Cessna Copyright Legalities.

[Lionheart]

Hey guys,

As you know, I have planned to do a Cessna Classic 140. Well......

I recieved an odd phone call. (I had already talked with the legal department at Cessna, which directed me to a 'person' who handles matters such as FS royalties management). It appears that in order to do a Cessna 140 for Flight Simulator, I would need to cough up a fee of $2500.00 USD. This is an annual fee for a group called EMI to do their (their) paperwork. That and Cessna's royalty fees. (Royalties are paid seperately at 5 to 6% per unit sales).

I dont mind paying Cessna royalties. They ask a reasonable amount of money and its justified. But to cough up $2500.00 USD every 12 months is totally crazy. (I dont charge you guys for my own paperwork fees for your buying my products. I dont charge website vendors $2500.00 to sell my planes.. lol).

So, there will be no Cessna 140 by LHC, at least while EMI is running their 'members only club'.

I was quoted some hilarious tidbits. Quote; 'We control who will be the top dogs on the porch and that will divide the wannabe's from the big-dogs." and.......... "If you join up, I can get you into other firms, such as Bell Helicopter and ... (I dont remember the other firm they are linked in with, something like McDonald Douglas, etc)."

To top it off, the person sounded like he'd had a couple of beers. All I know is he was pressuring me to send in $2500.00. When I told him I was no longer interested in doing the Cessna lines, he lowered it to $1500.00. I was still not interested. I let him know.


Sorry guys. I think its a scam. I wont buy into that. EMI are a middle man group trying to take alot of money from small groups. I did let the legal department at Cessna know about it. EMI was hired on by Textron, which owns Cessna. I do not think Textron really will care about this, as its peanuts compared to government contracts, etc. But its a shame that their name is being handled in such a manner.

I was looking forward to flying that Cessna.. arrghh..


Now to call Piper. That Pacer taildragger just looks better all the time. :d




Bill

[harleyman]

Aww...What a shame Bill...That would have been a good one two....

The whole deal sounds bogus to me..Offer a set fee then drop it down without any authersation seems not kosher to me....:tgun2:

[JayKae]

Agreed, sounds very dodgy to me mate, I would call Cessna back

[Railrunner130]

Thanks for giving it a shot anyway. I appreciate your simply saying "no" to the stupidity of it all.

[BananaBob]

I'm curious Bill, this only has to be paid if you are going to sale the product right? High price either way.

[PutPut]

Hi, Bill, That takes the cake! I can't help but wonder if Abacuspub is paying this idiotic fee for the Cessna's in their Premiere collection or how Aerosoft is handling the situation with their Cessna Citation X?:censored:

Paul

[kilo delta]

It's lunacy at it's best:banghead:. Is the 2.5k fee for using Cessna's corporate logo in your proposed build? Don't give up just yet, Bill :)


Did Carenado run into any problems with EMI and the release of their current Cessna fleet?

[stiz]

hmmm isnt EMI a music lable or something??? Doesnt sound very kosher :kilroy:

Also in case you dont allready, always ask for all legal documents/royalty statements/royalty requests etc to be sent by mail, if they dont want to it'll be a scam or backhander typea thing so just ignore them, if it did ever go to court then you'd win as you never recived any legel papers, well you would over ere anyway :isadizzy:

[gajit]

That's discraceful and it is disgusting that you should have even had to ask.

I bet for that fee they would not have supplied you with techinical info or help to market to their own client base as an act of good will.

Good luck with Piper who I hope won't be full of corporate arrogance

[limjack]

That would tick me off right there when they lowered the fee...bad business! You made the right choice.

Jim

[Lionheart]

Hey guys,

I am sorry about this...


I was perfectly fine with the Royalties. I have seen that coming and I feel they have their share coming to them. But 'two thousand five hundred dollars' for paperwork, yearly... (even if he did reduce it to 1500.00) is just a bit rediculous.

I dont charge my vendors to sell my work. lol.... Thats what these guys at EMI are doing. I have to pay them to make them money. Crazy. Its a great science for those willing to fall for that, lol... Imagine getting $2500.00 from say 3 people a week for many weeks. No wonder he was on vacation for 2 weeks when I first contacted him. Great income.

Stiz,

It could be EMI, but I dont know why they would be involved with Textron corporation. The guy did have an English or New Zealand accent. (Sorry, I couldnt tell. I thought I had accents down pretty good, but this one was a bit different). If EMI is based out of the UK, then this could be the same company. Perhaps music isnt doing well these days....

No worries though. Plenty of planes to do. All is well. Cessna and Lancair will be 'out of the publics eyes' at least in the huge FS world. The other guys need some spotlight. Gotta share the light, spread it evenly. If EMI take over the entire world of logos and shapes, I can make my own designs of aircraft. ;) Thats why I got into this in the first place.


Bill

[Txmmy83]

A fictional aerobatic aircraft would be a nice thing

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

Thing is Bill was not alone , there will be fewer Cessna's out there , but more Sesnas perhaps....

[icarus]

einstein said ...two things are infinites the human stupidity and the universe....2500 usd?crazy....it was fun he lowered 1000 usd at your " i' m not interested" Lionheart, better avoid those people.

[Pepere]

Bill, Every time you model an aircraft you have to get permission? Make a Cissma 140.1 and make it off by a bit. Just one "Bit"? :icon_lol:

David

[Panther_99FS]

Did Carenado run into any problems with EMI and the release of their current Cessna fleet?

Personally,
I don't think Carenado is paying Cessna any royalties...:kilroy:

I could be very wrong though...:cost1:

[robby88]

EMI are Equity Management Inc. http://www.equitymanagementinc.com/ReviewStyle/Introduction.htm

There was a sticky thread here a while back on Lockheed Martin and licensing. Anyway I checked at the time and they also use EMI for rights management.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/LicensingInformation.html

Interesting to see Abacus and Just Flight listed as licencees on LM's Licensing info page.

