copyrighted chars and npcs in game

[cparks7040]

I think  speak for all of us when I say we are all gateful to have COH back. im not a lawyer or versed on legal stuff as far as coprights. however I would like to encourge people to not make copyrighted chars using their name or likeness. I dont know who makes the comic con fire farms but I would also encourge those people to change the npcs costumes. I would hate for the game to be shut down because of people using copyrighted chars, it was strickly enforced during live for a reason and I think we should respect that.

[Haijinx]

Plus, its tacky.

[boggo2300]

Hey! Tacky is my Thang!

 

Though the closest I've come to a copyright character is Hatman, masked detective Millionaire! 

[PaxArcana]

8 minutes ago, boggo2300 said:

Hatman, masked detective Millionaire! 

Sounds more like Parody, to me.  (And thus, legally protected.)  Yayy for you!  🙂

[boggo2300]

Its definitely parody, his base being called the Hatcave was the zinger 😄

[Oubliette_Red]

I'll just put this here.

[jubakumbi]

1 hour ago, cparks7040 said:

I think  speak for all of us when I say we are all gateful to have COH back. im not a lawyer or versed on legal stuff as far as coprights. however I would like to encourge people to not make copyrighted chars using their name or likeness. I dont know who makes the comic con fire farms but I would also encourge those people to change the npcs costumes. I would hate for the game to be shut down because of people using copyrighted chars, it was strickly enforced during live for a reason and I think we should respect that.

And many of us players completely and totally do not agree with this outlook, at all.

So, no, you speak for you and only you, unless other tell you implicitly you have their voice.

 

This is old, tired, worn out FUD.

[cparks7040]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 7:54 PM, jubakumbi said:

And many of us players completely and totally do not agree with this outlook, at all.

So, no, you speak for you and only you, unless other tell you implicitly you have their voice.

 

This is old, tired, worn out FUD.

its a real concern, it doesnt matter if you disagree the law is very clear on what you can and cant do. if you where smart you would agree with me but doesnt seem like you are.

[jubakumbi]

3 minutes ago, cparks7040 said:

its a real concern, it doesnt matter if you disagree the law is very clear on what you can and cant do. if you where smart you would agree with me but doesnt seem like you are.

I am of lesser intellect because I do not choose to interpret law falsely and try to scare others with the boogie-man?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[cparks7040]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 8:02 PM, jubakumbi said:

I am of lesser intellect because I do not choose to interpret law falsely and try to scare others with the boogie-man?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

what about the law did i say was false.

[MunkiLord]

2 hours ago, cparks7040 said:

im not a lawyer or versed on legal stuff as far as coprights. 

 

48 minutes ago, cparks7040 said:

it doesnt matter if you disagree the law is very clear on what you can and cant do. 

Very interesting. Is the time gap when you became versed on legal stuff?

[Haijinx]

Parodies aren't tacky beyond how intentionally tacky parodies always are.

 

Captain Ersatz are usually not tacky

 

The three copies of Aquaman i teamed with on the same day .. all tacky. 

[PaxArcana]

1 hour ago, jubakumbi said:

This is old, tired, worn out FUD.

What's tired, worn out, and old ... is your incessant repetition of "FUD" whenever anyone counsels caution or self-restraint.

 

1 hour ago, jubakumbi said:

I do not choose to interpret law falsely

Oh, but you do.  Very, very falsely indeed.

Edited September 11, 2019 by PaxArcana
spelling is hard

[Without_Pause]

I assume someone getting a runner-up label for a costume contest got it from the HC team. I say this as I saw someone with it and it was a completely obvious redo of a known character. Kind of rubbed me the wrong way.  Reward people who actually have a bit of creativity.

[Haijinx]

That's a good point.  When i see the direct superman clones i just go.  Meh, so boring.  

 

At least change it up a little bit.   

 

What is "fud" anyway? 

 

[PaxArcana]

20 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

What is "fud" anyway? 

"Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".

 

Essentially accusing anyone who does not charge blindly forward, heedless of all risks, of cowardice, and fomenting the same in others.

 

And, basically, Juba's response for any sense that there may be undesirable consequences for a given course of action.

[Rathulfr]

1 hour ago, cparks7040 said:

what about the law did i say was false.

