What about MY trademarks and/or copyrights?


Ad Astra

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie V View Post
Trademark doesn't work like that.


Copyright doesn't either.

Trademark is about protecting symbols used to represent particular goods or services. You can trademark absolutely anything if you're using it to represent your goods or services so long as it isn't a generic term for those; trademarks can be "for all purposes" (rare) or "for a particular area of commerce" (common). Consequently, DC can (and has) trademarked "Superman" in the following fields: candy, amusement park rides, the internet, comic books, shower curtains, handbags and purses, underwear, and numerous others. It has not trademarked it in the field of philosophy, and probably cannot because of Nietzsche's prior and better-known use.

Trademark is "use it or lose it", so you cannot protect a mark that you are not using. You must also actively defend it to keep it from becoming a generic term for the goods or services; Otis Elevator, for example, lost their trademark on "Escalator" this way. This is why Marvel and DC are so aggressive about people re-creating their characters in CoH: a desire to keep "Superman" from becoming a generic term for a man in blue spandex wearing his underwear on the outside.

Copyright, on the other hand, does not need to be actively defended. Failure to deal with an infringement you know about may prevent you from suing later over that particular infringement, but it does not invalidate your copyright or prevent you from suing over other infringements.
You have presented probably the most concise and accurate description of both of these terms and how they relate to this game that I have ever seen here. I'd give you Rep if we still had it.


"I wish my life was a non-stop Hollywood movie show,
A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes."

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brillig View Post
Interesting but not strictly relevant. If you were following the context, the individual would have had to have won his claim after taking action that could reasonably be seen as having given over his intellectual property to the company.

Obviously, that would not have been the case in a pitch meeting.
I might have been wrong about the pitch meeting - that may be part of Hollywood myth.

However, the fundamental ownership was - according to the courts - undeniably Mr. DeCosta's, for the glaringly obvious reason that he not only created the "Paladin" character, but in fact was the "Paladin" character.

What we create, we own.


HELP SAVE THIS GAME!
If we can save this game, I promise I will never complain about Travel Power Suppression again! You have my word on it!
"The customer is always right."

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Local_Man View Post
It has been a while since I read the court decision, but from what I recall, the case was settled because NC Soft won a preliminary Injunction hearing that made it very, very likely that NC Soft would win the case. In fact, the EULA worked and protected NC Soft because it prohibited copies of trademarked characters. Marvel was trying to shut down the game completely, and the Court said "No" at a preliminary hearing. In most cases, whoever wins the preliminary hearing will very likely win the case.

And I seem to recall (but I may be mistaken) that some of the Marvel people actually logged onto CoH and recreated some of the Marvel characters to prove that it could be done . . . and the judge cited this as a basis to say that the Marvel people were causing CoH to violate the trademarks by creating their own violations in the game. So Marvel DID resort to those tactics, kind of.

In effect, as long as NC Soft agreed to make "reasonable efforts" to get rid of trademark violations, CoH itself did not cause a trademark violation. It would be like Crayola being sued because you can draw Wolverine with Crayons. In the "settlement," CoH really didn't give up anything from what I recall.

Edit: Oh, I see others kind of addressed the same points.
Funny! I hadn't read that. I never followed that lawsuit that closely att he time, it didn't effect me much. Last I heard about it was that Marvel dropped the lawsuit because of some agreement, (which I do not know what it was), was signed between CoH and themselves.

Which illustrates the point I was making, any company could come to this game make their characters here and claim infringement. I bet if Marvel had to do it again, they would forget to mention that their own employees were some of the major violators.

I still believe, its better to just avoid the whole issue to begin with. Who wants to worry about logging in one day and finding GenericHero on your favorite character. Have fun with the game.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasher View Post
I might have been wrong about the pitch meeting - that may be part of Hollywood myth.

However, the fundamental ownership was - according to the courts - undeniably Mr. DeCosta's, for the glaringly obvious reason that he not only created the "Paladin" character, but in fact was the "Paladin" character.

What we create, we own.
*sigh*

Yes, we own what we create.

Until we give the rights away.

The point is - the EULA contains language that can be interpreted as doing just that. Tossing aside all arguments about the enforceability of EULAs, the core fact is that creating a character from an IP you own opens the door to having that IP contested. Regardless of what you feel about the likelihood of such a suit being brought or its eventual resolution, it seems like a foolhardy idea to create such risk.


 

Posted

I created a character that looks like me and has my real name... Is that covered in the EULA?

Uh oh, have I been owned by NCsoft for the past six years??


