Code of Conduct Update - September 25th 2019

[ShardWarrior]

2 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I’ll tell you what.  If you can adequately explain what my answer to that question has to do with the price of tea in China, I may even proffer my irrelevant opinion.

 

P.S.  The price of tea in China is TOO LOW!

I already said I asked out of curiosity for discussion.  You had equated this to "rip offs" and being "wrong" and I was just curious where you draw the line?  Seems to me based on that criteria, anyone attending a Comic Con dressed up as a trademarked/copyrighted character is "ripping off" the owner too.  So I asked, do you consider cosplayers at conventions are breaking the law?

[MisterBernie]

1 hour ago, Trademarked Name said:

Nice clearly stated elitist attitude but won't fit on a bumper sticker. HC staff has not once stated having an issue with member's lack of creativity though. Despite the fact that people keep injecting that into this thread makes my nap hair stand up on end. It's akin to "I don't like seeing all those ETHNIC toons around Atlas park. I've always thought of it to be a 'clean' place. I think the game would be better if we could 'lighten' them up a bit."

... not being allowed to play Superman or being criticised for being "uncreative" is not actually akin to racism (though I agree that the latter behavior is unkind). While I'm personally neutral on the issue, drawing parallels to like, actual oppression isn't gonna win sympathy points with all that many people. This is not being a systemically marginalised minority in any meaningful sense.

Edited September 26, 2019 by MisterBernie
corrected a reading comprehension mistake

[Blackbird71]

1 hour ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

And wow, dog fighting is ok but murder is disgusting?  Whatever!

Do not put words in my mouth.

[Yomo Kimyata]

4 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I already said I asked out of curiosity for discussion.  You had equated this to "rip offs" and being "wrong" and I was just curious where you draw the line?  Seems to me based on that criteria, anyone attending a Comic Con dressed up as a trademarked/copyrighted character is "ripping off" the owner too.  So I asked, do you consider cosplayers at conventions are breaking the law?

Breaking the law?  Not for me to decide.  I don’t have relevant legal expertise there.  “Wrong” or “ripping off” intellectual property?  I hadn’t thought about it enough to have a strong opinion.  Relevant to my gameplay of CoX or HC’s wish to mitigate risk?  Not in the slightest.

 

It’s no skin off my nose to see a character named “Steeve Roggers” dressed in red, white, and blue.  But if HC feels that poses a risk to the long term viability of this server, then I encourage their picking up the ban hammer faster than Captain America picked up Mjolnir.  Oops, spoiler alert.  Cmon people, we saw that coming!

 

Im not sure what your objective here is but I suspect you are trying to set me up with a “LMAO, HYPOCRITE!!!1!”  Have at it.  I’ve repeatedly avowed that my opinion is irrelevant.  If your end game is to get me to say my opinion is wrong, then you’ve got a long tough slog ahead of you.

[Jimmy]

Calm it, please, or I'll get @CR Tempestto talk to all of you. You don't want that.

[Blackbird71]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

This is patently false.

Behavior like this will result in disciplinary action against your account.

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.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Blackbird71

[ShardWarrior]

1 minute ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

Breaking the law?  Not for me to decide.  I don’t have relevant legal expertise there.  “Wrong” or “ripping off” intellectual property?  I hadn’t thought about it enough to have a strong opinion.  Relevant to my gameplay of CoX or HC’s wish to mitigate risk?  Not in the slightest.

 

It’s no skin off my nose to see a character named “Steeve Roggers” dressed in red, white, and blue.  But if HC feels that poses a risk to the long term viability of this server, then I encourage their picking up the ban hammer faster than Captain America picked up Mjolnir.  Oops, spoiler alert.  Cmon people, we saw that coming!

 

Im not sure what your objective here is but I suspect you are trying to set me up with a “LMAO, HYPOCRITE!!!1!”  Have at it.  I’ve repeatedly avowed that my opinion is irrelevant.  If your end game is to get me to say my opinion is wrong, then you’ve got a long tough slog ahead of you.

I understand you don't have the relevant legal expertise.  I don't expect you to and neither do I have any.  I also completely agree all our opinions are irrelevant to what HC decides what policy is best for them to enact.  I've no objection to any of that at all. 

