Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

If I were browsing photos online of paint jobs I like, how am I to know who exactly designed it? 

And with hundreds of similar, if not identical, schemes - I would be very surprised if a copyright claim could ever be enforced.  

Not a lawyer, but I do sell custom designed art for a living.

I also see that the copyright only seems to apply to work found on their website, followed by a claim that many of their clients have sued and won.  Id be VERY interested to read even one of those cases 

Exactly

Posted
21 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

If I were browsing photos online of paint jobs I like, how am I to know who exactly designed it? 

And with hundreds of similar, if not identical, schemes - I would be very surprised if a copyright claim could ever be enforced.  

Not a lawyer, but I do sell custom designed art for a living.

I also see that the copyright only seems to apply to work found on their website, followed by a claim that many of their clients have sued and won.  Id be VERY interested to read even one of those cases 

Copyright notice is in the photo. Ethically oriented people will respect it. If they really want it they'll inquire. 

IMG_0242.PNG

Posted
4 minutes ago, PTK said:

Copyright is on the photo.

https://www.google.com/search?q=n910bu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3uoTkh8XUAhVG1xQKHXTzCVkQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1920&bih=895

A quick Google search shows at least a dozen photos of the plane without a copyright.  And was it an exact copy to infringe on the copyright?

The paint on my 1975 F  is a reproduction of newer 201s, I would be willing to bet no one asked Mooney.  I also saw a E painted like an Acclaim including the A on the tail.

  • Like 1
Posted

What's really surprising here is the lack of morality. Instead of debating the merits of copying a specific, copyrighted design, the conversation has turned to minimizing the similarity of the paint job, discussing whether the copyright suit would be successful or feasible, and the willful ignorance of the paint shop and customer who did it.  The paint shop has done work for scheme designers in the past and full well knows their work is copyrighted  I find it hard to believe that JClemens doesn't know this as well. 

Totally absent is the discussion about the ethics and morality of carbon copying a copyrighted design and the hard work and intellectual property of Scheme Designers. Yes they are a business and this is their stock and trade. I thought they would get some respect for what they do. JClemens is also in business, and can afford to pay market rates for his projects. He isn't painting his personal plane, he is painting a plane to sell and profit from.  He never answered whether I can steal his intellectual property and sell it for a profit. 

Juat because you can do it and get away with it doesn't make it right.  Just because I can start up and blow gravel and dust all over your airplane and get away with it, does not make it OK. If JClemens is willing to take the low road to save 900$ I wonder what kind of ethics he relies on when billing his customers for shop work?  You don't have one set of ethics for someone you don't know vs. someone you do know. 

Npw thya he is aware he has done Scheme Designers and PTK wrong, what is he willing to do to make it right?

Im surprised at the responses here. 

  • Like 3
Posted

Except that the scheme was arguably not original in the first place. You leave that part off. If this scheme had been unique I'd agree with you, but it's the most common Mooney paint scheme these days and I've seen a bunch of em including from the factory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 4
Posted
16 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

What's really surprising here is the lack of morality. Instead of debating the merits of copying a specific, copyrighted design, the conversation has turned to minimizing the similarity of the paint job, discussing whether the copyright suit would be successful or feasible, and the willful ignorance of the paint shop and customer who did it.  The paint shop has done work for scheme designers in the past and full well knows their work is copyrighted  I find it hard to believe that JClemens doesn't know this as well. 

Totally absent is the discussion about the ethics and morality of carbon copying a copyrighted design and the hard work and intellectual property of Scheme Designers. Yes they are a business and this is their stock and trade. I thought they would get some respect for what they do. JClemens is also in business, and can afford to pay market rates for his projects. He isn't painting his personal plane, he is painting a plane to sell and profit from.  He never answered whether I can steal his intellectual property and sell it for a profit. 

Juat because you can do it and get away with it doesn't make it right.  Just because I can start up and blow gravel and dust all over your airplane and get away with it, does not make it OK. If JClemens is willing to take the low road to save 900$ I wonder what kind of ethics he relies on when billing his customers for shop work?  You don't have one set of ethics for someone you don't know vs. someone you do know. 

Npw thya he is aware he has done Scheme Designers and PTK wrong, what is he willing to do to make it right?

Im surprised at the responses here. 

Ethics, business practice and morality being question now over a "similar" but far from exact scheme? I see planes all the time that give me ideas of how I want to paint mine by changing one or two things to tweak it to my liking.... Do you have a venmo or pay pal? I'm pondering a transfer of 450 to you and 450 to PTK to end this one :)

Posted

In 2009 at Sun N' Fun Mooney had a checkered flag paint scheme on the tail. Should anyone who has painted that scheme on their Mooney tail since then and has copied a design which Mooney paid for be openly disparaged on this forum? If I remember correctly when others showed off their paint jobs on here, all they received was praise.

Mooney used to have a design tool on their website to come up with a paint and color scheme. If you used that and designed something you liked, painted your airplane that way, but didn't buy a new Mooney or pay them for their design, would that be wrong? Does Scheme Designers pay Mooney a licensing fee every time they do something that comes close to ones of the designs Mooney has used in the past?