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brillig View Post
Remember, characters created on an MMO server become the intellectual property of the company that runs the MMO.
Let's put aside the assumption that all MMOs are the same with the "an MMO", and pretend you just meant CoH:

You're wrong. NCSoft does not gain ownership of my character if said character already has a copyright or trademark on it. If I create the character from whole cloth on their server, they do. If the character existed previously, they merely gain the right to distribute the character's likeness as rendered in the game (for example, put a screenshot of my character on their web page or in banner ads).

Think about it this way: If your interpretation were correct, then I could create Batman on Freedom, and suddenly NCSoft would own Batman. That's ridiculous. (I realize the character creator stops you from using the name Batman. Insert a character name that it doesn't stop.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironblade View Post
So he has a big mouth. Firstly, he said "if", meaning he hasn't gotten genericed yet. Secondly, the GM's don't ask, they just generic without advance warning. Apparently he doesn't even know the rules or how they are enforced.
As I recall, he actually did get his Harry Dresden character genericed. Then he sent an appeal (y'know, that thing you're allowed to do if you believe the generic was unjustified) along with proof of ownership, and his character name was restored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion View Post
Since there is no signature
Note: clicking 'I agree' is often considered a "Digital Signature", especially since expecting a user to have a tablet is ludicrous, and trying to draw your signature with a mouse is nigh-impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion View Post
Nietzsche coined the term Superman long before DC published Action Comics #1.
Nietzsche did no such thing. He wrote about the concept of the Übermensch. "Über" shares its origin with the Latin "super", the Greek "ὑπέρ" (hyper), and the English "over" and "above". "Mensch", of course, refers to humans (not specifically a man).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion View Post
But one thing is certain: if you don't take steps to protect trademarks and copyrights, you can lose them. That's why these companies are so picky about them.
True for trademarks (and sloganmarks, etc.) but not for copyrights.


http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper View Post
Think about it this way: If your interpretation were correct, then I could create Batman on Freedom, and suddenly NCSoft would own Batman. That's ridiculous. (I realize the character creator stops you from using the name Batman. Insert a character name that it doesn't stop.)
Here's why you're wrong. You can't affect the ownershiip of Batman by creating a Batman character because you don't have the legal right to assign ownership of the IP. Same reason you can't sell stolen goods.

If you are the legitimate owner of the IP, then you have the ability to enter into a contract transfering ownership of the IP.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrabbyLobster View Post
I created a character that looks like me and has my real name... Is that covered in the EULA?

Uh oh, have I been owned by NCsoft for the past six years??
Are you that clueless, or just trolling? Do you really think NCSoft is trying to bring back slavery?

Your LIKENESS, as it exists IN THE GAME, is their property.


Paragon City Search And Rescue
The Mentor Project

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brillig View Post
Here's why you're wrong. You can't affect the ownershiip of Batman by creating a Batman character because you don't have the legal right to assign ownership of the IP. Same reason you can't sell stolen goods.
But according to you (or possibly someone else in the thread, I can't keep track), the act of placing the character in the game gives NCSoft full ownership of that character, period. That is a ludicrous and patently false claim, demonstrated by The Goddamned Batman™.


http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt

 

Posted

No, it's not according to him, or anyone with any sense at all.

The inherent presumption in any contract ever is that, if you agree to perform an act or not to perform an act, that you have the authority to do so. This is so staggeringly obvious that not only is it assumed to be a basic element of any contract ever written in every last legitimate jurisdiction on the planet, but that in nearly all of these it is not actually possible to remove this implied term from the contract even with express terms.

Claiming that because NCsoft can't claim copyright of a character you don't own that they can't claim ownership of characters you do is almost as well-thought-through as the notion that because it's legal to stab yourself as a person in the throat that it must therefore be legal to stab any person in the throat.


 

Posted

Putting it simply, it comes down to this:

1) The Terms of Service for CoH are legal protection for Paragon Studios and NCSoft. It is not intended to give copyright for your characters to NCSoft, it is intended to keep YOU from suing THEM for use of your copyrighted character.

2) Copyright exists in reference to a "work". A different "work" is a different copyright. Thus, NCSoft's license to use your character exists within the work known as City of Heroes. You also grant them license to use your character in other copyrighted works that they may derive from City of Heroes. But the right that you acknowledge as their right to own the "character" is in that work known as "City of Heroes".

3) NCSoft and Paragon Studios own all other rights to all properties present in City of Heroes. Statesman, Paragon City, Lord Recluse, the Rogue Isles, Praetoria, Atlas Park, Crey Industries, the Circle of Thorns, and so forth and so on are all copyrighted by NCSoft. If you reference any of these properties in your character's bio (and even because you interact with them) then that copyright belongs to NCSoft, not you. I assume, if the TOS makes no reference to this, that their ownership of your character in the game means that they grant you the license to use these properties, just as they grant you the right to play your character in the game.

