Another discussion about names

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Green Lantern is a job title, not a name. You call a member of the Green Lantern Corps "Green Lantern" just like you call a member of the USMC "Marine".

You couldn't have Chimera because it is already used in the game as the name of one of the signature characters (specifically, it is the Praetorian version of Manticore) It isn't a case of someone snagging the name before you, it's a case of it being blocked because the developers are already using it in the game's lore.

Phoenix is a trademarked Marvel character, and is blocked from ANYONE using it, not just you. Since you mentioned it is a Controller, I would assume it is a Fire Controller, and that would make it too similar to the Marvel character anyway, and could easily be viewed as a copyright violation.

I can't use the name Thor. Even though Marvel cannot copyright the name because it has existed in mythology for centuries, they have trademarked the appearance of a character bearing that name, which is enough for NCSoft to block the name from being used. I can't even put him in an AE arc, which annoys me, but I understand why it is that way, so I deal with it.

Quick tip for you: If it says "That name is already in use" it means someone beat you to it on that server. If it says "That name is unavailable" it means that the name in question is blocked for some reason. I am quite sure that both CHimera and Phoenix came up "unavailable" rather than "already in use".

On what grounds?

If they had appeared in one story in the 40s and were never used again, I might be inclined to agree. But they are still ACTIVELY creating stories involving those two characters, meaning the trademarks and copyrights related to them are still very much active, and presumably renewed on a regular basis. The only way something enters public domain is A) Upon the death of the original creator or writer, and B) If no one renews any copyrights or trademarks associated with it. Since the original creators sold their intellectual property to DC Comics, it falls to DC to renew trademarks, which I guarantee they have been doing.

Saying that they should enter public domain just because they were created so long ago holds no water, and will not be a convincing argument. DC Comics would have to relinquish any and all rights to those characters for them to enter public domain, and that is never going to happen.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

No, it isn't. You can't trademark a common word. For example, both DC comics and Marvel comics have characters named 'Match'. One is a mutant with flame powers, and one is Superboy's evil twin. Long before Disney bought Marvel, Marvel had a character named 'Beast' and so did Disney.

Example: If Marvel put out a book about a superhero named 'Dog', they couldn't trademark the name in and of itself. They'd have to title the book 'Ultimate Adventures of Dog' or something and trademark that. Even if they trademarked the logo for the book 'Dog' in a distinctive font like the comic 'Spawn' for example, that doesn't stop someone else from using 'Dog' as a character name with a different font.

The catch is, Marvel can however hold a copyright on Phoenix's looks and backstory. Another company can have a character named Phoenix if it is distinct enough from Marvel's. In that same manner, legally speaking, you could have a CoH character named Wolverine provided he wasn't a mutant, wasn't a hundred years old, wasn't short and hairy, didn't have claws, didn't wear yellow, blue and brown, etc.*

The name filter in this game however, doesn't run on law. You can't make a bright pink mutated carp Electric Blaster named 'Spawn' even though if McFarlane said anything, it wouldn't hold up in court. The name is blocked to save GM's from getting support tickets and to save on legal fees if McFarlane wanted to lauch a frivolous case against them.


*Here's where Marvel gets tricky. Ever notice how varied and random Wolverine's backstory and history has been? He's been a super hero, a spy, an assassin, a mercenary, a night club owner, etc. This is (in part) Marvel trying to protect him. If another company was foolish enough to want to write about a character named Wolverine, they'd have to make sure he was in no way similar to any of those, lest Marvel could say "our Wolverine was a space cowboy too. Clearly they are infringing on our character."


So yeah, we still can't use Phoenix as a character name, but it's not because Marvel has trademarked the name.


.

Indeed

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

I never said they trademarked the name. I said they trademarked the character.

Phoenix is a female superhero character with red hair, who has fire and/or telekinetic powers.

You could create an old West gunslinger named Phoenix that is male with brown hair and known for using Colt Peacemakers and be fine.

If you were to create a red haired female superhero who has fire related powers, and name her Phoenix, you will be infringing on Marvel's trademark.

