Names of characters registered or not.

[Blyzzard]

Bonjour

J'ai eu ce soir la désagréable surprise de voir mon personnage renommé en généric123654897 et tous mes costumes effacés, en jouant.

Alors oui j'avoue j'avais fait un hommage au personnage Mammouth de chez Dc comics.

Il avait le même nom, Mammouth et un costume ressemblant vaguement. Le costume était noir avec du métal couleur or.

Pour le comportement je suis toujours très correct avec tous les joueurs et c'était même un héros, pas du tout un vilain comme dans la BD, donc rien à me reprocher.

 Hors j'aimerais voir les textes de lois faits par l'organisme américain pour Dc comics en ce qui concerne les noms de personnages.

Car Mammouth est un nom commun qui définit un genre d'éléphant préhistorique, ce n'est pas une marque ni un mot inventé par Dc comics (et normalement un nom commun ne peut être "déposé", comme voiture par exemple).

Parce que si c'était le cas nous n'aurions plus le droit de parler sous peine de devoir verser des droits. Car comme leurs BD sont protégées les textes dedans aussi.

 

Donc de ce que j'ai lu dans le message qui m'était destiné, je n'ai pas le droit d'utiliser le nom Mammouth sous peine de représailles bien plus importantes si je le réutilise...

Les costume vaguement ressemblants on été effacés aussi... et MEME un costume qui n'avait rien à voir avec le personnage de Dc comics il était bleu et noir avec de bracelets...bleus et noir...

 

Donc je pense que je suis tombé sur admin qui a fait du zèle et qui dans sa fougue ou sa colère je ne sais pas a tout effacé sans se poser de question.

Voilà juste un petit message sans colère pour dire que je trouve dommage que ça se passe comme ça.

 

Bien cordialement et bon eu à tous 😉

 

 

Hello

Tonight I had the unpleasant surprise to see my famous character in general123654897 and all my costumes erased, while playing.

So yes I confess I had made a tribute to the character Mammoth from Dc comics.

He had the same name, Mammoth and a costume vaguely resembling. The costume was black with gold-colored metal.

As for the behavior I'm always very correct with all the players and he was even a hero, not at all a villain like in the comic book, so nothing to reproach me.

 Except I would like to see the laws made by the American organization for Dc comics regarding character names.

Because Mammoth is a common name that defines a kind of prehistoric elephant, it's not a brand or a word invented by Dc comics (and normally a common name can't be "registered", like car for example).

Because if it was, we would no longer have the right to speak or else we would have to pay fees. Because as their comics are protected the texts in them too.

 

So from what I read in the message that was sent to me, I don't have the right to use the name Mammoth under penalty of much greater reprisals if I reuse it...

The vaguely resembling costumes have been erased too... and EVEN a costume that had nothing to do with the character of Dc comics it was blue and black with bracelets...blue and black....

 

So I think I came across Admin who was overzealous and who in his ardor or anger I don't know erased everything without asking himself any questions.

Here's just a little message without anger to say that I think it's a shame that it's like that.

 

Best regards and good luck to all 😉

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[The_Warpact]

There are rules for a reason and regardless of your opinion, thoughts, feelings, the devs will err on the side of caution. 

 

 

[Greycat]

I *suspect* what tripped you up was having the name and, as you put it, a "resembling" costume. (Not familiar with the character itself, so I couldn't say how close it would be powers or bio wise.) It was seen and recognized, and the GMs took the actions they needed to. Yes, it's a common name, but you gave it (from your own description) specific context.

 

You could still do, say, Mr. Mammoth, give him a different look, etc. with no tie to DC and probably be fine.

 

As for the law regarding it? It's trademark and copyright, which is involved and intricate, arcane and mysterious, full of twists and turns which make COH's code look like "hello world." That said, holders *of* those do have to pursue potential infringements or possibly lose the ownership of those marks. (For instance, a corvette is a type of ship. You could make corvette cola, potentially, but making another car called the Corvette would land you in trouble with GM. So could the cola, honestly, depending on how it's branded, marketed, etc. Or, for instance, Fender having to rename their Broadcaster the Telecaster because another company had a drum set named Broadcaster, even though "broadcaster" is in and of itself a fairly generic word.)

