• 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.

Using real-world company logos in aircraft/scenery

A

ahaka

Messages
34
Country
finland
This is something I've been wondering for a while. What is the proper way to deal with this:

We all know that there are lot's of sceneries and aircraft (freeware and payware) out there that are painted in real-world airline liveries, or airports have logos of airlines/car rental/hotel companies. Are we supposed to get some permission from these companies in order to publish airplanes/scenery that features their logos? Does it differ in any way between freeware and payware products?

What is your experience/how do you deal with it?
 
You really should get permission. Doesn't make any difference if it's freeware or payware.

Bob
 
But if it's freeware, almost everyone tends to ignore copyright isssues... :D
 
amahran said:
But if it's freeware, almost everyone tends to ignore copyright isssues... :D
Click to expand...

Unless people are breaking the copyright of their own freeware scenery...

But I think it is our task to make people aware of these things.
 
For the avoidance of doubt using someone elses trademarks, logos etc without permission is breaking the law in every jurisdiction that I am aware of.

Whether that breach will be enforced is another matter. However there are numerous documented cases where the legal eagles of a large corporation have issued a 'cease and desist' letter to minnows.

As Arno says we always advise that it is done correctly and we do not condone breaking copyright or any other laws.
 
Hi,

ahaka said:
We all know that there are lot's of sceneries and aircraft (freeware and payware) out there that are painted in real-world airline liveries, or airports have logos of airlines/car rental/hotel companies. Are we supposed to get some permission from these companies in order to publish airplanes/scenery that features their logos? Does it differ in any way between freeware and payware products?
Click to expand...

Let me start by saying I am not a lawyer :).

I once had a discussion with somebody from the legal department at my work about sceneries. That person told me that if you look at it from a truly legal point of view, you would first need to get the permission of the architect before you can model that building. But I don't think anybody is going that far.

The logo's are another interesting issue. I haven't heard of anybody getting into trouble if they recreate an airport exactly like it is in real world. I think most companies are more worried when their logo is used in "less-realistic" situations, like on crashing planes, etc.

In general before you start making photographs at an airport you will need to get permission from the airport manager or so. The legal person told me that if you get permission with the purpose to make a scenery from the photos, that that could be enough to not have to contact all the individual copyright holders, the airport manager sort of represents them.

So not really a clear answer I am afraid.
 
French law doesn't seem so restrictive. (I'm not a lawyer too)
If you want to distribute a modelled plane like the Rafale, Dassault can (and actually he does) threaten you because their plane and name are the purpose of your product.
If you make a traffic including planes models, then each plane is no more the purpose but only an accessory part of the product and considered just a repesentation of a public reality. Then prosecution is more difficult.
Like with photos, all depends wether you are the subject or only a background element.
It makes sense
 
Hmm, I am not a lawyer, but I would tend to see those things from a different point of view.

1. Aren't we all doing not much more than producing a 3-D "fly through" picture of the real world? Given that, is it legal to make a "photograph" of a departing 737-800 in Lufthansa markings at any airport of the world and make this picture available to the public at no cost without asking Lufthansa for permission?
2. Assuming my picture is legal, which it most probably is, as otherwise we wouldn't be able to even publish a photo of our new family car when the brand logo is visible, could I then, at no cost, am I allowed to give a way 2D paperprints of it? For shure I am, I can even offer them in the net as long as it stays on a "non-profit-basis".
3. Assuming that the 2-D paper print still is legal, woudln't it then be legal as well to "glue" parts of my picture onto a 3D platic model an (still on a "no cost" basis) offer it to anybody who is interested?
4. Are we still operating legal? I think we are. So, where is the difference between a 3D plastic model and a 3D graphics mesh in a virtual environment?

I hope you were able to understand what I was trying to say. As long as I am the artist who took the picture or painted the 99.9% perfect picture of the Lufthansa crane, I can do pretty much what I want with my picture as long as it's on a "non profit" basis and not showing recognizable people and/or classified military installations.

Just my 2 cents. ;)
 
arno said:
That person told me that if you look at it from a truly legal point of view, you would first need to get the permission of the architect before you can model that building. But I don't think anybody is going that far.

The logo's are another interesting issue
Click to expand...

There is some stuff on buildings, this article refers to photography (including of artworks attached to buildings) but then for skinning a building photos are often used. As already said, it is technically a breach if you make a representation of something, but for a niche hobby it is debatable whether its worth anyone's while to chase people, especially if the person isn't making money on it that can be clawed back by the litigant.

I heard about someone a few years back who was selling merchandise with an image (from FS, so not even from the real world) of a C172 or 152 on there, and Textron had it closed down even though the C-word (um, Cessna!) wasn't on there at all. That to me was small-minded nonsense, to complain about a non-Textron FS model rendered in a non-Textron computer program being sold on a non-Textron product. I can't help but wonder whether these people get a regular invoice out to A.net for the pictures they license for use. So yes, some companies get snotty about the smallest things.
 
