Quote:
i had my reservations about the scenario until you added the orphanages.|
Originally Posted by Kelenar
US copyright law: Like a trainwreck, but they keep sending more trains. And the trains are hauling explosives. And it's in a minefield. Surrounded by orphanages.
|
Let 'er rip!
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
Technically, yes, if you made a character named Thor(something) and it was sufficiently different in costume, appearance, and powers (say, a Plant/Thermal Radiation Controller, or something odd like that), then you would stand a good chance of appealing any possible genericizing of your character.
In reality, you're probably better naming your character something different. And there are enough comic book geeks playing CoX (yeah, I know, what a shock) that even if you pick a particularly obscure character, it will almost certainly get noticed and reported. (Not to mention the idiot who practically copied Marvel Comics' "The Vision" and whinged about it being reported.)
Words can't be trademarked. So a word like wolverine or archangel or hulk can not be trademarked. However if that same word is used as a name (IE Wolverine, Archangel, or Hulk) it can then be trademarked. Historical names can not be trademarked which is why CoX can get away with using Atlas. I'm still not sure why they can use Valkyrie since I believe Marvel was the first to use that as a comic book character name.
And although it is legal to create characters with names like Thor and Hercules it is trademark infringment if they are given both the name and the appearance of the comic book character. Since there is the possibility at any time for a person to change their costume and bio to resemble that of a trademarked character the GMs mostly prefer to err on the side of caution and generic based solely on the basis of a duplication or near duplication of name.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MOUT__
And remember... old geometry teachers never die, they just go off on a tangent.
::cough:: |
/sine[d]
Thelonious Monk
Quote:
I could watch that analogy all day.
|
Originally Posted by Kelenar
US copyright law: Like a trainwreck, but they keep sending more trains. And the trains are hauling explosives. And it's in a minefield. Surrounded by orphanages.
|
I've never heard of a comic book character named Arc Period Angel Apostrophe. I would file a support ticket and see if you can get the decision reversed.
There are no words for what this community, and the friends I have made here mean to me. Please know that I care for all of you, yes, even you. If you Twitter, I'm MrThan. If you're Unleashed, I'm dumps. I'll try and get registered on the Titan Forums as well. Peace, and thanks for the best nine years anyone could ever ask for.
Quote:
I wish the OP's partner the best of luck but I don't see the GM's caving on punctuation.
|
Originally Posted by DumpleBerry
I've never heard of a comic book character named Arc Period Angel Apostrophe. I would file a support ticket and see if you can get the decision reversed.
|
There is always a lot of confusion in threads like these. Just to clear a few things up...
The EULA states that they can ban any name or other information at any time for any reason. Whether they can do it is beyond question, and most certainly legal, no matter how non-infringing the character might be. Anyone claiming that they can't do it or that someone has some kind of "right" to use a name is being completely bogus, and more importantly, wrong.
However, as you might expect, they would get really bad press if they just capriciously banned names at random for no reason.
So they ban names that might be protected by IP laws. Notice the "might," it's really important. NCsoft is under no obligation whatsoever to make a judgment whether or not the character actually is infringing. Only that it might be. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. Maybe, maybe not--that's the standard that the GMs use to trigger a name/costume/bio ban. (Actually, I'm thinking it might even be more like "possibly, but probably not.")
If you were to write a comic book titled "Arc.Angel," there's a high probability that 1) you wouldn't be sued, and 2) even if you were, you would win. However, remember, that's not the standard that the GMs use. Also remember that you're not writing a comic book. You're playing a game. A game with specific rules spelled out in the EULA that says that you're relinquishing any rights you might think you have to your character to NCsoft, and that they can do whatever they want with said character, including but not limited to blowing away his/her/its name. Whether or not "Arc.Angel" (or any other name, for that matter) is infringing is largely irrelevant, other than it helps you predict whether or not action will be taken. But it's not a sure-fire indicator.