Edited January 20, 2021 by Greycat

[Shenanigunner]

I was just genned for a toon built after a... well known character for which I actually have some rights etc.  After discussing it with the GMs, I elected to recast the alt. Not worth setting a bad example.

 

Yes, we're online. No, that doesn't mean we can be as casual about IP as the rest of the net. C'est le guerre.

[nightroarer]

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

As for the law regarding it? It's trademark and copyright, which is involved and intricate, arcane and mysterious, full of twists and turns which make COH's code look like "hello world." That said, holders *of* those do have to pursue potential infringements or possibly lose the ownership of those marks. 

Just a point of clarification for those unfamiliar with trademark/copyright: companies have to defend trademarks to protect their ownership. They do not have to defend copyrights to protect their ownership.

[Outrider_01]

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

(Not familiar with the character itself,

Teen titans cartoon series, Hive Five, big guy wearing black body suit with gold chains about the size of Cyborg and animalistic face like Beast Boy as a gorilla.  Pretty much the 1 of the 5 main goof ball villains you would see in most episodes.

[Soyuz]

9 hours ago, nightroarer said:

companies have to defend trademarks to protect their ownership

This is the point that's often missed. It's not just the owner of the trademark being mean. If they become aware of a possible trademark infringement (only a court can determine whether it really is or not) they have to take action against it or lose control of their intellectual property right then and there. Even if they're fairly sure that it wouldn't stand up in court.

 

In the case of a character like Mammoth, DC probably trademarked the "distinctive likeness" of the character. In other words, any super powered character called Mammoth that looks like their character would be a potential infringement which they would have to challenge.

 

Legal action will usually take the form of a simple cease-and-desist letter in the first instance - but not always. The injured party may demand more than simply removing the offending character, at which point lawyers get involved and things become very expensive, very quickly. The Homecoming team, I'm pretty sure, doesn't have the time or money to fight court cases over trademark infringement, hence they'll generic you if they spot a potential infringement rather than take the chance. Cryptic did the same.

[Doomguide2005]

And the above is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "legal entanglements".

 

It's also why, 'grumble, grumble' a company like Walmart might (might!) get away with putting some surprisingly similar 'pain relief' tablets in a dark blue and white box etc., and have them sit on the shelf next to the Advil and get away with it.  Money, unfortunately talks ... loudly and Walmart's legal team is large, experienced and backed by silly amounts of wealth.  You and the HC team by comparison to DC are a financial blip, it's a no brainer who can afford that legal battle. Not to mention shooting any chance HC has of a deal with NCSoft in the head ... "sure HC, we'd love to take on your legal fees and battle DC for you.  Um wait, we've been there done that so no thanks here's your cease and desist order HC.  Signed, NCSoft legal team."

Edited January 20, 2021 by Doomguide2005
Afterthoughts

[Shenanigunner]

3 hours ago, Doomguide2005 said:

It's also why, 'grumble, grumble' a company like Walmart might (might!) get away with putting some surprisingly similar 'pain relief' tablets in a dark blue and white box etc., and have them sit on the shelf next to the Advil and get away with it.

 

I get your point, but this is a fairly weak example. Walmart et al. aren't somehow stealing Advil's market, they are selling a USP OTC drug on which patents expired quite some time ago. How much they choose to make the packaging look like Advil is moot; I see a wide variety of designs for budget/generic makers, and it's the shelf pricing below that makes the real difference... for consumers who are well enough informed, at least.

 

Because the real crime is that Brand! Name! Advil! is priced as much as 5X the store brand... and being a USP formulation, it's exactly the same stuff.

 

To the point of the thread, though, respecting all valid IP is a good practice, even on thuh net and no matter how many sites and users think it's some kind of capitalist conspiracy. In our delicate position of "borrowing" IP to exist, it behooves all of us — devs, sysops and players — to be a little more scrupulous about outright violation of other properties that in no way are necessary to enjoy the game/world.

 

As I find myself repeating here, "But I wanna" is not a valid argument.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Shenanigunner

[Ironblade]

17 hours ago, Blyzzard said:

So I think I came across Admin who was overzealous and who in his ardor or anger I don't know erased everything without asking himself any questions.

Here's just a little message without anger to say that I think it's a shame that it's like that.