I have heard (or read) that Dassault habe been denying to Rollus the release of his Rafale M C from simmarket and was to be retired, (the source was a french website), and if you take a photo which copyright could be demanded, and with 3d design must be the same thing. :cool:
 
Discussion of copyright in this contect is misconcieved. If you take a photograph of an airliner, copyright law give you the right to make copies of that photograph - it gives you no rights whatsoever over the aircraft or its livery.

Aircraft and their livery are designs which are protected by different laws - Design and Trademark. Airlines pay money to have their lveries designed. No one can seriously argue for the right to use someone else's design without permission, especially for commercial purposes. Otherwise we could use the designs of commercial add-ons freely.

Many companies have a department to deal with licencing. The toy aircraft often sold on airliners are licenced. At Dublin airport there's a Guiness shop that sells everything but the drink - drinking glasses, clothing, umbrellas, etc all bearing the Guiness Harp. They are all licenced too.

Incidentally, unless you are very sure of your position don't bother asking for permission. The reply will most likely be "no". This is because it's too much effort effort to draft a licencing agreement. No airline is simply going to say "Yes, of course, you can use our livery on anything you want, for as long as you want, free of charge".

Also, I heard of one company (not in aviation) that responded by asking for several thousand pounds (up-front and non-refundable) to cover its costs in dtafting an agreement.

In practice, airlines are unlikely to enfiorce their rights even against small-scale payware designers. But, it's said that there are no real airline liveries in Micrsoft's FS because Microsoft was unwilling to pay for the rights. Airlines might well have chosen to enforce their rights against Microsoft.
 
Yes, undertood, the photo and the postcard, In a fairy tale,I was convinced that it's was the airline which should pay for to be his airline respresented in the Fs world.
 
Last edited:
mike november said:
Hmm, I am not a lawyer, but I would tend to see those things from a different point of view.

1. Aren't we all doing not much more than producing a 3-D "fly through" picture of the real world? Given that, is it legal to make a "photograph" of a departing 737-800 in Lufthansa markings at any airport of the world and make this picture available to the public at no cost without asking Lufthansa for permission?
2. Assuming my picture is legal, which it most probably is, as otherwise we wouldn't be able to even publish a photo of our new family car when the brand logo is visible, could I then, at no cost, am I allowed to give a way 2D paperprints of it? For shure I am, I can even offer them in the net as long as it stays on a "non-profit-basis".
3. Assuming that the 2-D paper print still is legal, woudln't it then be legal as well to "glue" parts of my picture onto a 3D platic model an (still on a "no cost" basis) offer it to anybody who is interested?
4. Are we still operating legal? I think we are. So, where is the difference between a 3D plastic model and a 3D graphics mesh in a virtual environment?

I hope you were able to understand what I was trying to say. As long as I am the artist who took the picture or painted the 99.9% perfect picture of the Lufthansa crane, I can do pretty much what I want with my picture as long as it's on a "non profit" basis and not showing recognizable people and/or classified military installations.

Just my 2 cents. ;)
Click to expand...

Nope.

I know that copyright laws don't seem to make much sense to us, and we break them all the time, but even freeware is not exempt.

Bob
 
Bob,

well then, would that mean, that, if I were able to produce an aerial picture of continental USA with a, lets say 1mm resolution per pixel, and would I then offer that to the general public for use, woul I have to scan each an every squareinch of that picture for brand-designs and ask all 2.789.655 brandholders for their permission? Die Andy Warholl pay Campbell's, or did he even bother to ask? Would he have had to?
 
mike november said:
Bob,

well then, would that mean, that, if I were able to produce an aerial picture of continental USA with a, lets say 1mm resolution per pixel, and would I then offer that to the general public for use, woul I have to scan each an every squareinch of that picture for brand-designs and ask all 2.789.655 brandholders for their permission? Die Andy Warholl pay Campbell's, or did he even bother to ask? Would he have had to?
Click to expand...
As far as the photographs are concerned, the answer is "no" because you are not using the designs. If you extracted the designs from the photographs and applied them to something else then the answer would be "yes".

I suggest the same reasoning would apply to Andy Warhol.
 
mike november said:
Bob,

well then, would that mean, that, if I were able to produce an aerial picture of continental USA with a, lets say 1mm resolution per pixel, and would I then offer that to the general public for use, woul I have to scan each an every squareinch of that picture for brand-designs and ask all 2.789.655 brandholders for their permission? Die Andy Warholl pay Campbell's, or did he even bother to ask? Would he have had to?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with you. I wish we could do as we please. Fact is,we can't. I believe copyright laws where overhauled in the 90s. In 1968, Andy Warhol may not have had to ask permission. I don't know for sure. Today, things are different.
Think about problems using Google Earth in photo scenery.

Bob
 
No - the photographer does but he doesn't have any rights in, for example, the design of the other photographers' cameras that are included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top