Not letting people make characters that resembles other IP is insane.

[ElFundio]

I would love to hear someone try to justify this. You give us access to a character editor that can be used to make almost anything, and then when we recreate characters we already know and love, you forcibly delete the names and costumes? 

Look, the whole idea behind IP protection is to stop other people profiting from it. This is why DC comics doesn't try to sue everyone who makes bloody fan art. Because using your own creativity to recreate something you love *OBVIOUSLY* isn't the same thing as saying "I own this IP and therefore my pencil drawing of Batman entitles me to a chunk of their company".

A character editor is that. It's just a digital box of coloured pencils, and some of us like using it to essentially make fan art. The idea that you're going to click a button and erase hours of work enforcing a rule so silly that the same reasoning also would make felt tip pens illegal... is beyond absurd. There is no danger to you or your server from this. There is no danger to the community. All this accomplishes is a huge waste of someone else's time who was using your server and supporting your efforts because of the love of this game we all share.

Rules shouldn't exist for the perverse pleasure of filling empty margins in a rule book. They should exist because there is a good reason for them. Not only are we not making money somehow from having these fan art characters (like, how would we even?) which means there cannot - CANNOT - legally be any violation of IP, but taking away our ability to use a blank canvas how we see fit is the same as not having one in the first place.

In my opinion this rule is absolutely senseless and does nothing but alienate players. I'd love to hear some other thoughts on this. I remind you again, nowhere, nowhere on the planet, not even North Korea, has laws so stupid that using a digital art medium to create something that some GM INTERPRETS to be a fan art image could be grounds for any conceivable legal action.

If there is no good reason for a rule to exist, then it should not exist. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by TheFounderUtopia

[FupDup]

The reason is because the HC team doesn't want to potentially get sued by the big comic companies, which did actually happen to the original devs back on live (but the devs won). The problem is that the "target audience" you need to convince of this argument isn't HC, it's those big companies that get overzealous about IP protection, because they are the ones who caused this rule to come into being. 

 

On the bright side, we can still do "homage" or parody characters as long as they're different enough from the source material. It can be an interesting creative exercise to try to walk that fine line between being based on an existing character but still having some plausible deniability. And I say this as somebody whose first toon on HC was a straight carbon copy of an existing character (Reaper from Overwatch, but I generic'd him after the rule announcement just to be safe). 

[TheZag]

Its because if a company reasonably believes that their IP is being infringed upon and does nothing to stop it,  they will forfeit their claim to the property.

 

Its like when Disney sued the daycare that had mickey mouse painted on the wall or the school fundraiser that played a disney movie for the kids - it wasnt mickey mouse daycare or mickey mouse fundraiser but money was being made and disney stuff was (barely) involved.  If they didnt sue,  or at the very least send a cease and desist,  they could have lost their rights to their own characters.

 

I assume the actual legal threat to homecoming is low but that doesnt mean we should wave red flags in front of sleeping bulls either.

 

[Luminara]

35 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

Rules shouldn't exist for the perverse pleasure of filling empty margins in a rule book.

 

This rule exists because copyright law says it has to.  If you'd like to dispute its validity or necessity, feel free to contact all of the governments in the world and take it up with them.  You'll find no ground given here, the HC team has made their position very clear: they follow the law.

 

@GM Impervium, you know what to do.

[Gobbledygook]

I made Wolverine, except his name is Spyneshank, like the NuMetal group (Spineshank), and he looks more like Sabertooth. He has costumes that are vastly different from either character though.

Of course, I made changes to his background to fit into the world of Paragon City.

Yep.

Wolverine.

[Lines]

Let's say HC follows your advice, but then it turns out that you were wrong, would you mind footing the legal bill?

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

According to the response I got, even aesthetically resembling Wolverine means your character breached the same rule. 

To the best of my understanding of the situation, that isn't true. The appearance+powers+name+background is what defines Wolverine for instance. Though the background is less a concern since that is optional for players to use. So if you make a character named Wolverine, there is no problem. If you use the claws+regeneration power sets, there is no problem. If you have a similar background, there is no problem. The problem arises when you make a character that looks like Wolverine, has the same power sets, and uses the same name. If it can be argued that you are making Wolverine, rather than a character that may be similar, that is the problem. Companies take their intellectual property very seriously, but they can't really say much if someone comes up with something similar. Hence, characters that are clones are renamed to something else when reported. Characters that are reported as being clones and a quick look by the devs shows it is not, do not get renamed. I had this problem back on Live. I made a character named Darkwatcher. A feline contact that granted missions in AE. The character got reported. I was notified it was under investigation. The character got left alone.

