Why are you going after goonswarm's logo?

In your list of example logos, all of these are dead groups. That is, except for Goonswarm's, which lives on under Goonswarm Federation. And I know that someone paid for a copyright on it as well.

KenZoku. - Dead 2009 - eve wiki on Ken ,evewho
Ascendant Frontier - Dead 2011 - eve wiki on ASCN, evewho
Veto Corp - Dead 2012 - TMC article on Veto closing, evewho
Mercenary Coalition - Dead 2009ish - eve wiki on MC, evewho
Goonswarm - Dead 2010 - (Lives on as Goonswarm Federation, same logo evewho )
Morsus Mihi - Dead 2011 - eve wiki on MM , evewho
Lotka Volterra - Dead 2007 - eve history on LV, evewho
Electus Matari - Dead 2012 - Went to faction warfare, 18 people evewho

Just kind of strange that goonswarm seems to be singled out here, since we're the only one you specifically listed still using our logo actively. (courtesy of Avalloc)

I'm assuming there is fine print in the submission stuff that says the image you are submitting does not contain copyright material and you give CCP full rights to any image you submit. So they aren't "stealing" the IP, you are agreeing to give it to them. That said, it may not have always said that. So, there might be some problems with old logos based on what Kismeteer said here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4232406#post4232406

So it will be interesting to see what comes of old logos that CCP may (or may not, I'm just guessing) not have obtained the rights to.

you do not need the ownership of the IP, you need a non-revocable licence to the IP

you need better lawyers

It is likely entirely because of the show and comic books. I'm curious what they will have to do if, say... Goonswarm told them they couldn't use their name or logo.

"The Bee Alliance attacked Military Company Alliance and eventually took it down from the inside..."

"The Mob Enforcer Alliance fleet engaged Bacteriophage Alliance supers in Asaki..."

Oh the hilarity that would ensue!

Prepare to have your logo removed from EVE.

This seems to be the only recourse CCP has allowed for.

This is a rather greedy stance that CCP takes...

While I can ujnderstand they take precautions to ensure that they don't end up paying someone because they uploaded a logo in the game, the reason that CCP Falcon gives for claiming the logo goes way beyond that :

.""...but still ensure CCP is able to undertake other exciting EVE endeavours that might include the logos, such as blogs, comic books, TV series, etc."

So basically CCP can take that cute goonswarm logo and create a complete comic book about it without any consent or input of that Alliance. You guys are gonna love the story of that funny military bee that gets slapped around all the time...
Not in line with reality? Sorry. It's out of your hands.

Those 'exciting' endeavours should not take place. If they want to make stories about Eve, they should base it on the NPC corps.
If they want to use user-created Alliance logo's they should request it each time and perhaps even pay those alliances if the it's used in a commercial side-Enterprise like a comic (in PLEX ofc)

It would be alot nicer to read :
"CCP will not use uploaded Alliance logos for any out-of-game purpose without consent of the Alliance directors or the uploader when the Alliance no longer exists. If those Alliance logos will be used for commercial reasons the Alliance or creator will recieve a payment of a number of PLEX in accordance with CCP's reward-scheme"

Tthe reward scheme to be thought out upfront ofc.

Or something like that. I must say that this reminds me alot of the ingame-store launch...Some wild ideas and then greed, greed, greed. I suppose the massive upload of black squares can begin?

i wasn't around at the time but I assume the licence to fatbee included the right to create derivative works, and by adding the hat and cigar we made a derivative work to which goonswarm inc. holds the copyright

Of course, if there are any alliances in game whom feel that they would rather not have CCP retain copyright ownership of their alliance logo, then the executor of any alliance who feels this is the case can feel free to submit a support ticket to us under the alliance logo submissions category to have their logo removed or replaced.

...What?

Yes. You can't print Coca-Cola shirts and sell them much like CCP wouldn't be able to print Goonswarm shirts and sell them. Well, they could - but they could be sued.