For use of a company logo or endorsement I can see the point of a licence, companies have to protect their trademark, though $2500 to a rights management company is ridiculous.

[jimjones]

Seems there was one crud of an individual some years past that got permission to do an American Airline ( or other) logo of a plane and was given exclusive permission to do so. No one else was to be allowed and he tried very hard to keep his exclusive rights. The flightsim community put up such a fuss that the individual went out of business. Seems the airlines must have dropped the exclusive bit as it seems we see all manner of airline logos on planes now.

[pointy31]

Bill, why couldn't you build an airplane that just looks like a 140, but isn't a Cessna. Maybe a "Cajun 140". All the internal components would be different, etc...:isadizzy:
EDIT: I see Pepere has the same idea...:ernae:

[Lionheart]

LOLOL... Sissna... :costumes:



EMI are Equity Management Inc. http://www.equitymanagementinc.com/R...troduction.htm

There was a sticky thread here a while back on Lockheed Martin and licensing. Anyway I checked at the time and they also use EMI for rights management.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutu...formation.html

Interesting to see Abacus and Just Flight listed as licencees on LM's Licensing info page.

For use of a company logo or endorsement I can see the point of a licence, companies have to protect their trademark, though $2500 to a rights management company is ridiculous.
October 29th, 2008 15:04

Robby88



That was it Robby, Lockheed Martin was the other firm he was talking about. Thanks also for the interesting info on that company.


Bill

[Francois]

I have been in the flightsimming for over 30 years now and with the hundreds of Cessna's around, both freeware and commercial, I have never ever heard of such a thing as paying royalties for modeling a 'toy aircraft' :costumes:

If it's true then we should see 90% of all aircraft disappear from the sim sites shortly, Abacus, Flight1, Carenado, JustFlight and others can close their doors.

I, for one, think it is BS and someone is trying to pull a fast one on you. :banghead:

[Wiens]

I wonder what Mr. Cessna would think of all this?!?!..........:isadizzy:


Kevin :d

[icarus]

microsoft ask the license to the wright's brothers for the aircraft present on fs2004?
i think that flying companies should be very happy for all free advertising receive from people making models

[CodyValkyrie]

Sometimes it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Then again... it all depends on how far they want to push something like this.

[DaveKDEN]

So model something that looks remarkably close to a Cessna C140 (with the exception of a couple of minor details) and call it a "Lionheart C140" and leave it at that. :d

[Willy]

I think I'd be letting Cessna how "adjustable" EMI was being with their fees. Also let them know that as a result, you're no longer interested in their products.

Willy

[N2056]

This is the company...http://www.equitymanagementinc.com/

[MCDesigns]

So model something that looks remarkably close to a Cessna C140 (with the exception of a couple of minor details) and call it a "Lionheart C140" and leave it at that. :d

Agreed! I am all for copyright protection, but I wouldn't have called them in the first place, especially seeing how these type of companies have overreacted in the past when it comes to an addon for a video game. If anything, modeling one of their designs for the sim would build enthusiasm for the real thing, a big win for them in my mind.

Insecurity and greed, gotta lov'em.

[Lionheart]

I think I'd be letting Cessna how "adjustable" EMI was being with their fees. Also let them know that as a result, you're no longer interested in their products.

Willy

Already done Willy. :d




I have been in the flightsimming for over 30 years now and with the hundreds of Cessna's around, both freeware and commercial, I have never ever heard of such a thing as paying royalties for modeling a 'toy aircraft' :costumes:

If it's true then we should see 90% of all aircraft disappear from the sim sites shortly, Abacus, Flight1, Carenado, JustFlight and others can close their doors.

I, for one, think it is BS and someone is trying to pull a fast one on you. :banghead:

Francois



Hey Francois,

Its a reality. I dont mind the small royalties. Its the huge, annual giant chunck of money that one must pay. That is not right.

Tamiya and other plastic model companies pay corporations royalties on some of their products. True that some would appreciate free advertisement, while others hunger for every red cent they can get, and in the middle is the 'fair and square' right to what is theirs. The big guys are entitled to 'something'. But its a drop in the bucket.

I do foresee alot of payware getting out of the business, and thus the 'glory' and public admiration of product lines such as Airbus airliners, Cessna 140's, Lear jets will soon become a thing of the past.

Whats funny is that for such a huge firm to try to make such a 'sim' plane themselves would cost them perhaps 100,000.00 USD to perhaps 200,000.00 USD, hiring in a team, setting up their office, setting out to create their own sim software. How much would each employee cost? How many hours? How many months? How much floor space? Cost of insurance on those team members? Expenses including copies of 3D Max at $4,000.00 USD each, Adobe CS3 at 2,000.00 USD each, etc. Trips to a plane to take photos. Sound mixing, spending weeks on making and refining the airfile set so the vehicle will handle realistically..

:costumes:

We do that as a write-off. The hours involved are hurrendous. I spent nearly a year on that Epic LT. The hours to profit 'do not add up'. And for a corporation to try it would be quite entertaining...


But, they'll find that out. No worries. :d

Things balance out. Its odd how the world works, how greed will stifle things and cause a huge wave of enthusiasm to die out and drift away.

Right now, General Aviation has been directly effected by Flight Simulator. Fact! One can see that many people that now or recently took up flying was usually directly affiliated with Flight Simulator. They had always wanted to fly, and the sim gives them a chance to 'taste' it. Cessna is selling planes to airschools, to pilots, because these guys (pilots and schools) are being fed enthusiasts that were effected and turned on by FS. FS has been like advertising in a far bigger way then Cessna can ever imagine. Airline pilots are out there that were originally simmers and were so impressed with FS and flight, that they got their license and are presently doing runs to Honolulu or Boston or Heathrow.

Now, to squash and stifle the ever growing enthusiasm and turn against it for the sake of greed and money will only turn upon them. Less Cessna's will be built, less pilots, less this, less that, less enthusiasm, less aviation engineers in school, and the drought sets in and things dry up....




