VEAO is doing the A-4C "Skyhawk"?

[71st_Mastiff]

I believe it has been established that the government/taxpayers do not own the IP rights in these cases.

 

ah it is not owner ship, its a model representation of the design. not a combat, flyable air craft in the real world! :joystick:

[71st_Mastiff]

Say good by to combat flight sims! and any kind of flight sim. were going back to paper airplanes, at least no one ahs a license on those.

 

imagine a cardboard and paper combat flight sim? mmm hey thats my idea!@ no body steal it!

Edited October 27, 2014 by Mastiff

[Slipp]

Sad news. Skyhawk would be a wonderful addition to DCS.

It's funny though, such an old plane and it has such legal complications around it, while super modern, cutting edge Typhoon does not.

[SkateZilla]

well I still don't understand the US Government paid for the equipment, the tax's payer owns it not the company that's making it, and beside wasn't there a lawsuit against those said companies for rights and freedom of art and expression of those US equipment?

Next all those Battle gear equipment that the US Army uses in Call of duty, Battle Field 4, Arma I, II, III. Those companies now have the right to sue for the use and artist representation in those games?

 

Because BF, CoD, ArmA etc are no where near realistic, or accurate, they dont have to do anything.

 

When you recreate every system of the aircraft digitally, and accurately, you need to have a license.

[Thumper1606688436]

1) If permission was important from the beginning then why wait until well into the development cycle before finding out?

 

2) Copyright laws are not indefinite, they have to be maintained by the manufacturer and I find it very hard to believe that McDonnell Douglas would be maintaining a 60yr old industrial design IP for the Skyhawk.

 

3) A simulation of an aircraft is not a replica of an aircraft just a likeness.

[SkateZilla]

Also, and this is MOST important. Look up Controlled Goods regulations and ITARS. Someone referenced the Cortex guys. There is a very real possibility that if the Cortex guys are US Citizens this changes the game as well, especially when it comes to ITARS.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

 

not nitpicking, but I would guess that since parts of the F-18E are still classified, even with ASM, parts of the SB will not be modeled 100% accurate digitally, there's likely gonna be some parts that are modeled to visual resemble systems but not be 100% authentic, Like VRS did.

[SkateZilla]

1) If permission was important from the beginning then why wait until well into the development cycle before finding out?

 

2) Copyright laws are not indefinite, they have to be maintained by the manufacturer and I find it very hard to believe that McDonnell Douglas would be maintaining a 60yr old industrial design IP for the Skyhawk.

 

3) A simulation of an aircraft is not a replica of an aircraft just a likeness.

 

I neeed to google the Entertainment industry's lawsuit vs Lockheed and other companies, I believe Entertainment companies won because they didnt 100% model every part of the aircraft's systems. I think Lockheed settled for added Trade mark Superscript"TM" behind every reference to their Aircraft.

ie F-104 Starfighter , C-130 Hercules etc etc.

[Buckeye]

 

imagine a cardboard and paper combat flight sim? mmm hey thats my idea!@ no body steal it!

 

 

I'd say you're safe ;)

[NineLine]

Say good by to combat flight sims! and any kind of flight sim. were going back to paper airplanes, at least no one ahs a license on those.

 

imagine a cardboard and paper combat flight sim? mmm hey thats my idea!@ no body steal it!

 

Ok, lets not let this thread drift off into madness... try and stay somewhat focused on the topic please...

[Cyb0rg]

Wow. This is all news to me.

I guess that's why we don't have more "modern" jets. :(

Edited October 27, 2014 by Cyb0rg

[NineLine]

I think this thread has run its course, and not going any where useful.