Blackbird71

I would really challenge the idea that costumes alone are a copyright violation and should be considered a CoC violation. There is definitely some debate about this in legal arenas, but I think the most prominent piece of evidence is the existence of an entire industry that creates and openly markets and sells unlicensed Halloween costumes that bear incredible similarities to copyrighted characters (given the limitations of the in-game character creator, I would state that in the vast majority of cases these unlicensed costumes are much closer in detail to the copyrighted characters than anything that can be done in game). This industry is one in which money is made, and if Disney, Marvel, DC, Nintendo, or any other of these companies thought for a moment that they had any sort of legal chance to shut this down and control the market on these costumes, they would have done so years ago. As noted, there are several opinions on this issue; here is one such explanation found through a simple search: https://www.knowmad.law/single-post/2017/10/30/The-Costume-Copyright-Conundrum The author delves into the differences between character copyrights and characters as trademarks, as well as the differences between fan cosplay and the manufacture and sale of costumes. He doesn't quite make clear the position on unlicensed commercial costume sales, only discussing the possibility for claims without giving solid examples (I disagree that the "Batmobile Case," involving a custom automobile, would apply in the same way to costuming). However, I would recommend going to the end of the article, to the images posted below of several unlicensed costumes. Or, as this is October, go and browse any Spirit or other costume specialty store. Are these costumes any less imitative of character copyrights than what existed in Bloody Rainbow, or anywhere else in CoH for that matter? And note how it is that the costume makers get away with it: they change the name to something completely different from the original work, which is how Bloody Rainbow treated it with the "con-goer in cosplay" approach. With HC operating as a non-profit, these costume makers and sellers are certainly making more money off of it than HC is. Really, if the copyright holders had a legal leg to stand on, why haven't these profitable businesses been shut down?

Given that some of the same people have loudly complained about the "lack of creativity" on the part of others (as if they had any authority whatsoever to decide how creative people must be), I highly doubt this interpretation.

In my experience, things left up to judgment calls are often prone to misinterpretation and abuse. This is why clear guidelines must be established. Not inflexible guidelines, but some parameters have to be in place. Presumption is akin to assumption, and I prefer not to make the mistake of expecting "everything will be fine" until there is evidence that such is the case. Better to lay out concerns preemptively than have to address things after they've already gone wrong. A fair distinction. It would have been more correct for me to say that it gives trolls license to attempt to impose their will. However, I still have my doubts at how effective a volunteer staff will be at properly weeding out false complaints. I'm grateful for the work that the HC team does, but as they are unpaid and do this out of their free time, I don't expect that a lot of time will be given to reviewing each case, and depending on the volume, I fear that many reports may only get a cursory glance before a decision is made. Perhaps not, but I have seen similar things in other games, and the posts in these forums from other individuals with "lists of names" ready to report are certainly concerning.

The problems are: Where is the line drawn between a copy and homage/satire/parody? For most existing IP characters, it is impossible to make an exact replica in the game; most are just "close enough." So it can already be argued that, at least when it comes to costumes, characters in CoH are by definition not exact copies (trademarked names are a little easier to identify, but even then variations become an issue; how different is still the same?). The very fact that costume resets are being considered means that there is a degree of similarity that is being counted as an "exact replica." How similar is too similar? What happens when overzealous players begin reporting anything and everything even close to trademarked/copyrighted work? We've already had several players in this and other threads talk about how much they hate when players make characters resembling existing IPs, about how doing so "lacks creativity" and is "lazy". Some of these players have gone so far as to declare their intentions to report anything they see that remotely resembles an existing character. Players like this are not out to protect IP, they are on a personal vendetta against people they think are "playing wrong," and they now have license to impose their will on others. They have the potential to create an overwhelming load for the HC staff to review. My concern is that under such circumstances, rather than risk missing true copies, the HC staff may grow indiscriminate in identifying characters as copies, and legitimate homages/parodies, or even characters that unintentionally bear a resemblance to something out of an obscure issue of a comic that five people have heard of, are going to be reset all because a few trolls now feel vindicated in telling others that they are "playing wrong."