Bill

[S]

We're a crazy race I tell ya. There must be a some alien races out there watching is with their big telescopes, laughing their asses off!:isadizzy:

[heywooood]

I wouldn't over analyse it guys - the plastic model mfg industry is dealing with the same issue. Big uproar over it...is it the branding?
Or is it the planform of these now public domain icons from our history?

Just make the plane, call it a Cesssna, send Cessna a free copy of the file along with a link to FS Insider and call it good.

What you are doing is called 'promotional' and YOU should be getting paid..not EMI or whatever...

[txnetcop]

This is what I sent EMI and I am encouraging other AOPA members to write as well:

I was a part owner of a Cessna 140 and 170 for 12 years. I am now staff on a forum that encourages developers to build aircraft for flight simulators. We encorage other members to get their pilot license as well

Recently one of our developers (Lionheart Creations Ltd)contacted you about rights to build a 140 replica for Flight Simulator X and you quoted a ridiculous license fee.

You "professionals" are supposed to understand marketing. Don't you know that many of these people that fly these virtual aircraft are also pilots or soon to be pilots and they purchase real aircraft like maybe even the new Cessna Sportcraft.
Forget your silly license fee for virtual aircraft, and look at the marketing angle for Cessna products.

I am also a long standing member of AOPA. To make a long marketing story short, we want and need more people involved in flying and buying aircraft.

I suggest you wave your stupid license fee for the sake of marketing Cessna aircraft in the virtual skies and let some other would be pilots experience what I have and hopefully they too will take to the skies in Cessna aircraft.

I am infuriated about this and intend to take this as high as possible. By the way, I will not be the only one writing you and anybody else that will listen. Perhaps Piper will be kinder. Come to think of it a Tri-pacer would do just fine!

Respectfully yours,
Ted Freeman

Go get 'em Bill and we will do that same. We really want that 140!
Ted

[Milton Shupe]

Bill, they should be paying you for advertising for them!

[icarus]

I think that boeing spent a lot more of cessna but do not make those request.....
you wrote in the right way txnetcop.

[MudMarine]

Don't give up the ghost yet Bill! Keep plugging, these things have a tendency to change. That guy must have been stoned.........$2,500.00!!:costumes: I'd love to see a 410......anything from you is good to go for me!!

[Prowler1111]

I agree with Francois...Bill, someone is trying to pull one on you..and i´m almost sure that Cessna got it wrong when you contacted them, they might think you´re doing a full simulator for commercial purposes.I have contacted and in fact, got help from the Northrop/Grumman (yes gentlemen..GRUMMAN) museum and they have been as help full as you can possibly dream...
Best regards
Prowler

[euroastar350]

Bill,

Would be a real shame if you didn't produce that 140 just because of stupid fees and such. I'm surprised Bell Helicopter hasn't knocked on my door for producing models of the 212, 214B, 412, 205, 210, UH1, 222, 230 and 430:d Go for it man, just call it a different name:costumes:

[N400QW]

I've hesitated to respond so will be brief...

EMI handles the Licensing for Cessna. A few months back quite a few FS Developers received via registered mail a licensing pack and application form asking for a run down of past sales numbers and the opportunity to participate in the Cessna Licensing Program.

A few conversations reveal that Cessna thru EMI is weeding out certain parties from using Cessna's name, logo, etc.

The licensing program comes in at 5% of sales along with yet a to be set quarterly minimum.

What this means is that those of us who develop FS Cessna Products will be forced to pass these costs off to consumers or cease to sell or build Cessna Products.

You can forget the idea of making a Cessna just wrong enough to fit a square peg into a round hole. That dog won't hunt boys :isadizzy:

[Brian_Gladden]

That's also why there are no Payware Gulfstreams. They want so much money for a virtual copy of one of their aircraft, you's have to sell it for a rediculous amount per copy to even break even.

Big discussion about this over on the old Eaglesoft forums a while back as I faintly remember

Brian

[Prowler1111]

OMG..then it´s true, i thought it was a urban legend, but "someone" once brought to my attention the fact that "some" civil FS developers "who-do-airliners" are hitting the 6 figures sales incomes and that some :censored:ng "wise guys" payed attention and are looking to get some of that cake.... I guess it explains current pricing on some comercial developers.

Prowler

[txnetcop]

There is more than one way to get my 140 back...now accepting donations:jump: I'll even let you ride in it for no fee:costumes:

http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php
Ted

[Prowler1111]

..Keep in mind that is not the big company..is some piss ass one desk company in the middle that is looking for the golden buck!

Prowler

[CodyValkyrie]

Some developers do indeed make good money... but most I know will tell you there is not much money in general to be had in this particular market. It takes some rather large teams to make these types of figures, which comes with TONS of products which are usually distributed via publishers. The publishers tend to do rather well.

Anyways, all if this is rather disturbing. I would however be interested to know if the suits are brave enough to make a civil case of this....

I digress, that is surely me overreacting to the situation. I certainly will be paying close attention to how this turns out.


..Keep in mind that is not the big company..is some piss ass one desk company in the middle that is looking for the golden buck!

Prowler

I was just thinking that before I read it....

[N400QW]

Suggest everyone be rational....

Textron/Cessna have a right to license use of their name, logo, etc. thru any licensing entity they choose.

The take I was given was this is the same rate used for those who make key chains, coffee mugs, mouse pads, etc. with Cessna name or logo.

At any rate, you can expect prices to rise on FS Cessna Products or see them dwindle or cease being built.:redf:

As an aside. Rumours about vast sums being earned by FS Developers are just that...rumours.

In over six years of development I can assure you that numbers such as those rumoured just ain't happening boys and girls.

[MudMarine]

Ya, they do have the right to control their product. I also have the right to say I won't be purchasing a cessna anytime in the future.......stupid policies punish good people needlessly.

[CodyValkyrie]

Textron/Cessna have a right to license use of their name, logo, etc. thru any licensing entity they choose.

