Similarly, in the UK, assignment requires a signed contract, something which unilateral modification of an end-user licence agreement can't effect.

While player-created Alliance logos are part of CCPGÇÖs IP

Fun trivia: In germany the ONLY legal way intelectual property can be transfered is by heritage.

http://i.lvme.me/xmeh35.jpg

oh i see what you did there:



your lawyers know your attempt to assert the eula transfers copyright is bunk so you basically make people promise they will not point out the emperor has no clothes

basically "sure we don't own it, but you agree you won't point that out to the court"

that actually might be enforceable, but your licence is clearly a trojan horse to cover up the faulty transfer of copyright to ccp and get 3.3.3.1 in there and not a friendly sure you guys can use your own alliance logo

i retract my comment you need better lawyers that's pretty cunning

it probably would

i can agree not to raise valid defenses or valid claims by contract, so if i doodle an alliance logo and submit it to ccp, i still own it but I've contractually agreed not to ever file a lawsuit on that basis or raise it as a defense if ccp sues me

The Volition Cult has released most versions of our logo under Creative Commons. The only exception so far is the version that was sent to CCP (with a grey background), because the ownership is still under debate and we are willing to talk about transferring ownership or a license for that version.

Creative Commons allows use by anyone, including commercial. We want anyone in VOLT to be able to use our logo as they see fit, we are happy for CCP to use it too.

We are not going to let them dictate what we can do with it. They do not own it.

this post has no relationship to reality and nobody should assume that this is an accurate statement of the law anywhere in the world

you can raise the argument the licence terms themselves are unenforcable yes and courts will sometimes void portions of contracts as against public policy

that's certainly a possibility but it's probably an expensive one to raise because you're going to have to litigate it, and way more expensive than your previous option, pointing out ccp could not have obtained the IP and asking for summary judgment, and that means you're going to be much more likely to knuckle under and settle even if the court will later rule in your favor that those provisions of the licencing agreement are unenforcable

(example: if bob creates Official Coca-Cola Alliance in eve online with the coca-cola logo and CCP adds it to the game they will get the bejesus sued out of them if they don't take it out the instant Coke contacts them demanding its removal. ccp will hold Bob liable under the terms of the licence agreement because he indemnified CCP

but he's pinky hops and is poor as dirt so CCP is out the money and pinky bob remains poor as dirt, with a little less dirt and ccp may not even bother)

as everyone probably has figured out by now: under no circumstances should you rely on pinky's idea of what fair use is

Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer's product, not the user's own product. For example, in a recent case, the newspaper USA Today ran a telephone poll, asking its readers to vote for their favorite member of the music group New Kids on the Block. The New Kids on the Block sued USA Today for trademark infringement. The court held that the use of the trademark "New Kids on the Block" was a privileged nominative use because: (1) the group was not readily identifiable without using the mark; (2) USA Today used only so much of the mark as reasonably necessary to identify it; and (3) there was no suggestion of endorsement or sponsorship by the group.

Suggesting that CCP having an alliance logo in their game, owned by someone else*, is in any way equivalent to fair use allowing a coke can in a movie or talking about New Kids in a poll, it idiotic. I can't print Coca-Cola shirts and have it be fair use. I can't name my alliance "New Kids on the Block".


*or vice-vesa: CCP owned but used by someone making shirts

Except that CCP here is claiming ownership of the Goonswarm logo, which they absolutely do NOT have, therefore we need their PERMISSION to sell our own shirts. (in magical CCP land where making a post on a forum insisting you own something that you don't makes it yours)

Take a look at the topic we're commenting on and CCP's history and then tell me again they'd make the right decision RE: publicity. The fact is that whether I think they'd sue or not is irrelevant. They're making a claim of total ownership of something they do not own which would give them the RIGHT to sue and make it so if it were true and I wanted to sell shirts I need THEIR permission as the copyright OWNERS.

7-11 uses the fatbee on coffee syrup. Or the clipart that fatbee is based on. Or they're run by goonswarm. Grrr goons.

About FatbeeSwag.com

I wish to see the world overtaken by swag from EVE Online alliances.

This store is my way of hatching this nefarious plan

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.