Last, but not least, all of this has little to nothing to do with the Marvel lawsuit a few years ago. I distinctly remembering many names being nuked before that lawsuit, and the fact that NCsoft was indeed responding to such issues was undoubtedly pointed out during legal proceedings, and one reason that the case ultimately went nowhere. They nuked names before, just as they nuke names now.
We've been saving Paragon City for eight and a half years. It's time to do it one more time.
(If you love this game as much as I do, please read that post.)
Quote:
Hmmm. Don't anyone tell Thor's Assassin about this, or Assassin of Thor. I think it would break his Art.|
Originally Posted by slave teri
Having Thor in your name CAN get you genericed, whether or not it's related to the comic book. Happened to me and no amount of escalation removed the generic on my (by then) demonic girl with the name "Thorsinger."
The funny thing is, she was going through an RP transformation and a few months BEFORE that, they might well have had a case, since i had one outfit that might have looked a bit like Norse Myth. But by the time (3yrs after her creation) she got genericed, she'd been going through some heavy RP transformations and had red skin, horns, and a very skimpy set of outfits.  In the end, i was basically told that just having Thor in her name was enough, in this case. |
If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough.
Black Pebble is my new hero.
Quote:
Then I would like to repost my previous statement. Why can't we share the guideline the GMs use? Wouldn't that be of help for us all? Surely they do have some kind of rulebook they look at just to avoid these kind of seemigly random genericizing.|
Originally Posted by TonyV
There is always a lot of confusion in threads like these. Just to clear a few things up...
The EULA states that they can ban any name or other information at any time for any reason. Whether they can do it is beyond question, and most certainly legal, no matter how non-infringing the character might be. Anyone claiming that they can't do it or that someone has some kind of "right" to use a name is being completely bogus, and more importantly, wrong. However, as you might expect, they would get really bad press if they just capriciously banned names at random for no reason. So they ban names that might be protected by IP laws. Notice the "might," it's really important. NCsoft is under no obligation whatsoever to make a judgment whether or not the character actually is infringing. Only that it might be. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. Maybe, maybe not--that's the standard that the GMs use to trigger a name/costume/bio ban. (Actually, I'm thinking it might even be more like "possibly, but probably not.") If you were to write a comic book titled "Arc.Angel," there's a high probability that 1) you wouldn't be sued, and 2) even if you were, you would win. However, remember, that's not the standard that the GMs use. Also remember that you're not writing a comic book. You're playing a game. A game with specific rules spelled out in the EULA that says that you're relinquishing any rights you might think you have to your character to NCsoft, and that they can do whatever they want with said character, including but not limited to blowing away his/her/its name. Whether or not "Arc.Angel" (or any other name, for that matter) is infringing is largely irrelevant, other than it helps you predict whether or not action will be taken. But it's not a sure-fire indicator. Last, but not least, all of this has little to nothing to do with the Marvel lawsuit a few years ago. I distinctly remembering many names being nuked before that lawsuit, and the fact that NCsoft was indeed responding to such issues was undoubtedly pointed out during legal proceedings, and one reason that the case ultimately went nowhere. They nuked names before, just as they nuke names now. |
//Jack
The Kickers base.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
-Groucho Marx
Quote:
It would be helpful only to those who genuinely want to follow the rules. Others would make characters that just barely follow those rules, but could still be construed as copyright infringement.
|
Originally Posted by Jack Power
Then I would like to repost my previous statement. Why can't we share the guideline the GMs use? Wouldn't that be of help for us all? Surely they do have some kind of rulebook they look at just to avoid these kind of seemigly random genericizing.
//Jack |
Yes? And shouldn't the GMs job be much easier then? If there are clearcut rules to be followed we don't have to have these kinds of threads about some poor guy getting genericed.
You think this is a greyscale problem? Not black and white?
//Jack
The Kickers base.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
-Groucho Marx
Quote:
The problem doesn't lie with the people who would follow the rules if they are spelled out.|
Originally Posted by Jack Power
Yes? And shouldn't the GMs job be much easier then? If there are clearcut rules to be followed we don't have to have these kinds of threads about some poor guy getting genericed.