No one can copyright or trademark a common word, but you can trademark a word in association with a particular fictional character. Like I said in my post regarding the name Thor, Marvel can't trademark the name, but they can (and did) trademark the appearance of a character bearing that name. I could use the name Thor in reference to the Norse deity in any media I choose, with zero consequences. But if he is depicted with long blonde hair, a winged helmet, and a long red cape, and speaks in old heraldic English, I could be subject to a lawsuit.

Since Fusion 7 mentioned that her character was a controller, it is reasonable to assume that it is a Fire controller (since the name suggests it). Depending on the exact appearance of the character, she may be infringing the trademark. NCSoft blocks the names so you can't infringe on trademarks, whether that is your intention or not.

Marvel didn't sue because people were making their characters in the game, if that were the reason they would have to go after every person who dresses like a character at a comic convention. They sued because of the way NCSoft's EULA agreement reads. When you click "I Agree" one of the things you are agreeing to is that anything you create in the game is NCSoft's property. Because of that, any time someone creates a trademarked character in the game, NCSoft is claiming ownership of that character by the wording of their Terms of Service. Marvel was disputing the blanket claims of ownership that are contained in the EULA.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

qft.

There is one more condition: the copyright term ends. It used to be that this was a maximum of 28 years from publication (14 + 14 more if the author was still alive to extend it). Now it's 95 years. This number continues to be raised by corporations lobbying congress to increase it.

I'm saying I disagree with current copyright and trademark law as it applies to fictional characters.

Anyone can write stories about or involving Dracula and Frankenstein. When will this be the case for Superman and Batman? Never. Even if DC Comics goes under, the rights will be purchased by someone else, and corporations will continue to lobby congress to extend copyright length. I disagree with that.

I agree that there is emotion on both sides, but there is also logic on both sides. Some people can feel emotionally one way, but logically be persuaded the other way. There will never be full agreement (on any topic of any kind), but there can be understanding, and some minds could be changed.

Can you explain why you view it as a compelling reason not to?

If I make a character, and there is one (or maybe 10, but all are currently used) ideal name that describes that character, allowing duplicate names allows me to make that character with the name that fits it the most.

If I want to make a character and I can't pick one of those names... how does that improve my character concept?

I'll give a simple example, a name that is likely to be commonly thought of, but it's the first one that came to mind for the sake of this discussion, and I'm going to describe the full concept for the character: A living version of an iron maiden, animated through sorcery and with the ability to extend its spikes on the outside and expel and regrow them-- a Spines/Invuln scrapper with the metallic spikes, and a metallic costume. The perfect name for this character is Iron Maiden.

In what way does it improve my concept if someone else made a Fire/Kin controller, hit the random costume button, and picked the name Iron Maiden first?

I know and understand all the arguments for unique names that I've seen so far, but the idea that not allowing duplicate names somehow improves the ability to deliver a character concept is new to me and I don't understand it.

I want you to know that I agree with this statement, but I'm not sure it applies here until I understand how restricting duplicate names helps one achieve their character concept.

If I may offer my quick thought:
I view it as a compelling reason in that that particular name is a vital part to that particular character in an ongoing persistent virtual world with other players/characters/participants.

Having duplicate names in such a genre is not just some random no-big-deal thing. It's a coordinated story in and of itself and something that, in such a setting as multiple players/participants, would normally require a collaborative effort and agreement between those parties involved.

Having multiple heroes of the same name with zero connection running around in the same world spoils an aspect of the vital nature of having a particular character in an ongoing world.

You can disagree with it. People can call it selfish...
However, the opposite can be disagreed with and wanting names that someone else already has could be viewed as selfish as well.

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

Very close, but not 100%

1) you CAN register a common word as a trademark-- within a particular trade field. That's why there's "Wolverine" trademarked as a boot brand and a superhero character. It doesn't HAVE TO BE tied to an appearance, but you often use an item, like the NIKE swoosh, with the mark. NIKE by itself, without the swoosh, in the trade fields that NIKE does business in, is STILL a trademark violation (they've registered with and without the swoosh).