4) Finally, and I feel this is the most important, even though you do grant ownership of your character as he exists in City of Heroes (in the context of being a part of other properties that NCSoft owns) you do still own the copyright to the character yourself. You do not grant ALL rights to the character to NCSoft, in particular your rights as the creator of the character. It becomes a shared copyright, between yourself and NCSoft. What rights you do surrender are mainly in the area of what you can prevent NCSoft from doing, but NCSoft does not prevent you from playing your character, or prevent you from claiming it as your own creation.

Really, the best way to deal with the issue is to make sure that your character in City of Heroes is distinct and easily identifiable as different from other versions elsewhere. I have a character, a cyborg, who I originally created for a fanfiction based on another game. I removed all references to that original game in her bio and design, and made her becoming a cyborg a result of a Crey experiment. If I create another version of the character altogether, who became a cyborg in a different way, then she would be distinct enough from the other two versions to be my own property.

If you want to avoid the issue of trademark, then change the name, too. But that depends on whether you want to trademark the name, in the case of my character, her name is her name.

(Note, BTW, the very next line in the quote from the TOS which is so often used as "proof" that NCSoft takes away your rights to your intellectual property. "To the extent that NC Interactive cannot claim exclusive rights in Member Content by operation of law..." The assumption is that merely by NCSoft claiming that it owns the character in question, that is legally enough to force transfer. It is not, that would actually require a court ruling, which is why the next line. Again, the legal text is NCSoft protecting itself from infringing on the copyrights of people who submit content to them)


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brillig View Post
Here's why you're wrong. You can't affect the ownershiip of Batman by creating a Batman character because you don't have the legal right to assign ownership of the IP. Same reason you can't sell stolen goods.

If you are the legitimate owner of the IP, then you have the ability to enter into a contract transfering ownership of the IP.
Which is part of why you are not allowed by the EULA to create characters whose IP you do not control.

Of course, the closest any of this got tested was when Marvel sued Cryptic/NCSoft... Would of been interesting to see how that one ended up. After all, Marvel owns the characters it's underlings were told to make in game


Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net

Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajani Isa View Post
Which is part of why you are not allowed by the EULA to create characters whose IP you do not control.

Of course, the closes any of this got tested was when Marvel sued Cryptic/NCSoft... Would of been interesting to see how that one ended up.
Marvel's lawsuit would have been thrown out is my guess. If it is considered by the courts to be a copyright violation to create a Wolverine clone in CoH, then the proper person to sue would be the individual player because they are the one actually violating any copyright.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by MunkiLord View Post
Marvel's lawsuit would have been thrown out is my guess. If it is considered by the courts to be a copyright violation to create a Wolverine clone in CoH, then the proper person to sue would be the individual player because they are the one actually violating any copyright.
Well, only because the TOS says so.

It's my impression that because City of Heroes is broadcast across the Internet, it is seen as a form of broadcast. So it would be illegal for, say, a network to broadcast a show that used a copyrighted character, even if the author of the show was the one actually violating the copyright. The author violated the copyright when he wrote the show and sold it to the network, but then the network violated it again by broadcasting it.

The TOS would be similar to an indemnity clause where the network would insist that if the show being sold is a violation of copyright, the author accepts the liability. Of course, the network would still have to show it didn't know of the copyright violation, but having that in its contract would help.


 

Posted

There's also the possibility that Marvel went for the claim Time Warner (I think it was) made of Youtube, i.e. that their business model actually relied on users infringing.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
Disclaimer: I'm a published writer, I used to take people to court recreationally.
Congratulations?


@Mental Maden @Maden Mental
"....you are now tackle free for life."-ShoNuff

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by uberschveinen View Post
because it's legal to stab yourself as a person in the throat that it must therefore be legal to stab any person in the throat.
Actually, attempted suicide is illegal.


http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jade_Dragon View Post
Well, only because the TOS says so.

It's my impression that because City of Heroes is broadcast across the Internet, it is seen as a form of broadcast. So it would be illegal for, say, a network to broadcast a show that used a copyrighted character, even if the author of the show was the one actually violating the copyright. The author violated the copyright when he wrote the show and sold it to the network, but then the network violated it again by broadcasting it.

The TOS would be similar to an indemnity clause where the network would insist that if the show being sold is a violation of copyright, the author accepts the liability. Of course, the network would still have to show it didn't know of the copyright violation, but having that in its contract would help.
I see the whole Marvel lawsuit similar to lawsuits against Youtube and Ebay that both of those companies keep winning time and time again. Hell, the Google v. Viacom case was decided on summary judgment in favor of Google (though that is currently being appealed). As long as they have in place systems to deal with copyright/trademark infringement they are not liable for the actions of users. CoH has such a system so I'm thinking that they would have been fine in the lawsuit.

