What the…?
Yeah that’s ridiculous.
Not buying anything from those guys.
2 Likes
Probably not playing well with their (potential) intention to sell livery packs?
1 Like
Does a canvas producer retain the copyright for the artists painting…?
Interesting copyrights question… Wouldn’t the livery copyright belong to the airline who have commisioned it for use on their aircraft…? Fictional liverys belong to the creators, of course.
2 Likes
Yep, unless you buy a licence to use the liveries on a flight sim model.
As far as I’m concerned, they’ve stepped into a snakes den and have a high chance of being bit.
3 Likes
Atention, i’m not here to defend CS. Only to a some kind of try to get the other side view.
A livery for an addon is not entirely as free and as disconnected with the main aircraft as you can think. The liveries files have the “art” of the layout arrangement the main metal gaps, rivets, tires, hydraulics etc already pre painted from devs. A livery for an addon is not a free empty canvas without any work from devs.
For example tons of producing softwares and you can’t distribute files or modified files without certain rules as the same with for example art library, that you can’t distribute without being pre compiled and to be used inside the software.
Because we do for years without problems and with close eyes and convenience from devs not means that can be fully legal and ok to all.
Doing a livery for an addon and distribute that file its a some kind of reengineering and non authorized distribution that is very ilegal in mayority of commercial softwares. And in my opinion CS have full rights to do it, but if its ok in terms or reasonable, imho not much.
For example if i can change the paintkit file and deliver for free in 3rd party sites, why i can’t do the same with the 3d model files, sound files, cockpit in diferent colors, manuals (changing some text), etc etc etc…
The big problem is that we got used to a some kind of practice and think that is our right, but its not, infact its very ilegal in mayority of all other games, sims, softwares etc
1 Like
It gets convoluted when looking at it like that. The livery template is usually a Photoshop compatible layer file. The livery doesn’t just happen without the person that draws it in PS and flattens the file.
Speaking of licenses. Does CS have a Boeing license?
2 Likes
i think now is people joining togheter to create a drama war thats common. Why the people not create a drama war that something released for playstation should be controlled and distributed by sony and the same on appstore by apple?
Many dev tools what ever you create there the royalties are part of dev companies and you should have their authorization to distribute your work or are in a centralized controlled way.
It is still poor form though. The developer should encourage community created liveries rather than try to stifle them, or claim them as their own property. They deserve all the backlash they are getting IMHO and I hope they learn from it.
2 Likes
I disagree. As Troll says, in my view:
This is not reverse engineering. This is painting over top of a canvas. Worse case, it is a derivative work. Plus, FlightSin.to did not agree to the TOS, which is what this is and not a copyright issue. CaptainSim should go after their own customers. Agreeing to a TOS is different than the legal definition of copyright.
1 Like
the problem is if you go in extreme purism we all should request authorization to the guy that invent electricity because we are all using computers 
That is a really nasty and no end war. But in my own opinion the side of completely free distribution now are making a too overhyped flame war because are loosing their common usual unwrite agreements and are confronted with someone that did diferently.
I remember here in Portugal when some restaurants fee/bill when you request a glass of water. 99,99999% of restaurants gift that for free as courtesy, but some (and with their rights) bill that, but for common people think thats the end of the world billing that…
CaptainSim is making the often failed argument that free community content is theirs and … it isn’t. They can’t claim to own someone elses work,
3 Likes
i understand the reasons the people are pissed and do a war now, and fully agree that was not beautiful neither for community and promotion of the product doing that act against the distribution of that liveries. But why i can’t distribute without autorization the model of 3d changed by me or even the manual rewrite it and i can and should do for the livery (that also includes parts made by devs)?
What i not agree is that they collected that work and now distribute in their platform without the consenting from the creators.
It depends on how much you change. And, what you are dealing with in this example is copyright. Manual and 3d model would exist under copyright. A community skin, with a TOS entry to prohibit uploading to sites other than CaptainSim is not copyright.
According to their TOS, they don’t have to get consent. By agreeing to the TOS and buying their product, you agree to waive all rights to your content. That’s a huge thing I disagree with.
Anyway. I am not getting further into this. CaptainSim is on my ‘do not buy’ list and will remain there indefinitely.
exactly, is explicitaly a situation of not like don’t buy it. The problem is that 99,9999999% of people never read fully the disclaimers/eula/agreements etc and later make a fuzz when confronted.
I not liked what cs did neither personally agree, but i also think that people are too much over reacting. Don’t like don’t buy, its like iphones, not like apple practices, buy an android, don’t like google, buy an old nokia
At the end of the day, whatever the legal justification, Captain Sim have severely misread the community who are their target audience. Biting the hand that feeds is never a good idea if you want to survive.
3 Likes