What I think is that you are mistaken about U.S. intellectual property laws.
You say you created a character with the name and 'vaguely' similar costume of an existing character.  That crosses the line.  That makes it a copy, rather than a tribute.  A vaguely similar costume with a name like Mastodon or Tusker might have been okay (really depends on how similar the costume is).

You could create someone named Mammoth who is huge and wearing a business suit or pretty much anything that DOESN'T resemble the costume of the existing character.  Just like you could create a character named Thor based on the original Norse version, giving him red hair and dressed in furs rather than a fancy costume with a red cape.

P.S.  Having said all that, that is what the law says.  The staff of the Homecoming server have the right to be more restrictive if they choose.  But they can't be less restrictive.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Ironblade

[Doomguide2005]

1 hour ago, Shenanigunner said:

 

I get your point, but this is a fairly weak example. Walmart et al. aren't somehow stealing Advil's market, they are selling a USP OTC drug on which patents expired <stuff>

You are probably at least partially correct the patent on the drug is long past.  And I am not a lawyer, much less one specialized in patent and trademarks.   That said it's not a question of the drug per se but the packaging of the drug.  Logo's and such fall under, I'm fairly certain trademark laws.  I could put round donut shaped oat products in a box, sell it as cereal.  No problem, but drop them in yellow box that copies a Cheerios box and we have an issue.  The legal question is just how closely can I copy the layout, colors, writing and other portions of the design before it becomes a legal problem.  That was more the issue I was thinking about. 

 

See @Ironblade's comment above.

 

PS:  and I totally agree Rx insurance is a total nightmare and ridiculous pricing that I see daily needs to get stopped cold

Edited January 20, 2021 by Doomguide2005

[Psyonico]

32 minutes ago, Ironblade said:

What I think is that you are mistaken about U.S. intellectual property laws.
You say you created a character with the name and 'vaguely' similar costume of an existing character.  That crosses the line.  That makes it a copy, rather than a tribute.  A vaguely similar costume with a name like Mastodon or Tusker might have been okay (really depends on how similar the costume is).
 

On live I had a tribute to wolverine named something like Platypus Monster, costume was too similar and got generic'd.  I believe the Homecoming team is actually more cautious than the Live team was on these sorts of things.

[Shenanigunner]

22 minutes ago, Doomguide2005 said:

That was more the issue I was thinking about.

 

Got it. And agree. A copy is a copy, no matter how blurry or if it has red shoulder pads instead of the canonical gold ones.

[Doomguide2005]

1 minute ago, Shenanigunner said:

 

Got it. And agree. A copy is a copy, no matter how blurry or if it has red shoulder pads instead of the canonical gold ones.

and how blurry is where those legal teams (and the financial side) come into play arguing about what the law actually allows or doesn't.

[Rishidian]

Back in the Live days, Marvel did sue NCSoft for infringement.  It actually turned into several lawsuits.  I think 1 stuck while the others failed (Marvel had created an account, then created a big green character with purple pants, then took pictures to show the infraction.  Once it was found they had violated their own copyright, those parts were dropped and their case was severely weakened).

 

Anyway, the HC team is probably doing everything they can to keep off the radar.  These points are well mentioned/documented elsewhere in the forums, and have been discussed adnausium.

 

I am sorry you were not able to keep your character concept.  Unfortunately, HC has to play it safe, and that means they can't take the chance to raise unwanted attention.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Rishidian

[Nerio72]

1 hour ago, Rishidian said:

(Marvel had created an account, then created a big green character with purple pants, then took pictures to show the infraction.  Once it was found they had violated their own copyright, those parts were dropped and their case was severely weakened).

If this is true, not only did they violate their own copyright but disregarded another company's ToS to do so. Not very professional and not good from a legal standpoint either.

[Player2]

11 hours ago, Nerio72 said:

If this is true, not only did they violate their own copyright but disregarded another company's ToS to do so. Not very professional and not good from a legal standpoint either.

Hence their lawsuit being weakened and failing.

 

But, as has been pointed out above, it's not necessarily about winning...  Marvel had to show they made an effort to defend their trademarks or they could have been at risk of considered to have abandoned them.

