Licensing
-
Sorry if this is a newbie question but seeing the amount of detail that has gone into the BMS series in terms of aircraft modeling and the number of times the issue of licensing comes up in DCS related products, I was wondering how the BMS team has handled this. Is the issue of licensing even relevant when free products are concerned (i.e. BMS Falcon) or is it that the level of detail in BMS Falcon isn’t so high as that it requires a license?
-
there is no relation between detail / quality and licensing.
most of the time even shit needs licensing.
BMS is a non commercial product, all models / code/textures included are developped for free by independant people and are included in BMS only under thz conditions of total handover of the material to BMS without any restrictions
read THIS
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?6670-PLEASE-READ-THIS-BEFORE-MODDING-BMS
-
I suspect the question being asked is whether or not Falcon has obtained, or even requires, a license from the developer of the actual aircraft in question, that is being simulated.
To my knowledge no such license has been obtained. If the design and conceptual arrangement of the aircraft and the cockpit is something that copyright applies to (and I am not sure whether or not that is the case) then such a license is indeed required, even if the specific cockpit and aircraft models in BMS were developed by third parties.
-
I suspect the question being asked is whether or not Falcon has obtained, or even requires, a license from the developer of the actual aircraft in question, that is being simulated.
To my knowledge no such license has been obtained. If the design and conceptual arrangement of the aircraft and the cockpit is something that copyright applies to (and I am not sure whether or not that is the case) then such a license is indeed required, even if the specific cockpit and aircraft models in BMS were developed by third parties.
Exactly, if I try to the model the cockpit, systems and avionics of say an F-15 using manuals that are publicly available would I run into issues lisencewise and also would the implementation of -1s and -34s be problematic as far as the military is concerned?
-
The actual answer is “yes and no” - under US law. In theory, the funds used to develop such machines were contributed by tax payers, and as such any freely obtainable information on such items used to be considered “public” or “civil” property - in the USA, anyway. But as time has progressed, some companies are taking to suing model makers over “copyright” infringement - even though the manufacturer should in theory not hold such a claim - the “people” or gov’t should be the holder. If I recall, the last big such US lawsuit involved a maker of plastic helicopter models and the OEM…and I have recent Japanese manufactured plastic models of Super Hornets in my own kit stash that have full-scale manufacturer’s license attributions printed on the box…I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the most expensive types of kits to bring to market being an F-1 race car…because one has to secure agreements with each sponsor to get rights to produce the decal sheet.
I think this debate is only just beginning to heat up in the 3D modeling world…if you Goggle it you will find some discussion on forums. But be sure, if there is money to be made/lost the debate will proceed. At present it’s pretty much dependent on the whim of the “original” maker as to if they will litigate or not. And yes - (under US law) it doesn’t matter if the modeled items are free or not.
-
Interesting post, Stevie. I guess the question is whether the “OEM” make more $$$ on a license then the costs to go after one.
-
If the government created it, under US copyright law it is in the public domain - copyright is not attached to anything created by the government.
Things like AFIs are not under copyright.
That said, things like Dash ones are not created by the government, but by independent contractors for government use - so that one could probably be argued either way, given a sufficiently sized team of lawyers.
My take on it is, if you have a license, you are safe - if you dont have one, then you are open to litigation. Whether that litigation proceeds or not is a moot point.
Although, I seem to recall US copyright law has a requirement that you defend your copyright - that you cannot litigate over infringement if you have ignored similar infringements in the past.
If that is the case, then pretty much all aircraft manufacturers have no such ability to litigate, as many commercial video games have used likenesses of their craft for decades without license or complaint.
-
This is an interesting thread…and I just noticed that even though the references are to US rulings, the forum is based in the UK -
https://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=3&t=27519
I’ll re-iterate that presently this is a (really) gray area, and I’m only speaking to precedents in the USA…and it’s really up to the OEM and the limits of their resolve and resources, when it comes down to it. I know that one of the first legal precedents on the US side regarding this sort of thing was the use of gov funded (which is the key point under US law - not “gov created” but gov funded) tech from the development of the engines for the C-5A into engines for airliners and calling that “company property”…that’s the earliest professional brush with this sort of thing that I’ve ever been briefed on personally.
The earliest I’ve ever seen “officially licensed by” or “officially authorized by” in print on a plastic model kit box was back in the mid 70s - and as it happens it was on an F-1 car model kit, and until now I’d always considered that a “good will” sort of gesture in the pursuit of free advertising. But recently OEMs seem to be demanding actual percentage royalties from plastic model kit makers for using names, logos, and even in some cases designations.
A good example in the 3D world is the use of “Super Bug” vice Super Hornet…in theory, “Super Hornet” should be “civil property”, but the OEM must think different. Because people are acting different…and this particular instance could be a “copyright” vs “trademark” issue, I have no idea - but even so one would think that the same “civil property” concept should apply, right? But the idea is still that the alternative “branding” is for legal reasons. To be “safe” or to be actually “legal” is anyone’s guess…