Thinking of the Statesman thing, it reminds me a lot of the situation with Ultima Online and Lord British.
With Ultima Online the lead developer was a guy called Richard Garriott. He had been known as Lord British for years and appeared as the Lord British character in many Ultima games before Ultima Online. But when he left for various reasons EA who now owns Ultima Online had to remove the Lord British character from the game world as that character was still owned by Richard Garriott.
[ QUOTE ]
So what's my incentive to log in and create a toon that Cryptic ends up owning?
If Cryptic owns the toon to protect against anyone else in the game from stealing my idea and making money off of it for so long as I have an active account w/ Cryptic, then I'm 100% ok with that. But I should still be able to sell my idea on afterwards if I so chose.
If the account is cancelled or the toon deleted, then its up for grabs. I wouldn't be trying to use Cryptic as a Copyright office but I expect my original ideas to be protected when I log into the game and still remain my ownership rights for so long as I keep the account active.
Would that be a fairer way to look at it?
[/ QUOTE ]
'Fairer'? Hard to say, rather subjective.
You could have a lawyer write up a EULA to that effect and present it to Cryptic as an alternative to what they have now. Who knows, maybe they will adopt it.
In the meantime, it is not up to Cryptic to protect Rubberlad, it is up to you. If Rubberlad was legally protected prior to your hitting the 'enter Paragon City' button, you have nothing to worry about. Profit to your heart's content.
However, Rubberlad could get genericed at any time. If he is, you can then start sending Cryptic documents to prove you own the character, or change his appearance and name in their game, whichever you prefer.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever checked to see if any of your fans have created a Rubberlad on any of Cryptic's servers?
As far as what is your incentive to create a character for Cryptic to own? I say one incentive is that it's a damn fine game, and fun to play. Another is that you might find it fun to be able to create characters whith the express hope to show up someday in the Comics, Novels, Cards, etc. You may even end up working with them some day.
I've created a LOT of characters that Cryptic now technically owns, but if I end up publishing my own comics some day I have no doubt that I will end up making plenty new ones that Cryptic has never seen.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marvel tried this already. They created a Wolverine clone in the game and then tried to sue Cryptic over allowing the character to be created.
[/ QUOTE ]
This I can 100% appreciate. But in lieu of the settlement, can't the EULA be updated to recognize previously trademarked ideas that players self-own and recreate in the game? That's totally different to what you're saying when a player logs in and recreates a toon that *someone else* owns.
Granted, I don't want to see someone create a 100% identical toon like "Rubberlad" and rename him "Tennis Ball" but at least it's not "Rubberlad." But to say Cryptic owns "Rubberlad" the minute I log in and create it even if the toon never existed in the game prior to my logging in, that's just ridiculous.
That would assume the same mentality as corporations who own their email and IT storage systems and own exclusive creative rights to all the work created by salaried employees and contractors they pay to work within that system and create those ideas which would be incorrect.
As a consumer, I'm not paying Cryptic to take ownership of my ideas but to provide the environment in which I can make my ideas possible and enjoy them. Next it'll be Microsoft suing me for ownership rights of a novel because I created and published it in Microsoft Word (even though I paid for the software to make it possible to create and publish my ideas).
Sorry but it just doesn't work like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. This has to be the stupidest thing I have heard all month. If MMOs actually did things this way they would all be pretty well screwed out of business. Most player character names used in any MMO will also show up in other games, by other players. There is no possible way an MMO can claim ownership of a name chosen by a player. The best they can do is moderate recognizable names from popular literature, like Drizzt or Lestat.
What an MMO owns of your character is not your intellectual property, but the data that comprises the character. You have no rights to that data, and if you decide to leave the game, you do not get to take a backup copy of your character data with you. It stays in their posession.
There is no way they can claim ownership to a name, and as I understand it, their winning arguement against marvel was that you can not claim ownership on peices of costume art. What more is there to your character, your powers? Dont tell me NCsoft thinks it has ownership of flight, teleportation and ninjas.
The only thing they own is the title of the game, the setting, storyline and any NPCs. Speaking of which, some of "thier" major characters in this game strike me as ripoffs of other existing comic characters. Statesman especially sticks out.
How do other MMOs handle ownership of player created characters?
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of which, some of "thier" major characters in this game strike me as ripoffs of other existing comic characters. Statesman especially sticks out.