This is relevant because Marvel has registered names (and just the names) like Wolverine, Cyclops, and Phoenix for comics AND movies AND video games. That last part's the sticking point.

2) Marvel sued NCSoft based on APPEARANCES because they were trying to tie the publisher/developer-- the ones with the money -- as facilitators in trademark infringement. They made the costume elements that could be compiled into a reasonable facsimile of the characters, after all. If they'd focused JUST on the names, NCSoft/cryptic could reasonably be excluded as responsible parties-- the names were created and registered by players with no facilitation (beyond serving as registrar) by the devs. Marvel would be told to sue the individual infringers... and they didn't want to be seen suing their fans. Bad business, bad PR, and bad revenue source.

3) Trademark law is a bit wonky in many ways- for one, if you don't defend your mark of trade, you run the risk of losing it. It's intended to be a mark of your trade... and if that mark becomes too broadly applied outside your trade and you did little to prevent it, it's effectively "generic'ed" -- companies do a lot to prevent this-- both in marketing and in aggressive legal action to keep things from being too broadly used (kleenex used by people synonymously with tissue paper, aspirin used for painkillers, "coke" for "any cola" in parts of the country, "xerox" for any copier, etc).

For Marvel, there's a lot of value in keeping the trademark WORD "Wolverine" valid in video games. It's worth a lot of money-- more than enough for the legal fees of filing complaints against trivial infringers. Even if the people they file against take it all the way to CHALLENGE it in court and a judge rules that the particular act doesn't threaten the diluting of the trademark. The people sued aren't going to get their legal fees paid for by Marvel.

This means NCSoft is reasonably gun-shy about legal fees. Your $15 / mo doesn't cover 5 minutes of their lawyers' time. They're willing to aggressively challenge even a name of a TRADEMARKED character that has no other similarities to that character. Now, note that not all characters in the Marvel universe ARE registered trademarks across all media, so just BEING a comic character's name based on a common word isn't enough... so there is some legal wiggle room. Then again, do you really expect NCSoft to pay the salaries of a lawyer/trademark analyst for their name-genericing service?

The bolded part was added by you, and isn't about character concept. It's about unique identity, which is an argument I do understand.

If the person who I was asking for an explanation wants to agree with you, then that's fine and I understand their argument, but then the part about agreeing on the fundamental point yet still disagreeing on what it means is not applicable.

As I read it, he agrees that names are very important, but disagrees that this implies everyone should be permitted their name of choice. On the contrary, because names are so important, he believes each name holder should have sole ownership of that name.

Me, I don't care either way. Names are important to me, but I've never found a character I couldn't name. I'm not opposed to a non-unique naming system, provided it's not ugly yet isn't ambiguous, but then neither am I opposed to the status quo.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

What Sam said here is what was the backing of what I was saying.
And, also, unique identity is a part of character concept. The whole premise of devising a character concept is of creating a unique identity. Thus, each thing that has been expressed about this in my reply and these quotes makes up the whole, as far as I see it. (The whole in response to your question, at least, hehe)
So, yeah... we're all precious snowflakes and such...


And Sam, I feel pretty much the same way. I hope no one takes my bunch of replies in here as some fervent passion about this topic. I do have my opinion, but I've simply found some of this discussion interesting and thought I'd chime in.

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

Asa counterargument, I know several "Mikes"-- even three "Mike Hammer"s but I don't expect them to know one another.

In the army, it was common for squads or platoons to adopt nicknames. I've seen so many "mad dogz" or "the posse" in so many units, but I know they're not affiliated or anything. The expectation of true name individuality would be a rather foolish one in virtually any genre.

There's a "Cinder F1ame" on Liberty that obviously wanted the same name as my wife's main character. its obvious that, to that person, they're not "cinder F one ame" but "Cinder Flame," and just getting around an OOC technical hurdle. That identical name doesn't force me to treat that character as my wife's... or that she's at all affiliated with my wife's... or that my character would have any difficulty telling the two apart. She's just another person that liked the handle "cinder flame."