 

Actually, you didn't say anything about the law.  You said: "I would hate for the game to be shut down because of people using copyrighted chars, it was strickly enforced during live for a reason."

 

The game cannot be shut down because of people using copyrighted chars.  It can be shut down for infringing on NCSoft's copyright of its intellectual property, which is being used without permission.  But that has nothing to do with players creating clones/parodies/homages.

 

The prohibition against people using copyrighted characters didn't have anything to do with players using them: it had to do with NCSoft profiting off of them.  When the game was live, it was a commercial enterprise, with its own copyrighted characters.  Making money off its own characters is okay: making money off of someone else's is not.  In order to keep making money without penalties or licensing other copyrights, NCSoft had a responsibility to make sure they weren't allowing the abuse of someone else's copyright.

 

Homecoming is not profiting from the use/abuse of someone else's copyright.  In fact, they're not profiting at all, nor does it appear that they want to do so.  Consequently, they aren't infringing on anyone else's copyright, because they aren't profiting from the use of those copyrights (which is what copyrights are actually for: to protect the ability of the creators to profit from their own creations).

 

Homecoming is more analogous to sites like DeviantArt, which allow artists to post works under "fair use" rules.  The artists there frequently post drawings of copyrighted characters, and are allowed to do so, as long as they are not profiting directly from doing so.  They can draw Superman or Iron Man all day long, but they can't sell those works, nor any mechandise using those works, because those copyrights belong to DC and Marvel.  Only DC and Marvel (and their licensees) are allowed to profit from those works -- they have the "right" to "copy" those works for sale.

 

When a Homecoming player creates a clone character (as uncreative or tacky as it may be), they are allowed to do so under fair use, because the player is not profiting from that, nor is Homecoming.  Such characters are considered homage or parody, which is protected, as long as they don't try to make money from playing that character.

 

[Bossk_Hogg]

2 hours ago, cparks7040 said:

its a real concern, it doesnt matter if you disagree the law is very clear on what you can and cant do. if you where smart you would agree with me but doesnt seem like you are.

Yeah, we really need to watch it playing with other people's IP you guys... /s

 

Honestly, Brigg's comic con map has a ton more creativity in repurposing assets to recreate costumes than I see in some of the random red and black "Dethblade-x" characters I run into.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Bossk_Hogg

[PaxArcana]

17 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

Homecoming is not profiting from the use/abuse of someone else's copyright.  In fact, they're not profiting at all, nor does it appear that they want to do so.  Consequently, they aren't infringing on anyone else's copyright, because they aren't profiting from the use of those copyrights (which is what copyrights are actually for: to protect the ability of the creators to profit from their own creations).

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AND DANGEROUSLY INACCURATE.

 

It is not required that you make a profit, to have infringed upon someone else's copyright.  It is only required that you make an unauthorised copy.

 

Let's say, I wrote a novel, and self-published.  I manage to get it on Amazon, for $20 a copy.

 

You start handing out bootleg copies, absolutely for free.  Hell, it costs you money, 'cause you're paying to make those copies, and charging $0 for them.  You wind up handing out five thousand copies.

 

You have still infringed on my copyright, and I can still sue you.  I can, in fact, sue you for $20 per copy you handed out.  Long-standing precedent establishes that each copy you handed out, the court assumes would have been a sale .... which your infringement has denied me the revenue from.

It wouldn't even matter, if I had never made a legal sale at all - because it would be assumed that your five thousand copies would have been legal sales.  ALL of them.

 

You would be on the hook for $1,000,000 ... plus my legal and court costs.

And it doesn't matter that you made no profit,  It doesn't even matter that you suffered a net loss - you would still be sued for $1M, and you would have a snowball's chance in hell of not losing.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by PaxArcana

[Haijinx]

Those comic con clones are actually pretty good.  Course they are cosplay in universe so i kind of liked that.  

[Rathulfr]

2 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AND DANGEROUSLY INACCURATE.

 

It is not required that you make a profit, to have infringed upon someone else's copyright.  It is only required that you make an unauthorised copy.

 

Let's say, I wrote a novel, and self-published.  I manage to get it on Amazon, for $20 a copy.

