It never ends... Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general, if you make money out of something you should have the lega stuff taken care of. If you make things for free purely as a hobby you can usually get away with it. In the US I know some buildings are copyrighted and you need a lisence to sell a photo of the Golden Gate Bride and Empire State Building for example. Pure ** if you ask me. Anything visible in publuc should be OK to reproduce by the public.

It never ends... Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general, if you make money out of something you should have the lega stuff taken care of. If you make things for free purely as a hobby you can usually get away with it. In the US I know some buildings are copyrighted and you need a lisence to sell a photo of the Golden Gate Bride and Empire State Building for example. Pure ** if you ask me. Anything visible in publuc should be OK to reproduce by the public.

Some buildings enjoy copyright/trademark protection, but as a photographer I do not always require a property release to photograph and them. And really, it has nothing to do with whether I am profiting from the photo - it has more to do with the final use of the photo. The easiest example I can give is that of a freelance journalist who is taking pictures in a public place of a newsworthy subject and later sells those photos to various news organizations. They would never require a release, unless you are in North Korea, or some other country that does not enjoy freedom of the press.The opposite example is if I am taking a picture of a building to use in advertising - this is when I always get a property release. This doesn't mean that I need it - I'm just being careful.The use of well known landmarks within FSX probably wouldn't require a release, because of how they are being used. How many real-world buildings already exist in FSX? MS may have gotten a release for all of them, but I doubt it. In any case, I am sure that Microsoft would err on the side of caution when it comes to commercial logos and such on the side of airplanes. It's hard to say whether they would automatically ban them, or allow them until such a time as the trademark owner complained. Apple's App Store seems to have set the precedent by creating it's own rules and guidelines which are probably more stringent than the law requires.

In the case of Toyota v Meshworks , A US Court of Appeal confirmed that a digital model is of a car is not copyrightable.

Originality is the sine qua non of copyright. If the basic design reflected in a work of art does not owe its origin to the putative copyright holder, then that person must add something original to that design, and then only the original addition may be copyrighted. In this case, Meshwerks copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. But the models reflect ,that is, “express,” no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles. The designs of the vehicles, however, owe their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and so we are unable to reward Meshwerks’ digital wire-frame models, no doubt the product of significant labor, skill, and judgment, with copyright protection.

Microsoft said that the store would be for selling metro-styled apps. Flight add-ons aren't metro-styled apps.

Microsoft said that the store would be for selling metro-styled apps. Flight add-ons aren't metro-styled apps.

Oh poo! Don't let mere interfere with the doom-sayers dire predictions and rediculous conspiracy theories!