[/ QUOTE ]
What industry like this isn't wildly incestuous? Statesman = Superman = Hyperion = Captain Marvel = Prime and so on and so on. Do we want to get into derivative works of J.R.R. Tolkien?
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity, have you ever checked to see if any of your fans have created a Rubberlad on any of Cryptic's servers?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, but I know it's possible for any toon. Names reserved on one server aren't reserved on all servers, and why should they be? If my concept for "Rubberlad" involves an energy blaster on Victory and someone else's involves an earth controller on Virtue called "Rubberlad" its not the same toon because that wasn't my concept.
Marvel didn't have a suit because someone created a toon called "Wolverine" who's a Sonics-powered superhero. Or a toon called "Criss Cross" who was claws-wielding mutant. They're issue was having someone log in and create "Wolverine," a claws-wielding mutant which was their idea. That I get because there were multiple components there plagiarizing their trademarked creative concept.
It's the same reason why DC Comics (who owns Green Arrow) and Marvel (who owns Hawkeye) can't sue each other for copyright infringement because they used superheroes that employ bow and arrows - sure they're both archers but it goes way beyond *just* being archers to say someone is stealing a creative concept.
And for the record, Rubberlad isn't the toon I'm referring to. I'd be a fool to say publically which one it was but Cryptic can research my account if there's a concern (and I'm happy to comply and change the name if there is). But again I'm not worried about my concept toon that's protected. I'm worried about the other concept toons that are *not* protected - like Rubberlad.
Usual, I am not a lawyer, nor am I speaking as an official CoH rep.-type caveat. I am, however, trying to make this clear for players (and do speak as an NCsoft employee, obviously, and was on CoH, and have looked into these issues even before joining the team).
It's a sticky issue. Those of us who are writers and artists (or creatives if you prefer), need to be careful of investing too much into what may be potentially another person's world.
[ QUOTE ]
I 100% disagree with this interpretation. If I have created and instituted the creative template for "Rubberlad' prior to City of Heroes being created and published for a public mass-consumer market, I would argue that I don't have to be "Warren Ellis" to protect my work in the event I then sell it off down the road regardless of whether or not I "recreated" my own copyrighted material in the COX mmorpg universe.
Is the issue of previously created player-owned images specifcally dealt with in the EULA? Is this an "in name only" issue or name and/or image - in which case, isn't Cryptic at risk of assuming Marvel's position in that recent lawsuit where they lost their bid to defend their copyright "images" if not certain trademark names?
[/ QUOTE ]
What Cryptic/NC is concerned with are generally:
1) Image of character -- if you build it in the character generator. I'm not trying to say "we" own blue half capes, and I'm not trying to say we don't. If you build a character in the generator, and then have it drawn, if it's 100% the same character and you are profitting from it, then you might have a problem.
2) Character name & history - technically the character names/history that you create for CoH/CoV are owned by Cryptic/NCsoft. You can use them in fanfiction, etc., but you cannot profit from them.
3) History of Paragon City and all her associated characters (this is the obvious one, of course, and causes least confusion).
Obviously there are many characters with the same names in comic book history. And many that look similar. But if you take a character who exists on one of the servers, and use the same name and same look, and try to use it in a commercial enterprise, you're entering dangerous waters. I'm not going to say if this is right or wrong -- but if you can avoid all potential legal entanglements, why wouldn't you?
Note: in the case of a character that existed *before* being created in CoH, and this can be proven, then Cryptic/NCsoft is obligated to force you to change the name/look of the character. So Rubberlad's character, or let's say I created a character from the old superhero game, Silver Age Sentinels, that I was involved with. In an exceptional case (like the Warren Ellis example I created earlier), Cryptic/NC might be so tickled to have a guest star that they would find a way to allow it. But in most cases the legal mine fields, and lawyer costs, and bad press, etc. is not worth it.
So once again. If you want to write/draw superheroes in a commerical enterprise, make sure they are original and don't exist in CoH/CoV.
cheers,
Arctic Sun
On this topic, we also have Plastic Man, Ping the Elastic Man, Elongated Man, Mr. Fantastic, Luffy, and Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible.
Just for the curious, go look here on Wikipedia.
[ QUOTE ]
So once again. If you want to write/draw superheroes in a commerical enterprise, make sure they are original and don't exist in CoH/CoV.
[/ QUOTE ]
Understood. I still have some concerns with point #2, but I can be more vigilant when creating my in-game concepts in future.
Thanks Arctic!