This is true and I won't dispute it... however, I am more concerned for us as a community. This would limit said products to only be developed by larger development teams or those that Cessna have officially partnered with. This would indeed ensure a great investment in the software itself, but would also increase the price of the product and severely limit the ability of other developers to compete.

We have not even mentioned the domino effect this might have on other developers and companies who wish to receive royalties on their names as well. Unfortunately, and sadly, I only see this getting worse in the long run.

Those types of licensing fees make it extremely difficult for smaller companies (like Lionheart) to turn a profit and limit them in their type of aircraft they can produce, this again lowering their profit. Lets face it, Cessna's name will always outsell that of a Waco.

This can only lead to really test the heart of developers. Potentially take a loss or risk low sales for the love of your hobby or fall in line with the licenses and yet STILL risk potential failure.

[hews500d]

We're a crazy race I tell ya. There must be a some alien races out there watching is with their big telescopes, laughing their asses off!:isadizzy:
MY wife and I have always said, if there ARE aliens out there, they've been to Earth long ago and said "these people are crazier than he** get the #*$&$ out of here !!!!!

Darrell

[N400QW]

Nevertheless, that seems to be the direction we are all headed as the hobby grows.

Refusal to purchase FS Cessna Products from Trusted/Licensed vendors does nothing to hurt the Licensing entities, only the vendors.

Boycotting FS Cessna Products simply reduces the enjoyment factor in the hobby because they do make some very nice aircraft.

Consider, if other real world manufacturers follow suit then the hobby and developers will all suffer if users no longer support FS Development. :isadizzy:

[hews500d]

As an aside. Rumours about vast sums being earned by FS Developers are just that...rumours.

In over six years of development I can assure you that numbers such as those rumoured just ain't happening boys and girls.

I can attest to that fact.

Darrell
Experimental Aircraft Works

[CodyValkyrie]

I can attest to that fact.

Darrell
Experimental Aircraft Works
I'll repeat it :)

Some fun perks though!

[Prowler1111]

Well, rumours or not, i know for a FACT of one FS9 dev that created such a great addon, gathered more than 1 million users , and made MS create the same addon for FSX as a sim feature thus sending this developer out of the loop (not that he needed anymore..i guess..:d:d)

Anyway, as times changes and basement hobbies start to grow into full industries it was bound to happen (I still remember the early days of RC flying, you could get blueprints rigth from the magazines, or just for a few bucks on the mail...)
The other side of the coin is that most of these (if not all) addons and the sim itself are being used for real training in more than one way (MS created ESP for this purposes).Interesting days are coming into this brand new industry...

Prowler

[Lionheart]

Well, rumours or not, i know for a FACT of one FS9 dev that created such a great addon, gathered more than 1 million users , and made MS create the same addon for FSX as a sim feature thus sending this developer out of the loop (not that he needed anymore..i guess..:d:d)

Anyway, as times changes and basement hobbies start to grow into full industries it was bound to happen (I still remember the early days of RC flying, you could get blueprints rigth from the magazines, or just for a few bucks on the mail...)
The other side of the coin is that most of these (if not all) addons and the sim itself are being used for real training in more than one way (MS created ESP for this purposes).Interesting days are coming into this brand new industry...

Prowler



I would venture to guess 'FS Camera' with head latency

[CodyValkyrie]

FSUIPC also comes to mind.....

[N400QW]

Either of those two would be the exception rather than the rule :d

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Bill go for the Piper - rather have a Pacer taildragger than a 140 anyday.

As for this licensing stuff. Where will it end? If you put a new stadium in as part of a scenery can the stadium owner come looking for you for a cut? At some point will it even be legal for something like tileproxy to exist? IP rights have just gotten stupider and stupider - anything for a buck. Is our society really that desperate for money? If so it speaks volumes for the quality of government and corporate legal and financial leadership the western world has had for the last 30 years - oh wait look where we are on bailouts - if any aircraft manufacturer gets a single taxpayer bailout dollar of any kind then things like FS modelers using company names for those companies should be free - otherwise what are you as a taxpayer getting - the company still gets advertising and the bailout cash? If costs get ridiculous due to licensing fees being added into the cost of models - I'll play more golf - it's healthier anyway and just fly FS9 or X depending on what I have. It is just a game.

-Ed-

PS Bill what do I have to do to prove to you I bought the Epic - My PC Aviator link is now dead - the time must have expired as I bought it on the 18th and they don't do tech support - which I suppose an upgrade is - they say contact the developer.

[mike_cyul]

5% of $25 is $1.25, and so if it comes to that, I think we can all afford a little more. I'm still surprised that some sophisticated addons don't sell for twice or three times what they do. Good addon aircraft are still, simply put, one of the best deals anyone will ever get, for the time and skill levels put in. I'll bet that Bill's Epic is actually worth at least $100 if placed on an equivalent "real world" job setting, and probably more.

Annual fees will figuratively kill off most developers, though, if they're in the range Bill was quoted. $2500 after-tax dollars means that some 150 aircraft at $25 will need to be sold just to pay that, and I'll bet some aircraft sell barely more than that in a year.

Mike

[kjb]

The whole copyright thing and licensing makes no sense to me. If I were a manufacturer I would want people modeling my product. It's getting the name out there...free advertising. I might want to approve what had my company name on it, but it would seem that showing my product, current or past, would be something I would want to encourage, not charge a fee for. Even paying them a royalty seems backward. Companies pay movie makers to display their product. They don't charge a royalty.

[guzler]

Didnt Playstations Grand Turismo have some issue with Porsche ? They got round it by having a Porsche and calling a RUF who are modification specialist. Could the same be applied to the Cessna ? Is there anyone out there that offers mods to the 140 that would relish marketing their brand ? From what you said, it is the logo that is protected, not the design of the a/c and then if it is modified, the design has changed anyway.

