-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Cessna Copyright Legalities.
- Thread starter Lionheart
- Start date
kilo delta
Charter Member 2015
Will Aerosoft still be going ahead with the Huey?:isadizzy:
Sorry Wombat, but that's not true. The reason copyright and trademarks are so carefully defended these days has nothing to do with the number of lawyers, rather the other way round. The lawyers are employed by the companies, there's a high number of them wanted, so the salaries are high and the opportunities to get in many.
If people buy rip-off fake designer clothing, or branded goods that have just used a brand without permission and they turn out to be utter tat, that reflects back on the brand whose logo is used on it. Therefore, the famous companies try to protect themselves, by only allowing "appropriate quality" goods to bear their trademarks. Unfortunately, over time, that has become just another business stream for the companies to make money from. The tat manufacturers still exist, but they pay through the nose for the right to use the trademark - they then recoup the cost by manufacturing their goods in a Chinese sweatshop and people buy it because they're getting a "bargain".
Once more, we, the "offended" public, are the people to blame for the mess we find ourselves in.
This is no different at all from the fact that the RNLI didn't want their branding used in a game and just didn't give me permission to use it. Cessna (well, Raytheon) are a corporate entity, not a charity, so unlike the RNLI who protect by denying use, they're saying "give us some money to use our property and brand". You want capitolism, there it is, staring you right in the face. Enjoy!
Ian P.
If people buy rip-off fake designer clothing, or branded goods that have just used a brand without permission and they turn out to be utter tat, that reflects back on the brand whose logo is used on it. Therefore, the famous companies try to protect themselves, by only allowing "appropriate quality" goods to bear their trademarks. Unfortunately, over time, that has become just another business stream for the companies to make money from. The tat manufacturers still exist, but they pay through the nose for the right to use the trademark - they then recoup the cost by manufacturing their goods in a Chinese sweatshop and people buy it because they're getting a "bargain".
Once more, we, the "offended" public, are the people to blame for the mess we find ourselves in.
This is no different at all from the fact that the RNLI didn't want their branding used in a game and just didn't give me permission to use it. Cessna (well, Raytheon) are a corporate entity, not a charity, so unlike the RNLI who protect by denying use, they're saying "give us some money to use our property and brand". You want capitolism, there it is, staring you right in the face. Enjoy!
Ian P.
B
BananaBob
Guest
Call me a maverick or stupid, I'd do it anyway if I had that talent and tell them to just sue me, but I have nothing to lose.
Quick question. Will everyone stop supporting FS Development if ALL manufacturers follow the same course as Cessna?
Probably not everyone, but certainly I think it would have an effect on the smaller 3rd party developers. I know I certainly couldn't afford to pay $2000.00 or even $1500.00 per year, per product.
In addition to that, the amount of time it takes to produce a quality payware product is enormous, especially if you're the only person on the team:isadizzy: , time away from loved ones, hobbies, exercise (trying to stay healthy), and then to have to keep up with sales for royalty payments, etc just about makes it not worth the hassle, especially if you have a full time career in addition to fs development.
Hopefully there will still be "grass roots" aircraft manufacturers that would be honored to see their aircraft modeled for flightsim.
I know personally I have contacted two companies previously, via email, about modeling their aircraft and didn't get the first response back. Is this their way of saying it's ok and they could care less whether you model one of their aircraft, or that they feel since fsx is a "game" they don't need to take an inquiry seriously?? :isadizzy:
Darrell
Experimental Aircraft Works
krazycolin
Banned
We're doing a specific type of plane (no names at this time) and the company not only helped us out with drawings and pics, they also sent us their logo and markings in EPS format so that we could resize it to fit. So, they're not all bad.
That doesn't happen all the time sadly. I have received many C and D's (cease and desist) from company lawyers over the years but, fortunately for me, most, if not all of my models are military in nature. That means if you don't put the actual company name on, they are public domain. Some companies try very hard to prove that this is not the case but, the US govt is pretty specific about owning all rights to their planes, ships and tanks. This means that they can be modeled and sold as toys without having to pay royalties. However, some people have paid, due to fear of lawyers, and this has given those companies that do this kind of thing (Cessna being one, Northrop being another) impetus to continue with it. Though it's not legal, unethical and not very smart either, they feel that because they can, they will.
I'm not one to say nasty stuff about others but the whole thing with EMI smacks of highway robbery and the fact that he lowered his "price" by a grand in seconds strikes me as something that Cessna should know about. I'm sure that they wouldn't appreciate their name being bandied about in this manner. It's bad publicity.
That said, I think you should contact Cessna with that story and see what they have to say. I'm certain that they won't be happy and might even do something about it.
