You cannot enter into any agreement with someone else to exclusively distribute your Item even if they don’t pay you. We give you this license so that you can make cool Items and share them far and wide. Someone else holding your Item back from wide distribution means: (a) it’s not going far and wide; and (b) it is very likely that person is trying to use the Game Content to promote their commercial venture. That’s not what these Rules are about.
CS is not allowed to make 3rd party content (free liveries) ACE exclusive. By Microsoft rules every livery creator can upload their stuff wherever they want. CS can’t write his own law and overrule Microsoft.
The product - yes, of course that’s subject to strict terms. The livery - no, it’s fair use and is a separate work.
I wonder how CaptainSim justifies creating a 3D model of a patented design (I.e. the 777) or the Boeing trademark. Presumably they’d argue fair use (which, unlike copyright, is harder to establish with registered IP rights such as patents and trademarks).
But, as I say, the attempt by CaptainSim is in breach of the MSFS EULA.
MS /Asobo, Please take this dev to task on his complete rip off of a half baked 747 masquarading as a 777 in shape only. Not only has he ripped parts from your 747, but has now stopped and threatened the commumity by threatning painters of liveries with legal action, and then stealing them himself as his own. What has been great in this sim is you and Asobo have graciouly allowed the community to flourish for the benefit of all. This is one dev that deserves to have no place in this sim.
Don’t get me wrong, I think they are dodgy as ■■■■… But anyone who is smart redacts their information in the whois database, otherwise you end up with thousands of spam (possibly scam) emails.
The reason I buy my domains through namecheap is because unlike some registers they redact your information for free.
100% agree … but when you make yourself & your company all but INVISIBLE on the Internet, chances are, its more about Hiding because you are up to no good, rather than avoiding spam.
“You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
What on earth are you talking about? The product is not being altered, a new “skin” is made and then applied for use on that persons individual computer. This company has no legal right to tell you how to use their product or what you can say about it or do to it once you have it. Microsoft could argue that the 777 is nothing more than a derivative of their 747 since this 777 is that in name only, everything else belongs to Microsoft and is being redistributed by this other company for money.
Should we get down to the nitty gritty…the “likeness” of the 777 shape is 100% copyrighted by Boeing (for good reason) and if they decided to get snarky about it, they could easily order a cease and desist to CS to stop selling their 777 (or any Boeing). Fun fact…the shape of the Coke® bottle is also copyrighted. Who knew? PMDG is sanctioned by Boeing and I’ll bet they’d never have this problem, CS on the other hand…LOL
I don’t think anyone is unaware (now) of their livery policy. There are several problems with it however, but that’s only a small portion of the issue. The big issue now is after claiming their policy gives them the legal grounds to sue livery makers and anyone who hosts them, they downloaded all of the liveries they forced to be removed and then re-uploaded them onto their platform and removed the names of the livery makers out of spite, after trashing the liveries (this is all after they stated they don’t even inspect liveries, mind you…)
You can cite their personal policies which on top of being practically unenforceable are completely unheard of and absurd in the community. But you are missing the larger point by referencing it anyway. What CS is doing is embarrassing, unprofessional, and antagonistic toward the entire flight sim community. They have handled the response with nothing but further animosity, mockery and hypocrisy.
I am not a fan of pitchfork mentality, but my criticism is based entirely on CS’s response. They are in the wrong here, and have tarnished their reputation very likely permanently by doubling down rather than working to in any way redeem themselves. Their hostile comments on ACE on the liveries they stole and reposted are a prime example of what’s wrong with the picture. This was a conscious choice on their part and they deserve the backlash.
I don’t think that is legal.
They may not take other people’s creations and claim its their own just because they wrote in a different product’s license that they own everything.ade that it is compatible with it.
The problem is that something that is “not legal” doesn’t really matter…
Whether or not something is legal is often less important than you might think… the real issue is:
Does a group being served with a DMCA request/legal notice have the ability to fight (time/money), assuming they believe the notice they have received doesn’t have teeth.
Do the content creators (livery makers) in this case have the ability to: a) Prove they made a livery, b) have a licence that prohibits the redistribution of their works and c) have the resources to fight (time/money)
Of course, if either group was willing to fight, we might find some if not all parties may have to remove the disputed content until the case is resolved, which could take months or years.
As to the legalities around this issue, I am not a lawyer, nor do I specialise in copyright issues so I can only make assumptions. One such assumption is that I doubt CS have approached Boeing or any of the airlines whose trademarks/IP they are distributing, which does make this whole issue stink of hypocrisy. I really do hope this blows up in their face.
they made on their forum