Just a thought and not sure how accurate my facts are :isadizzy:

[IanP]

Didnt Playstations Grand Turismo have some issue with Porsche ? They got round it by having a Porsche and calling a RUF who are modification specialist. Could the same be applied to the Cessna ? Is there anyone out there that offers mods to the 140 that would relish marketing their brand ? From what you said, it is the logo that is protected, not the design of the a/c and then if it is modified, the design has changed anyway.

Just a thought and not sure how accurate my facts are :isadizzy:

Atari and Test Drive Unfinished had the same issue - that's why you'll find "RUF GT" rather than Porsche 911 GT3s in the cars add-on pack.

The problem with doing that is that, the same as RUF, you have to find someone who is certified totally seperately from the original manufacturer - having a cert for modification to an aircraft won't be enough, it needs to have removed all the original manufacturer's branding and do it themselves. Think of the new Twin Otter, for example - there's no mention at all of Bombardier/deHavilland Canada on the type certificate.

Off topic, that's due to fly soon. :)

Ian P.

[wombat666]

The whole copyright thing and licensing makes no sense to me. If I were a manufacturer I would want people modeling my product. It's getting the name out there...free advertising. I might want to approve what had my company name on it, but it would seem that showing my product, current or past, would be something I would want to encourage, not charge a fee for. Even paying them a royalty seems backward. Companies pay movie makers to display their product. They don't charge a royalty.

This is payback for all those people who sent their kids off to become 'Lawyers'.
Most if not all of these licensing issues come down to some Corporate Legal Weenie attempting to justify his employment ........ :banghead:

[Francois]

Well, then there goes the Cessna 180 we were working on....... out the window. Bye !

[kilo delta]

Will Aerosoft still be going ahead with the Huey?:isadizzy:

[IanP]

Sorry Wombat, but that's not true. The reason copyright and trademarks are so carefully defended these days has nothing to do with the number of lawyers, rather the other way round. The lawyers are employed by the companies, there's a high number of them wanted, so the salaries are high and the opportunities to get in many.

If people buy rip-off fake designer clothing, or branded goods that have just used a brand without permission and they turn out to be utter tat, that reflects back on the brand whose logo is used on it. Therefore, the famous companies try to protect themselves, by only allowing "appropriate quality" goods to bear their trademarks. Unfortunately, over time, that has become just another business stream for the companies to make money from. The tat manufacturers still exist, but they pay through the nose for the right to use the trademark - they then recoup the cost by manufacturing their goods in a Chinese sweatshop and people buy it because they're getting a "bargain".

Once more, we, the "offended" public, are the people to blame for the mess we find ourselves in.

This is no different at all from the fact that the RNLI didn't want their branding used in a game and just didn't give me permission to use it. Cessna (well, Raytheon) are a corporate entity, not a charity, so unlike the RNLI who protect by denying use, they're saying "give us some money to use our property and brand". You want capitolism, there it is, staring you right in the face. Enjoy! :)

Ian P.

[BananaBob]

Call me a maverick or stupid, I'd do it anyway if I had that talent and tell them to just sue me, but I have nothing to lose.

[N400QW]

We will continue our commitment to certain Cessna Aircraft but will drop some of our planned Cessna Products in favor of other manufacturers....

Quick question. Will everyone stop supporting FS Development if ALL manufacturers follow the same course as Cessna? :kilroy:

[hews500d]

Quick question. Will everyone stop supporting FS Development if ALL manufacturers follow the same course as Cessna? :kilroy:


Probably not everyone, but certainly I think it would have an effect on the smaller 3rd party developers. I know I certainly couldn't afford to pay $2000.00 or even $1500.00 per year, per product.

In addition to that, the amount of time it takes to produce a quality payware product is enormous, especially if you're the only person on the team:isadizzy: , time away from loved ones, hobbies, exercise (trying to stay healthy), and then to have to keep up with sales for royalty payments, etc just about makes it not worth the hassle, especially if you have a full time career in addition to fs development.

Hopefully there will still be "grass roots" aircraft manufacturers that would be honored to see their aircraft modeled for flightsim.

I know personally I have contacted two companies previously, via email, about modeling their aircraft and didn't get the first response back. Is this their way of saying it's ok and they could care less whether you model one of their aircraft, or that they feel since fsx is a "game" they don't need to take an inquiry seriously?? :isadizzy:

Darrell
Experimental Aircraft Works

[hews500d]

Well, then there goes the Cessna 180 we were working on....... out the window. Bye !


I hate to hear that, the fs community needs a good Cessna 180.

Darrell

[krazycolin]

We're doing a specific type of plane (no names at this time) and the company not only helped us out with drawings and pics, they also sent us their logo and markings in EPS format so that we could resize it to fit. So, they're not all bad.

That doesn't happen all the time sadly. I have received many C and D's (cease and desist) from company lawyers over the years but, fortunately for me, most, if not all of my models are military in nature. That means if you don't put the actual company name on, they are public domain. Some companies try very hard to prove that this is not the case but, the US govt is pretty specific about owning all rights to their planes, ships and tanks. This means that they can be modeled and sold as toys without having to pay royalties. However, some people have paid, due to fear of lawyers, and this has given those companies that do this kind of thing (Cessna being one, Northrop being another) impetus to continue with it. Though it's not legal, unethical and not very smart either, they feel that because they can, they will.

I'm not one to say nasty stuff about others but the whole thing with EMI smacks of highway robbery and the fact that he lowered his "price" by a grand in seconds strikes me as something that Cessna should know about. I'm sure that they wouldn't appreciate their name being bandied about in this manner. It's bad publicity.

That said, I think you should contact Cessna with that story and see what they have to say. I'm certain that they won't be happy and might even do something about it.

