You think NCSoft has let up creating copywrighted toons now that it's free?

Quick answer:

/jranger

Longer answer:

The reasons to prevent the creation of Trademarked characters still exist. No.

Originally Posted by Dispari I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.

No I don't, I want to make my *own* heroes and villains, otherwise what's the point?

Well, for one, to test the limits of the character creator. Making someone original based on what what the game has doesn't push it as much cause it's a character designed for this game and it has the parts you want, for the most part. I kinda like to see just what it takes to make someone from something outside of the game.

Plus ya know, if ya like to play as a character in one game, why not another?

Because it violates contract you sign when you log in to game.

Just because you're breaking a law for free doesn't stop the lawyers coming after you

Your point reminds me of one of the Paper Missions when one of the Snake leaders has the exact name of an Anti-Hero that we love. It does not violate his image and look, but the name still counts.

The name does NOT count.

Names like Deadpool, Batman, or Superman would count, because they are names that are formed by combining words not normally found together.

A name like Inferno, or Ricochet doesn't fall into the same category, because they are simply words.

If you create a Ricochet that does not have the same look and backstory/powers as an existing character, there is nothing that can be done about it, because you cannot copyright or trademark a common word.

Example: http://marvel.com/universe/Ricochet_%28Johnny_Gallo%29

Now, there is a Praetorian character known as Ricochet. It is allowable because the characters share nothing other than the name, which is a common word (common word: found in the dictionary).

The DEVS can use names that trademarked characters share because they are in complete control of the use of that name, and can avoid any trademark violations. They don't allow US to use them because they can't control how we use the name, and trademark violations are sure to arise if we were allowed t use them.

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.

Unless you work with sharks of course.

I disagree. Being able to recreate a highly specific look is not a sign of a "powerful" costume creator, it a sign that that specific look was included. Being able to create a GOOD costume in a broad variety of themes is the signs of a strong character creator, because strength in creation lies in giving form to imagination, rather than enabling lack thereof.

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.

Correct.

A chum bucket has been a common fisherman's term for over 100 years, a common aquatic animal trainer's term for at least half that long, and even familiar to most people that visited a sea world in the last 30-odd years.

When we talk about two words that go together, we're talking about things that become uniquely identifiable. "Sky" and "walker" are two common words. "Skywalker" is more unique.

There is no clear-cut definition of when something goes too far for trademarks. its all rather murky.


A "trademark" is just that- a "mark of trade" that an organization does business under. They register something distinctive (a word, a picture, and word+picture) and ask the government to give them the right to use this to identify themselves in a certain field of business. The government agrees, but puts requirements on them... things like "if you want to use it, YOU have to protect it. if you let others casually use that trademark too much for things unrelated to your product, then it could enter the public domain, too bad for you."

An example would be how so many people ask for a "kleenex" instead of tissue paper... or a xerox instead of a copy of a paper... or "jello" for any gelitan product... or even "google it" for searching on any search engine. Its a delicate balance- being so dominant in your field that you suddenly become synonymous with everything in it can sound like a good thing, but it means that your "brand" has lost the distinctiveness with your sole part of the business, so you risk losing it if you LET other people offer their own "xerox machines" or other jellos. You gotta sue them to stop... and usually you gotta sue them well before that point to have a good effect.

That makes trademark protectors rather sue-crazy, which makes places like NCSoft legitimately overly-cautious on what they let players do.

... and to be absolutely clear. This protects you, too. During the last round of lawsuits, one of the points that came out is the actual offender is the creator of the violation (the player) and NCSoft was just the facilitator. If anyone like Marvel wanted to sue the facilitator again, they'd also may have to identify the original offender. That means that YOU could find yourself in a costly trademark lawsuit too...

Would the player be liable is their usage does not create a profit for them?

Would Xerox sue me if I gave away off-brand generic 'xerox' machines for free?

Yes.

Likely you're referring to Spongebob. The thing is, there are restrictions on what all copyright and trademarks entail. For one you can't take a common item or name and use it as your own and prevent other people from using it. A chum bucket is an actual thing. In the same way, NetherRealm (formerly Midway) can't sue someone for just using the name Scorpion. They'd have to prove that it was an intentional ripoff of their actual character. The name is free to use.