KC
That doesn't happen all the time sadly. I have received many C and D's (cease and desist) from company lawyers over the years but, fortunately for me, most, if not all of my models are military in nature. That means if you don't put the actual company name on, they are public domain. Some companies try very hard to prove that this is not the case but, the US govt is pretty specific about owning all rights to their planes, ships and tanks. This means that they can be modeled and sold as toys without having to pay royalties. However, some people have paid, due to fear of lawyers, and this has given those companies that do this kind of thing (Cessna being one, Northrop being another) impetus to continue with it. Though it's not legal, unethical and not very smart either, they feel that because they can, they will.
I'm not one to say nasty stuff about others but the whole thing with EMI smacks of highway robbery and the fact that he lowered his "price" by a grand in seconds strikes me as something that Cessna should know about. I'm sure that they wouldn't appreciate their name being bandied about in this manner. It's bad publicity.
That said, I think you should contact Cessna with that story and see what they have to say. I'm certain that they won't be happy and might even do something about it.
KC
wombat666
Administrator
If people buy rip-off fake designer clothing, or branded goods that have just used a brand without permission and they turn out to be utter tat, that reflects back on the brand whose logo is used on it. Therefore, the famous companies try to protect themselves, by only allowing "appropriate quality" goods to bear their trademarks. Unfortunately, over time, that has become just another business stream for the companies to make money from. The tat manufacturers still exist, but they pay through the nose for the right to use the trademark - they then recoup the cost by manufacturing their goods in a Chinese sweatshop and people buy it because they're getting a "bargain".You want capitolism, there it is, staring you right in the face. Enjoy!
Ian P.
I do know the situation in China very well Ian, from a personal business aspect.
One thing that has started to emerge is less 'sweatshop' operations, the workers are starting to want their little slice of the action as we have noticed during our last few trips.
And the other less welcome sea change that I've come across is a certain 'atitude' among middle managment, one might use the word 'arrogance' in most cases.
Everyone in the Western business community has found that if you want to remain viable then China is the only choice.
We don't like it but we have no choice other than shut up shop.
At this point in time the genuine 'tat' comes out of Thailand and India ..... and it really is crap.
As for the 'Lawyers', Tom Hanks character in 'Philidelphia' was so right.
Sir William Lyons philosophy was similar to that of Enzo Ferrari, a boy owning a model Jaguar or Ferrari might grow up to owning a real car ..... no Royalties of Licensing required.
N400QW
Charter Member
Make no mistake:
Like it or not, Cessna and others have the right to require licensing of their name, logo, reproductions, etc. thru any entity they choose.
That is true for ANY manufacturer of ANY product.
Whether they choose to require licensing and at what cost is quite another question.
Bottom line is some FS Developers will continue with Cessna Development while others will elect to bypass Cessna Development.
Like it or not, Cessna and others have the right to require licensing of their name, logo, reproductions, etc. thru any entity they choose.
That is true for ANY manufacturer of ANY product.
Whether they choose to require licensing and at what cost is quite another question.
Bottom line is some FS Developers will continue with Cessna Development while others will elect to bypass Cessna Development.
kilo delta
Charter Member 2015
srgalahad
Charter Member 2022
Part of that does come from lawyers who found new ways to improve their 'revenue stream' as well ("Hey, I think we can sue X over this one and there are hundreds of other chances waiting out there") ... but that isn't "lawyer-bashing" .. they just want their cut of the giant pie of an infinite economy (and we just found out how infinite it's NOT) ... which leads to --->
Once more, we, the "offended" public, are the people to blame for the mess we find ourselves in.
You want capitolism, there it is, staring you right in the face. Enjoy!
Ian P.
.. Don't forget, as times get tight and everyone gets anxious about the bottom line, free things are likely to get moved into the revenue stream more and more.
Just a thought... while this started here as an issue about potential FSX aircraft, it's going in a direction that is larger than the FSX forum or even the Outhouse in general. We have no concept of unity or coordination within the entire flight simulation community. Perhaps it's time to think outside our own little space (both users and developers) and see if it's really an issue of small-business vs the corporate giants or prehaps a user-pay system that will kill Flight Sim in general.
Rob
Prowler1111
Charter Member 2011
Let´s see at this from the biz stand point, the royalty % is workable since it´s not a high number, and the yearly fee s around 125 monthly, keeping in mind the price of some airliners and the potential price of FS cessna products, it´s doable.Dudes, i´ve recieved ridiculous quotes for FS work (say textures, gauges, or sound packages) that in some time DOUBLE what Cessna is asking for 1 year.Bottom line, time to start behaving like real biz, check the production cost and the sales costs(and i mean strong figures, not just plain greed) and go out to the market.This could just be an exeption but it also could be the begining of a new trend, the commercial development for a "game" is becoming into a growing industry and who knows what the figures(in sales) will be in the near/distant future.As far as i can see, the number of consumers is growing..