KC

[wombat666]

If people buy rip-off fake designer clothing, or branded goods that have just used a brand without permission and they turn out to be utter tat, that reflects back on the brand whose logo is used on it. Therefore, the famous companies try to protect themselves, by only allowing "appropriate quality" goods to bear their trademarks. Unfortunately, over time, that has become just another business stream for the companies to make money from. The tat manufacturers still exist, but they pay through the nose for the right to use the trademark - they then recoup the cost by manufacturing their goods in a Chinese sweatshop and people buy it because they're getting a "bargain".You want capitolism, there it is, staring you right in the face. Enjoy! :)

Ian P.

I do know the situation in China very well Ian, from a personal business aspect.
One thing that has started to emerge is less 'sweatshop' operations, the workers are starting to want their little slice of the action as we have noticed during our last few trips.
And the other less welcome sea change that I've come across is a certain 'atitude' among middle managment, one might use the word 'arrogance' in most cases.

Everyone in the Western business community has found that if you want to remain viable then China is the only choice.
We don't like it but we have no choice other than shut up shop.

At this point in time the genuine 'tat' comes out of Thailand and India ..... and it really is crap.
:kilroy:

As for the 'Lawyers', Tom Hanks character in 'Philidelphia' was so right.

Sir William Lyons philosophy was similar to that of Enzo Ferrari, a boy owning a model Jaguar or Ferrari might grow up to owning a real car ..... no Royalties of Licensing required.
:applause:

[N400QW]

Make no mistake:

Like it or not, Cessna and others have the right to require licensing of their name, logo, reproductions, etc. thru any entity they choose.
That is true for ANY manufacturer of ANY product.

Whether they choose to require licensing and at what cost is quite another question.

Bottom line is some FS Developers will continue with Cessna Development while others will elect to bypass Cessna Development.

[kilo delta]

the US govt is pretty specific about owning all rights to their planes, ships and tanks. This means that they can be modeled and sold as toys without having to pay royalties.

Hmmmm......interesting :). How about a L-19/O-1 then Bill? :d

[srgalahad]

Therefore, the famous companies try to protect themselves, by only allowing "appropriate quality" goods to bear their trademarks. Unfortunately, over time, that has become just another business stream for the companies to make money from.

Part of that does come from lawyers who found new ways to improve their 'revenue stream' as well ("Hey, I think we can sue X over this one and there are hundreds of other chances waiting out there") ... but that isn't "lawyer-bashing" .. they just want their cut of the giant pie of an infinite economy (and we just found out how infinite it's NOT) ... which leads to --->


Once more, we, the "offended" public, are the people to blame for the mess we find ourselves in.
You want capitolism, there it is, staring you right in the face. Enjoy! :)
Ian P.

.. Don't forget, as times get tight and everyone gets anxious about the bottom line, free things are likely to get moved into the revenue stream more and more.

Just a thought... while this started here as an issue about potential FSX aircraft, it's going in a direction that is larger than the FSX forum or even the Outhouse in general. We have no concept of unity or coordination within the entire flight simulation community. Perhaps it's time to think outside our own little space (both users and developers) and see if it's really an issue of small-business vs the corporate giants or prehaps a user-pay system that will kill Flight Sim in general.

Rob

[Prowler1111]

Let´s see at this from the biz stand point, the royalty % is workable since it´s not a high number, and the yearly fee s around 125 monthly, keeping in mind the price of some airliners and the potential price of FS cessna products, it´s doable.Dudes, i´ve recieved ridiculous quotes for FS work (say textures, gauges, or sound packages) that in some time DOUBLE what Cessna is asking for 1 year.Bottom line, time to start behaving like real biz, check the production cost and the sales costs(and i mean strong figures, not just plain greed) and go out to the market.This could just be an exeption but it also could be the begining of a new trend, the commercial development for a "game" is becoming into a growing industry and who knows what the figures(in sales) will be in the near/distant future.As far as i can see, the number of consumers is growing..
Best regards
Prowler

PS:Bear with me, had a terrible night, slept on a couch and i´m still without my morning coffee

[Moses03]

Call me a maverick or stupid, I'd do it anyway if I had that talent and tell them to just sue me, but I have nothing to lose.

Thats the same feeling I got having just read through this thread.

[N400QW]

To be very specific. EMI's Application for License and corresponding License Fees are distributed to developers/vendors with a a caveat.

The caveat is that non acceptance of the Licensing Program by a developer/vendor results in a cease/desist...

These things can and do effect decisons and policies of developers/vendors. The upside is that it's possible to see only small incremental price increase to consumers which of course is the ideal :mixedsmi:

[Craig Taylor]

A number of good points have been made in this thread, and it's fascinating to read the perspectives from the developers. My hat is off to you guys.

@ Bill (Lionheart),

Unless Textron has given EMI exclusive rights to managing its Cessna intellectual property (and this may well be the case), there should be nothing to prevent you from making a proposal directly to Textron citing the desire to develop a 140 for FSX, how you intend to do it, and some pricing terms that are mutually beneficial to both parties. EMI's almost immediate drop in fee price seems to indicate that licensing fee is negotiable, so you might be able to work something out. If it's quality they're concerned about, you have a wealth of highly respected past performance that demonstrates your commitment to excellence. I'm sure there's a way to make Textron realize it's not in their best interests to stick to a business model that turns away good products.

I've worked as a Federal contractor for almost 20 years, and I'm married to a contracts manager, and this is the perspective I have. Caveat: I don't have much experience with commercial business, just Gov't. :redf:

[BananaBob]

Thats the same feeling I got having just read through this thread.

Yep, can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Just do it free and have a donation system, can't touch you then.

[N400QW]

"Unless Textron has given EMI exclusive rights to managing its Cessna intellectual property (and this may well be the case)...."

It is the case. Cessna doesn't appreciate it but Textron has taken this route.

"EMI's almost immediate drop in fee price seems to indicate that licensing fee is negotiable..."

EMI provides an application along with paperwork to determine past sales in order to formulate a quarterly minimum along with 5% Licensing Fee.
As far as we know THAT is the only negotiation point.