Now if they actively encouraged users to violate copyrights and trademarks then they would have been in trouble much like several torrent tracker sights.

I'm not a lawyer, so obviously I don't know any of this for certain, but this one seems pretty obvious to me.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper View Post
Actually, attempted suicide is illegal.
I believe successful suicide is illegal as well, but rarely prosecuted.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow State View Post
There's also the possibility that Marvel went for the claim Time Warner (I think it was) made of Youtube, i.e. that their business model actually relied on users infringing.
This is what they went after.

Essentially, they were trying to sue Crayola for that spiderman doodle the kid did in kindergarten.


Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net

Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by MunkiLord View Post
Marvel's lawsuit would have been thrown out is my guess. If it is considered by the courts to be a copyright violation to create a Wolverine clone in CoH, then the proper person to sue would be the individual player because they are the one actually violating any copyright.
I was referring mostly to the granting of rights of the IP.


Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net

Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.

 

Posted

Ah, this topic again. Although I am not a copyright attorney and also not giving legal advice per se, this subject is really not all that ambiguous. To the extent that *anything* in copyright law is unambiguous, this situation is unambiguous (which means, there's one answer if you believe lawsuits are based on the law, and a different one only if you dig up Johnny Cochrane to represent you).

First, in the US copyright is based on the principle that copyright attaches at birth: the moment a creative work is "created" (fixed in tangible form) the author becomes the owner. This happens as a matter of law. There are only two possibilities: the person actually creating the work is the author and therefore the owner by law, or the person's employer is if and only if the work is a work-for-hire.

When I make a character in the character creator, I'm the creator and owner of that work as a matter of law in the US. The EULA cannot supercede that under any circumstances unless the EULA was a work for hire contract. Its not.

Second, copyright cannot be transfered as a matter of law except by a specific written document doing so. This is to protect authors. Transfer must be signed and in writing (it cannot be a verbal contract) and must be specific - it must list the exact works being transfered ("anything you make with the character creator" doesn't count - the law explicitly states each work being transfered must be named specifically). So even if the EULA says I must immediately surrender my ownership of "anything I do," it cannot enforce that provision as a matter of law in the US.

Third, an exclusive, irrevocable licensing agreement is considered equivalent to an ownership transfer as a matter of law for the purposes of transfer, because it in effect transfers all rights to a third party. So it also has the same requirements as above. NCSoft cannot ask me to transfer control of my characters to them exclusively, leaving me with no rights to them. That is also a violation of US Copyright law.

Fourth, copyright law is silent on non-exclusive irrevocable licensing agreements which do not transfer ownership. That is why that is what NCSoft's EULA specifically demands. It asks for ownership where that is possible by law and where that is not possible (for example, anywhere within the United States - I'm unfamiliar with the situation in other countries) it asks for a non-exclusive irrevocable license to use the work in any way they see fit. That is where that phrase in the EULA specifically comes from: its there to comply with the requirements of US Copyright law.

This is all NCSoft needs. With this license, they can use that character I just created in the costume editor for any purpose whatsoever, and because the license is non-revocable I can never stop them (well, technically speaking I might be able to in 35 years when the author clause of Copyright Law kicks in). However retaining ownership grants me almost nothing, because I used their character creator. While they have a license to use my work, I don't have one to use theirs. I cannot use the graphics, art, animations, backstory, or any other intellectual property of NCSoft without an explicit license which they haven't granted to me. So I cannot use images of my character for commercial purposes, or the backstory if I've mentioned *anything* about the City of Heroes world or entities, or videos of my game play - nothing from the game.

I *could* use the character *concept* in another work, provided I used none of those elements. Which is basically recreating the character nearly from scratch in another original medium. I can take my MA/SR scrapper and make a fictional martial arts super hero that dresses in black and purple and fights crime and NCSoft cannot stop me from doing so because they don't own that concept. But that's about all I can do.

In short: if you make it, you still own what you made, but they still own what they made that you used, and they can use what you made however they want. You cannot do likewise.


Now, what happens if you are the owner of an actual copyrighted character and make it in City of Heroes? Absolutely nothing different. I *am* the owner of actual copyrighted characters. I'm no different than Jim Butcher in that regard. If he were to make Dresden in City of Heroes, the version of Dresden that he makes in the game would be something he would be licensing to NCSoft to do anything with they wanted. NCSoft wouldn't own Dresden, so they couldn't stop him from continuing to make Dresden novels. But from that point on, Butcher couldn't stop NCSoft from putting Harry Dresden on the box art for City of Heroes either - at least the version that Butcher created in the game.

So if you are the owner of copyright characters that you want to maintain 100% control over, don't make them in City of Heroes. Doing so costs you that control by virtue of the licensing terms of the EULA.


[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)