, the users loose out. (I'm not suggesting Flight1 are like that. But we all know there are companies out there making money for quite poor payware with little or no innovation in it.)
A potential problem with exclusivity might also be that the licenser might make the licensee liable to pursue infringements in order to keep or renew their deal. There's not many that could afford that.
Si
That's interesting, and at the same time, I believe that's why the sim - Grand Prix Legends - had a certain Japanese F1 racer with a funny name, that looked like a H--da but wasn't mentioned by name (nudge, wink, wink)
<groan> so there went my plans to make a Grumman Gulfstream I, N234MM, with the Disney World markings and "the Mouse" logos ??? Would've been nice - glass cockpit, etc... (okay, so which Big Bear do I want to tick off first?)
<groan> so there went my plans to make a Grumman Gulfstream I, N234MM, with the Disney World markings and "the Mouse" logos ??? Would've been nice - glass cockpit, etc... (okay, so which Big Bear do I want to tick off first?)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,025
- Country
It can look like a Grumman, you just can't call it a Grumman ;-) The issue is the company names and trademarks, but there's no such copyright/trademark/patent law covering artistic renderings of objects... At least in the USA...
n4gix
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 11,674
- Country
General Dynamics, parent company of Gulfstream does indeed have a patent on their unique, oval windows. Oddly enough, that seems to have been their main ammunition in the past legal wrangles with freeware & payware modelers...
But unless you are actually building an oval window then that shouldn't apply. 3D models of windows aren't real windows.
I doubt they would have been able to patent them on their shape alone, but probably the mechanical design of the frames and how their design distributes stresses better, etc. Unless they could prove a 3D model did the same thing through the same methods, (which of course it doesn't, it's just an image), they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
But that wouldn't stop the lawyers trying it on anyway.
Si
I doubt they would have been able to patent them on their shape alone, but probably the mechanical design of the frames and how their design distributes stresses better, etc. Unless they could prove a 3D model did the same thing through the same methods, (which of course it doesn't, it's just an image), they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
But that wouldn't stop the lawyers trying it on anyway.
Si
I think the plastic model kit went through a similar issue a decade or two ago. It used to be that model manufacturers used to build their molds from scrutinising photographs or from access to the real aircraft or blueprints if they were lucky enough to be granted (free) access.
Then when those companies started being run by managers and lawyers instead of engineers and pioneers, they decided it was just another way to make money and started licensing their designs. There was, I think, a fair bit of legal wrangling over whether the US public actually owns the IPR on military designs. I have no idea how that panned out.
It is indeed lamentable. You could paint a picture of a Ferrari and sell prints on eBay to appreciative collectors, but these days, put the Ferrari name or badge in the picture (or in the seller's description) and you're lawyer bait. Same with aircraft.
Would Grumman not allow you to be commissioned to paint a portrait of a private owner's GulfStream now as a paid commission?
Si
PS. It's also worth noting that this principle equally applies to instrumentation. A manufacturer could argue that you're breaching their copyright by replicating how their specific gauge looks. (Copyright applies as it is look and feel, not patents here.) What's more, if you stuck their name on your instrument (say it was an auto-pilot or GPS) and it didn't work as they think it should, they could potentially sue you for misrepresentation. (As well as for trademark infringement...)
Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, so everything I say here is informed opinion. If it concerns you then consult one.
Then when those companies started being run by managers and lawyers instead of engineers and pioneers, they decided it was just another way to make money and started licensing their designs. There was, I think, a fair bit of legal wrangling over whether the US public actually owns the IPR on military designs. I have no idea how that panned out.
It is indeed lamentable. You could paint a picture of a Ferrari and sell prints on eBay to appreciative collectors, but these days, put the Ferrari name or badge in the picture (or in the seller's description) and you're lawyer bait. Same with aircraft.
Would Grumman not allow you to be commissioned to paint a portrait of a private owner's GulfStream now as a paid commission?
Si
PS. It's also worth noting that this principle equally applies to instrumentation. A manufacturer could argue that you're breaching their copyright by replicating how their specific gauge looks. (Copyright applies as it is look and feel, not patents here.) What's more, if you stuck their name on your instrument (say it was an auto-pilot or GPS) and it didn't work as they think it should, they could potentially sue you for misrepresentation. (As well as for trademark infringement...)
Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, so everything I say here is informed opinion. If it concerns you then consult one.
Last edited:
"Would Grumman not allow you to be commissioned to paint a portrait of a private owner's GulfStream now as a paid commission?"
Now there's a thought... for the external model, you're creating a flyable paint scheme, it just so happens that the overall shape has the form of a certain model.....
Now there's a thought... for the external model, you're creating a flyable paint scheme, it just so happens that the overall shape has the form of a certain model.....