 

I'm simply trying to engage in discussion, not with the intent to call you a hypocrite or to change your opinion on anything.  I'm simply curious whether you consider people cosplaying at conventions are "ripping off" the IP owners and are doing something "wrong."

[Trademarked Name]

Irrelevant post.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Trademarked Name
Irrelevant post

[GM Capocollo]

Homecoming isn't a fan convention, so the discussion's irrelevant to this thread.

[ShardWarrior]

2 minutes ago, GM Capocollo said:

Homecoming isn't a fan convention, so the discussion's irrelevant to this thread.

I didn't suggest it was. If that's what you thought, then apologies.  It wasn't my intent.

Edited September 26, 2019 by ShardWarrior

[Blackbird71]

1 hour ago, jubakumbi said:

As I have said previuosly, the only drawback IMO is the moral validation of the creatives that enjoy censuring others.

...

 

So, nothing has actually changed, past the fact that the some portion of the playerbase can now be Mr Burns and make the game less fun, just like all other MMOs.

 

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.

[jubakumbi]

16 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

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.

Not to mention, to troll the HC support team with this crap.

Sadly, these players have always been here and always will be, humans sometimes really suck.

 

I think another issue is the age of the general playerbase - it's always skewed a little older and IMO therefore has more 'parents' that think they need to 'help' the rest of us 'children' - ageism sucks.

My generation lives in constant fear of lawyers as well, so theres that.

 

The policy is what it is.

It's the players that will ruin the fun of people, not the policy.

[Sidious]

it's sad to see the community become divided and turned on each other due to this rule.

 

Griefers may want to take notice that inundating GM's with every imagined or perceived violation may not be the smartest thing you could do.

The boy who cried Wolf comes to mind. (and I now have another character concept to create).

[EmeraldFox]

I didn't mean to come of antagonistic... I have a hard time explaining thoughts and feelings thanks to my asphergers.  I meant was that ive just seen a few players having what i thought was just a thrown together toon with whatever name and at times found it annoying.. when it comes to my toons in any mmo rp wise or D&D wise yes ill admit i can be a little ocd when createing backgrounds for them and maybe a little perfiectionist.  If I had offended anyone once more I deeply apologie and ill leave it there with this post.  I did not mean to cause any anger or offence whatsoever

[EmeraldFox]

35 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

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.

and one last note... i never mentioned reporting anyone.  Only ones i would ever report are ones who genuinely grief in game or any other mmo i play just to either annoy ruin or destroy the game for others

[Trademarked Name]

1 hour ago, Blackbird71 said:

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.

I was being facetious, but it was still inappropriate and I've been warned/cited and deservedly so. I'll keep my mouth shut on the issue going forward.

[Sidious]

3 minutes ago, Trademarked Name said:

I was being facetious, but it was still inappropriate and I've been warned/cited and deservedly so. I'll keep my mouth shut on the issue going forward.

Dude, text is hard to tell the tone of people in. You did sound like a Richard.

Glad to see it was just sarcasm.

[Player2]

 

7 hours ago, Blackbird71 said:

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?

That is incorrect.  Costumes and even uniforms can indeed by trademarked, as long as they maintain a legally distinct nature to them.  Therefore uniforms such as your favorite fast food franchise gives to their employees would likely be trademarked, but the standard grey-green overalls found on your typical mechanic at an autobody shop likely will not be.  For more info, I've provided a link below.

 

https://www.erikpelton.com/non-traditional-trademarks-costumes-and-uniforms/

 

Remember the old days when the comic companies would include an image of the character on their cover somewhere, like a tiny full body portrait with the trademark and copyright symbols?  That meant that the image was protected both as an individual whole piece of art (even if it was small) as well as displaying the full likeness of the character, the likeness being the trademark at issue.  Imitate at your own risk, because they were sending a message.  Symbols were also popular in those corners, as were --eventually-- the corporate logos of Marvel & DC.  Now in my original post above, I said that some names could not be trademarked, such as Thor.  And that remains true.  To circumvent this, in the old days Marvel used to throw adjectives that made the names sound even more dynamic, but it was also a loophole for characters like Thor.  So while Marvel cannot own a trademark on the name Thor, the absolutely could own a trademark on the full title, "The Mighty Thor."