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

Even hypothetically saying that is entertaining a scenario so ludicrous the moon in that world would be made of cheese. But say someone DID contact them with a cease and desist that would mean they need to add a rule to the server saying don't do this. In other words, literally nothing would need to change.

You don't just get magically teleported into a courtroom the second some other company decides to pick on you. They have to go through certain legal steps first. All that would happen is we end up back in the situation we are currently in, only with it being slightly less unjustified. And again, YOU KNOW, as well as I do, that this isn't going to happen. It just isn't.

Homecoming is technically a pirate server. The devs don't need any unnecessary headaches.

[Parabola]

39 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

We need to stop treating this as it is even remotely an actual issue. It isn't. It wasn't even an issue when it WAS an issue for the actual game.

Regardless of any reasoned arguments (which are clearly pointless) this simply isn't your decision to make. We play in homecoming's playground. They make the rules.

[Ruin Mage]

No thanks.

You clearly don't understand how easy it is to get in a lot of trouble. Disney does not play around and anyone with even a lick of search-fu would understand this.

Just because you can't be original does not mean HC needs to suffer.

[El D]

As other posters have said, the 'Don't make copyrighted characters' a CYA ruling for Homecoming and the safety of the server. Whether or not it's likely that any IP or copyright holders would go after the server isn't the point - it's to ensure that none of them have any standing to do so in the first place. Also, frankly, the game would be boring as Hell if players were allowed to run around as their favorite characters from comics/movies/video games. The point of CoX is to make your own characters and build a story of your own, not to do online cosplay as someone else's creations. If that's the experience you want, Fortnite has that in spades.

 

'Change the rules to risk shutdown and legal action so I can play as Superman/Wolverine/Batman/Spider-Man/etc.!' never held water during Live and it doesn't hold water now.

[Rudra]

6 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

With regards to the law, assuming you're not just playing devil's advocate, you're definitely wrong. Again, this isn't a copyright issue. Copyright relates to situations where someone is profiting from someone else's IP. No one is making profit here. You can't just CALL something a copyright issue and then analyse it only with that lens. This is not, by definition, a copyright issue. 

If there WERE some law that would be violated by this, and again, it would not be a copyright or IP protection law, because that's not how those work - but let's imagine that some new form of IP law were invented where replicating a character from someone else's IP for your own entertainment were somehow a violation. That means fan fiction is now illegal. Parody is illegal. Homages are illegal. Any time anyone even acknowledges a work of fiction publicly - that's illegal.

But it's actually worse than that, because according to the backwards arguments being used to justify this policy, it isn't even the user that is supposedly infringing this fictional, impossible to enforce law - it's the ART MEDIUM ITSELF. That's what a character editor is. If a painting is a sophisticated drawing, and digital art is just a sophisticated form of painting, and 3D digital modelling is just a sophisticated version of that, then a character editor is legally, ethically, and even pragmatically indistinguishable from a box of pencils.

What you are arguing is that a kid drawing superman fan art should be considered a criminal by the same logic being used here. My character was just a sophisticated crayon drawing, and people are acting like it's not insane to say that means I was declaring myself to be the IP holder of a multinational entertainment corporation. Can we stop just make believing that this even could be an issue, because it's silly. There isn't even a hypothetical situation where this isn't stupid.

And yet there are notices declaring that use of IP even if not for profit are subject to full legal recourse. Don't believe me? Run a movie and read the legal disclaimers. You don't have to be making a profit for copyright to kick in and slap you down.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Rudra
Edited to remove "no".

[Oubliette_Red]

1 hour ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

I would love to hear someone try to justify this.  <snip>

 

There are numerous thread with responses explaining the reason, none of which will convince you because you have already made up your mind.

 

[Ruin Mage]

Oh that makes sense on why this got made. You got generic'd and you got upset at being generic'd.

O-kay then.

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

That's exactly why I asked for a justification, not a reason. I already know the reason. The reason is wrong. Objectively. I have explained why multiple times. It's not an issue and it literally can't be an issue, and the absolute worst case scenario if it somehow, by some dark miracle, became an issue, is they would THEN have a good reason to have the rule. They are capitulating to pressure that doesn't even exist yet, and alienating people because of it.

Uhm... what? The reason is the justification.... The reason for the rule being in effect, which is a holdover from Live when they implemented the rule to get Marvel off their backs, is the justification for why the rule exists. How can you ask for a justification and then say that the already given reasons are not a justification? That is some seriously broken logic.