Goonswarm could print their own Goonswarm t-shirts and sell them though - whether or not CCP wanted it to happen or not.

The "fair use" was about a third party potentially not caring if their logo exists inside the fictional universe of EVE.

You don't need permission to sell your own shirts.

You can just start making them and selling them.

The only reason this tactic "worked" or had any impact at all was because people were going through a third party - namely CafePress. CafePress got afraid they were going to get into hot water selling "EVE related" merchandise and it got pulled off their shelves.

If you did a run of Goonswarm t-shirts from a local print ship and sold them in your online store, do you really think CCP is going to sue you? Over Goonswarm shirts?

Horrible publicity. It just wouldn't happen.

Yes, in fact you do need CCP's permission to sell shirts with your alliance logo on them. That's what CCP says right here:



CCP is magnanimously granting permission to make alliance logo junk back to the alliance that submitted the logo, which in CCP's legalese means that CCP now owns it.


Note that that license is not irrevocable. CCP could stop you from selling junk whenever they want.

Uh huh. So why did the company cease and desist when they received the cease and desist? This is not a metaphysical discussion about rights but a discussion about how to enable production and distribution in the real world.

the question you're asking in this post is not the answer you're interested in per your other posts

the reality is a cafepress or any other third party will desist any time they get a C&D regardless of its legal merit because your tshirt business is not worth the effort and expense of dealing with even an obviously meritless C&D

EULA circa 2006

11. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
B. Rights to Certain Content


Obviously, that would be an interesting court case if anyone ever decided to contest that clause.

the coke thing isn't a problem because the clause only purports to have you assign rights you have

your name isn't a problem because you don't have an intellectual property right in your name

as for sending a friend a file, or things you type, it's covered in the next paragraph under "user content" where you just grant them a licence to the ascii **** you posted in local instead of the copyright

the issue they're trying to avoid is anyone making IP claims because they released a video of gameplay with "goonswarm" in the name or something like that, or a screenshot of a tcu with rotating fatbee

for the user-generated content part, same thing, really, it's trying to avoid even the hint of a lawsuit. all of these clauses are probably standard eula boilerplate added by lawyers who are thinking nobody ever got fired or sued for malpractice by having the eula too broad

but there's simply no good reason for trying to grab the actual ownership right instead of the licencing right that's everything ownership has except the ability to prevent the owner from doing things

and the fun thing about an eula (to the extent it's legally enforcable) is it's no more arbitrary than a signed contract :v: contracts of adhesion are fun!

Exactly this. All of the arm waving about ownership is irrelevant. A printing company has no stake and will not take a position against CCP just because the players disagree with CCP's ownership statement which is backed up by YOU agreeing to their clause when you accept the licence or EULA.

CCP needs to add third party sublicence.

a) A eula or "by doing ___ you agree to" is specifically not a valid transfer of copyright ownership in US law. It must be a signed document. (Signed document in the US can mean a lot of things that aren't paper with ink on it these days, but this ain't it.)

b) Fatbee is old enough that the terms and conditions were probably not the same when we did it. Who knows, Mittani I'm sure is digging through his old email this evening. But CCP can't change the conditions unilaterally, that's why they're going to contact all alliance execs to get a yes in (digital) writing.

17 usc 204(a), wrong

us law places specific restrictions on what constitutes a valid transfer of a us copyright, specifically to discourage situations like this

I love how people keep talking about US law or German law or {COUNTRY_NAME} law.
You seem to be forgetting an important part: CCP Hf. is a company in Iceland subject to Iceland law.

I'm not saying this seems to be a good move, but your arguments why aren't very sound. I should also note, most of you aren't lawyers anyways.

This is part of why we need to have ownership of the logos. Our legal team are currently reading over this thread, and will be giving some responses as soon as possible.

For the record, I'm in a position where I've also uploaded an Alliance logo in the past, and have actively sold Alliance themed merchandise in the past as a player.