 

10 hours ago, Starhammer said:

Sic transit gloria mundi

So, as the Homecoming team strives to affect airs of legitimacy to go along withe the legal business operating as a front for the pirate server running stolen code (none of which I have a problem with beyond the hypocrisy of course) should we remember that NCSoft has rights to every character we made on their servers, and delete such recreations as well?

I need to know for my next alt, Costume Cop, who is inspired by self-righteous school bullies who get away with their harassment of others under the authority of a hall monitor harness...

NCSoft set up the clause regarding having rights to the characters we made on their servers specifically so that they could use in-game footage or screenshots of gameplay from anyone at anytime without having a player come back at them and insisting that their own idea (or ideas) was used, insisting that they get a payout since NCSoft is using their intellectual property (characters created in game) to make more money without reimbursing anyone for doing so.

 

 

5 hours ago, MunkiLord said:

What those EULA are stating is that the user grants an unlimited license for the company to use their user generated content in their game and ads for as long as they want.

 

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty confident that one cannot sign over IP rights by simply accepting a game EULA. 

Looks like I'm not the only one who knows what's what.  😎

 

5 hours ago, grbrandjr said:

I have a question just for self-clarification.

 

I created an assault rifle hero directly based with the backstory that he is a member of Longbow, complete with a Longbow inspired costume and colors.  He is not a copy of any specific NCSoft character but rather just a representative of the organization.  I would think not since the Arachnos Widow and Arachnos Soldier are basically ripped right from their organizations for you to utilize.

 

Does this fall into the trademark issue? 

 

Thanks for your advice as I had plans to create a line of villains based on the villain groups in the game: Family, Tsoo, Freaks and such.

 

2 hours ago, Captain Valiant said:

You will, of course, explain in detail, in writing, what constitutes a copyright violation as it pertains to your game, for our future reference. "Copyrighted materials" can be interpreted as red capes, for example. Your definition must be complete and unable to be interpretted in more than one way.

 

This is actually a grey area at this time.  In the past on the original Live servers, what you are proposing was not only not frowned upon, it was even encouraged.  Case in point the COV content that essentially makes your hero part of Arachnos, as well as providing certain resources (like NPC chest symbols and summonable pets representing some groups indicating that you are an honorary member, if nothing else).

 

However, at present, because all of this is running (for now) illegally, NCSoft could presumably issue a cease & desist order over that.  Chances are that's not going to happen at this juncture if they haven't done so yet.  And the biggest reason it isn't likely to happen is because no one is profiting from this game and the resources within.  The moment someone puts up a server and tries to make a profit --which is distinctly different from Homecoming's efforts to only solicit enough donations to cover monthly operating costs-- NCSoft will have a case and start lashing out with the C&Ds.  Why?  Because they put this game to bed and refused to sell it.  They tried to make it look like it wasn't profitable enough to keep around, but the real issue is that they were chasing bigger profits at home and didn't really care about what the American audience wanted unless they wanted in on what the Korean market liked.  So if someone were to bring the game back and start making a profit, not only would it be a legal issue regarding trademarks and copyrights, but it would also be a significant slap in the face to those very rigid Korean business men.

 

4 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

The very companies you are holding up on a pedestal as pillars of creativity and originality are perhaps the most flagrant ripoff artists themselves.   Where do we even begin listing them?  Just to name a few from a rather lengthy list....

 

Green Arrow vs  Hawkeye

Namor vs Aquaman

Brainiac vs Ultron

Superman vs Sentry or Gladiator or Hyperion

Catwoman vs Black Cat

Elongated Man vs Mister Fantastic

Deadpool vs Deathstroke

Swamp Thing vs Man Thing

Ant-Man vs The Atom

Red Lion vs Black Panther

Wasp vs Bumblebee

Thanos vs Darkseid

It's not about creativity or originality, it's about profits and what can be proven to be an infringement in a courtroom.  Things have come a long way since Fawcett Comics lost the trademark infringement lawsuit of Shazam being a ripoff of Superman, a travesty of justice from a judge who just didn't see any difference in the ideas or presentation of the two characters.  Fortunately, the law has been more well-defined since those days.  You can't trademark or copyright ideas like a superhero archer or invulnerable superhero or a cat-themed hero.  In fact, Marvel and DC have taken shots at each other in times past with blatant ripoffs that still hold true to the rule of being legally distinct.  Examples include Marvel's version of the Legion of Superheroes, the Shi'ar Imperial Guard (with Gladiator as their Superman)... or the Squardron Supreme, a clear riff on the Justice League.  On DC's side, the major copy was their Earth-8 crew of heroes known as the Retaliators, a team meant to be DC's version of the Avengers.

