Banned names "Generic 123 456 789"

That's because DC Comics never trademarked him.

As I said before file an appeal and see if you get lucky. That is your only recourse.

But no matter what happens it's their game and their rules and they can choose to enforce them if they want. If you don't like their decision you are free to leave. Doors on the left.

Well, unless DC was planning on using Uncle Sam as their logo, they probably wouldn't have. The DC Logo is their trademark.

Now, as for the copyright... copyright is assumed upon creation of the work and does not require registration. You can register a copyright if you want, but (for example), if I were to create a comic book character for my own indie label (no, I do not have an indie label, it's an example), then copyright is automatically fixated for that character. (This assumes that the character doesn't violate copyright in and of itself. I cannot create my own version of Superman and expect to get away with it without DC bringing the pain.)

So, Uncle Sam as a superhero is a copyrighted property of DC Comics. This doesn't necessarily prohibit other comic book companies from having an Uncle Sam character. You just have to have enough differences to avoid confusion between the two properties. NCSoft is probably taking the position of "look, it's too close, and we don't want to go to court again."

why would bruce chi get generized?

At a guess, because of the real life (albeit dead) person named Bruce Lee?

You can't copyright a name.

Try naming anything Captain America (Captain America macaroni and cheese, for instance) and see how far you get.

Yes, you are correct that you can't copyright a name alone. Names are covered under trademarks. However, DC owns a copyright, regardless of whether they registered it or not, on a superhero character named Uncle Sam. Both the name and the expression of the character as a patriotic superhero, combined, provide a set of criteria that would be looked at in a copyright infringement or trademark infringement suit.

Likewise, the words 'Iron' and 'Man' by themselves are not trademarked. But use them together as 'Iron Man' and it evokes a specific image (or set of images, for the different armor suits, in this case) that is trademarked AND copyrighted.

Thanks a lot. As if 130 characters wasn't enough, you had to give me an idea for more.

Now I have a new Ice/Plant Dom Ninja named Iced Chi on one server and a Will/Ice Tank on another by the same name.

I don't see why. It's not as if, Bruce Li, Bruce Lai, Bruce Lei, Bruce Le and co ever got in to trouble over their name's. And they were actually Martial artists and actors.

And wouldn't kinetic combat have worked better with that name and bio?

Originally Posted by Forbin_Project Then it's time for them to get off the cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and get over it.

That would be because in Taiwan and Hong Kong they aren't under any obligation to obey American copyright laws.

But then, was Lee Jun-fan's stage name ever subject to copyright laws? The name Bruce was after all just the nickname given to him by the american attending physician at his birth.

Originally Posted by Forbin_Project Then it's time for them to get off the cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and get over it.

So whats to prevent DC from locking up every other cultural icon ever in the same manner? They just get to keep a 200 year old public domain character that way, just because they got their first?

Again, the character I created is visually different enough from the DC character to not be confused, while close enough to the public domain image to be recognizable.

This is one time I think that, were such a case brought to trial, DC would be laughed out of court... especially given that we're talking about a third tier character, at best, whom DC didn't even create in the first place.

I've got the same issue with an alt. I chose a name that was a rank title of a elite military unit that was in regular service for about six-hundred years. I logged in and my comics nerd friend immediately said "Oh, that's a DC character."

*boggles. Googles*

I actually found three listings for the name, none higher up than the end of page 2 of the Google search. The name was used once by Marvel as a one-off villain in 1963, once by DC as a one-off villain in 1991, and a couple of times as a hyper-obscure DC z-list hero with a half-dozen guest appearances over a decade ago. None of them even has a Wiki entry. They're that obscure. Yes, my friend is a serious comics nerd indeed. Needless to say, my character has no resemblance whatsoever to any of them.

So do these trivial uses as throwaway background characters really trump the future use by anyone of a proper noun of 16th century derivation that has been in common usage for almost five hundred years?

So no I'm not renaming the character, but every time I log him in I feel twitchy, and that annoys me.

I know for a fact they don't. I have petitioned some people for blatant infringements of well known characters and they were not genericed.

Well, let's see. Both have white hair, white goatee, white top hat with stars on the hat band, and a white shirt. The only visible differences are one has a blue coat and a red bow tie, the other a blue vest with white stars and no tie. And they both have the same name. Just for the record, the DC hero usually wears a blue coat and red bow tie. So the only difference would be the vest.

The fact that DC has not trademarked the image or character, because it is in the public domain as you say, is an argument in your favor. You should point it out to the GM when you appeal, since it would be hard to get sued for trademark infringement when there is no trademark registered.

But hard is not the same as impossible. And while Uncle Sam as the spirit or personification of the USA is not new, Uncle Sam as a super-hero is. You are using Uncle Sam as a super-hero, and Quality Comics, and now DC Comics beat you to it. The GMs may allow your character based on the public domain status, or disallow it to avoid a lawsuit over the concept being stolen.

I think you are correct about being able to use it, but I am not a lawyer, and I am not the one that would have to spend the money to defend myself in a lawsuit. Since even a successful defense is very expensive, companies tend to err on the side of caution.

Now you have me curious. Could you PM me the name?