 

You start handing out bootleg copies, absolutely for free.  Hell, it costs you money, 'cause you're paying to make those copies, and charging $0 for them.  You wind up handing out five thousand copies.

 

You have still infringed on my copyright, and I can still sue you.  I can, in fact, sue you for $20 per copy you handed out.  Long-standing precedent establishes that each copy you handed out, the court assumes would have been a sale .... whichyour infringement has denied me the revenue from.

 

You would be on the hook for $1,000,000 ... plus my legal and court costs.

And it doesn't matter that you made no profit,  It doesn't even matter that you suffered a net loss - you would still be sued for $1M, and you would have a snowball's chance in hell of not losing.

 

 

 

You're mostly right.  Mostly.  The difference is that in your example, my distributing copies of your work cuts into your profits -- I may not be making a profit, but I'm definitely undermining your ability to profit from that work.  I'm cutting into the sales of that work, which is definitely infringement.

 

But that's not the case with fan-created art, which ostensibly, is what we have here.  If I draw a picture of Iron Man, and make 5,000 copies of it, and give it away for free, I'm not undermining the ability of Marvel/Disney from making a profit from their drawings of Iron Man (or any other kinds of media).  Can Marvel/Disney sue me?  Sure: but suing someone isn't hard, and it isn't the same thing as "shutting me down".  Worst-case, their suit might prevent me from distributing my drawing of Iron Man, or drawing Iron Man, or drawing Marvel/Disney characters, but it won't stop me from drawing altogether.

 

The same principle applies here.  Homecoming is facilitating fan-created art in digital and animated form.  And it does so in no way that prevents other copyright holders from from their ability to profit from their work.  The same is true of DeviantArt, Reddit, Imgur, or Facebook for that matter.  There's all kinds of fan-art on those sites: and those sites profit from them indirectly, all without infringing on the rights of other copyright holders.  If DC or Marvel or any other copyright holder wants to go after anyone, they'll probably go after those before they bother with piddly little Homecoming.

 

Could they if they wanted to?  Absolutely.  Would they be right?  Definitely.  But would it actually shut down the servers?  I doubt it.  Worst-case, Homecoming gets a C&D, and they have to do the same thing that NCSoft did: crack down on offending characters.  If they demonstrated due diligence in trying to prevent abuse, they'd be covered, legally.  They might have to pay for legal fees and/or a settlement, like NCSoft did.  But the game would go on.

 

Frankly, they're on shakier ground with NCSoft for hosting the game without permission in the first place.  If anything gets them shut down, that would be it.  Player-made clones of copyrighted characters should be the least of anyone's concerns.

 

 

 

 

[Doc_Scorpion]

Keep in mind that what we're talking about are trademarked characters, and there is no Fair Use for trademarks.  What folks seem to be talking about here is copyright law, which is irrelevant.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Derekl1963

[Andrewvm]

1 hour ago, Derekl1963 said:

Keep in mind that what we're talking about are trademarked characters, and there is no Fair Use for trademarks.  What folks seem to be talking about here is copyright law, which is irrelevant.

You cant trademark a character's look, you can trademark his name.

 

the look falls under the copyright law.

 

Quote

Trademarks cover comic book characters' names and logos. Any character's name or logo used on products offered in commercial trade may qualify as a trademark. A trademark generally contains any combination of original words, signs, symbols, phrases and designs. A trademark may not contain generic or merely descriptive terms, such as "bat" or "man". However, the character name "Batman" qualifies as a unique combination of words and the Batman logo qualifies as a unique design. Registration of comic book character names must not infringe on other trademark owners' rights.

 

[PaxArcana]

6 hours ago, Rathulfr said:

But that's not the case with fan-created art, which ostensibly, is what we have here. 

That only muddies the waters, when it comes to the court assigning a valuation to the infringement.  It's still an infringement.

 

And it never has to see the inside of a court, for the HC devs to lose; a big enough company (e.g. Disney/Marvel) could simply choose to drag the process out, and drown the defense in legal costs, until they are forced to settle for whatever the big company elects to offer.

[PaxArcana]

5 hours ago, Derekl1963 said:

What folks seem to be talking about here is copyright law, which is irrelevant.

It's both, actually.  🙂  Trademark and Copyright.