 

But Marvel can have Mister Fantastic who is a super genius science guy who stretches while DC has Elongated Man, a detective who gains stretching powers from a mystic plant extract, and neither is a ripoff of the other because they're two ideas presented in different ways.

 

4 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Trademarks need to be protected so having assets to go after is not always required.  Could Disney sue?  Sure.  server could also get struck by a random meteor.  tons of websites out there for tons of games with mods or 3D models or art prints for free or even for sale.  Guaranteed these companies know they are there and don't bother with them.  look at all the sellers on Amazon selling Marvel and DC stuff.  They all have a license?  Amazon has more money than God.  Disney doesn't bat an eye.

Correct!  And great to see that some people do know something about trademark law.  A major sticking point about trademarks over copyrights is that trademarks must be actively defended, whereas copyrights exist until they expire.  If someone infringes on a trademark and the owner of that trademark does nothing after it can be proven that they should reasonably have known about it, then they are likely to be legally determined to have abandoned the trademark.  But what constitutes infringing on the trademark?  Using someone else's trademark (word, symbol, or likeness) in any way without the express written permission of the owner is a no-no.

 

However, lots of people get away with trademark infringements all the time and no issue takes place, such as artists drawing images of trademarked characters or people cosplaying.  Things this small can generally be considered to be too small to gain enough notice to trigger the "reasonable awareness" factor.  If someone is not making a noticeable profit from the effort, then how is it likely to raise the red flags of the trademark owner?  This is a good thing since it prevents the trademark owner from being overburdened with having to actively seek out at all times any and every little infraction that could otherwise cost them their trademark.  Money = attention = lawsuit = recompense for (damages / lost profits).  Anything that isn't directly serving the trademark owner's interest can be said to be damaging its marketability, and how much they can prove will likely determine how much they are awarded when the judge gets down to making his or her final verdict on the case.

 

In the lawsuit that Marvel brought against NCSoft, they demonstrated knowledge of the game and provided examples of copy characters that infringed several trademarks.  However, I believe that the entire lawsuit was a formality so that they could move on to a partnership in an effort to create a Marvel MMO with Cryptic Studios, who was splitting from NCSoft at the time.  It would have been a whole lot easier if they just gave express written permission for their trademarks to be used by players to the extent possible within the game, it could very easily have been a slippery slope of just how far could that line be pushed?  In the end, the case was dismissed when it was revealed that many (if not all) of the examples of infringements shown during the trial were actually created by people at Marvel Comics to show how the costumes could look like the protected characters.  Again, it all seems rather calculated to me... as in just following up on that requirement to defend those trademarks if they would be reasonably expected to be aware of infringements, and if they were talking about doing business with Cryptic, they would have to have a passing familiarity with their then-current game.

 

Some things do get away as infringements without costing the trademark owner the loss of that trademark... under Fair Use as parodies.  But let's be honest:  there is not a lot of parody going when people make their copy characters.  And it would be up to a judge to determine whether or not the infringement is actually covered, which means the people responsible for the medium (not the player who created the infringement) would be required to go to court over it.  So while Fair Use did allow for some wiggle room, it was never allowed on the original servers... because it would be too costly for them to have to be the ones to defend against any lawsuits brought about by player actions.  It was easier to just say "no" to the whole thing.  So please don't go crying Fair Use and parody about your copy characters.

 

4 hours ago, Blackbird71 said:

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.

Correct.  There is no profit in that the Homecoming team is doing, and because of the currently illegal nature of the game (operating without the express consent of NCSoft), it's not likely that Marvel, Disney, Warner Bros, or DC will drag them into court.  It would be a net loss paying the lawyers to do so since there is nothing to gain from a non-profit organization who only takes in enough to maintain operating expenses, and because the game is being operated "under the radar," the trademark owners can turn a blind eye and claim that there was no reason to expect them to be aware of the game's return.  As big as it is to all of us, it's not even a blip to Disney.

