• 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

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

A list of Do/Don't models

euroastar350

euroastar350

SOH-CM-2023
Hi all,

Does anyone know what aircraft manufacturers will let hobbyists model their aircraft and which don't? Here are a few that don't:173go1: Now some manufacturers will hobbyists model their aircraft, but prior authorisation is required first before starting..or even worst, obtaining a license for that particular product and we all know how much $$$ is going to be involved going that route:eek:

Don't
Cessna/Textron
General Dynamics
Gulfstream Aerospace
Lockheed Martin (was this one included as well?)

Do
Bell Helicopter
Bellanca Aircraft
EADS Aerospatiale
Epic Aircraft
Kodiak Aircraft

I am surprised that Bell Helicopter allows their helicopters to be modeled, even though they are owned by Textron...go figure:rolleyes:
 
Lockheed Martin doesn't seem to care one way or the other. At least, not any more. As for Cessna, they only care about the planes they still manufacture.

As per American law, a company that makes a warplane cannot "copyright" or "trademark" that plane as it's owned fully by the American taxpayer. And that's already been in court. I know. I was part of the suit.

Hence the reason we are making an F-22, F-15E, F-15C and a Harrier as well as a bunch of others...

And lawyers are fun at bonfires.... (as the fire)
 
krazycolin said:
Lockheed Martin doesn't seem to care one way or the other. At least, not any more. As for Cessna, they only care about the planes they still manufacture.

As per American law, a company that makes a warplane cannot "copyright" or "trademark" that plane as it's owned fully by the American taxpayer. And that's already been in court. I know. I was part of the suit.

Hence the reason we are making an F-22, F-15E, F-15C and a Harrier as well as a bunch of others...

And lawyers are fun at bonfires.... (as the fire)
Click to expand...

well if that't the case somebody really needs to make a cessna 337/02 for fsx
mr piglet? mr bill?
 
Honestly, I don't see why Cessna/Textron is under "Don't".

So many developers produce Cessna aircraft, both in and out of current production. Carenado, Eaglesoft, and Flight1 are just three of the big names that do. There are several smaller developers that also produce Cessnas.

And if any developers are reading this, please DO keep making Cessnas. We need a nice 310! :wavey:
 
Kiwikat said:
Honestly, I don't see why Cessna/Textron is under "Don't".

So many developers produce Cessna aircraft, both in and out of current production. Carenado, Eaglesoft, and Flight1 are just three of the big names that do. There are several smaller developers that also produce Cessnas.

And if any developers are reading this, please DO keep making Cessnas. We need a nice 310! :wavey:
Click to expand...

Anyone that uses the Cessna name pays a price. If you look at the Carenado website, you likely won't find any reference to Cessna. Instead of Cessna 185, it is C185. Textron's copyright lawyers are going around checking for this actively. Carenado would be paying out the butt for those licenses, creating a severe overhead for MULTIPLE products.
 
Actually, that's only partially true. I personally contacted Cessna and was told that they don't care if we make one of their planes as long as they are informed of such usage AND that the usage is not for a plane that they are either a: still making or b: have already have a deal for with someone (as is the case with the Mustang).

As for using or not using their company name(s), that would be crossing the lines of trademark and would, concievably, be actionable. Hence the reason you won't see us doing it. Ever. However, we were told that we COULD if we wanted to without a charge

kc


Of course, that begs the question of why I contacted Cessna in the first place...
 
I have had good and bad luck with aircraft manufacturers. I must say that Epic 'didnt' want me doing their planes, mainly because I asked for blueprints and then 'didnt want to be bothered'. But one of their employees had a talk with the owner and told him the benefits, and I then got permission and DWG files. It took about a year to get permission.

Bellanca was ok with older models no longer produced, but went to their board of trustees or owners concerning making the Super Viking, which they still work with.

Piper are an awesome group and welcome flight sim developers. It can only make their name more famous, popular, and brings their product lines into households. Free advertising. (They told me how the government in the USA specifies that if you no longer manufacture a plane in the USA, it cannot be held copy-right-able, meaning the Cessna 140 'should' be open market, except for its name and logo. That was interesting. They had just come out of court procedings concerning their Piper Cub, which other manufacturers are making now, as Piper wishes to no longer be part of that aircraft product line).

With Cessna, that was a bit odd. They had hired a guy to manage the flight simmers. It could be that they were upset by comments made about their new plane being made in China. Cost to my company yearly was $2,000.00 and then 15% royalties for sales on monthly installments. I was told the main reason for this (by the guy managing copyright charges) was that Cessna wished to keep 'certain' groups/teams/companies from doing their planes.

