Copyright infringement

[Laucianna]

On 2/12/2024 at 1:57 PM, GM Crumpet said:

We aren't monsters.

Most of you eat Kheldians.....

[GM Crumpet]

1 hour ago, Laucianna said:

most of you eat Kheldians.....

I don't!!

[Laucianna]

1 hour ago, GM Crumpet said:

I don't!!

I said most, got a guilty conscious there? 🤨

[Go0gleplex]

Just ran into a Lion-O (Thundercats) clone on Triumph named Leonardo and The Poison Ivyr (Poison Ivy Clone) Gold side (facepalm) I can appreciate the fandom but...oi. 

 

Edited February 21 by Go0gleplex

[Excraft]

I'm wondering if part of this has to do with skins of copyrighted/trademarked characters being allowed and so readily available in so many other games now?  I know I see people making clones all over the place in other games.  I don't think there's ever been a day where I haven't seen players with exact clones of Kirk, Picard, Spock, Worf or various Star Wars/Comic book characters in STO as an example.  Lots of games have skins in their official store or readily available for download on sites all over the internet.  Having access to them is commonplace.  I'm not saying that these should be allowed here, just curious if part of the issue may be people are just used to doing it elsewhere where there's no such restriction.

 

Now before anyone decides to jump all over me for that, here are some clarifications -

• Yes, it is a rule here to not allow copyrighted characters and yes, everyone needs to abide by that rule.
• Anyone violating this rule should be reported and dealt with accordingly.
• No, I don't think people should be allowed to make copies of copyrighted or trademarked characters here.
• No, I don't think the rules here should be changed and I am not advocating for the rules here to change.
• I have no issue following the rules here on the topic of copyrighted or trademarked characters.

 

[Player2]

What's the rule if someone has been playing something for awhile and a new trademarked character appears in some medium that greatly resembles that COH character in appearance and/or name?

[PeregrineFalcon]

17 minutes ago, Player2 said:

What's the rule if someone has been playing something for awhile and a new trademarked character appears in some medium that greatly resembles that COH character in appearance and/or name?

Well, according to a GM in a thread on this forum a few years ago, you'd be fine.

 

So if an SG predates a copyright filing is fine, then a character should be as well.

.

Edited February 15 by PeregrineFalcon
Fixed my statement

[chase]

45 minutes ago, Player2 said:

What's the rule if someone has been playing something for awhile and a new trademarked character appears in some medium that greatly resembles that COH character in appearance and/or name?

It isn't a hard rule in any way, shape or form, but unfortunately, some people can end up generic'd this way.  (CORRECTION, see. above)  

----

The funny thing here is that unlike others that do fear Marvel stomping on us,  I'm becoming a believer that the fact that we DON'T have a financial base to protect us makes Marvel unlikely to take action against us, and you touched on precisely why. 

I still don't disagree with any GM action to protect themselves, but there's this big murky area of what can and cannot be considered within the scope of a copyrighted work, and the big guys profit most over maintaining that ambiguity.  They can't let something go all the way to a ruling.  They want a settlement- and a settlement that will at least pay their lawyers' bills.   A judgment in their favor could be disastrous for them because that sets precedent.

Let's start with the argument that APPEARANCES ALONE that we make in the costume creator can violate their own creative claims to such a likeness in a different field (comics/movies/etc).   The game provides the parts for this appearance, so the game alone can be considered at fault for giving clients the ability to assemble them in bad ways.  Setting such a precedent would then suggest that our UNIQUE creations in this medium are original enough and fixed enough to have those same protections.    Should Marvel ever create a new character or an alternative look bearing such a likeness, *they* violated *that* work.   Imagine the costly work for every new character (or alternate character appearance) that Marvel would have to do to avoid lawsuits.    It would be crippling.

They wouldn't want that ruling- they'd want a more narrowly-defined ruling that used some combination of appearance and text description/name.  That would give them the freedom to reproduce a particular look without worrying that it might be too close to a deviantart image from 2007.   BUT, the game doesn't create those parts-- the player does- so the player would likely need to be a party in the suit.  Things don't go good for organizations that sue their fans, so it's done mostly in the most egregious (and/or profitable) situations.  