 

However, the implementation of this new policy with the Homecoming team is actually very positive news.  While it does not signal anything, I recall a month or two ago that there was some discreet talk of trying to go legit with the game (as in asking us all what we would like to see from an officially licensed COH).  If the HC team does manage to get NCSoft to agree to anything that puts the game into a more legitimate atmosphere, then you can expect people to post streams of their gameplay to YouTube or other content services that can be monetized, and it will be more difficult for the big companies to ignore those little trademark infringements.  So it's a sign that we could be moving closer to some kind of agreement with NCSoft.

 

3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Same here.  I renamed and retooled my homages last night.  I do feel bad for whomever gets to field all these reports though. 

Please understand that there is a difference between homage and infringements.  See my example above about Mister Fantastic and the Elongated Man.  One could easily say that the brainy Elongated Man is a DC homage to Marvel's even brainier stretchy guy.  An homage should not be a lookalike, nor should it look different but claim to be the same thing in a new package.  It should be an original creation that evokes the idea of the original.

 

As a personal example, I made a character on the Excelsior server called Good Girl.  She is my homage to Supergirl.  However, Supergirl is a super strong, invulnerable heroine with blue top & sometimes red skirt with matching red cape & boots as well as yellow trim highlights; while Good Girl has a red top and blue skirt with blue cape and yellow boots & belt.  Good Girl has the invulnerability powerset (which I embrace the aura effects to, something Supergirl's invulnerability does not)... and I gave her energy melee, which distinguishes her from Supergirl's non-glowing punchy attacks.  There's also not a big G on some sort of shape displayed on her chest, but rather a letter G off to the side (because shirts like I've used don't let you do the centered symbol).

 

This is an homage.  It should make you think about being Supergirl,

but she is legally distinct enough to be an original character.

 

If you have true homage characters, you should not need to retool them.  If you have copy characters, then just try try to change them up to set them apart from the original source material.

 

3 hours ago, ZacKing said:

It's funny so many people are frightened about illegal clones and getting sued by someone while playing on a pirate server running stolen code.  Where is the concern for NCSoft and their property and trademark rights? 

 

Sort of ironic to be ok with theft so long as you don't like the company.

It's a little amusing, but I'm not quite sure that this falls under the definition of irony... unless you mean the Alanis Morissette song, and even then it's kind of sketchy.  I think the word you were looking for is "hypocrisy."

 

3 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

The point is, copyright infringement is illegal.  It was illegal last week, and it is illegal today.  Maybe you don't think that is right or fair, but like dog fighting and murder, it is still illegal.  If you don't like it, get elected to a legislative position and change the laws if you can.

 

HC didn't use to try to combat this illegal behavior.  Understandable, it's a big time and effort suck, and it obviously cheeses a lot of people off.  Today, they are trying to combat this illegal behavior, for their own reasons.  Also understandable, since they are the first ones in line for legal action.

 

My view on this is if you intentionally committed copyright infringement, and I am going to presume that if you did so you did it knowing that it was illegal but not being enforced, prepare to lose your name or appearance.  If you don't like it, feel free to start your own server and shoulder the risk yourself.  But don't whine, "But, but, but I WANT IT!!!"  If you are legitimately concerned that your name or character MAY be in violation, I probably wouldn't worry about it.  If there is a risk of legal action, it would be over low hanging fruit rather than something esoteric.  But that is not legal advice; consult your lawyer.

 

I don't think HC owes me anything.  Even if I am able to contribute in the very brief windows that contributions are open.  We are here playing, and posting on the forums, at their pleasure.  And if it all goes away tomorrow, I'll shrug and make my peace with it.  It's their ball, and they can take it and go home if they want.  Every single one of us has the ability to bring our own ball and start a new game if we want.

Someone missed out on my talk about there being differences between copyright and trademark laws, and how it's trademark that we specifically need to worry about.

