Clarification of the "Real World Airline" rule

READ THIS FORUM FIRST! Here are the rules and important information for you.

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

Post Reply
User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Clarification of the "Real World Airline" rule

Post by CAPFlyer » Mon May 14, 2007 3:33 am

After the recent issue involving a member airline, I think a clarification of our rule against "Real World Airlines" is in order.

Here's the rule as published on the website under "Info & Rules" -
You're not allowed to use real airline names on FlyNET. Just be creative.
What does this mean? It's not really all that complicated. All it means is that you (a potential VA CEO) are not allowed to use the name, logo, paint scheme, or any other copyrighted or trademarked item used by a real world airline. This includes the usage of a real world airline's slogan or catchphrase, as these are also typically trademarked, thus there are legal repricussions for using them without permission.

What if you want to use a real world airline's name and likeness? Well, you need to contact the airline and get, in writing, a letter stating that your VA has permission to use the name and likeness of the airline in question. Several airlines are known for giving these out almost carte blanche (without restriction) and others are known for issuing cease and desist orders against anyone who even attempts to start a VA that looks even remotely like theirs. It's up to you to know what the particular airline you wish to model is like.

So, you get permission, what next? Well, you need to contact Konny (info@flynet.en-studios.de) and he will give you the information on how to send him a copy of the letter authorizing your VA to use the real world airline's intellectual property. Once he has that, you're free to use FlyNET without restrictions. If you don't have that permission and Konny doesn't have a copy of the letter, then you will unfortunately be removed from the system, so please be aware.

Can I replicate the fleet of a real airline? Yes and no. You can certainly use the same types and numbers of those types of aircraft. However, you cannot use the exact same registrations of the aircraft the real-world airline's planes use. This can be seen as copying as well, and can result in legal action.

Can I replicate the timetable (routes) of a real airline? Absolutely! There is nothing keeping you from using the same flight number, times, and city pairs as the real world airline. That information is public knowledge, so there's nothing keeping you from doing it. However, I'd suggest that if you're using a real world airline's timetable, come up with a unique flight numbering system from theirs just so people don't think that you're just copying their information. If your flight numbers are different, it's less likely people will be able to tell what airline you copied. :wink:

I hope that's clear as mud for everyone. :D Have fun and thanks for choosing FlyNET!

rowguid

Clarification of the "Real World Airline" rule

Post by rowguid » Wed May 16, 2007 6:00 am

regardin

regarding this subject matter can we rename current name VA to the new name.
this is for give difference from actual Real World Airline.

example:-

current is Air A01 VA
rename to Air AA01 VA

can we do that.


thanks & regards

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Wed May 16, 2007 5:13 pm

No. It needs to be noticeably different. Adding a letter isn't. There is still too much chance for confusion between the VA and real airline, thus there are grounds for action by the real airline. A perfect example is what happened with Atlantic Airways years ago. There is a real Atlantic Airlines, and Atlantic Airways was getting a lot of traffic from people looking for Atlantic Airlines. Atlantic Airlines took legal action against Atlantic Airways. I don't remember the outcome, but Atlantic Airways had to change their name. There are literally millions of names that aren't used by a real airline, be creative and come up with something new.
Image

Knaze

Post by Knaze » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:58 am

About Ukraine International Airlines....

Good afternoon!

We not quite understood the purpose of confirmation ot the real airline of the use of their brand in a virtual aviation. I hope you understand that for a serious airline, understanding that FS etc - just games, it is unimportant use its brand there or not. However, for us situation a few other, because we are created on the basis of the real airline and certainly we are related directly to the airline Ukrainian International Airlines and are their mirror in the virtual world.
The English version of site is in development, therefore apparently you will not be able to understand, what Association of virtual pilots of Ukraine.
In general, if will not hamper, ob'yasnite please purpose of copy of letter.

And please, will delete from the list of virtual companies of Ukraine International, she was created by mistake and long time does not function. But very interferes with us in connection with tem that uses our IСAO code.

Beforehand thankful.

President of Association of virtual pilots of Ukraine
Igor Kikot

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:42 pm

Please see my reply to your Private Message.
Image

Myrm
Flight Attendant
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: Living in a giant ants nest in Sweden

Post by Myrm » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:28 am

Have any real airline companies ever taken legal action against a VA airline? I seems astonishing to me that a real airline company would bother to do this, after all VA airlines, such as the ones on here are imaginary, it's all make-believe, and no money is made by VA users. Are real airline companies really that bothered?
Myrm

"Glöm inte vår Tobias" (In memory of Tobias Enroth 1999-2007)

Image

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by CAPFlyer » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:25 am