[FLighT01]

This is payback for all those people who sent their kids off to become 'Lawyers'.
Most if not all of these licensing issues come down to some Corporate Legal Weenie attempting to justify his employment ........ :banghead:

LOL, you got that right. Course there's always XPLane, you roll your own so to speak so I don't think anyone can squeeze any money out of you.

[Overshoe]

We will continue our commitment to certain Cessna Aircraft but will drop some of our planned Cessna Products in favor of other manufacturers....

Quick question. Will everyone stop supporting FS Development if ALL manufacturers follow the same course as Cessna? :kilroy:

There will be those who are willing to spend any amount to have the add-on they want.
There are also those of us who have limited spendable income. Higher add-on prices means fewer purchases from us. That will be true regardless of which "cost of doing business" causes prices to drift higher. What you or any other developer invest in a product has no effect on my budget. I see only the retail price.
At this time, there are 3 add-ons that I would like to have but they are beyond my means. I expect that number to increase.
I will admit to having a love affair with Cessna aircraft but I will make each purchase decision based on my economic reality.
The pros and cons of licensing are a whole other discussion. My opinions on that issue are unimportant.

[Craig Taylor]

"Unless Textron has given EMI exclusive rights to managing its Cessna intellectual property (and this may well be the case)...."

It is the case. Cessna doesn't appreciate it but Textron has taken this route.

"EMI's almost immediate drop in fee price seems to indicate that licensing fee is negotiable..."

EMI provides an application along with paperwork to determine past sales in order to formulate a quarterly minimum along with 5% Licensing Fee.
As far as we know THAT is the only negotiation point.

That's too bad, but they are certainly within their rights to do so.

It's amazing how "work" can creep into our hobby. :kilroy:

[n4gix]

I just received an email from a fellow this morning who'd used several FS GA models from various sources (both payware & freeware) as part of his RL purchasing decision...

He wrote this morning to let me know that he's put his deposit on a 2009 Liberty XL2... ;)

While this is obviously not the norm, it does show the potential of FS models as a sales/promotional tool. :173go1:

[Lionheart]

I just received an email from a fellow this morning who'd used several FS GA models from various sources (both payware & freeware) as part of his RL purchasing decision...

He wrote this morning to let me know that he's put his deposit on a 2009 Liberty XL2... ;)

While this is obviously not the norm, it does show the potential of FS models as a sales/promotional tool. :173go1:

I have had several professionals purchase my aircraft to learn more about it. It is indeed like a form of advertising, and a well done sim model can actually sell several planes in a year. Now, for groups that have to pay for a license fee, shouldnt they be entitled to a full (proper amount) dealer fee/bonus/payment for having 'sold' a plane? Shouldnt that come to thousands for each plane? Bill, could you imagine getting sales royalties for say 4 new Citation X aircraft? That would be your grocery money for the next 5 years... Perhaps having a section in the installer that says to have the person in the sim put in the sales contract that the 'sim' made him buy it... This would help to ensure your most welcome fee. (But thinking on this, I could see emi trying to grab that too, lolol).



Concerning who owns Cessna's planes and logos, its Textron. That I was told. Textron went to EMI (or vice versa) for management of vendors and royalties. But I dont think Textron knew that these guys would be charging goofy prices for so basic of products, such as sim planes. But I doubt they care anyways.

The 'shape' of the Cessna 140 is copyright. Its property of Textron, and EMI is in charge of it.

Selling enough planes (as Mike_CYUL pointed out) to cover the cost of this huge fee, every 12 months, would make it 'not' worth the effort. Selling 125 to 150 units to cover a cost is huge. Aerosoft may sell thousands, but I sell more like what Mike mentioned. To show you how much I dont make, my Rover broke down last year. I have been car-less since. I make very little. So paying this guy that amount is like telling me a really good Joel Osteen joke. It only makes me laugh, lol.. :d

I am not worried about it. Cessna doesnt want the business. EMI wants my money. And the funny part is, I would be helping Cessna, and I am willing to pay the royalties... LOLOL... Thats the funny part!!!

Remember, this happened similarly with Jess Lambert and myself when attempting to do models with/for Lancair. They demand a $9,000.00 fee up front before they allow someone to 'sim' their planes into payware. That would take me 3 years to pay off.. arrghh.. I will never get 3DS Max at this rate, lol.



Its a crazy world we live in. EMI runs Cessna, and the world wants to fly and cant afford it.


Everyone take a deep breath. No use getting all mad. We have other companies.. We have Piper, we have many many many others....



Bill

[Lateral-G]

Hey guys,

.....something like McDonald Douglas, etc)."


Bill

It's McDonnell Douglas.....McDonald's sells hamburgers...we build airplanes.

sorry but I get a bit peeved as I work there (well, Boeing now...) and folks get it wrong.

-G-

[Lionheart]

It's McDonnell Douglas.....McDonald's sells hamburgers...we build airplanes.

sorry but I get a bit peeved as I work there (well, Boeing now...) and folks get it wrong.

-G-


arrghh..

My oops. Humble apologies.


<--- notes, burgers not available... :d

[BananaBob]

It's McDonnell Douglas.....McDonald's sells hamburgers...we build airplanes.

sorry but I get a bit peeved as I work there (well, Boeing now...) and folks get it wrong.

-G-

Probably doesn't want to get charged for using the proper name, LOL :d

[Moses03]

...We have other companies.. We have Piper, we have many many many others....



Hey Bill, does Beech ask for any fees?

http://i37.tinypic.com/2rmtkpd.jpg

:bump:

[chinookmark]

A few random thoughts:

I plan on buying an airplane someday. My dream plane is a Cessna 177, but only after purchasing the Dreamfleet Cardinal for FS2002. Maybe Cessna should consider this aspect when charging large sums of money for ADVERTISEMENT.

Maybe Cessna/EMI doesn't realize the size and distribution of an FSX product. How many copies of these addons sell? In the hundreds? Thousands? We're not talking T-shirts that are sold in WallyWorlds across the country.