But that's exactly the problem. Do I like this policy? No. Do I understand HC's reasoning for it? Yes. Can I accept that it is something they feel they have to do, either to appease NCSoft or to promote their own long-term viability? Yes. I may not like that this policy had to be implemented, but I can live with it. What I find completely unacceptable is the way that some players will use this to grief and troll others. And no, this is not an assumption; several in this thread have stated that they intend to do just that; to aggressively go after and report anyone and everyone whose character even remotely resembles any existing trademarked characters, not because of any moral imperative to preserve the integrity of copyrighted works, but rather because they judge those players to not be creative enough. This policy (or rather, the plan to implement it) hands out licenses to turn trolls into beat cops. They may not be the judge and jury, but they can still cause a lot of problems for other players. Forgive me if I find that objectionable.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I believe both of those statements you quoted from Trademarked Name were not intended seriously or literally, but rather came from the point of being facetious in response to EmeraldFox's rather antagonistic comments regarding what he judged to be some players' lack of creativity. It may not be my place to say this to a GM, but I do believe you have misunderstood the intent of the post and are now "barking up the wrong tree." Based on the full context of Trademarked Name's post, and the quote it was responding to, I seriously doubt that Trademarked Name actually believes "eliminating uncreatives" is the reason for this change, nor do I think he has any intention of telling any players they are unwelcome. It appears to me as though these statements were intended to show the absurdity and damaging nature of EmeraldFox's position.

Do not put words in my mouth.

The problem with this position is that there is still no settled case that makes it clear whether making similar-looking characters in a game (it's impossible to make exact copies with the tools at hand) actually qualifies as copyright infringement. Until it's tested in court, this remains a gray area, and claiming others are breaking the law without established precedent is rather inflammatory and unnecessary. Comparing them to murderers is just disgusting, on so many levels.

The big difference is that HC is currently being run by a non-profit that holds no assets that would be worth Disney, Marvel, or DC's time and money to go after. Generally if lawyers know there is nothing to get, then they don't waste their time, especially in an area that legally still has been untested (settling out of court prevents a precedent being set). Could they come after HC? Sure, but it seems highly unlikely. So unless part of the upcoming deal is that HC will be folded back under NCSoft and be part of a corporation that does have money for the lawyers to pursue, I find it highly unlikely that those companies would lift a finger. That sounds like a personal problem. The wonderful thing in the world is that people are all different in so many ways. Not everyone is going to be as creative as you, but some of those people will still want to enjoy this game. Who are you to tell them that what they want to do is lazy or wrong? So what if they don't put as much effort as you into researching and designing your character? The vast majority of my 50+ alts are originals, but I'm not going to belittle someone just because they want to play as their favorite hero from a comic or movie. If you want to talk about a lack of respect, I have no respect for people who trot out a "holier than thou" attitude about how they think everyone else should be playing.

I'm no expert on this. I don't know your background either, but you seem to have more of a handle on this stuff than most, so maybe you can clarify something: I had previously been informed that it was possible to trademark both a name and a symbol, but not an entire costume. Is that incorrect?

I actually don't use that as a character name; it's just a forum handle. The "71" is not there just to distinguish me from 70 other Blackbirds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird So unless the USAF or NASA want to come after me, I think I'm safe.

Paladin is a term for a holy warrior or a crusader, so I don't think that alone can be a trademark infringement. Based on what the GMs and others have said in this thread, as long as your costume and bio are not reminiscent of the Marvel Paladin character, I would think you should be fine. But that's just my opinion, take it for what it is worth. Now if for example, Marvel had a character named "Purple Paladin" (and for all I know, they do), and you called yours "Purple Paladin", then it would be a more complicated situation as you've moved from a single word with a general meaning to a specific phrase used as a name. "Paladin" alone probably cannot be trademarked, but the combined words "Purple Paladin" probably can. Does that make sense?

I believe that Shard was referring to the reporting of offensive/vulgar character names, which was separate from the new rule.

You may not have intended it this way, but your previous post basically came across as declaring war on anyone who dared make any character remotely similar to anything in 24+ years of comic book history. It felt very hostile and sounded like wanting a lot of others to suffer along with you.

Thanks for proving my point: Because some people have no reservations about ruining things for other players, and take joy in telling others what to do. Case in point:

Which is why I'm asking. The only way to know their mind is to either ask in advance, or wait for it to happen. I prefer to be forewarned.

You ignored the rest of my post, and the context it provided. There certainly are circumstances where the response to a report could become nearly automatic; dismissing such concerns out of hand does not further the conversation.