Now, keep in mind that I'm talking COPYRIGHT here.  The courts largely rule that clothing alone cannot be copyrighted, but only in 2017 ruled elements or specific patterns that are unique or iconic enough might have copyright protections.  The Superman S or the Batman logo would likely fall under that, but not generic coloration of tights and cape.   The spider logo on the chest?   Mmmm... keep in mind that there were other superheroes from other publishers that had this design BEFORE spider-man did.   

You see that with a lot of marvel's properties.   Muscled green guy with purple pants? There's many green-skinned characters out there and the green/purple color combination was very popular for many different printing reasons so is hardly unique.  Even something as iconic as Wolverine's retractable claws predates wolverine.  To REALLY be a violation of their work, far more would be needed than just that.

Then we have TRADEMARK-
This is different- a different set of laws for a different purpose.   Many superheroes' appearances have been registered as a mark of trade- something that's supposed to be unique enough in likeness that it's recognized for a particular brand in particular field(s).   Many, if not most heroes name and likeness trademarked.  There's a whole convoluted process you've got to do to protect and maintain your trademark-- too much to discuss here- but in one way, the comic companies may have been their own worst enemy for trademark dilution- their constant alternate-appearances.   Trademarks don't usually change too much- think the nike swoosh or the major fanfare with a pepsi logo.   Then look at superheroes and the bajillion spider man variants- what elements truly define the common mark of trade?  Wolverine may be in yellow/blue, yellow/brown, leather jacket and jeans, white suit, and oh so many other variants.   At some point, an argument can be made that they've so "diluted" the mark's recognizability that it's too broad for protection.  For IP as big as Marvel, that's a decision they cannot risk.   

They'd rather rattle their sabres and take a settlement, but that requires you to sue someone with cash to spare.

Again, none of this is to argue that Homecoming should not be doing their due diligence and generic'ing some players' fun.   The ambiguity of the law (and their shallower pockets) still require it for their survival.   



 

Edited February 15 by chase
correction

[Player2]

4 hours ago, chase said:

Now, keep in mind that I'm talking COPYRIGHT here.  The courts largely rule that clothing alone cannot be copyrighted, but only in 2017 ruled elements or specific patterns that are unique or iconic enough might have copyright protections.  The Superman S or the Batman logo would likely fall under that, but not generic coloration of tights and cape.   The spider logo on the chest?   Mmmm... keep in mind that there were other superheroes from other publishers that had this design BEFORE spider-man did.   

You see that with a lot of marvel's properties.   Muscled green guy with purple pants? There's many green-skinned characters out there and the green/purple color combination was very popular for many different printing reasons so is hardly unique.  Even something as iconic as Wolverine's retractable claws predates wolverine.  To REALLY be a violation of their work, far more would be needed than just that.

Then we have TRADEMARK-
This is different- a different set of laws for a different purpose.   Many superheroes' appearances have been registered as a mark of trade- something that's supposed to be unique enough in likeness that it's recognized for a particular brand in particular field(s).   Many, if not most heroes name and likeness trademarked.  There's a whole convoluted process you've got to do to protect and maintain your trademark-- too much to discuss here- but in one way, the comic companies may have been their own worst enemy for trademark dilution- their constant alternate-appearances.   Trademarks don't usually change too much- think the nike swoosh or the major fanfare with a pepsi logo.   Then look at superheroes and the bajillion spider man variants- what elements truly define the common mark of trade?  Wolverine may be in yellow/blue, yellow/brown, leather jacket and jeans, white suit, and oh so many other variants.   At some point, an argument can be made that they've so "diluted" the mark's recognizability that it's too broad for protection.  
 