Some are. American Airlines shutdown EVERY SINGLE virtual American on the internet during the Papa Tango fiasco about 4 years ago. Northwest Airlines has been on the warpath at least twice and actively shuts down virtual versions of itself. TWA never allowed a virtual version to exist while it was around. Alitalia does not allow a virtual version of itself nor does Ryanair (last I checked at least). Several European airlines have made it clear that only 1 virtual version of their airline will be allowed and have very strict standards that that virtual airline must maintain to remain online. Southwest at one time had questions about the legality, but never took any action. WestWind Airlines, one of the original airlines actually has restrictions on how it can use its name because of a similiarly named airline that was created after WWA was formed and the agreement that ensued from that. Gateway airlines actually had a Canadian company forming to provide charter airline service approach them for permission to use the Gateway name and one of the original liveries the VA used (Gateway Airlines is registered as a 501C non-profit corporation in the US and held international trademarks and copyrights on the name and corporate identity). There are several virtual military and para-military orginizations that operate with specific blessings of their real-world counterpart although I've not heard of any government orginizations shutting down their virtual counterparts. Things have gotten better in recent years (BA lifted their restrictions as did Lufthansa) but others have cut down on it because the webmasters of the VAs were copying the real airline's web code and making their websites indistinguishable from each other, causing a lot of headaches for the real airline.

Either way, all major airlines in the world hold international copyrights and trademarks for their name, corporate identity, and liveries. Use of their name, livery, and operating strategies, even in a virtual world, can be a violation of those copyrights and trademarks. As such, to protect FlyNET against those potential issues, we just make it simple - provide us written proof from the real world airline that they are okay with your existance and we'll let you use the name and livery of that real-world airline on FlyNET. If not, sorry, but please go somewhere else.
Image

Myrm
Flight Attendant
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: Living in a giant ants nest in Sweden

Post by Myrm » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:52 am

Yes, I can certainly understand the frustration of the real airline company if a VA of the same name has its own website which attracts visitors from those trying to book online with the real airline.
Myrm

"Glöm inte vår Tobias" (In memory of Tobias Enroth 1999-2007)

Image

Safari Air
FSAirlines DB Admin
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Safari Air » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:33 pm

Actually cap, ryanair has allowed 1 virtual airline of themselves. This airline was launched about 6 months ago, and at present is doing extrmely well.
Thanks
Geoff

User avatar
flightsimer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:35 am

Post by flightsimer » Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:36 pm

Myrm wrote:Have any real airline companies ever taken legal action against a VA airline? I seems astonishing to me that a real airline company would bother to do this, after all VA airlines, such as the ones on here are imaginary, it's all make-believe, and no money is made by VA users. Are real airline companies really that bothered?
sorry i know this forum is old but yes, Cathy Pacific shut down a whole site that was all different airlines a few years ago. www.cpavirtual.org .
they renamed it cpavirtual, CPA= cathy pacific airlines (or airways which ever one it is)
they also have about 20 other different real world airlines there, but Cathy pacific took them to court over it. the virtual airline now owns the cpa logo, so cathy pacific cant shut them down again.
Owner/CEO
North Eastern Airways

Image
Image

mjl1966
Ticket Agent
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:22 pm

Re: Clarification of the "Real World Airline" rule

Post by mjl1966 » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:17 pm

I'm not going to dispute the rule: the folks in charge of fsairlines have every right to make it and we have every responsibility to abide by it. My comments are not about the rule - but the driving force behind it.

I can't help but comment on the idea that VA's have been bullied into submission by lawyers who really don't have a case. You know, there are a lot of ways to argue that VAs are not doing anything that is wrong in the eyes of the law - i.e. we could talk about Lanham, cite case law and even make an argument using the well-defined litmus of fair use. But the easy answer is two fold:

1. No VA is in competition with it's real-world counterpart for commercial services.
2. No VA makes money by using real-world trakemarks.

Without either of these, virtually (ha ha) all other arguments become utterly moot. Bottom line: in any civil case, there must be *damage* and it must be *proveable*.

There is the possible argument for dillution of trademark, but that is so hard to prove even in cases where it actually happens, that it's a moot point. As for consumer confusion, that only counts if you make money off it.

I keep reading how VA's were "forced" to shut down by their real-world counterparts. Oh, really? In any of these instances, did a court of law issue an injunction, restraining order or some other mandate that VA's cease and desists? Or did the VAs just succomb to cease and desist letters and (possibly) the actual service of a summons and complaint. Neither of these can force anyone to do anything except go to courtc settle or lose by default. i.e. - just because you get sued doesn't mean the plaintiff has a case. They just have money. Seriously, if anyone has information on the actual legal actions against VAs, please point it out to me.