 

When it comes to trademarks, an important thing to remember is that your creation must meet the legal definition of "legally distinct."  This is why tributes and often very similar characters get copied in other comics.  How many "Supermen" are there outside of DC?  Marvel has Gladiator (along with the rest of the Legion of Superheroes with the Shi'ar Imperial Guard).  They have similar iconic feel but different names and likenesses from DC's trademark characters... Marvel also had Sentry... and even some guy who I think was a super skrull in Spider-Man's comics that was very Superman-ish.  Then there's Prime from the Ultraverse... and Image Comics had Supreme... and I'm sure there's others.  But they're all different enough from Superman in both look and backstory that it didn't actually infringe on DC's trademarks or copyrights.

 

Ironblade has the right of it above when he says that anyone can make a Thor character without violating Marvel's intellectual property.  You just can't make a thunder god that looks like their blond-haired version from the comics or movies.  You also would not be able to use the title The Mighty Thor.  But you could absolutely legally design and even publish a character based on the classic red-haired Norse myths and call him Savage Thor or Thor the Thunderer.  You could even make a space age sci-fi hero named Thor that has nothing to do with the mythology or the comics, because the name Thor itself is public domain as part of classic mythology.  It's all in how you use it.  To be fair, I believe the name Thor is likely (wrongly) on the list of names that are just blocked... just to avoid anyone trying to copy the Marvel character.  Common words and public domain names cannot be trademarked.... but the distinct likeness of such a character can... as long as it meets the legally distinct definition.  A great example of this is Superman.  Classic Superman in his tights and cape is VERY distinct.  However, Marvel has published comics in which a mild-manned, glasses wearing reporter named Clark --who looks exactly like the DC Comics Clark Kent-- and they got away with it because the name Clark (and Kent as a surname) as well as the civilian look of Superman's secret identity is generic enough to not meet the legally distinct definition; so to is the profession of reporter for said character... but if Marvel had tried to claim he was a reporter for the Daily Planet, then that would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

I was actually pleasantly surprised to come into this discussion and see the amount of good information regarding trademark and copyright as it applies to characters and game infringing on IPs, and even more surprised that it wasn't me dispensing it as I often find myself doing (as this topic is one of great interest to me since the whole Captain Marvel court debacle).

 

So if you want to model a character after a favorite from somewhere, do yourself (and the Homecoming team) a favor, and be legally distinct.  Look at the original's theme and try to make something that evokes the feel of that character without being a copy.  My favorite example is an homage to Supergirl.  Still using the red blue & yellow colors, I created a unique skirt costume for my energy melee / invulnerability brute named Good Girl.  Good Girl is also not an alien, she's an Earth mutant.  Seeing her in action can evoke the idea of a Supergirl type character but she is different in all the ways that matter legally.  Be creative even in your copies.

 

 

 

[DoctorDitko]

Excellent discussion of copyright vs. trademark vs. Fair Use.

Also, keep in mind the protection of parody.

 

Mad magazine was able to publish SuperDuperMan, in a red-and-blue costume (though they had a delightful commercial message replacing his "S" shield, different in every panel) because parody is protected speech.

 

A Superman clone with "this space for rent" on his chest is clearly a parody, and there is no likelihood of confusion with the original. 

Of course, the HC team has to avoid even the chance of a risk, so even parody is risky here.

 

Also, RIP Captain Marvel. Could any reasonable person consider him a Superman clone? Magic vs. SF, a kid alter ego, etc.

And C.C. Beck's art was elegant compared to the DC artists of the time. His only crime was the effrontery to outsell Superman.

 

The DC ownership used to be such bastards. Hope it's better now.

Edited January 21, 2021 by DoctorDitko

[Snarky]

On 1/19/2021 at 5:40 PM, Blyzzard said:

 

 Except I would like to see the laws made by the American organization for Dc comics regarding character names.

 

 

O the Cow!  THe only French expression I know.  You have asked the very important question.  And no one besides a few competent lawyers can answer.  and any group of them will start arguing the finer points.

 

No one on Homecoming needs those legal hassles.  If I remember correctly the original, evil publisher of our beloved game fought Marvel.  But afterwards they were very gunshy about any tribute characters.

 

What you are seeing is erring on the side of caution and wisdom.  Like if you go to cross the street but forget what country you are in.  Look both ways.  Twice.  On second thought, better to order in.