Copyright protects specific works of art, whether it be writing, artwork, or even photographed images.  You cannot reproduce or copy:

• The words of someone's published story (in that particular order, obviously not the individual words
• Using published and protected artwork in another context
• Photos, paintings, cover or interior art from comics, or any other specific image

Trademark protects likenesses.  You cannot copy someone else's logo, made up words, unique names, or likenesses.  Things that are similar but different have to pass a standard that makes them legally distinct from the original.  Unlike Copyright law, Trademarks must be defended if it can be assumed that the Trademark holder would be reasonably aware of the infringement.  In the case of City of Heroes being sued by Marvel Comics, it is a computer game about super heroes and even if the game was relatively small potatoes in sales compared to Marvel's sales numbers, they should be aware of its presence in the market especially because of social media and fan crossover.

• Legally distinct means that Superman's iconic look can be recognized pretty easily... red and blue tights with red cape and S on the chest.  Clark Kent, on the other hand, is not.  While the character may be immediately recognizable, the names Clark and Kent --even in that combination-- could be considered commonplace names.  Marvel Comics has used Clark Kent in their comics a couple of times, even as a reporter... talking an associate named Lois, and when trouble popped up he looked like he was trying to excuse himself for... reasons.
  • One could not use a variation of Superman's costume (different logo, possibly just reversing the colors) and call him Clark Kent, however, because then you're associating the common name(s) in the specific combination that is associated with the iconic superhero look.
  • One also cannot make a completely generic looking individual or even uniquely original character with the name Superman, because Superman is not commonplace word open to public domain use (such as anything in the dictionary).  It is a specific made-up name combining the words super and man into one Trademark protected new word that only DC Comics has the rights to.

The difference between Copyright and Trademark for our purposes is that we cannot recreate specific images of characters from comics art.  No one is making the cover of Action Comics #1 or the big splash page of a fight scene from their favorite comic, which would fall under Copyright... where as Trademark protects the likeness in any form.  If you make a Spider-man in red and blue with a spider logo that is as close as possible to the original that anyone can identify it on sight as Spider-man...  then it doesn't have to mirror specific images from the comics or other works of art; just the fact that it looks like Spider-man is infringement enough.  Copyright can still be an issue though if you choose to add published text word for word (or very close to it) in your character's background info, but substituting your character's name for the original source... then you'd be infringing on copyright.

 

I see people treat the terms Copyright and Trademark interchangeably, talking about Copyrighted character this or Copyrighted character that.  This looks like such and such Copyrighted character.  Most people understand that it's a legally protected character that's being discussed, but there's an important distinction in that something could be considered public domain for Trademark but not necessarily Copyright.  Maybe a company has gone under and its trademarks considered legally abandoned... or could become so if someone just starts using a trademarked whatever and no one is there to defend it (which means send out a cease & desist notice and/or sue the individual using it), but that wouldn't necessarily invalidate any Copyrights that haven't expired.  In such a case, the likeness of the trademark could be used but not anything that specifically reproduces the original source.

 

It's not exactly character specific, but the TSR logo from the old D&D game was considered abandoned by Wizards of the Coast... I'm not sure if it was because someone else just started using it first or if it was outright let go by the new owners of D&D, but after the TSR logo got re-used elsewhere, any claim to it WotC might have had was gone.  I think the TSR logo has been under 3 distinct ownerships, with the second user not faring well and then someone else trying to make a go of it.  But even if someone comes along and takes over a trademark and the old/new owner doesn't challenge it, that does not entitle the new holder of the Trademark free use of any of the old Copyrighted materials of the previous incarnation of TSR.  All they get out of it is a recognizable symbol... a brand name... in a business field where it was very recognizable.

 

I'm just irritated by casual interchangeable use of legal terms that people clearly don't understand but are afraid of causing problems.  Be educated or don't, but if you're going to discuss the matter with any seeming of authority in the matter, then know which law(s) are being referenced and possibly infringed and why.