Best regards
Prowler
PS:Bear with me, had a terrible night, slept on a couch and i´m still without my morning coffee
Best regards
Prowler
PS:Bear with me, had a terrible night, slept on a couch and i´m still without my morning coffee
Thats the same feeling I got having just read through this thread.
N400QW
Charter Member
To be very specific. EMI's Application for License and corresponding License Fees are distributed to developers/vendors with a a caveat.
The caveat is that non acceptance of the Licensing Program by a developer/vendor results in a cease/desist...
These things can and do effect decisons and policies of developers/vendors. The upside is that it's possible to see only small incremental price increase to consumers which of course is the ideal :mixedsmi:
The caveat is that non acceptance of the Licensing Program by a developer/vendor results in a cease/desist...
These things can and do effect decisons and policies of developers/vendors. The upside is that it's possible to see only small incremental price increase to consumers which of course is the ideal :mixedsmi:
Craig Taylor
SOH-CM-2025
A number of good points have been made in this thread, and it's fascinating to read the perspectives from the developers. My hat is off to you guys.
@ Bill (Lionheart),
Unless Textron has given EMI exclusive rights to managing its Cessna intellectual property (and this may well be the case), there should be nothing to prevent you from making a proposal directly to Textron citing the desire to develop a 140 for FSX, how you intend to do it, and some pricing terms that are mutually beneficial to both parties. EMI's almost immediate drop in fee price seems to indicate that licensing fee is negotiable, so you might be able to work something out. If it's quality they're concerned about, you have a wealth of highly respected past performance that demonstrates your commitment to excellence. I'm sure there's a way to make Textron realize it's not in their best interests to stick to a business model that turns away good products.
I've worked as a Federal contractor for almost 20 years, and I'm married to a contracts manager, and this is the perspective I have. Caveat: I don't have much experience with commercial business, just Gov't. :redf:
@ Bill (Lionheart),
Unless Textron has given EMI exclusive rights to managing its Cessna intellectual property (and this may well be the case), there should be nothing to prevent you from making a proposal directly to Textron citing the desire to develop a 140 for FSX, how you intend to do it, and some pricing terms that are mutually beneficial to both parties. EMI's almost immediate drop in fee price seems to indicate that licensing fee is negotiable, so you might be able to work something out. If it's quality they're concerned about, you have a wealth of highly respected past performance that demonstrates your commitment to excellence. I'm sure there's a way to make Textron realize it's not in their best interests to stick to a business model that turns away good products.
I've worked as a Federal contractor for almost 20 years, and I'm married to a contracts manager, and this is the perspective I have. Caveat: I don't have much experience with commercial business, just Gov't. :redf:
B
BananaBob
Guest
Yep, can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Just do it free and have a donation system, can't touch you then.
N400QW
Charter Member
"Unless Textron has given EMI exclusive rights to managing its Cessna intellectual property (and this may well be the case)...."
It is the case. Cessna doesn't appreciate it but Textron has taken this route.
"EMI's almost immediate drop in fee price seems to indicate that licensing fee is negotiable..."
EMI provides an application along with paperwork to determine past sales in order to formulate a quarterly minimum along with 5% Licensing Fee.
As far as we know THAT is the only negotiation point.
It is the case. Cessna doesn't appreciate it but Textron has taken this route.
"EMI's almost immediate drop in fee price seems to indicate that licensing fee is negotiable..."
EMI provides an application along with paperwork to determine past sales in order to formulate a quarterly minimum along with 5% Licensing Fee.
As far as we know THAT is the only negotiation point.
This is payback for all those people who sent their kids off to become 'Lawyers'.
Most if not all of these licensing issues come down to some Corporate Legal Weenie attempting to justify his employment ........
LOL, you got that right. Course there's always XPLane, you roll your own so to speak so I don't think anyone can squeeze any money out of you.
Overshoe
Charter Member 2015
We will continue our commitment to certain Cessna Aircraft but will drop some of our planned Cessna Products in favor of other manufacturers....
Quick question. Will everyone stop supporting FS Development if ALL manufacturers follow the same course as Cessna?
There will be those who are willing to spend any amount to have the add-on they want.
There are also those of us who have limited spendable income. Higher add-on prices means fewer purchases from us. That will be true regardless of which "cost of doing business" causes prices to drift higher. What you or any other developer invest in a product has no effect on my budget. I see only the retail price.
At this time, there are 3 add-ons that I would like to have but they are beyond my means. I expect that number to increase.
I will admit to having a love affair with Cessna aircraft but I will make each purchase decision based on my economic reality.
The pros and cons of licensing are a whole other discussion. My opinions on that issue are unimportant.