[Oubliette_Red]

9 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

That's exactly why I asked for a justification, not a reason. I already know the reason. The reason is wrong. Objectively. I have explained why multiple times. It's not an issue and it literally can't be an issue, and the absolute worst case scenario if it somehow, by some dark miracle, became an issue, is they would THEN have a good reason to have the rule. They are capitulating to pressure that doesn't even exist yet, and alienating people because of it.

 

You've given your opinion, the rest of the commenters have given theirs. According to you, all of their opinions are wrong. I'm not really seeing the "discussion" side of your post.

I was at HeroCon when CoH's lawyer got a standing ovation from the entire crowd after the Marvel incident. I happen to agree with the ban on IP infringement and CoH's playerbase's tendency to be self-enforcing. It's worked out so far and I have zero issue with HC continuing the tradition.

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Oubliette_Red

[Ruin Mage]

2 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

Is it not reasonable to be a bit irritated when literally hours of work you just put into something gets deleted because of a rule which seems to be completely irrational? I think it's kind of cheap to essentially say "let's dismiss this guy because he's upset". What's wrong with being upset?

If this were a case where it wasn't about you getting generic'd for wanting to play character's that are not yours to play, I'd not be saying what I said.

I am dismissive because it's not even that big of a deal. It's not that hard to be original and to use other characters as inspiration vs just copy-pasting them. You getting generic'd for breaking a rule isn't a reason for the rule to go away.

[El D]

13 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

I respect your opinion but that's all it is. You're expressing your preferences, you feel the game would be boring if people did that. I respectfully disagree. I do this in every game with a good character editor, in a way it's a unique art form. I've made Thanos builds on Elden Ring, Devil May Cry characters on Archeage. You might as well be complaining at someone's deviant art page that they aren't original enough. Maybe not, but you do you, boo. I'm here to have fun, and this is what I find fun.

As for your copyright stuff, this is already refuted. It's not an issue. It *can't* be an issue, and if people were watching them closely for IP infringing characters that don't actually infringe IP because that's not how the law works, I think the fact that this is basically a pirated game would be noticed first. Someone having a character that looks vaguely like Zelda isn't going to be death knell of this server, and anyone who thinks it even could be is massively, hilariously misinformed.

 

This isn't a deviantart page, much less some single-player game where the devs don't care how or why you play it. It's an MMORPG that has had to deal with this literal same issue in the past - which is exactly why that ruling which you are agreeing to every time you log-in is in place. You don't want to abide by Homecoming's rules? Play somewhere else.

 

19 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

Oh that makes sense on why this got made. You got generic'd and you got upset at being generic'd.

O-kay then.

 

QFT (...jeeze, haven't done one of those in years)

 

It's pretty telling that OP has written up huge swathes of text in-response to everyone here, but in none of them actually showcased the costume and name of the character that got generic'd. Probably because it was a blatant violation of policy.

[SwitchFade]

Op, there is so much incorrect with so many of your posts, there's not a gentle way to put this...

 

That's not how the law observes individual intellectual property rights and privilege.

 

Property rights and protection, both real and intellectual, exist, are codified in law at various levels and guarantee, among other things, exclusive use, free of infringement.

 

Intellectually property, as recognized by law, explicitly denies reproduction, usurpation or attempted replication in any form that approaches a facsimile or reasonable representation thereof, that would -to the layman- cause a 3rd party to identify it with the protected property.

 

Whether or not a reproduction and its intended use is monetary for the tortfeasor in the moment is immaterial, for many MANY reasons, chief among them is that gain, loss and potential dilution is varied, not bound to a single tort or said tortfeasor and can induce precedent. 

 

Your opinion is great, but in no way invalidates common law, property rights as codified, commission of torts under said law and the liability of the tortfeasor, regardless of intent.

Edited March 16, 2023 by SwitchFade

[Ruin Mage]

9 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

I'm pointing out one very dumb rule that shouldn't exist,

It's only dumb because you got caught breaking it, and on Live they still did the same thing. You still got generic'd for copying. I remember explicitly seeing people getting generic'd for that stuff. So this whole idea that Paragon Studios allowed it is not true. Especially during the lawsuit era.

I get that you want to be Superman, but DCUO is that way.

[Starforge]

I’m just here to see which existing character OP copied.

[Rudra]

52 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

I'll attribute no malice to your response because I think you are just confused by my choice of words. Justifications and reasons aren't the same thing. A reason is WHY X happened, a justification is why X SHOULD have happened. If the reasons given don't actually justify the action, then they are not justifications. Or at least not ones that *actually* justify anything.

And no, Live didn't capitulate to this. They actually fought for us to have this right and set the very legal precedent that now would protect this server even if some absolute thundering idiot did think "this tiny legacy server is draining all of Marvel's profits; let's sue them". It wouldn't happen, it couldn't happen, and even if it could, which it can't, no one is going to do that, and everyone making this inane argument at me, if you are honest with yourselves, deep down, you already know that too. Don't you? So why even bother?