[Player2]

Just a side note, because there are always people who try to bring up parody and "fair use" arguments.  And in some cases, they are legitimate... but even still, no one should count on that as a means of copying their favorite character.  Parody uses can still be looked at as Trademark infringement and a court gets the final say in whether or not the parody holds up or truly infringes (or damages) the brand of the Trademark holder.  And what that means is that if the Trademark holder can be reasonably assumed to be aware of it --and let's assume that NCSoft granting official license to Homecoming for COH is big news and social media streaming videos are permitted, anything is possible-- then they would have to sue the source to protect themselves from potentially losing the Trademark.  If they don't, then it could be considered to be abandoned and then someone else could try to register it and cite sources of it being used elsewhere and not getting a C&D or other legal notice as abandonment of the Trademark.

 

So who do they sue?  The individual using it?  Sure, if that person can be identified.  Otherwise, they have to go after the company that enables it.  In this case, COH: Homecoming.  And, again, the parody may very well be legitimate and could be upheld by a court.  But HC would still have to go to court to defend it... and that would cost money.  It's much easier to say no to "parody" that isn't so blatant that it would get tossed out.  Because some parody can look close to legitimate... like how a TV show that does sketch comedy could make fun of a superhero comic or movie or whatever.  You know it's parody because they are doing a bit... but even still, I'm sure they've got lawyers on the ready to defend as needed.  But some schmuck makes a Superman clone in this game and says "it's okay because it's parody," then what's the joke and where's the line, and who defends it in court?

 

The game is back and here for you to enjoy.  It's not the responsibility of Homecoming to defend anyone's attempt at parody, homage, or whatever else you choose to call your knockoff characters.

 

I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.  Your mileage may vary.

 

Edited February 16 by Player2

[Judasace]

IDK why people even pretend this is an issue. There's a certain character named (Synonym for "Super") Man, with a Superman costume (Except for a different chest emblem), SS/Invuln/Flight/Laser Beam Eyes. His Bio is literally Superman's Bio just without specific words (Krypton, Daily Planet, etc.) and I've seen this person stand right in front of GM's multiple times at Hami raids.

 

If you can make a character that close and it doesn't get made generic then anything except using the EXACT name and costume of a character shouldn't be an issue, and I think most of those exact names are filtered out.

[Player2]

2 hours ago, Judasace said:

IDK why people even pretend this is an issue. There's a certain character named (Synonym for "Super") Man, with a Superman costume (Except for a different chest emblem), SS/Invuln/Flight/Laser Beam Eyes. His Bio is literally Superman's Bio just without specific words (Krypton, Daily Planet, etc.) and I've seen this person stand right in front of GM's multiple times at Hami raids.

 

If you can make a character that close and it doesn't get made generic then anything except using the EXACT name and costume of a character shouldn't be an issue, and I think most of those exact names are filtered out.

Close is fine.  Gone are the days when the courts can't tell two tights wearing muscle men apart which led to DC suing Fawcett Comics into oblivion over Captain Marvel (Shazam) and then later buying him up to add to their own universe.

 

It's all about being legally distinct.  If the costume is similar but different (chest symbol goes a long way in this regard), and the name is different, then you could have on your hands what is called a pastiche character.  Marvel has done this repeatedly with their Superman wannabes like Gladiator, Hyperion, and Sentry.

[Judasace]

24 minutes ago, Player2 said:

Close is fine.  Gone are the days when the courts can't tell two tights wearing muscle men apart which led to DC suing Fawcett Comics into oblivion over Captain Marvel (Shazam) and then later buying him up to add to their own universe.