Cryptic does not purport to own the name Captain Marvel or Drizzt Do'Urden.
It is because they do not own these names that they cannot allow you to play characters with those names on their servers.
By the act of creating a character on the servers, you are stating that the character is your own original creation, and not previously legally protectd, which you are gifting to Cryptic.
If the character is not your own original creation, you are lying.
If the character is previously legally protected, you are lying.
If you also played a character of the same name and appearance in Dark Age of Camelot, it is probably (I haven't read their EULA) owned by DAOC, in which case you are mistaken or lying.
When Cryptic discovers that you are playing a chearacter in their game that is owned by DAOC, they technically should generic that character.
They may not, because they are nice. But if they do not, they are chancing a lawsuit.
Marvel forced their hand.
It is true that Cryptic only owns your character data. They cannot really own the character name and appearance. But they can make you change the character name and appearance as it appears on their servers.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Summary, so far (this seems most logical)...
If I made "Turtle Boy The Slow" as a character, and he was half turtle, half boy, and played him to 50, blah blah...
...and turned around and got Image Comics to publish Turtle Boy The Slow, in all likelihood (conjecture) best case is that TBtS would have to be gone from COH.
Worst Case would be that TBtS: The Movie makes more money than Raimi's Spider-Man, and NCSoft starts a legal war to get their cut.
In other words, don't do stupid clones of existing characters, and do the rest at your own risk.
[ QUOTE ]
What Cryptic/NC is concerned with are generally:
1) Image of character -- if you build it in the character generator. I'm not trying to say "we" own blue half capes, and I'm not trying to say we don't. If you build a character in the generator, and then have it drawn, if it's 100% the same character and you are profitting from it, then you might have a problem.
2) Character name & history - technically the character names/history that you create for CoH/CoV are owned by Cryptic/NCsoft. You can use them in fanfiction, etc., but you cannot profit from them.
3) History of Paragon City and all her associated characters (this is the obvious one, of course, and causes least confusion).
Obviously there are many characters with the same names in comic book history. And many that look similar. But if you take a character who exists on one of the servers, and use the same name and same look, and try to use it in a commercial enterprise, you're entering dangerous waters. I'm not going to say if this is right or wrong -- but if you can avoid all potential legal entanglements, why wouldn't you?
[/ QUOTE ]
So, theoretically speaking, I could make an alternate version of Sir Morgant who looks different, acts different, different history, and never came to Paragon in the first place, but rather came to the unique and original world in which the novel/comicbook/TV series/anime/whatever takes place?
And...get away with it?
It'd still be a gunslinging knight from medieval times who speaks in olde english, which only the skeleton of CoH/V's Sir Morgant.
If I took that skeleton and made it into a completely different char for original use, would that still be stepping on CoH/V toes?
Also, if we deleted our char from your servers, would you still hold rights to them, since they were still made on your servers? Or would you hold them temporarily, or would your rights to them be gone, or what?
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if we deleted our char from your servers, would you still hold rights to them, since they were still made on your servers? Or would you hold them temporarily, or would your rights to them be gone, or what?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the most interesting part, to me. What constitutes Cryptic's ownership? If I created and deleted a Wolverine clone named Woolverine, am I still liable for breaking the EULA? If Cryptic does a backup and I delete my character, effectively trying to reassert my ownership of that concept, who "owns" it?
Law is funny.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But now, a twist on it. What about if I don't have, like, a t-shirt press myself, and so commission a single-item run from someplace like CafePress or something?
[/ QUOTE ]
Won't work. CafePress makes a profit on every item they sell, even if you do not.
Summary: CP sells a shirt for, say, $12 base price. If you sell it for $12 that means you make no profit. Good! But CafePress DOES make a profit; they set the base price up so that they do and anything beyond that is for you alone.
So, it's not legal, since of the two parties involved, CP does profit. CP has a policy against using copyrighted elements in your designs for this reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh baloney. If I hire a third party decal/T-shirt entity to silkscreen a copy of my favorite screen shot of my hero onto a T-shirt I've already bought separately, I see no copyright infringement or violation of the EULA as long as I do not intend to sell it for profit, and have retained the original screenshot for my private, not-for-profit archives.
Otherwise, where do you draw the line? I can screenshot all day and print my screenshots and post them all over my house for my personal use anytime I want. I can make demo movies all day and display them for CoX-night LAN parties as long as I am not profiting from it.
Okay so all the drawings I have had done of TA are illegal? 
or against the policy?