Nope, you are not correct. Copyright protects images and words from being copied -- you can't copyright a character, only the specific image of that character as published. The words "Iron Man" can be protected by Trademark but not Copyright. A specific drawing of Iron Man can be protected by Copyright, or the dialogue in an Iron Man Comic Book, but the character itself is not protected by copyright alone.

An example given to me in law school by the then-current Registrar of Copyright who was teaching our class: A photograph can be copyrighted. However, if you see a famous photographer take a picture, and then sneak in right behind him to take a picture of the same scene, using the same settings on your camara, your image is separately copyrightable from the image created by the famous photographer even though the images may be identical. (Yes, I am an attorney, but I don't practice much in the intellectual property area . . . I've only touched on a few areas in my practice.)

Copyright is created at the time of creation and lasts for a particular time. Registration of the copyright protects certain rights, but is not needed to establish the copyright. Trademarks must be registered (with a few exceptions) and Trademarks have continued protection as long as the trademark continues to be in use and continues to be limited to its specific use.

One example is the Dr. Seuss characters. The books are old enough that some of the copyrights were due to expire. So the good doctor's estate sold a license to Universal Studios Florida to make a Seuss Landing area in the Islands of Adventure theme park, in part to keep those characters in the public to maintain the Trademark on them. So the characters themselves are protected beyond just the copyright on the books.

Just because a name was used in a comic book does not mean that the name is trademarked. I think it is pretty unlikely that NC Soft will have a problem with a name based upon a historical reference that was obscurely used by both Marvel and DC at some point. On the other hand, the decision is entirely NC Soft's decision and you have no rights to legally challenge the use of the name in NC Soft's game.

So use the name and don't worry about it unless you get one of those e-mails.

(I got one of those e-mails a while ago on a character that has a rather juvenile attempt at humor -- no bad words, but an indirect reference to a medical term. I got one of "those" e-mails, asking me to provide three alternative names. Then I got back an e-mail telling me what name would be used . . . only the character was never changed. The character still has the "naughty" name several years later.)

Actually, I don't think the Marvel lawsuit changed any policy. Cryptic and NC Soft already had in place the EULA which prohibited players from copying characters from comic books. The "settlement" in this case was, I believe, for NC Soft to continue to do what it was already doing.

While the settlement was never made public, I actually read the opinion from the preliminary injunction hearing. In most of these kinds of cases, if the plaintiff loses at the preliminary injunction stage, the plaintiff will most likely lose the case. Marvel lost the preliminary injunction hearing. The opinion pointed out that the game systems allowed players to make characters similar to Marvel characters, but that NC Soft already had in place a policy prohibiting such copying. And furthermore, the examples of copied Marvel characters used in the hearing were actually made by Marvel employees and agents . . . thus they were violating their own trademarks. (I thought that was pretty funny for the judge to point that out.) From what I read, NC Soft won all the way at that stage of the case. Thus I presume that Marvel "settled" by giving in all the way while still saving face.

However, I don't entirely fault Marvel for filing the suit . . . the Trademark laws require the Trademark holders to protect their Trademarks. It would be far worse if we had the government looking over our shoulders at everything we do to determine if we have violated any laws, so I don't mind the private enforcement of Trademarks and some other things.

Some people complain about the "aweful and litigious nature of American Society." Yes, there are some abusive lawsuits, but far fewer than most people believe. The Federal Courts have Rule 11 Sanctions for stupid lawsuits, and most states have something similar. There has to be a balance of the ability to protect one's rights by filing lawsuits vs. the obligation of the government to oversee everything. The classic example of the lady who sued McDonald's after she spilled hot coffee on her lap is constantly mis-reported . . . if you actually knew all the facts of that case, then you would see that she actually had a valid case for severe personal injury after that McDonalds had been warned time and time again that the coffee was way too hot -- it was just a matter of time before someone spilled it on themselves. (I have seen a picture of her injuries . . . horrible.) And the stories fail to comprehend the effect of comparative negligence in such cases.

Doesn't matter if it was. The laws of Taiwan and Hong Kong are outside our legal systems jurisdiction. It's not even a criminal illegality, so Law Enforcement won't bother getting involved.

And this is why the GM decisions should be appealed. It doesn't hurt to escalate a genericing because they may very well decide in your favor.

Uhm just out of curiosity was it NCSoft or Cryptic that was sued by Marvel? As I recall Cryptic still owned the game when the lawsuit took place. I know it doesn't matter as far as how NCSoft chooses to enforce their current rules on IP violations.

FYI, voter registration records aren't the source for jury duty. Do you by any chance have a drivers license?

I did mean that in reguards to MaestroMavius using the name Bruce Chi. Bruce Lee being a stage nickname rather than a character under copyright and/or trademark.

Originally Posted by Forbin_Project Then it's time for them to get off the cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and get over it.

I'm pretty sure both were included in the lawsuit. It is pretty standard to sue everyone who might be responsible and then dismiss anyone who might not be once all the facts are known.

My understanding is that Cryptic was the developer but NC Soft was the publisher, so they shared ownership of the game. NC Soft bought out Cryptic before Cryptic went off to make "that other game."