 

It's all about being legally distinct.  If the costume is similar but different (chest symbol goes a long way in this regard), and the name is different, then you could have on your hands what is called a pastiche character.  Marvel has done this repeatedly with their Superman wannabes like Gladiator, Hyperion, and Sentry.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if the line is that close - 99% identical look, extremely similar name, same powers, almost identical bio, then the line might as well not exist at all, because then all of these would be fine, and I think these are the types of things people are saying will "Get us sued by Disney and WB":

 

 

[chase]

11 hours ago, Player2 said:

Copyright protects specific works of art, whether it be writing, artwork, or even photographed images.  You cannot reproduce or copy:

• The words of someone's published story (in that particular order, obviously not the individual words
• Using published and protected artwork in another context
• Photos, paintings, cover or interior art from comics, or any other specific image

Trademark protects likenesses.  You cannot copy someone else's logo, made up words, unique names, or likenesses.  Things that are similar but different have to pass a standard that makes them legally distinct from the original.  Unlike Copyright law, Trademarks must be defended if it can be assumed that the Trademark holder would be reasonably aware of the infringement.  In the case of City of Heroes being sued by Marvel Comics, it is a computer game about super heroes and even if the game was relatively small potatoes in sales compared to Marvel's sales numbers, they should be aware of its presence in the market especially because of social media and fan crossover.

• Legally distinct means that Superman's iconic look can be recognized pretty easily... red and blue tights with red cape and S on the chest.  Clark Kent, on the other hand, is not.  While the character may be immediately recognizable, the names Clark and Kent --even in that combination-- could be considered commonplace names.  Marvel Comics has used Clark Kent in their comics a couple of times, even as a reporter... talking an associate named Lois, and when trouble popped up he looked like he was trying to excuse himself for... reasons.
  • One could not use a variation of Superman's costume (different logo, possibly just reversing the colors) and call him Clark Kent, however, because then you're associating the common name(s) in the specific combination that is associated with the iconic superhero look.
  • One also cannot make a completely generic looking individual or even uniquely original character with the name Superman, because Superman is not commonplace word open to public domain use (such as anything in the dictionary).  It is a specific made-up name combining the words super and man into one Trademark protected new word that only DC Comics has the rights to.

The difference between Copyright and Trademark for our purposes is that we cannot recreate specific images of characters from comics art.  No one is making the cover of Action Comics #1 or the big splash page of a fight scene from their favorite comic, which would fall under Copyright... where as Trademark protects the likeness in any form.  If you make a Spider-man in red and blue with a spider logo that is as close as possible to the original that anyone can identify it on sight as Spider-man...  then it doesn't have to mirror specific images from the comics or other works of art; just the fact that it looks like Spider-man is infringement enough.  Copyright can still be an issue though if you choose to add published text word for word (or very close to it) in your character's background info, but substituting your character's name for the original source... then you'd be infringing on copyright.

 

I see people treat the terms Copyright and Trademark interchangeably, talking about Copyrighted character this or Copyrighted character that.  This looks like such and such Copyrighted character.  Most people understand that it's a legally protected character that's being discussed, but there's an important distinction in that something could be considered public domain for Trademark but not necessarily Copyright.  Maybe a company has gone under and its trademarks considered legally abandoned... or could become so if someone just starts using a trademarked whatever and no one is there to defend it (which means send out a cease & desist notice and/or sue the individual using it), but that wouldn't necessarily invalidate any Copyrights that haven't expired.  In such a case, the likeness of the trademark could be used but not anything that specifically reproduces the original source.

 

It's not exactly character specific, but the TSR logo from the old D&D game was considered abandoned by Wizards of the Coast... I'm not sure if it was because someone else just started using it first or if it was outright let go by the new owners of D&D, but after the TSR logo got re-used elsewhere, any claim to it WotC might have had was gone.  I think the TSR logo has been under 3 distinct ownerships, with the second user not faring well and then someone else trying to make a go of it.  But even if someone comes along and takes over a trademark and the old/new owner doesn't challenge it, that does not entitle the new holder of the Trademark free use of any of the old Copyrighted materials of the previous incarnation of TSR.  All they get out of it is a recognizable symbol... a brand name... in a business field where it was very recognizable.

 

I'm just irritated by casual interchangeable use of legal terms that people clearly don't understand but are afraid of causing problems.  Be educated or don't, but if you're going to discuss the matter with any seeming of authority in the matter, then know which law(s) are being referenced and possibly infringed and why.