I think it boils down to this: Some people want every detail exact and are more than willing to pay a company to do all of  the work involved. Others are satisfied with a general design that updates the airplane and makes it look newer. They didn't contract with a company to design every detail and provide files for their paint shop.

With all of the paint jobs that have been shared on Mooneyspace I can't imagine why people are singling out and vilifying JClemens and then further attacking his character in a much more broad sense in every thing he does. He had his airplane painted in a general 2000's Mooney design that is on many airplanes. It looks great. Can we be happy for him and move on?

 

  • Like 8
Posted
1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

What's really surprising here is the lack of morality. Instead of debating the merits of copying a specific, copyrighted design, the conversation has turned to minimizing the similarity of the paint job, discussing whether the copyright suit would be successful or feasible, and the willful ignorance of the paint shop and customer who did it.  The paint shop has done work for scheme designers in the past and full well knows their work is copyrighted  I find it hard to believe that JClemens doesn't know this as well. 

Totally absent is the discussion about the ethics and morality of carbon copying a copyrighted design and the hard work and intellectual property of Scheme Designers. Yes they are a business and this is their stock and trade. I thought they would get some respect for what they do. JClemens is also in business, and can afford to pay market rates for his projects. He isn't painting his personal plane, he is painting a plane to sell and profit from.  He never answered whether I can steal his intellectual property and sell it for a profit. 

The other side of that is the ethics and morality of claiming ownership of something that other people have already done, or just putting a tiny tweak or difference on something and then claiming ownership.   These sorts of things happen in all creative areas including music, art, design, technology (it's a common thing in utility patent infringement).

I think it boils down to the usual thing, "My side has the moral high ground and yours does not."   Both sides have that point of view.   Always.

  • Like 2
Posted

That's the issue these days, there is another way. Realize collectively it's a grey area, we are all people of good will, and nothing here to go to war over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted

I think I must have made a mistake and logged onto the Red Board on AOPA website.  

5 pages and counting..... Are we really arguing over paint these days ???

Personally I appreciate the work that @jclemens is doing to restore and upgrade a few Mooney Aircraft.  I hope he continues to do so and be part of this community, but sorry to see so many feathers ruffled over a paint scheme.  

 

  • Like 7
Posted

The easy way to end this is to put @jetdriven back on the Ignored users list. It's a very useful tool on this forum. I wouldn't be surprised or offended if some put me on that list. This arguing over the rights to a paint scheme is so much to do about nothing. @jclemens is a becoming a pillar of the Mooney community the way he keeps bringing them back to like new condition. Certainly it's for a profit, but there are also much easier ways to make a profit in this business.

I've never had a plane painted, but my 252 will certainly be going in for paint at some point in the next couple of years. You can be sure I'm looking at all the cool paint scheme's I can and taking notes. I'll pick the best ideas I can and hopefully come up with a stunning paint job. And if someone else wants to copy it, I'll be flattered.

Just my $0.02

I've got a few on my Ignored Users list... @jetdriven isn't one of them though ;) he's actually got really good insights on stuff... just not this.

  • Like 6
Posted
2 hours ago, Bartman said:

 

5 pages and counting..... Are we really arguing over paint these days ???

 

Rapidly becoming the POA forum. Arguing over everything.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, eman1200 said:

 

 


Now known as Paintgate.

 

 

Damn. Why didn't I think of that.

I looked up the owner, I'm calling the paint police right now.

  • Like 2
Posted
Except that the scheme was arguably not original in the first place. You leave that part off. If this scheme had been unique I'd agree with you, but it's the most common Mooney paint scheme these days and I've seen a bunch of em including from the factory

Agreed, with the exception of the checkered tail.
Posted
9 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm definitely using that checkered tail!

 

And risk offending Byron and Peter Garmin?  For shame!  We'll never hear the end of it.

  • Like 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

And risk offending Byron and Peter Garmin?  For shame!  We'll never hear the end of it.

No, mine will be blue... completely different ;)

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, jclemens said:

Guess I won't build any more Mooney's, this is a rough crowd.  

It's just Brian and Peter... they make a lot of noise, but definitely not crowd. 

If I bring you a 252, can you make in an Encore?  With new paint and a checkerboard tail?? :D

Posted
19 hours ago, jclemens said:

Guess I won't build any more Mooney's, this is a rough crowd.  

I think the vast majority of us are really interested in your project/progress.  I hope you'll ignore the static and carry on.  :(

  • Like 5
Posted

Interesting conversation that has generated some passionate back & forth.

I would be interested is a couple of things here:

1) Is the original paint scheme copyrighted in any way?

2) If not, it's appropriation might be considered 'fair use'?

3) Copying the scheme is for personal use, and not for commercial purposes.

4) related to No 3.  Lets say I'm painting my plane as a ONE OFF occurrence and I'm not doing it for commercial

gain, then what is the law as it relates to this?

 

Full disclosure.  I'm too lazy to look up the answers to the above, however I'm hoping

someone might know the answers.

Happy Fathers Day!

s

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.