I certainly don't wanna get anyone in trouble
[ QUOTE ]
Okay so all the drawings I have had done of TA are illegal?
or against the policy?
I certainly don't wanna get anyone in trouble
[/ QUOTE ]
You're always trouble, big boy. 
"His Imperial Majesty's Minister of Restraints and Leather" -LHF
Two naughty acronym teams / Ascension / Convenient / Artic and the Chillz / Fap / Other teams I can't remember (sorry.. mind is goin')
I have two characters that I developed and, in my understanding, gained legal right to the copyright of, prior to the release of CoH. When I brought them into CoH I changed them in both minor and major ways, and don't believe them to be the same characters. While they are similar in concept, it is again the difference between Green Arrow and Hawkeye, or Superman and Hyperion. The background is similar, but different, and more importantly, their background is set in CoH. I cannot separate the CoH characters from CoH, therefore they exist as copyrighted individuals only as it refers to their existance in CoH. (And all related media)
Putting it another way, while I don't think Stan Lee could create a hero named "Spider-Guy" in a blue on red (not red on blue) costume and have him swing around Paragon City, he also can't say that he has never published the character before. Marvel has to protect not just Spider-Man but the perception of Spider-Man. If he was still just a figment of Stan Lee's imagination I'm sure there would be no problem with a character coming out years later who looked SORT OF the same.
And that's Marvel, who has a chance of being read by somebody. I doubt I'll ever sell anything to anyone. So the version of Jade Dragon and Blue Diamond that live in Houston, don't have costumes, and get their powers from a psychic source and not magic probably aren't in any danger of putting NCSoft in an awkward position.
The only place in which I see there could be an issue is the fact that I use exactly the same names. But again, since it's unlikely that the concepts of Jade Dragon and Blue Diamond that existed before are known to anyone outside my family and a few folks who went to school with me, I'm hoping that's not an issue. And I KNOW both names have been taken on other servers, so it doesn't matter whether I have it or not. It's not a known name.
[ QUOTE ]
Okay so all the drawings I have had done of TA are illegal?
or against the policy?
I certainly don't wanna get anyone in trouble
[/ QUOTE ]
Fanfiction and fan art are okay. Arctic_Sun confirmed it: "You can use them in fanfiction, etc., but you cannot profit from them."
Now, there may be a legal issue if whoever it was who drew it charged for the drawing. But YOU own the copyright to the character and YOU are not making the money off of it, the person who drew the art is. And if it's a commissioned work I'm not sure if it's an issue or not, as the artist could be said to be charging for his talent, not for the content of the picture.
OTOH, I don't really see what the difference between this and the T-Shirt is. So I'm guessing it's back down to fan art, even though the person you commissoned to do the drawing may have charged you for it, it wasn't a "professional" work, and thus is more of a fan work. I suspect you'll have some people who refuse to do certain commissions for that reason, though. (Just as the T-Shirt shop refused to do the T-Shirt)
This is why I do my best to weave my characters heavily into the story of Paragon City. The Lunar Knight that exists in Paragon City is a VERY different character than the one that resides in my head. While the basic framework may have a similar tone, I can assure you, the hero in my head was never raised in the MAGI schools and certainly never had the word "Kheldian" associated with him. This makes it very easy to draw the line between the character I own and the character owned by NCSoft.
It is my understanding, in reading the EULA and in the discussion of this thread, that once a character is deleted (assuming it's not backed up), you have removed Cryptic's and NCSoft's rights to the character. Given that they will make a name "generic" in an attempt to keep copyright infringment out of the picture, one could maybe assume there position on that extends to deletion--as long as they don't have it on their system, it's not a problem.
I also would assume that they don't back up characters at all, once they are deleted by the user. Remember back at launch when all you had to do was click the delete button on a character and confirm it? Then they added the "type the character's name" field in to further assure you, the user, that this deletion was final and irrevocable. Given the number of alts that have existed on this game ( 17,558,847 at the time of the newsletter going out), there servers would EXPLODE from the various alts being reserved and backed up.
Back after 18 months away!
Well when I do commission to have art done I am paying for a service though.
So it is the talent I am paying for but the end result is posted here as fan fiction.
How thin is the line?
*fanart, not fiction*
Back after 18 months away!
[ QUOTE ]
Cryptic does not purport to own the name Captain Marvel or Drizzt Do'Urden.
It is because they do not own these names that they cannot allow you to play characters with those names on their servers.