Now, I'm not a lawyer and don't mean to appear pretending to be one, but  many of our lawmakers are not lawyers and it shows.  I focused on copyright (not trademark) this way because due to all the fuzziness in copyright law it's not as inapplicable as you may originally think.   Registered marks in trade (and defending them) are a big part of that, but copyright isn't as easily shunted away as "reproducing a specific protected work as it originally appeared."    The fuzziness (and the changes have occurred since the original Marvel vs Cryptic case) was the point. 

I didn't intend to diminish the importance of tradmark in the original (and ongoing) debate.

Whether for trademark reasons or copyright concerns, I do support the framework that the city council has decided will best balance our city's stability and our community members' self-expression.  

As an example:  Prior to STAR ATHLETICA, L.L.C. v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., ( 2017 ) it was generally considered that copyright could not be applied to clothing, as it was in its core a "functional item" (outside of the obvious things like screenprinting copyrighted works onto a t-shirt).  This case clarified that certain design elements in attire can be unique and expressive enough to be protected under copyright.   If you're assuming this is a pretty high bar, check out the images here that were used in that decision.  Look at them and ask yourself if the Ms. Marvel swoosh would be similarly protected under that standard, regardless of trademark.    Since this is all color lines and cuts, could the distinctive cuts in a sometimes-marginally-covering superheroine's outfit alone create a copyrightable work?

Now this currently relates to comic culture is usually through the cosplay world, as cosplay (while "fair use" would reasonably still apply for self-made elements, the for-profit costume makers had long hoped that the "clothing is a functional item" would apply to them even though... let's be honest... many of those costumes are notoriously nonfunctional 😄.   Without it, for-profit costume creation is a 'just hope they don't want to bother' industry.

You could raise questions regarding "virtual costuming" in games, though... could be a designer's decision to model his cheerleader-character skins off of styles they cribbed from a cheerleading competition, could be the appearance of a character's outfit that previously only appeared in print.   None of that is necessarly hard-decided, but it introduced a ton of fuzziness.

That case could also imply that the normal trend (trademark a hero logo and apply that to clothing for merchandising) isn't the only way forward.  




Another Example:    

People often talk about the trademark claim and then claim that copyright refers to exactly reproducing a specific work of art.  (Digitally reproducing the third panel of page seven of issue 35 is a copyright violation.   Digitally reproducing the registered trademarked batman logo is trademark) but this is far more fuzzy than people think.    But look at movies.  Heaven forbid we ever have superhero movies to worry about.

Movies do fall under copyright law.  So do the component objects- the script, the individual cameral stills, and much of the unique design.   Uniquely designed movie props are likewise individually-eligible creations that are eligible for copyright protection.  Obi-wan's lightsaber may have been cobbled together from a sink knob, browning machine gun booster,  rifle grenade, and a part from a Rolls-Royce jet engine, but it became a unique sculpted work as eligible for copyright protection as any other sculpted work.   The SOUND of the lightsaber can be a copyrighted audio piece.

Now, it's important to stress this:  the idea of an energy sword  isn't copyrighted, but the specific representation of that lightsaber can be.   It doesn't matter what angle you portray that unsanctioned obi-wan lightsaber you're still violating that creative work if you digitally reproduce it.  You don't have to be reproducing a particular frame or following a copyrighted script, the object itself is eligible for copyright protection.

And in that context, the superhero's costume in that movie is a protected work under copyright  (technically a derivative works of another copyrighted work, but still holding unique expressive elements of their own that have their own protection).  If you (accurately) represented them in a medium like a game, it wouldn't matter if you were reproducing a moment in that film.  that unique work would matter

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Anyway, just my 2c.  If you'd like to avoid spamming others on this and just DM me, I'm really interested in hearing anyone's take on this.  Not a lawyer, but find the whole field fascinating.

[Luminara]

23 hours ago, Player2 said:

What's the rule if someone has been playing something for awhile and a new trademarked character appears in some medium that greatly resembles that COH character in appearance and/or name?

