News Orbiter copyright infringement?

[Notebook]

Just got the May 2011 issue of Elektor magazine, and there is a full page advertisement featuring the DG virtual cockpit on the back cover.

Its promoting a PCB design program called Proteus 7 from Labcenter Electronics:
http://www.labcenter.com/index.cfm

Been through the website, and can't find it there. Maybe only being used in print. Can't get to my scanner at the moment, so can't show the image.

Definetly a DG VC, even has a checklist on the hud, last item reads
No Design Rule Violations - CHECK

Maybe they should have added another one...?

N.

 

[Artlav]

This one?

It does not LOOK like DG VC, it is DG VC, with mild photoshop.
Not nice.

 

[Notebook]

Well done Artlav, yes thats the one, shame its a UK company doing this.

N.

 

[tl8]

Surely the XR2 would have been a better fit!

 

[Urwumpe]

This one?

It does not LOOK like DG VC, it is DG VC, with mild photoshop.
Not nice.

Not nice at all, but copyrights of screen captures is a pretty difficult topic.

 

[deltawing777]

Oh! That is just not right....Get em Dr. Martin

 

[jedidia]

I don't see the problem. The advertisement isn't in any way related to the DG, nor to the creation of the DG (It would be a different thing if the advertisement was for a modelling software or somesuch, implying that the picture shown was created with this software).

As it is, I'd say someone looked for a public domain picture on the net he could use as a basis for his advertisement, which is pretty common procedure. The designer probably never heard of Orbiter or the DG, nor does he care for it, he just entered "spacecraft cockpit" into google image search and chose one he thought most apropriate to go on. As long as the image was located somewhere in the public domain, it's perfectly legal. You can claim copyright on a model, but hardly on every single picture that was created using that model, unless the usage of the image somehow implies that the one showing the picture was the creator of the model shown on it.

 

[Spacethingy]

Not nice at all, but copyrights of screen captures is a pretty difficult topic.

Yeah, but...

If I make a commercial website with a load of Google/NASA etc. satellite imagery for sale, with no licences or permissions whatsoever, my argument "but I only screen-dumped and Photoshopped it!" is pretty rubbish, isn't it?

This isn't that different is it?

 

[jedidia]

This isn't that different is it?

It's worlds of different, because you're selling the work of somebody else. They're not selling anything even vaguely orbiter related, they're selling design software for print boards (which, I dare assume, they wrote themselfes, otherwise we have a copyright infringement... but it wouldn't be with orbiter either). As such, their product doesn't constitute a copyright violation in any way. And their advertisement doesn't either, as long as the image was taken from public domain. You're allowed to use that stuff for pretty much anything you like.

 

[dbeachy1]

Surely the XR2 would have been a better fit!

If some company used the XR2 in its advertising (i.e. to promote its own product) without written permission first, it would be a license violation: they would be using the XR2 for a commercial purpose: to make money by promoting their own product.

Since the ad uses a default DG it will of course be up to Martin to decide what to do, if anything. However, as I read the Orbiter license terms this is a clear license violation:

You will not use Orbiter or any parts of it to advertise, promote, present or sell any software or other product or service without explicit prior written permission by the licensor.

Can't get any more cut-and-dry than that.

 

[deltawing777]

If some company used the XR2 in its advertising (i.e. to promote its own product) without written permission first, it would be a license violation: they would be using the XR2 for a commercial purpose: to make money by promoting their own product.

Since the ad uses a default DG it will of course be up to Martin to decide what to do, if anything. However, as I read the Orbiter license terms this is a clear license violation:



Can't get any more cut-and-dry than that.

Agreed! No way out of that one. I am curious what the "doc" will think about it.

 

[jangofett287]

It isn't the current DG, but it Defiantly is a DG. Whats more, the image has been flipped, almost as if someone was trying to obscure its origins...:hmm: (Side-By-Side Comparison coming momentarily)

 

[Eli13]

:hmm: when you mention it.... little shady for a simple ad for a design software.

 

[deltawing777]

They have a forum on that website. I am really tempted to go on there and defend orbiter and the "doc". But something tells me maybe I should back off and let the "doc" handle it. So thats what I am going to do.

 

[jangofett287]

Proof, as if it was needed, that its a DG:

All I've done is attempt to get as close a camera as I can to the adverts picture, Cropped my screenshot (I've got a wide screen so can capture all the switched with a large FOV) down to what the advert shows, then resized it to the same size as the advert picture.

Deploy the Ninja Space Lawyers!!! :lol:

 

[Moach]

actually, it's not only Dr. Martin getting ripped off here, most ripped off is mr. Roger "Frying Tiger" Long, who made the DG model we all know - i think...

 

[Spacethingy]

Your right it's the DG, but it's a different version - the artificial horizon below the MFDs is different.

Go go :ninja:s!

 

[Axertan]

Your right it's the DG, but it's a different version - the artificial horizon below the MFDs is different.

That's because jangofett287 screencapped 2010P1 version of the DG
the 2006P1 matches, I would say.

This should be 2006P1 DG VC (sry, small image)

I believe that XR1 uses same VC as the 2006P1 DG, so you can take a look at that.

 

[Izack]

They mirrored the image and changed a few dials with image-editing (and added a bit more frame to the HUD).

 

[Bonanza123d]

By the looks of it. If you were to put it into a comparison program, you need at least below 25% of the image to be change in order for it to be legal. Any one have one of those?