And it hasn't caused me an ounce of trouble. Despite logging hundreds of hours, I've encountered her twice. Both in passing. Never a conflicting broadcast. Never a shared PUG. Never in the same zone event. No effort expended, no grief.

(As you, I'm not passionate about this one way or another... don't take this as a rabid attack, just an exploration of the idea, please).

That's one of the challenges- isn't it. Names are just part of one's unique identity. IRL, we have so many varying appearances- some very tough to change- that also add to that identity. We can afford duplicate names because there are more concrete things to latch our perception of persistence on (barring disguises).

In game, we have limited variations of appearance. Someone CAN make a visual clone of my character easily. Someone can mirror me, but he can't mirror my name. I can't identify him by his appearance because others can appear exactly the same and HE CAN CHANGE AWAY from that appearance. In real life, all those other anchors make identical names less of an issue... in-game, they're one of the few true things that we can't easily escape or impersonate.

Duplicate-naming makes even this more unstable.

(yes, this argument supports the opposing side of my last post. No, I didn't change my mind. They're both true. )

But he said "the name is a vital part of the character concept", not just "the names are very important". So I'm asking how sole ownership improves character concept.

I understand what YOU are saying. I don't think it matches with what Kiken was saying.

I appreciate the attempt to help clarify, but I'm going to wait until he responds to respond further on that sub-topic, because my goal here is to understand what he meant, not someone else's interpretation of what he meant. That sounds kind of harsh, but I don't know how else to say it. I don't mean any offense, but I do understand your perspective already.

Yes. There are several examples of multiple active comic book characters carrying the same mantle. Even more examples of "heirs to the mantle." Even examples of same-named characters from different publishers.

I'd might even go so far to say it is a comic book tradition.

DC is the primary "culprit," with many of their examples being from alternate earths.

Hmmmm - an alternate earth. Why does that phrase seem so familiar?

While people can do this now if non-unique naming was allowed it would happen much more often than it does now. Sure, as Rachel posted above, chances of you running into them aren't huge, but I prefer to know my name is unique.

JB, you were asking for solid arguments why it's bad, but providing little arguments on why it's good. There are very few good reasons to keep the status quo but just as few reasons to change it. The only solid facts are that there is a solid core of people supporting each argument and you're opening post indicates there is more support for retaining it. I'm sorry you lost your name, deal with it.

Because it's my characters name. It really is as simple as that. There have been names I would have liked, but couldn't get because somebody had already taken them. Which is fine, because knowing somebody else already has it means I wouldn't want it any more. Because it would be a name I copied, rather than my name.

I'm quite happy with (and capable of) coming up with a new name that fits my character concept. And I don't mind taking time to do it, because it is important. But it would just irritate me greatly to not need to do that but instead see another character with exactly the same name.

As for somebody who used the same name with lame spelling or punctuation, well, I find that much easier to ignore. Because they are, well, lame.

Because we make use of it in this game. We have 11 NA Shards and 4 EU shards where everything is identical, and it gives you 10/3 other chances to get the name you want.

I know I'm not the only person that has been told that the name I wanted was in use on my first server of choice only to find it was free on the second or third server I chose. You know what the worst thing that resulted from using a different server? I made new friends. What an awful experience that was, finding new people that enjoyed playing the same game as I do, all because the name I wanted was available on a different server.

I pronounce the punctuation/numbers they use in their names. If I see someone using K1ken or .Kiken, I call them Koneken. periodkiken, or dotkiken. (just using your name as an example. )

Chances are... low?

So you routinely see 445 people in an hour on Virtue? Chances are -incredibly- remote, to the point of being nearly non-existant. And that's assuming that a full 10% of people with similar powers pick the same name! You probably wouldn't see anything NEARLY so drastic (maybe a 2-3% recurrence, MAYBE). It's getting close to Lotto Drawing odds, to be honest...

-Rachel-