Beyond the legal arena, though, it is sad and truly pathetic that corporations are going after people who are essentially playing make believe. When I was a kid (I was born in 1966), my friends and I played "Star Trek." We made control panels out of construction paper for the "U.S.S Enterprise" (which really isn't intellectual property...) and we argued over who got to play "Kirk" and "Spock." Now, here we clearly see the unauthorized use of intellectual property owned by Desilu and Paramount studios. And when folks drove by and asked, "What are you kids doing?", we said "playing 'Star Trek'", thus out activities were known to the public. We shamelessly pirated Gene Roddenberry's hard work without his permission. It didn't even occur to us to ask.

Perhaps more pertinent was when we played "P-51" pilot, wherein we tromped all over North American's legal rights by misusing their intellectual property.

The only difference between then and now is that we use the Internet, CAD and paintkits instead of construction paper, wood, hats and sandboxes. And, oh yeah, a lot more kids on the block playing our little game. We're a lot better at make believe than we used to be. Nothing else is different.

Tradmark infringement? How absurd.

Now, there is a situation where permission to use trademark becomes important: payware aircraft. PMDG has a license from Boeing and it makes a lot of sense because they are making money off of Boeing's intellectual property in this case. Totally different situaion.

If anyone knows of any actual court rulings within the U.S. related to VAs and trademark infringement that says I am wrong, please point it out to me.

-MJL

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Clarification of the "Real World Airline" rule

Post by CAPFlyer » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:04 am

MJL, I suggest you look at the Case of American Airlines & Papa Tango, Ltd. versus AVSIM.com or Flightsim.com (both were filed). The infringement case held that any airline has the right to protect its trademark, even when used for freeware, as it chooses whenever that trademark is used in a "public arena". This resulted in the requirement that all painters who put up American Airlines repaints having to sign an agreement and register with AMR (the corporate parent of American Airlines) with their information. There is no fee levied since they're not making money off of it, but the US Courts held that AMR did have the right to protect its trademarked logos. This case has been cited by Northwest Airlines in their cease and decist letters. I'm not aware of whether or not they have actually filed any lawsuits on the issue, but I do know that Microsoft successfully defended their copyright recently in a case where a website owner had These were filed after Cease & Decist letters and ended up in British Court where the owner of Papa Tango, Ltd., Peter Tishma (now associated with Ariane) was banned from having anything to do with Flight Simulation software sales (only the second time someone's been banned from an industry, the first being Frank Lorenzo). He has gotten around the legal order by doing business with Ariane who is based in a country who has refused to honor the British Court ruling even though pressure has been applied on several occasions for such to be done.

Also, on several occasions VA's have made their sites look so close to the real one that they have caused problems and confusion with the real world airline. In at least 2 cases, this resulted in very upset people (even though they didn't spend any money) because they spent time on the VA's website for a long time and then found out it wasn't real. This is the sort of thing we (FSAirlines) would rather avoid than have the potential of having any legal papers served against us in any way.
Image

Telide
Flight Attendant
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:12 pm
Location: If not at the PC find me near Railway Lines ;)
Contact:

Re: Clarification of the "Real World Airline" rule

Post by Telide » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:02 am

Hi All

just been going through the list and noticing some RWA names popping up "easy Jet" "KLM" "Widerøe" just to name 3

Now I no you have stated in the top post about permission and that it sould be sent by email so that restrictions can be removed from the airline in question now as a user of FSA I do not no if they have permission or not and neather does anybody other than the VA CEO and FSA Admins

now with this in mind would it be acceptable for a note or something like on the airline FSA page stating that permission has been granted etc because the way I see it just looking through the list is that the rule of real airline name eather does not apply or not enforced as it should be (Ino it is but I am saying as an example) so with that in mind I beleave (other than not reading the rules) that it might be a reason for some of the VA's using real world names

Just my thoughts and I hope I do not offend any of the admins of any of the airline I have noted in my post

Will

EDIT: What is the ruling on dead airlines as well one example XL stopped flights last year but have popped up on FSA
ImageImage

Dash Airways.....
A small Airline Based at london Heathrow operating 6x B734 3x CRJ7 2x DH8B pilots and managers needed

Join Here

User avatar
CAPFlyer
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3045
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Clarification of the "Real World Airline" rule

Post by CAPFlyer » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:13 am

Those whom are approved are noted as such. If they're still here, then they're approved, that's all that the users really need to know. I'm being a bit curt on it, but in all honesty, it's really the only reply that can be made on the matter. We may add a note in the future, but there is already a status setting viewable by the admins to show that the name has been approved and we (the Admins) have seen that approval.

Also, just because the name is similar, unless they're demonstrating that they are actually copying the real airline or using their trademarked material, then they can use a similar (or even exact) name as they aren't infringing on the rights of the owners by doing so.

As for "dead" airlines, we like to wait a couple of years to ensure that the airline's trademarks aren't sold and reused. It has happened in the past, and thus we protect ourselves (and the users) from any problems if the trademarks don't expire.
Image

Post Reply