You think this is a greyscale problem? Not black and white? //Jack |
The problem lies with the people who either think the rules don't apply to them for whatever reason, or who want to argue endlessly that their costume/bio/character/whatever is not, in fact, a violation of the rules. Also, you have to realize, only a small percentage of the player-base every reads these forums.
Yes, it would be nice if a red-name posted the rules and/or guidelines that the GMs work by when determining whether a particular case would be a IP infringement issue. But I suspect that it varies by GM, some being more strict then others when it comes to such things. As such, there probably are no hard and fast rules where "so much" isn't a IP violation, and "just a little bit more" is.
Quote:
We don't need to be given clearcut rules to follow. Each and every one of us knows damn well when we are guilty of making a copyright/trademark violation.|
Originally Posted by Jack Power
Yes? And shouldn't the GMs job be much easier then? If there are clearcut rules to be followed we don't have to have these kinds of threads about some poor guy getting genericed.
You think this is a greyscale problem? Not black and white? //Jack |
By not making a clearcut rule NCSoft has given their GM's the flexibility to enforce not only the letter of the law but the spirit as well.
That means players can't argue that one little detail is off so technically they aren't violating the rules.
I believe what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography can easily be applied here as well:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [Copyright/Trademark violations]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.
Quote:
I agree with you IN THIS CASE, because copyright/trademark violation is a matter of fact. What is porn is opinion. Not a very strong legal statement on Stewart's part.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
We don't need to be given clearcut rules to follow. Each and every one of us knows damn well when we are guilty of making a copyright/trademark violation.
By not making a clearcut rule NCSoft has given their GM's the flexibility to enforce not only the letter of the law but the spirit as well. That means players can't argue that one little detail is off so technically they aren't violating the rules. I believe what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography can easily be applied here as well: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [Copyright/Trademark violations]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. |
Wavicle, Energy/Energy Blaster, dinged 50 in Issue 4, summer of 2005.
@Wavicle, mostly on the Justice server.
Quote:
Lol. Sorry didn't really want to bring up the porn thing, but what he said really fit well in this situation.|
Originally Posted by Wavicle
I agree with you IN THIS CASE, because copyright/trademark violation is a matter of fact. What is porn is opinion. Not a very strong legal statement on Stewart's part.
|
We also have an appeals system in place to catch the occasional mistakes because even GM's aren't perfect.
Quote:
You say that historical names can't be trademarked, but then you ask why NCSoft can use Valkyrie? Valkyries are not only creatures from Norse mythology, they were first widely popularized in Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen in the 1850s.
|
Originally Posted by Mandu
Historical names can not be trademarked which is why CoX can get away with using Atlas. I'm still not sure why they can use Valkyrie since I believe Marvel was the first to use that as a comic book character name.
|
Justice Blues, Tech/Tank, Inv/SS
----------------------
Fighting The Future Trilogy
----------------------
Quote:
Really? I would think clear rules are a good thing. I know that this issue is on a greyscale. I'd just think that knowing the criterias the GMs judge by. It seems more than one player in the could use this clearer rulebook. Mind you, I'm not talking about some small costume detail here. I'm thinking, like someone said in another thread about reporting these guys as a player, the three strike rule. "Bio, name, costume, if two are blatantly in violation I'd report them". While this isn't my personal standpoit I can understand players but shouldn't GMs have strickter guidelines?|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
We don't need to be given clearcut rules to follow. Each and every one of us knows damn well when we are guilty of making a copyright/trademark violation.