Lanceair were rude, requested a $10,000.00 purchase of name and aircraft design handling rights, and then royalties.

I am presently in talks with Boeing concerning their Bird of Prey concept fighter jet. They 'do' request royalties and purchase of a rights to use logos and intellectual material. The price they give me will govern wether or not I go with it. (All those guys that did airliners, I wonder if they know about that... I was glad I asked... Always ask for permissions.... ).


DONTS:
Cessna
Lanceair

DO's
Piper (awesome people)


Bill
 
krazycolin said:
As for using or not using their company name(s), that would be crossing the lines of trademark and would, concievably, be actionable.
kc
Click to expand...


Hey Colin,

How on Earth would you then tell people what you have? lol.. That is the hard part. For instance, if I didnt meantion that the Epic LT is 'the' Epic LT, then how do you know what it is? For instance, do you then call it a 'Turboprop' and leave it at that? Wouldnt that look like to others that you are taking their design instead of giving the company credit? That is a difficult one. You would 'want' to put their name and logo on it, as its theirs, but I guess thats the way it goes. Its an odd position to be in.


Bill
 
Lionheart said:
Hey Colin,

How on Earth would you then tell people what you have? lol.. That is the hard part. For instance, if I didnt meantion that the Epic LT is 'the' Epic LT, then how do you know what it is? For instance, do you then call it a 'Turboprop' and leave it at that? Wouldnt that look like to others that you are taking their design instead of giving the company credit? That is a difficult one. You would 'want' to put their name and logo on it, as its theirs, but I guess thats the way it goes. Its an odd position to be in.


Bill
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with any developer calling it something else if it gets the addon out without the developer having to succumb to the ridiculous and asinine rules they are trying to impose upon a game add that in no way infringes upon their actual products. There are a couple I have seen already, good for them! You could have called the Kodiak "Bills badass bush plane" and I would have still bought it, LOL.
 
Lionheart said:
I am presently in talks with Boeing concerning their Bird of Prey concept fighter jet. They 'do' request royalties and purchase of a rights to use logos and intellectual material. The price they give me will govern wether or not I go with it. (All those guys that did airliners, I wonder if they know about that... I was glad I asked... Always ask for permissions.... ).



Bill
Click to expand...

i dont know about other developers, but Ariane has been shelling out bucks to boeing for years. it's like having big brother breathing down your necks 24 hours a day. I once did some advertising stuff for Ariane to use, using shots of normal life from chi town, shanghai, tokyo, etc.. Boeing vetoed the whole deal saying it was "too risque".. right, i had a saxaphone player wailing out a note on his knees onstage.. real risque there..
Anyway.. end of rant.. sorry..
 
Using the name of the manufacturer is always an issue. I wouldn't do it except in pm's or in personal emails. For the most part, showing a picture of the plane makes it obvious what it is .... and then everyone who ISN'T the "seller" can use the name if they so wish. That's legal.
 
krazycolin said:
Using the name of the manufacturer is always an issue. I wouldn't do it except in pm's or in personal emails. For the most part, showing a picture of the plane makes it obvious what it is .... and then everyone who ISN'T the "seller" can use the name if they so wish. That's legal.
Click to expand...


I hadnt thought of that...

For me, I like to do a complete little history thing on the plane, teaching people about it, how it flies, etc.. Its like a 'all about this plane and company' addon.

Man, I really wanted to make that Cessna 140. What a classic and a beauty... I still might make one similar, like the Luscombe. Almost an identical plane...



Bill
 
My understanding is that this only true for payware developers. If you are a freeware developer, you can do whatever you like, as long as you don't make money off of it, in the name of "artistic freedom." Now, that doesn't mean they won't sue you. As a freedom of speech issue, you'll win, but you would still have to pay your lawyers.
 
Lionheart said:
I hadnt thought of that...

For me, I like to do a complete little history thing on the plane, teaching people about it, how it flies, etc.. Its like a 'all about this plane and company' addon.

Man, I really wanted to make that Cessna 140. What a classic and a beauty... I still might make one similar, like the Luscombe. Almost an identical plane...



Bill
Click to expand...

I've always been a little more partial to the 170 myself, as I think it represents a cool turning point in design evolution.
 
THis has got to be a matter of: don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness. Surely noone has their eye on the flightsim industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top