 

Personally, I know the difference and can cite legal precedent where appropriate to defend any character names I have that might be taken away.  In the end, however, it's still the HC team's server and they can do with it what they want.  I mean, technically, I could invent a new word and use it as the name for my character...  and said name could have zero infringement potential nor any offensive qualities whatsoever... and they could still just decide to block it and rename my character because it's their server and they can.  That's it.  So if they want to, they can enforce any name change they want and not have to listen to anyone whine about it (because they could always remove the person from the forum for being a troublemaker if they so chose).

 

So ultimately, we have to choose to accept their decisions or move on to something else that we can feel more open to express ourselves creatively.

 

3 hours ago, Skyhawke said:

At the end of the day, the HC team run the servers, do maintenance, patch things and have the risk if things go south, so if they say no more characters that are ripoffs of other IPs...well then, no more characters that are ripoffs of other IPs.  I know people will be people, but why this is still an argument is hard to grasp. You like the rules?  Continue on. You don't like the rules?  Adapt or move on. It sounds cruel, but that's life. 

 

(And yes, I know some will argue just to argue)

Personally, I don't like the term "ripoff character" because what constitutes ripoff?  Some people will compare two similar ideas, like Hawkeye & Green Arrow, and say one is a ripoff of the other.  Others will have a bit more specific requirements, meaning the character should look at least look like the one being "ripped off."  Even my term of "copy characters," sprinkled throughout this post, is a little vague.  It might be better if we limit ourselves to calling them legally what they are:  trademark infringements.

 

The context of your usage of ripoff and adamant standpoint on "follow the rules or move on" makes it seem like you're talking down at people who make and play such characters.  Let's all be friends and play nice.  If you see a trademark infringement, then report it.  No need to apply what sounds like derogatory terminology or be angry at anyone.

 

2 hours ago, Solarverse said:

Okay, so I have to say, my main, Solarverse, is a direct copy of a copyrighted comic book character. However, I own the intellectual property and copyright. So what do I do when everytime (if at all) somebody reports my character (some people are pretty knowledgeable about the comic book world) and a GM nerfs my character? Is there a way to put me in the GM database (assuming they have one) to help avoid unnecessary Generic Hero (enter number here)?

Back in the old days, the developers on the Live servers had a zero tolerance policy on trademarked & copyrighted material, even if the player was the owner and could prove it.  It's the kind of thing that could get out of hand, as in if they allowed one person to do it then they'd have to make exceptions for anyone, and at anytime someone could decide to claim unfair use of their character's image because, for example, their character appears in someone else's monetized YouTube stream or whatever else... and they gave NCSoft / Cryptic / Paragon Studios permission to use their characters by agreeing to the EULA but can say they did not give every other player the same permission... but how do you as the people running the game control how anyone else uses screenshots taken in the game?  It would be costly and irritating, and the person with the trademark character they own could say that not enough effort was taken to protect the usage of that character.

 

No, no... easier just to avoid all trademarks altogether.

 

[Sniktch]

7 minutes ago, Player2 said:

 

Back in the old days, the developers on the Live servers had a zero tolerance policy on trademarked & copyrighted material, even if the player was the owner and could prove it.  It's the kind of thing that could get out of hand, as in if they allowed one person to do it then they'd have to make exceptions for anyone, and at anytime someone could decide to claim unfair use of their character's image because, for example, their character appears in someone else's monetized YouTube stream or whatever else... and they gave NCSoft / Cryptic / Paragon Studios permission to use their characters by agreeing to the EULA but can say they did not give every other player the same permission... but how do you as the people running the game control how anyone else uses screenshots taken in the game?  It would be costly and irritating, and the person with the trademark character they own could say that not enough effort was taken to protect the usage of that character.

 

No, no... easier just to avoid all trademarks altogether.

 

 

 

Incorrect - Jim Butcher did in fact get permission to play Harry Dresden on Cities during the live era - I know, I teamed with him.

[Player2]

3 hours ago, Abraxus said:

I believe what they were asked to do was to have a policy in place, and a mechanism for enforcement.  However, the degree to which enforcement is applied is a matter of some interpretation, just as it was in the live game.  I don't believe it will actually affect that many, contrary to the degree of outrage that's been expressed so far.  There is no war on those with less creative instincts, or tendencies.  In fact, I believe there has been a lot of supposition on the potential effects of this change, that have created a degree of unnecessary fear.  History does love to repeat itself, so we will wait patiently for those who were concerned about the ramifications to find through the passage of time, that it's not as impactful as they feared.  That's not to say that NOBODY will have their character genericised.  But, I don't believe we are seeing, or will see, the degree of action that many envisioned.  Things will settle back to normal, and we will go on.  Hopefully with everyone still on-board, and more to come, especially if the deal succeeds.