 

Prior art/works, if it can be proven.  Still can't make monetize it, since someone else trademarked it before you did, but it's safe to use under that aspect of the law.

[Excraft]

28 minutes ago, Judasace said:

I'm sorry, but if the line is that close - 99% identical look, extremely similar name, same powers, almost identical bio, then the line might as well not exist at all, because then all of these would be fine, and I think these are the types of things people are saying will "Get us sued by Disney and WB":

 

Where that line is is a judgement call for the HC people to make.  I'm sure there are overly anal zealots out there who are reporting characters for far, far less similarity than the examples you've provided.  Ultimately it's up for the HC team to decide.  If you see something questionable, report it.  Let the GM team do their thing. 

[Player2]

1 hour ago, Judasace said:

 

 

I'm sorry, but if the line is that close - 99% identical look, extremely similar name, same powers, almost identical bio, then the line might as well not exist at all, because then all of these would be fine, and I think these are the types of things people are saying will "Get us sued by Disney and WB":

 

 

Yes, the 2nd and 3rd ones tread a dangerous line.  DC has had a Captain Marvel knockoff called Captain Thunder fight Superman, and he had a chest symbol very similar to this one instead of the normal lightning bolt.  The Miles Morales knockoff...  I'm going to leave that to GMs to make the call, as it should be...

 

But, honestly, that 1st one is almost a perfect example of what could be considered permissible under the law.  Yes, it's very much a Captain America pastiche character, but in name and appearance it would meet the standard of legally distinct.  If someone tried to publish this character, Marvel might still want to sue to defend their Trademark, but it's likely they wouldn't be awarded anything or the person who wrote it might have to alter some of the background story details.  Super soldiers are a regular thing now, so in concept that passes... and naming it Superior soldier instead of super is another plus.  However, the part about being trapped in ice and frozen until modern day might need to be revised because that cuts a little too close to the mark.  If helps that it isn't specified how... if he was frozen and floating along the same path Marvel's character did, that would definitely be too far.  But for all we know, the specific details of this character being frozen were a cryogenic experiment or a villain's attempt to imprison him.

[Oubliette_Red]

Screenshot. Get Global. Report. Update ticket with screenshot. Move on.

 

[Skyhawke]

At this point, I think we're just

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

3 minutes ago, Skyhawke said:

At this point, I think we're just

Ya know, I really hate this whole dead horse meme thing.

 

Just because you talked about an issue and settled it in your mind back in 2004 doesn't mean that others have. Other people didn't play CoH then. Some people weren't even on the internet then. My son who is in the Marines today was born in 2004. I can assure you that he didn't participate in the discussion back in 2004/2005.

 

Bottom line: if you're tired of a discussion then feel free to see yourself out of the thread. Door's over there. But unless you're going to log in to your moderator account and lock the thread, then please don't try to tell us whether or not we're allowed to continue discussing what you see as a "dead horse" topic.

[Haijinx]

I'm most bothered that Captain America couldn't spell "truth"

[Judasace]

26 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I'm most bothered that Captain America couldn't spell "truth"

 

Knockoff merchandise is notorious for its bad spelling.

[JasperStone]

36 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I'm most bothered that Captain America couldn't spell "truth"

<.<

>.>

*whispers...Hail Hydra ... I mean Hydro

[Excraft]

Saw a character broadcasting in LFG with the word "Jedi Master" in the name.  Sent over a PM just to let them know the word Jedi is trademarked and that it's against the CoC, so he may want to change it.  The player tried his best to get into a debate with me that the word Jedi can't be trademarked because and I quote "words can't be trademarked".  Hope they enjoy the name while it lasts.  

[Player2]

12 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Saw a character broadcasting in LFG with the word "Jedi Master" in the name.  Sent over a PM just to let them know the word Jedi is trademarked and that it's against the CoC, so he may want to change it.  The player tried his best to get into a debate with me that the word Jedi can't be trademarked because and I quote "words can't be trademarked".  Hope they enjoy the name while it lasts.  

Hilariously untrue.