There was also a case where a guy named his restaurant McDonald's. He was sued but won, because his last name actually was McDonald. You can't deny a person the right to use their own name through trademark either.

You don't have to be profitting from something to infringe upon a copyright. But even so, this is much too tricky a subject. If a free player buys $5 worth of points to get a costume pack they're now creating a profit for the company. So do they lose all their copyright infringing characters? Do the devs have to audit every account that pays money for the first time? Could it be argued that playing the game for free and talking to friends about it as a form of advertising creates profit for the company if those people pay money? It's safer this way.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

Correct.

This gets into the murky gray area of trademark law. Many times, a company doesn't have to WIN any damages in a lawsuit during a trademark case, they just have to either get the unsanctioned use of trademark to cease or have a judge decide that the act in question is not actually infringing.

Either way, if you'r sued, you're out thousands of $$ in court costs unless you settle early. This is an area of law where it is virtually impossible for you to countersue for court costs if you win.

------

Now, Marvel comics doesn't sue cosplayers for wearing non-sanctioned, non-licensed spider man costumes, but they may sue the person who makes and sells them. That's why they went after NCSoft/Cryptic... arguing that this was equivalent to people selling unlicensed versions of their costume.

NCSoft / Cryptic argued that their costume creator was equivalent to giving out a "box of crayons" to the players to express their imagination in-- saying that this was like Marvel suing crayola for letting kids draw unlicensed spider man costumes.

What was telling here was where much of Marvel's case started to unravel. All the examples Marvel provided the courts showing how well you could copy their characters was done by Marvel agents (employees or employees of the law firm) tinkering around in costume creator. NCSoft argued that since these were sanctioned Marvel employees that had the permission to make these characters, then there was no trademark infringement shown, and therefore, no facilitation on their part.

That put Marvel in an awkward position- to PROVE infringement, they'd have to identify an actual infringer (probably by identifying the character and server and requiring NCSoft to supply the contact info for that customer to the court. Marvel would then have to name that person in the court case -- and get really really bad PR for essentially targeting a fan that's cosplaying their trademark character online.

This didn't kill their whole case, though, so NCSoft still had some risk of judgements against them if they pushed this ahead in trial.

Instead, both parties agreed to settle with undisclosed details. We can suspect that these included some assurance from NCSoft that they'd show some diligence in preventing infringements by players and some permission from Marvel for them to do certain things. Money may or may not have changed hands. All this is speculation.

What we know is that NCSoft was happy to NOT get a potential cash judgement that would damage their business, plus get clear rules that will keep them out of lawsuit mayhem going forward from Marvel, and Marvel's happy because they have established that they're still protecting the trademark.

The only ones that aren't happy are those of us that hoped for clear case law defining what users can and can't do to avoid lawsuit in the future.

Overall good points, but don't slip into the mistake of confusing copyright with trademark. This is about marks of trade (trademark), not ownership original material (copyright).

A trademark does give you some (limited) ability to reserve common words for specific fields of industry. "Nike" was the greek goddess that personified victory, but a company registered Nike for shoes (and now apparel) so you won't find other shoe manufacturers out there trying to use that name.

That mark of trade is registered for particular industries, and that can also lead to confusion-- like when Marvel realized that their characters would look good on T-shirts and found that there was already a trademark for "wolverine" in apparel (the boots). Since a trademark doesn't have to be just words, they registered the trademark to include the "name and likeness" , avoiding any trade confusion.

(This, by the way, brings up another thorny issue for Marvel. Nike has their swoosh symbol as a trademark... and is fairly consistent with it. Go look at the many variations of wolverine (and other characters) over the years. What IS the registered likeness? )


Also, The McDonald's restaurant you mentioned was, as you said, because all US states let you use your real last name in your business, period. If he sold that restaurant, though, the new owners would not be under that same protection (unless they were also McDonald's) so they'd have to change the name of the restaurant.

I always forget which is which so I didn't pretend to remember.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

No, no I don't.
I want to make my own.