Carry on heroes, villains, and everyone in between!

 

3 hours ago, jubakumbi said:

The fear everyone around here has is the lawyers, not the IP, IMO.

There is some idea of C&D letter 'shutting down' the whole thing over these IP violations.

This is simply a very error filled interpretaion of how things work.

As you well know, this community has gone in circles eating itself over this topic.

Some players are simply conviced the sky will fall if other players make IP based characters and there is no changing thier minds.

Other are convinced players that make homages/clones should be shamed and shunned and there is no changing thier minds.

 

None of this has changed in games and conventions and peoples creativity since the invention of copyright and trademark, it is an endless holy war, IMO.

This is exactly the problem:  there are too many uninformed people, or worse, people with minimal information jumping to the worst possible case scenario and assuming that it's just a matter of time before some players cause it to occur.  People need to lighten up and let the developers (in this case, the Homecoming team) and the GMs handle the problems.  Report people if you suspect an issue with their character.  Do not badger them personally about it, and please do not go around ranting about what you think will happen because someone told you.

 

The people who actually do know will handle it, and they don't need anyone stoking fires to burn anyone at the stake.

[MunkiLord]

17 minutes ago, Player2 said:

Looks like I'm not the only one who knows what's what.  😎

 

I'm by no means an expert, and certainly not a lawyer, but IP is a topic I enjoy reading about. Various sites like Techdirt and Ars Technica are ones I frequent for info on this. 

[ShardWarrior]

27 minutes ago, Player2 said:

It's not about creativity or originality, it's about profits and what can be proven to be an infringement in a courtroom. 

In the context that you're speaking of, yes.  In the context of the post I was replying to, it was more about criticizing others for a lack of "originality".  Even Marvel and DC are famous for being "unoriginal" and copying each other.  They've been doing it for decades.

[jubakumbi]

19 minutes ago, Player2 said:

 

...  Report people if you suspect an issue with their character.  ...

Not even once.

 

I am not against the discussion at all.

Lots of people are new to the Holy War and have a side to pick, after all! 😉

Just like @MunkiLord suggests, there are a lot of views on the subject, lot's of infomation, and lots of people that like to discuss it.

While there are laws, it's not a binary, cut-and-dried thing.

 

Personally, I would love to find some 'people that know how to handle it' and elect them, so the broken systems can be fixed so that consumers don't have to fear lawyers. 🙂

 

As for the HC team, they have confidence in thier lawyer from what I read, so we just have to hope that person 'knows how to handle it', which at this point has to simply be 'faith', unfortunately, we have no real data.

 

Like most anyone paying attention IMO, I saw this coming from the start.

Any entity that is going to take over the IP legally will probably have to follow all of the court rulings that come along with it - seen this in business my whole career.

It depends on a lot of things that we don't have details for, but from my PoV, this addition to the rules was inevitable if the thing is going to be 'legit'.

 

Does not mean I have to like it, does not mean I have to report.

It just means HC has to implement the policy to the best of thier ability.

Edited September 26, 2019 by jubakumbi
speeling

[Doc_Scorpion]

8 hours ago, MunkiLord said:

What those EULA are stating is that the user grants an unlimited license for the company to use their user generated content in their game and ads for as long as they want.

 

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty confident that one cannot sign over IP rights by simply accepting a game EULA. 

That's an important distinction - signing away a license is not the same as signing away your rights (or ownership).  Folks really should read the EULA's and terms of service of websites, they're be surprised how often they're agreeing to grant license over the use of their words and works.  (Often enough that it's practically standard.)

[Doc_Scorpion]

1 hour ago, Player2 said:

In the end, the case was dismissed when it was revealed that many (if not all) of the examples of infringements shown during the trial were actually created by people at Marvel Comics to show how the costumes could look like the protected characters. 

While individual complaints (those related to Marvel employees) were dismissed, the case itself was not. The parties settled out of court.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Doc_Scorpion