I remember playing a motorcycle game on one of my previous consoles. The motorcycles: There was the "Diablo", the sexy red Italian exotic. The "Kamikazi", the high tech yet affordable Japanese sportbike, that was, oh, green. I don't remember the name of the American bike, but it started with an "H", and had raked out forks, lots of chrome, a loud V-twin, and didn't handle as well as the sportbikes. I think if more manufacturers start charging ridiculous liscening fees, we will see a lot more "fantasy" virtual aircraft.

PS please someone make that Beechcraft Starship! I have always loved those! But I suppose I could settle for a Beach Works Starliner ... :d

[N400QW]

Bill [Lionheart]

Please understand the difference between a royalty fee and a license fee.

EMI uses a License Fee structure with Textrons approval. As I mentioned, Cessna doesnt like it but Textron does....:banghead:

The License Fee structure by EMI is essentially the same as used to License Coffee Mugs, Key Chains, Mouse Pads, etc.

It could be argued that the Coffee Mug guys are delivering a service to Textron/Cessna and therefore eligible for a royalty fee but the arguement would be ludicrous.

[Lateral-G]

Hey Bill, does Beech ask for any fees?

http://i37.tinypic.com/2rmtkpd.jpg

:bump:

They may not ask for fees BUT they'll probably DEMAND to buy it back after you make it.. :costumes:

-G-

[Lionheart]

Man, that Beech Starship sure is a beauty...



Roger that Ron. I understand it. Mikes point of view on how long it would take to pay off the annual license fee as well as having royalties coming out seems rediculous and overpriced. I do not think that fee should be required to be paid yearly for one.... Second, it shouldnt be that much.

Maybe they dont like the advertising. We are working too hard on making these... For such a fee to be tossed at us means the straw on the back of the camel is getting to its load limit.


Bill

[icarus]

we can start a McDonald Douglas and take royalties from hamburgers and aicrafts....i have given a new idea to emi.

[Lionheart]

we can start a McDonald Douglas and take royalties from hamburgers and aicrafts....i have given a new idea to emi.

Would you like to 'super size' that? :costumes:

[heywooood]

I love Gnoopey

[naravac]

fictional aircraft

[thunder100]

dear Bill

yes what you post is a new fashion.And 2500 bucks is a fair joke.Anyway there is annother side too.Same boys look for countries where you as the manufacturer dont have your "OWN" name registrated and want to charge you when you want to sell-->its a tricky business.

Just as Pilot &FS enthusiast and teammember in a freeware development(Starliner/Connie) I still would love to get a new 140

some questions though.will the 2500 $ be charged

If it is shareware same exercise?
If it is freeware with a default panel and only the panel&sound is payware?
What if it is a Lionheart C-140-->still the same issue?I honestly dont care so much about its name and logo,I care about flying

godspeed

thunder100

[jhefner]

I have seen several unusual new ultralight, light jet, and other aircraft come out in recent years; and always wondered why they didn't offer a Flight Simulator model as a "try before you buy option." Most of us would never seek out a dealer for these; but may be tempted to do so after flying it for awhile in our favorite simulator.

Wonder how many more memberships AOPA picked up just so they could get their hands on the latest FS model offerings. Wonder if it was also affected by Cessna's licensing fees?

EDIT: PS: I have heard Washington politics compared to the bar scene in Star Wars. Everywhere I turn, it is now looking like that. "I want to buy a drink for that ACES fella in the corner...."

[fliger747]

How stupid! Free advertising!

T.

[Lionheart]

How stupid! Free advertising!

T.


Yep... lol..

[Lionheart]

What if it is a Lionheart C-140-->still the same issue?I honestly dont care so much about its name and logo,I care about flying

godspeed

thunder100


This can be done and is being approached. If the aircraft is no longer produced, the shape is no longer applicable in the United States as being 'copyright' and 'trademark-able'.

Now, the name is...

Thus, if you came out with that plane, and had 'NO' Cessna emblems or 'mentionings' on it anywhere, what-so-ever, you should be free and clear to do with it what you will.

Once you say its a Cessna though, you are threw....

It is best to do this 'without' using an exact shape replica so they wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I feel that taking the overall dimensions and making your own design, based very closely to the original and coming out with a cool name is the way to go, which I am presently doing. People can rename it what ever they want. Same overall size and weight and performance.. Maybe the panel is a little higher, wider, cleaner, and extra gauge here or there..



Bill



PS: Can you guess this plane?

[jdhaenens]

Is the word "Sleekna" taken?

Bravo!

[fsafranek]

Maybe ACES will let you piggyback on their (hopefully only) temporarily unused license?
:ernae:

[CBris]

Now that ACES is gone, gone, gone, it is time for a new flight simulation to Phoenix itself.

If the team is wise, they'll 'up front' the royalties with the major players in the real world industries and act as a central collector for royalties. Any new flight simulation developer would then collect a royalty fee from the addon developer plus maybe a few cents more handling so that the annuals could be paid.

...and of course negotiate the "fee" from square one. The Cessna / EMI 2500 is a presumption made on just how much business a (c) user is likely to make. I would even go so far as to say that agencies like EMI would be sensible enough to realise that flight simulation addon makers are nowhere near in the same league as Tamiya(c) and Revell(c) and all those others who sell "Cessna (c)" toys in the millions. We're talking about an industry that maybe turns over a couple of hundred to maybe a thousand units per use of a (c) sim addon. Anyway... is there any plastic model of a Cesspipeech?

And for the likes of EMI the motto should be "Any money is better than no money and definitely better than expensive international court cases that are unlikely to be heard. What non-US court is going to want to waste time on a 100 dollar claim from EMI because an Italian hobbyist addon maker sold two hundred C-140 models at 20 dollars a throw. Even if they tried to force the initial licensing fee on top, the court process would cost more and have little or no chance of recovering court fees from the hapless copyright breaker.

And as courts are government bodies, who ends up paying the bill if the developer has empty pockets and (heaven forbid) is jailed?

The tax payer.