By not making a clearcut rule NCSoft has given their GM's the flexibility to enforce not only the letter of the law but the spirit as well. That means players can't argue that one little detail is off so technically they aren't violating the rules. I believe what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography can easily be applied here as well: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [Copyright/Trademark violations]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. |
//Jack
The Kickers base.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
-Groucho Marx
Quote:
Only if Marvel's lawyers will tell us what their guidelines are.
|
Originally Posted by Jack Power
Really? I would think clear rules are a good thing. I know that this issue is on a greyscale. I'd just think that knowing the criterias the GMs judge by. It seems more than one player in the could use this clearer rulebook. Mind you, I'm not talking about some small costume detail here. I'm thinking, like someone said in another thread about reporting these guys as a player, the three strike rule. "Bio, name, costume, if two are blatantly in violation I'd report them". While this isn't my personal standpoit I can understand players but shouldn't GMs have strickter guidelines?
//Jack |
Quote:
In most cases clear rules are great. This however is one of the gray areas where there are too many people that would use the information to see just how much they can get away with. |
Originally Posted by Jack Power
Really? I would think clear rules are a good thing. I know that this issue is on a greyscale. I'd just think that knowing the criterias the GMs judge by. It seems more than one player in the could use this clearer rulebook. Mind you, I'm not talking about some small costume detail here. I'm thinking, like someone said in another thread about reporting these guys as a player, the three strike rule. "Bio, name, costume, if two are blatantly in violation I'd report them". While this isn't my personal standpoit I can understand players but shouldn't GMs have strickter guidelines?
//Jack |
The GM's are pretty good at what they do because I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen/heard of them making a copyright generic mistake.
Quote:
except his name.
|
Originally Posted by Duchessofgrey
Nothing about his toon was similar to any marvel toons
|
@Ba'alat/@Zizka
"Plausibility is nothing compared to nerdrage." --PumBumbler
Quote:
GM's don't generic costumes and bio's if it's just an issue with the name.
|
Originally Posted by Baalat
except his name.
|
Quote:
Marvel may have copyrighted the superhero name Archangel, but I doubt they have copyrighted the superhero name Arc Angel'
|
Originally Posted by Baalat
Originally Posted by Duchessofgrey  Nothing about his toon was similar to any marvel toons except his name. |
"Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves." -Tolstoy
Quote:
The issue would be that some other player saw the character in question and reported it. Without actually seeing the costume and bio that goes with the name, it is hard to tell what the petitioning player found offensive or decided was against the EULA. I know when I petition a EULA violation, I specify whether it is the name, costume or bio that is violating the EULA. I generally petition if two or three of the three violate unless it is really blatant. Most of the time, though, if one factor is really blatant, one of the other factors is in violation, too. I have never seen a "W0l\/3R1N3" that didn't also rip off one of Wolverine's many costumes (for the record, I have never come across a Wolverine rip off that used the "Patch" costume).|
Originally Posted by GATE-keeper
Marvel may have copyrighted the superhero name Archangel, but I doubt they have copyrighted the superhero name Arc Angel'
|
I would think that GMs patrolling the game looking for EULA violations is pretty rare. I imagine that most of the time when someone is generalized, it is due to a player petition. I do know that the Marvel suit conditioned our GMs to err on the side of caution. This means that they probably generic the character first, and ask questions later. There is a process where you can appeal if you feel that you were generalized in error, and people have had their names and costumes restored in the past. It is my understanding that the "powers that be" would rather spend the time and energy to go through this appeals process than risk another suit.
To the OP: Your partner should have appealed. If the character did not look like Warren Worthington III in any of his many costumes (Not just the Apocalypse granted Death / Archangel costume, as he has recently begun to revert to the Archangel persona and powers while enraged. Thus any costume that evokes any of his Angel costumes might be fair game), and the bio did not say that he was a billionaire mutant playboy, you should be able to obtain a reversal.
New story arcs coming soon (ARC IDs will be aded when I finish the arc):
So, you want to join the Hellions? (level 1-14 Villainous arc)
Sparks & Steel (level 5-20 Heroic arc)
and
So you want to join the Skulls? (level 1-14 Villainous arc)
US copyright law: Like a trainwreck, but they keep sending more trains. And the trains are hauling explosives. And it's in a minefield. Surrounded by orphanages.
Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.