Captain Fabulous

No. A copyright holder can selectively allow some infringing works while going after others. It's completely at their discretion, as ultimately it's a court that decides if something is an infringement or not. Trademark is what must be enforced at all times. There is no copyright on Nosferatu in the US, so any remakes and restorations made here are legit. Interesting fun fact: restorations can themselves be copyrighted by the restorers as so to prevent others from using it without permission.

One could argue, and there is court precedent, that if one has the right to order a work destroyed that they therefore own and control it. 🤷‍♂️

Technically it never had any copyright to begin with, as it was ordered destroyed by the court when Florence Stoker sued for copyright infringement and won. The only reason it exists is due to a bootleg copy that made it out of Germany. But like I said, it's complicated. The Stoker estate could argue they own the rights since it was declared a derivative work based on Dracula. If that's the case I think it would still be under copyright till 2029. Or 2041. Depending upon which copyright laws apply. To a film that shouldn't even have one because it shouldn't exist. Did I mention it's complicated? 🥴🥴🥴

It's incredibly complicated and honestly would require a court to sort it out. Best answer I have is the Stoker estate, but that's just a guess on my part.

It blows my mind that we're just NOW getting to the point where TALKIES are in the public domain. It's so ridiculous.

It's public domain in the US, tho it's not in some countries, including Germany.

It affects AVs and PvP differently than PvE. In PvE (non-AVs) the sleep is autohit while the damage requires a tohit check. In PvP and AVs they both require a tohit check. It does more damage in PvP than PvE, which is why it's listed twice.

You can change your game account password here https://forums.homecomingservers.com/gameaccount/#

I literally got Generic1432259 today. YAY! Mofos got no sense of humor. 😄

You can try adding -gfxreset to the launch parameters box, see if that does the trick.

Do you have an AMD card? Is this a laptop? It's been reported there are some OpenGL issues in some AMD drivers. You can also try running this from a command prompt with administrator privileges, see if it finds anything. sfc /scannow

I can do the upgrades. Might even be able to find the recipes for less. I have a ton of salvage and likely have all the mats to craft them. Thanks, I forgot all about the catalysts.

Coming this fall on Disney+?

Just a quick reminder that Marvel lost that case with the judge essentially saying that as long as the devs actively remove potentially-infringing material when they find it it's all good (which they do). I'm not saying you shouldn't report, cause you should (especially if it's a blatant ripoff), I'm just saying the odds of Disney or WB sniffing around here is super duper slim to none. The game is almost 20 years old and not-for-profit. It's more likely that NCsoft will someday put the kibosh on this game, not Disney or WB. Hopefully that won't happen either.

Copyright is protection for unique creative works from being used without permission. It has a fixed duration. Examples of things that can be copyrighted: art, music, literature, movies, images. Trademark is protection specifically applied to naming and branding as to not cause customer confusion between competing companies and/or products. They can be renewed in perpetuity every 10 years but must be continually used and enforced. Examples of things that can be trademarked: Unique product names, periodical/book/movie titles, logos, slogans. Copymark is what I apply to my boyfriend after a night of hot sweaty sex. Traderight is a new type of crossfit.

You can in fact copyright your own unique interpretation of mythological characters. Which is why Marvel's Thor looks nothing like the mythological Norse version. DC has their own version of Thor (who looks very different from Marvel's) and is also copyrighted.

The author of the article doesn't seem to fully understand the concept of trademark. "The Mighty Thor" was the name of Marvel's publication, and that's what was trademarked, not the character. Marvel has a copyright on their version of Thor, but that doesn't stop anyone from creating or using a Thor character as long as it doesn't look anything like Marvel's (the mythological Thor is a bearded ginger). You can copyright your own interpretation of mythological characters.

Thanks. Just out of curiosity, what does your max build look like (without changing any sets)? OOF that Dominator set is expensive. 12 million each. Yikes.

Really? No comments from anyone?

Sorry about necroing this thread, but it deserves more attention. I play on an ultrawide and the letterboxing makes most cutscenes unwatchable, with the tops and bottoms cut off. Can't see the text or most of what's going on. Any chance this can be addressed? I like Luminara's idea of putting in an option to disable them altogether.

#truth

Yes, but trademark encompasses the name, logo, and market. So it was music company Apple Corps with an apple logo going after computer company Apple Computer with an apple logo, with the settlement agreeing that neither company would dip into each others' markets. And that's the thing with trademarks, you gotta enforce them or lose them.

It is indeed a fascinating look into how trademarks are handled, and how the winner tends to be the bigger company (at first Apple Records, and then later Apple Computers). The whole sordid affair is well documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Yeah, I remember this whole debacle. Just goes to show that copyright can be a total sh*tshow. They touched on it in the video, that DC sued Fawcett in the early 40s claiming that Captain Marvel was an infringement of Superman solely due to having similar powers and despite having a completely different name, look, and backstory. And that was a case that dragged on for over a decade until Fawcett just gave up due to superhero comics no longer being profitable at that point and agreeing to never publish Captain Marvel in comics again. But they kept the rights to all the Marvel family characters, which they licensed to DC in 1973 and later sold outright to them a few years later.

This is not quite accurate. Uncommon names can be trademarked, but only for certain things, like merchandise and movie or publishing titles. Characters can fall under copyright, but that takes the name, look, and details of the character into consideration. Direct copying of stories and art is also definitely copyright infringement. Trademarks can last forever as long as they are used, renewed, and enforced. Copyrights expire...eventually. A perfect example of this is Captain Marvel. Marvel Comics has the trademark on the name which allows them to publish a comic and release a movie with that name in the title (comic and movie titles are separate trademarks, btw). Both Marvel and DC can have characters named Captain Marvel, and each holds a copyright based upon both the name and the graphical representation of the character. As long as each character is substantially different from the other the use of the name itself is not enough for a copyright violation. But under no circumstances can DC publish a comic with "Captain Marvel" in the title, as that would be a trademark violation. Which is why when DC brought him back in 1973 the comics were titled "SHAZAM!" (or some derivative thereof, e.g. "The Power of SHAZAM!"). DC didn't have to change the character's name from Captain Marvel to Shazam, that's something they chose to do for the New 52 reboot. Names of well-known characters such as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc. get an extra layer of copyright protection due to their notoriety. While technically Marvel could create a character named Superman (as long as he was substantially different in both appearance and function), DC would argue (and win) that because the name Superman is so well-known and recognizable that it would cause significant confusion simply due to the name. Another good example is Mickey Mouse himself. At the end of this year the copyright on Steamboat Willie expires. This means Mickey Mouse will finally enter the public domain and will be free for anyone to use in whatever way they please (Disney says they have no plans to fight for another extension, but we shall see). But there's a catch: only the visual representation of Mickey Mouse as he appears in Steamboat Willie will be in the public domain, and that version of Mickey is VERY different than what he looks like today. And you still won't be able to use the name "Mickey Mouse" in a title or on merchandise because that's trademarked. And yet another wrinkle in copyright is homage, fair use, and parody, which can further blur the lines in a copyright battle, and often comes down to a judge or jury to decide if a copyright has been violated. Hope this clears things up a bit.