By the act of creating a character on the servers, you are stating that the character is your own original creation, and not previously legally protectd, which you are gifting to Cryptic.
If the character is not your own original creation, you are lying.
If the character is previously legally protected, you are lying.
If you also played a character of the same name and appearance in Dark Age of Camelot, it is probably (I haven't read their EULA) owned by DAOC, in which case you are mistaken or lying.
When Cryptic discovers that you are playing a chearacter in their game that is owned by DAOC, they technically should generic that character.
They may not, because they are nice. But if they do not, they are chancing a lawsuit.
Marvel forced their hand.
It is true that Cryptic only owns your character data. They cannot really own the character name and appearance. But they can make you change the character name and appearance as it appears on their servers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, lets clear up some concepts here. Technically, Artic and Kitsune are more right than wrong. In addition they give practical advice on how to stay absolutely clear of intellectual property issues by saying don't create anything you want to commercialize on the CoX servers. Good advice.
However, let's clarify some details:
The interplay of ownership and commercialization of characters created on CoX, the game, is complicated one that draws upon copyrights, trademark law and trade dress. Each is based on federal statutes and court rulings handed down by the legal system.
Copyrights protect creative expression on an original work of authorship. Trademarks protect a brand, a designation for goods or services in a marketplace. The act of creating and naming a character in CoX involves both bodies of law.
An "idea" is not copyrightable or is a trademark. It can be patented but you must show the idea is novel and fulfills the legal test for "utility".
A name is not copyrightable. An idea is not copyrightable. A name, in and of itself, is a term and unless it embodies a recognizable brand, it is not infringing on a trademark. I challenge anyone to find me a statute or a case where a name is copyrightable. In fact, check the U.S. Copyright Office circular 34 and show me where it says a name is copyrightable; the opposite is true.
The EULA is only a contract, a written agreement between the user and the company. A contract cannot be enforced what is beyond the allowable law. For example, a contract to assassinate someone is not enforceable. A contract to engage in fraud is not enforceable.
You are not "gifting" your character to NCSoft. You are agreeing to a grant of a non-exclusive, royalty free license to NCSoft. You agree that if you use the graphic created images and elements to create your character, NCSoft owns those game "objects".
If you actually gifted you would be giving an assignment, which is not in the EULA.
Trademark infringement depends on a complicated legal standard called "likelihood of confusion". If there is no confusion in the marketplace, even if the terms were identical(!) there is no infringement.
Taken all together then, there are limits to the enforceability of the EULA. If it goes beyond allowable copyright and trademark law, then it's unenforceable. Those limits are still being defined and tested today, YMMV and TNSTAAFL.
Therefore, it will very difficult to enforce copyright violation of the use of a name per se. Remove any character building elements in your character from the character generator and there will be no trademark or trade dress issues. REMOVE YOUR BIO. Yes your character will be bland and empty. That's a cost and decision you have to make.
The EULA is not an I WIN button, it's not even an EASY button (whoops, trademark reference! [I kid]) Bottom line, ---> Don't be stupid and be careful. To be absolutely sure, don't put it on the servers.
Also good to know, thank you concreteshift.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if we deleted our char from your servers, would you still hold rights to them, since they were still made on your servers? Or would you hold them temporarily, or would your rights to them be gone, or what?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the most interesting part, to me. What constitutes Cryptic's ownership? If I created and deleted a Wolverine clone named Woolverine, am I still liable for breaking the EULA? If Cryptic does a backup and I delete my character, effectively trying to reassert my ownership of that concept, who "owns" it?
Law is funny.
[/ QUOTE ]
The relevant section of the EULA, boldification mine:
[ QUOTE ]
Member Content. Members can upload to and create content on our servers in various forms, such as in selections you make and characters and items you create for the Game(s), and in bulletin boards and similar user-to-user areas (“Member Content”). By submitting Member Content to or creating Member Content on any area of the Service, you acknowledge and agree that such Member Content is the sole property of NC Interactive. To the extent that NC Interactive cannot claim exclusive rights in Member Content by operation of law, you hereby grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Member Content has expressly granted) to NC Interactive and its related Game Content Providers a non-exclusive, universal, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicenseable right to exercise all rights of any kind or nature associated with such Member Content, and all ancillary and subsidiary rights thereto, in any languages and media now known or not currently known. You shall indemnify and hold NC Interactive and its affiliates harmless from and against any claims by third parties that your Member Content infringes upon, violates or misappropriates any of their intellectual property or proprietary rights.