Yes, I am very curious about this as well. Parody law in the U.S. allows for quite a bit of imitation, almost to the point of duplication. The only requirement I am aware of is that the parody work be somehow "creatively transformative." I'm not well enough versed in this to say where that line is, but let me give an example: For "Weird" Al Yankovic's "Eat It" music video, he used the same sets, costumes, and even dancers and extras that Michael Jackson used for his "Beat It" video. The result is that with the exception of a few gags, and Al himself in place of the Prince of Pop, visually the two are incredibly similar. But as the song lyrics were changed, the content was different, and so it is classed as parody. Now, I don't expect a single example to be taken as a guiding rule for all decisions, but if we stretch something like this to apply to the CoH situation, it would seem to indicate that, for example, a character with a largely similar (not identical) costume to an existing copyrighted character, but who has a different name and backstory, should generally be considered a parody rather than a copy. I'll put one of mine out as an example: I made a character for a contest named Kim Plausible, and visually she does bear a striking resemblance to a certain redhead. However, her shtick is that she's a teen trying to crack into the superhero business, but just can't seem to get the recognition she needs because her name isn't quite interesting enough to attract the headlines. This was intended as something of a joke, sort of an homage to The Princess Bride's Dread Pirate Roberts "It's the name that's important" bit, and the idea that someone with the wrong name, even if just a little off, would not get the same respect in their chosen role. So where would such a character fall? My personal take is that it would qualify as parody, but I realize I may be biased in this case, and this sort of thing is probably on the borderline and could be judged either way, depending on who looks at it.

Actually, there may be something preventing you from remaking "your own" character; and that is the fact that it may not be "your own." I can't say for certain in this case, because I never played DCUO and I don't know their user agreement terms, but a lot of games include the stipulation that any characters you create become the property of the game publisher/copyright holder. If that's true for DCUO, then once you created the character in that game, legally it became DC's property, not yours. Remaking that character on CoH would in principle be the same as making Batman himself. Now in practice, it may just slip under the radar, as someone would have to see your character and recognize it as DC property (i.e., they'd have to be familiar with your character on DCUO), and then report it for the GMs to take notice.

I could be wrong, but I've never heard of anyone losing this stuff over this type of violation. If HC follows the way Live handled it, I'm pretty sure that you just have to rename the character and/or redesign the costume.

This is the worst of it to me. It effectively gives those players who dislike copy/homage characters a tool with which to grief those who do. Blatant copies are one thing, but there are those who will report any and every character even remotely similar to an existing IP. If such a report happens to catch a GM on a bad day, or if the massive influx of these reports overwhelms the GMs and in frustration they turn to a "scorched earth" policy, then the griefers effectively win. Please tell me there will be some sort of appeals process, in which disputed reports will be reviewed by a different GM than the one who originally decided the case?

Oddly enough, when this policy was in effect on Live, I only ever had one alt that was affected, and it was the most obscure one of them all. I could never figure that one out; why that one got hit but the more popular and obvious ones were untouched. For the curious, that character was named "Ralph Hinkley". I won't explain it, just to see how recognizable it really is.

It's possible, but I find it unlikely. HC has been upfront about enough things that I expect if this were the case, we would have been given the reason. The timing of this announcement, along with the lack of any explanation for the sudden change in policy, leads me to believe that negotiations are at the root of it. Yes, it's speculation on my part, but I'd call it more of an educated guess.

I have zero doubt that this change is heavily related to the negotiations with NCSoft. To borrow from Lando Calrissian: "This deal is getting worse all the time." Most of my characters that I play regularly are originals, but it's occasionally fun to do homages and the like, sometimes for costume contests or other events. However, I have seen a lot of other characters in the game that have been recreations of other works, many of them very creatively done and impressive to see. I was once in a CC that filled nearly the entire plaza at Kallisti Wharf, not just the area under the statue, but up and down both sides of the fountains with the glass roof, and it was entirely themed on homage characters. To this date, it's the single largest contest I have seen in this game (HC or live), and it was fantastic. It's sad to see that such events will no longer be able to take place. What really gets me about this whole thing is that there are always characters using these sorts of names in other games, but for some reason it's not an issue there; it's only a problem with CoX. My only hope in all of this is that the HC team is fair enough about this to recognize the difference between a direct replica and a parody, as much fun can still be had with parody characters, and parody is specifically protected under U.S. law.

Sorry about the screenshot problems! I did manage to capture this - sorry the angle is a bit weird, I was hovering a distance behind and above the finalists. Center is Gordon Ramses, 4th place in the homage category if I recall correctly. I don't remember who the others are.