I can completely understand the concerns here, and the community team will continue to work with legal to make sure that your concerns are heard.

Mittens hasn't posted here.


Is being a gigantic douchebag a requirement for membership in goonswarm? If you're really worried about CCP having your IP, maybe you should change it to something more accurate like Assholes Anonymous, and not give CCP the name and logo.
===
You're right I don't know who is a lawyer, but I can be sure most of the people who post on these forums aren't, but are just blowing smoke out their ass. In fact one of the people I was referring to specifically state they weren't a lawyer, and I wasn't referring to your posts at all, and, again the posts I was referring to don't mention internationally recognized, just "Well I don't really know legalese but this one paragraph in my one country seems legit"

You could just read what I posted before stepping up to stroke your own self importance. If you wanna get mad why don't you get mad at ALL the ignorant posts.

I believe submission and usage by CCP of a subscriber created image should constitute a type of shrink-wrap limited license for CCP to redistribute the image as they see fit, with the subscriber-creator's only recourse to demand CCP cease & desist future use.

I recognize it gets tricky because in the case of alliance logos, the original artist has given over control of their image to the alliance executor, as acknowledged by CCP in their submission and approval process, and may not have legal standing to issue complaints.

If CCP gains 1,000 subscribers due to a particularly effective in-game event or ad or TV/Movie** featuring subscriber images... the subscriber-creator / alliance executor-owner, can't expect monetary compensation from CCP. Subscriber-creators / alliance executor-owners, have technically paid CCP to use images they submitted for approval

I think the license idea should grant subscriber-creators / alliance executor-owners, the right to redistribute THEIR image, in isolation, as they see fit for their own profit. It would be a problem if CCP-created art such as the EVE logo were included & CCP would be within their rights to demand C&D upon use of their artwork, if their permission for such usage was not obtained.

** I seriously doubt any alliance names or logos as seen in EVE today will be used in the EVE TV series that's in development... but players will be quick to create and use whatever new corp and alliance names come from it, lol.

If I as a Finnish citizen create an art piece in Finland the applicable copyright laws are found in the Finnish law books. Mind you I'm not entirely sure if the 'in Finland' part is necessary. So if I doodle something on a notepad in lets say Frankfurt it might still fall under Finnish legislation.

And then you people ask CCP to give us alliance/corp logos on ships, and wonder why CCP hasn't done it. With the bitching and moaning in this thread, it's no surprise. I will be surprised if CCP just doesn't show you the finger and pull all alliance logos out of the game.

The reason ships have no logos is due to that being not implemented due to technical/programming needs.
The reason it is not implemented is because it is not given priority on the backlog and/or not worst the ROI.
The reason that it is not given priority are people like you.

Go feel important now, internet forum lawyer warrior

My thoughts on the 'Princely rights" was a flash of memory from when I watched 'Brave Heart' and that duke guy wanted to bed his wife.

Oops now ccp has 'Brave Heart' in their IP.

Never mind Facebook - whenever CCP distributes EVE they are shipping the Python interpreter, the Chromium browser, and other open source libraries. Those libraries are not owned by CCP, but are distributed under an appropriate license, so there is no problem with redistributing them.

I don't know anything about Icelandic law, so there could be a reason the same principle doesn't apply to alliance logos, but it would be nice to have an explanation of what.

EDIT: and that's a crazy license. Alliances have the right to use the logos they created only to defray costs, and only for "CLOTHING, HOUSEWARES, AND OTHER CONSUMER ITEMS DISPLAYING THE LICENSED PROPERTY". The first part seems to forbid making a profit from the logo; not that there's much reason for an alliance to do that, but that would usually be its own business. The second part is more drastic - if you want to, say, display the logo on your alliance website, too bad, that's not covered, since it's not a consumer item!

There's no ******* point in even talking about this. They don't own the work. They will never own the work.

Also **** anyone who signs the agreement hereby legitimizing CCP's bullshit.