[/ QUOTE ]
IANAL (though I did take six hours of Media Law, with heavy emphasis on intellectual property, as part of my radio/TV/film degree). However, the clear and obvious (IMO) statement is that the act of submission (clicking the "Enter" button, as someone noted) is in and of itself a surrender of rights. Pretty much the same language was included in Final Fantasy XI's EULA and I would suspect that it's pretty much boilerplate for MMOs, though I haven't played any others. Regardless, it's not just a Cryptic policy. The basic idea is this: media corporations basically exist to accrue and exploit intellectual property. If a TV producer were to play the game one day and see a character he thought would make a great TV show, NCSoft (or Square or whomever) want to make sure they aren't left in the cold. By their logic, the character was spotted BECAUSE of CoH and in most cases exists partly or wholly because they provided tools and resources. Whether they have a moral right to profit because Stan Schmenge, Head of Development for Hip New Network, saw the Azure Attorney and liked his bio is irrelevant. If they do not at least claim that right, they are not doing right by their shareholders and risk corporate mutiny.
As for characters already registered and copyrighted, there are two possibilities here.
1) NCSoft could argue that you knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented the character by creating it on the server, delete/generic it and reprimand or ban you.
2) NCSoft could argue that this falls under the category of "a non-exclusive, universal, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicenseable right to exercise all rights of any kind or nature associated with such Member Content, and all ancillary and subsidiary rights thereto, in any languages and media now known or not currently known." In that case, you haven't gifted your character, but you've given NCSoft full permission to exploit it in direct competition to you. And neither side can sign anything involving "exclusive rights" without acting in bad faith. (And if you already signed exclusive rights over to anyone, even if it's just for the naked street pantomime rights, NCSoft can claim your in-game manifestation of the character is an act of bad faith--you promised them a license you were legally unable to grant).
As for the "What if I create-and-delete a character" question, seems pretty open and shut to me. The act of submitting the content (i.e., character) is the time at which you yield rights, permanently. Assuming that Cryptic keeps records of characters after they're deleted, which wouldn't surprise me, NCSoft owns the character even after you're gone and the database is wiped. If they don't keep those records? They still own the character, but can't prove it without help.
All this, of course, assumes that the click-through EULA is a valid and binding contract. The last I'd heard, there'd never been a legal decision saying it is or is not, but the industry currently operates under the impression that it is. It doesn't matter if you didn't read it or made assumptions--it was there, and you said "I Agree" every single time you logged in. If not, then that's a whole can of worms and you can expect all MMOs to shut down while paper contracts are sent out to players before they open up again.
Regardless, unless clickthrough EULAs are ruled invalid in court, about the best you can do is hire a lawyer to negotiate with NCSoft and try to buy the rights to your creation that you surrendered. They probably will want more than you think it's worth, though.
As to Phaeton's comments, again, the act of "submitting" your character to the DBservers is described as transferring the rights. Whether they have a "backup" or not is irrelevant--you already agreed the character was theirs before deleting it. Also, even if they don't keep "backups" of character data proper, they may keep enough 'on file' to assert ownership if need be. (Even if they don't, the EULA still states the rights are theirs--it'd just be hell to prove it.)
(And again, IANAL--this could all be bullcrap. I just know what I learned in class, and what the EULA says plain-as-day.)
EDITed to fix a broken Bold tag and add in the last bit
So what's my incentive to log in and create my concept idea for a toon that Cryptic ends up owning?
If Cryptic assumes "contractual governance" of the toon to protect against anyone else in the game from stealing my idea and profiting from its sale/use for whatever duration of time my account is active, then I'm 100% ok with that.
If the account is cancelled or the toon deleted, then its outside of Cryptic's purview to protect unless I've gone the extra mile to copyright it outside the game. I wouldn't be trying to use Cryptic as a Copyright office but I expect my original ideas to be protected when I log into the game and still remain my ownership rights for so long as I keep the account active.
Would that be a fairer way to look at it? Honestly not trying to be a jerk here and I realize Artic's trying to advise in the player's best interests but this interpretation just floors me, and I'm just like anyone else - I'm passionate about the ideas I create in the realm of this playspace.
At the same time, as much as I love the game, I love my ideas more and I'm not sure I'm ok with passing ownership over to Cryptic permanently when I log in to create them if Artic's interpretation holds true.