...

Look, and this goes out to the whole thread... I understand wanting to be defensive of the awesome people who brought this game back to us. I love them dearly for it. I have so much nostalgia wrapped up in this game. But you can't let it make you irrational. I'm not swinging a bloody demolition ball into the side of their houses, I'm pointing out one very dumb rule that shouldn't exist, and that discussion isn't aided by a weird fanboy reaction where everyone piles on me with the same already refuted argument that doesn't make sense.

Y'all may roleplay heroes, but that doesn't make me a villain. If anything I'm fighting for the spirit of the game as it was back in the day. They DID allow us to make fan art characters. 

This is getting off track, so I'll address it once. If you choose to address it again, fine. I'm only addressing it here.

 

The reason for why something is done is the justification for why something is done. The justification for why something is done is the reason for why something is done. You may hold that the reason is in error. And yes, justifications can be in error. However, if someone is giving the reason why something was done? They are justifying why that something was done.

 

Edit: If the reasons for why something is done is precluded from being a valid part of a discussion, then you make it impossible to justify the thing that was done.

 

Edit again: Providing dictionary reference and thesaurus reference. (Yeah, I'm fine playing the let's link the definitions game. I do so routinely. And I kept my word. I am only addressing it here. Never said I would not go back and edit to post proof as needed.)

 

From Merriam-Webster with link.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justification

b: an acceptable reason for doing something : something that justifies an act or way of behaving

could provide no justification for his decision

 

From Cambridge with link.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/justification

justification

noun [ C or U ]

us /ˌdʒʌs.tə.fəˈkeɪ.ʃən/ uk /ˌdʒʌs.tɪ.fɪˈkeɪ.ʃən/

a good reason or explanation for something:

There is no justification for treating people so badly.

It can be said, with some justification, that she is one of the greatest actresses on the English stage today.

 

From Thesaurus.com. (Note the root definition they use to find synonyms.)

Edited March 16, 2023 by Rudra
Edited for clarity.

[Luminara]

12 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

That's exactly why I asked for a justification

 

The HC team doesn't have to justify anything.  This is their house, not yours, they set the rules long before you came knocking on the door, and you agreed to abide by those rules for the privilege of being a guest in that house.  So stop the entitled, whiny drama queen bullshit.  You broke the rules, man the fuck up and deal with it.

[SwitchFade]

1 minute ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

That makes no sense. How is the lack of pictures "telling" that I violated the policy? I already said I violated it. I kinda wish I had made some screenshots because the build was really cool looking, but it was deleted almost immediately. You thought I was making a whole ass thread about why I think this policy is dumb, and that I was simultaneously denying I violated it? You're trying to be snarky but at the cost of sounding intelligible. 

 

You don't need to worry about being gentle, if I see legal grounding for an argument that this is actually an IP infringement then I am happy to accept that, and it would merely mean my argument would then be with the system itself. But to the best of my (admittedly layman) understanding, what you said only applies with respect to distribution rights. Do you understand that if your interpretation is correct, literally all fan art is a breach of copyright law?

If that is actually the case, then the second prong of my argument - that we all know this isn't going to actually be an issue for this server (and we do), will have to be enough. But I would grant my case would be weaker, albeit not substantively. Regardless, if all fan fiction is illegal, I think we all probably have bigger things to worry about right now than what colour an avatar's cape is.

At the very least I am grateful to see someone taking the discussion seriously and not just flipping the table because they want to stan for the devs. 
 

Reproduction for personal use, fan art, or individual license, like a back up copy, is inherently recognized in common law as right to use. In private.

 

The slippery slope is when said reproduction is published in a public forum, where distribution moves beyond the party reproducing to a 3rd party, where it is now public, and not within reasonable bounds of control of distribution 

 

This is medium is open to the general public and there is no reasonable measure of control and protection against possible harm.

 

You create fan art batdude... Someone sees it. They screen shot it. They make an article and sell it to another online publication, saying batman's new game.

 

Dcou loses subscribers to this game.

 

This is extremely simplified, but the law is clearly written in such a way that intent is not the issue, it is merely harm, which in cases like this can and have been, severe.

 

The law is clear, in instances where harm can be the result if inference, intent or negligence, any party that can limit said damages has a duty of care to act to prevent it, where they can be considered a participant through action or inaction.

 

No reproduction, because damages may ensue

[Oubliette_Red]

11 minutes ago, TheFounderUtopia said:

No.