Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP Falcon
5962
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Good afternoon capsuleers :3
Recently a number of members of the community have had issues with their alliance branded merchandise being removed from third party vendor websites.
After a long discussion with our legal department, a Dev Blog has been put together to explain the situation with alliance logo copyright ownership, and to make sure that the process surrounding it is perfectly clear.
We've also drafted a license to allow free usage of alliance logos, that can be used as backup should you run into any issues with third party sites removing your goods from sale.
For full details, please see this Dev Blog.
If there are any questions, please feel free to pose them in this thread. CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Manager -á || -á EVE Illuminati
@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16707
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
It's a difficult situation for sure. I hope that most can live with the system you've arrived at.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Uma D
Uma D Ltd.
41
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Just out of curiousity, since i am not a lawyer and only know how thing are around here.
The german law clearely states that ownership of intellectual property is not transferable, the only thing that is transferable is the "right to use" MY intellectual property. Even if i grant someone the "right to use", i still am the owner of said intellectual property and as long as i do not sign a contract granting someone the exlcusive rights to use, i can use any of my own creations for whatever purpose i please to use it.
So claiming ownership of my intellectual property would pretty much be against german law, and as a german citizen i guess german law applies to me.
So how is it legal for ccp to claim owenership of something i created and can not transfer the ownership of? |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
269
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Uma D wrote:Just out of curiousity, since i am not a lawyer and only know how thing are around here.
The german law clearely states that ownership of intellectual property is not transferable, the only thing that is transferable is the "right to use" MY intellectual property. Even if i grant someone the "right to use", i still am the owner of said intellectual property and as long as i do not sign a contract granting someone the exlcusive rights to use, i can use any of my own creations for whatever purpose i please to use it.
So claiming ownership of my intellectual property would pretty much be against german law, and as a german citizen i guess german law applies to me.
So how is it legal for ccp to claim owenership of something i created and can not transfer the ownership of?
I was wondering the same.. but I think the following clause takes care of that (in our favor?):
Quote:7.1. Force Majeure. If either party should fail in the performance of any obligation under this Agreement, by reason of acts of God, strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, restrictive government laws, or regulations or other cause, without fault and beyond the reasonable control of the party obligated (financial inability excepted), that party shall be granted an extension to perform its obligations hereunder equal to the time the underlying cause prevented performance. Should any obligations of the other party be dependent upon this partyGÇÖs performance, such obligations shall be similarly extended.
Note that I don't realls speak legalese either and reading most of that paragraph just hurts mentally. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2638
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Boo! Still no way for me to get an alliance logo for my vanity alliance Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
iwannadig
LUX AETERNA INT RUST415
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yeah, similar question: if I already have my IP over my corp/alliance name and want to create such a corp/alliance in Eve, does it mean I violate EULA? What happens if someone already registered such name and has IP rights clash? |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
269
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:Yeah, similar question: if I already have my IP over my corp/alliance name and want to create such a corp/alliance in Eve, does it mean I violate EULA? What happens if someone already registered such name and has IP rights clash?
Does that answer your question?
Quote:Review for Copyrighted material (because the Alliance logo will be owned by CCP, we have to ensure that it does not infringe anyone elseGÇÖs copyright or trademark) |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1003
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Devblog made me laugh.
I like the part where CCP in its Great Kindness will not terminate the agreement before 90days notice, but can at its sole discretion declare the agreement violated and thus void as soon as they send a written notice. I see what you did there CCP
So, TL;DR of this Devblog, cool now we can buy and make goodies but only to the point where it covers the alliance's expenses, not more. (Is the term "alliance" even worth anything law-wise?)
But CCP still wants its share of the cake and still wants to have full and exclusive ownership of the logo for everything. Even if they don't make the logo themselves.
You know that even Facebook has a special license that allows them to use uploaded content at will without taking the Intellectual Property away from its legitimate owner, right?
This behaviour is disgusting. Luckily alliance logo stuff is out of my hands, but you're giving a very bad example here. If you're so hungry for money just shut down Dust.
Sephira Galamore wrote: Of course that doesn't answer what happens if an IP clash is only noticed after the fact...
Oh it does! If a clash is noticed after the fact and you are sued, CCP and its employees cannot be hold responsible. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. |
Ortho Loess
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
24
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
Reading the license, I was very impressed by how restrictive they have managed to make it and how much it is set up to be almost entirely in CCP's favour.
If I make a load of T-Shirts or mouse mats to hand out at a meetup, then CCP decide I've annoyed them, they can demand that I destroy them all and send them proof I have done so within 5 days.
Anyone thinking of submitting an alliance logo absolutely needs to make one and put it somewhere where the date can be verified, then change the colour of a pixel and submit the new version to CCP. That way they don't need this noxious license, CCP owns their version, you still own your version.
If the CCP team wanted to really be helpful, this would be the advice given on the logo submission page.
The Volition Cult are fairly lucky, it remains clear that our logo (as we use it on t-shirts and the like) is not the property of CCP. They have a version of it that we can persuade the copyright holder to grant them ownership of.
For reference, this was originally discussed here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=321296
CCP Falcon locked the topic to focus on this one and asked us to continue here. |
|
CCP Falcon
5963
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Keep the questions coming guys, if you have them.
I'll wait until tomorrow, then get a pile of them together to deliver to our legal team, then we can get some answers
CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Manager -á || -á EVE Illuminati
@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents |
|
|
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
241
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
BRB. Going to go make Candy Crush Saga Alliance. |
Ortho Loess
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
24
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Quote:CCPGÇÖs ownership of everything used in the game client is necessary under current intellectual property law Could you expand on this?
The argument for pursuing a policy that is so clearly against the interests of your users seems to hinge on this point, but it's not explained why you need to own the logos. |
Domino Artan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
Is there a reason that usage is limited to '[...] THE MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CLOTHING, HOUSEWARES, AND OTHER CONSUMER ITEMS DISPLAYING THE LICENSED PROPERTY [..]'
If the Alliance wanted to make any media using this logo, for example a cartoon accessible via. a fee system on youtube would they be allowed to under this agreement? |
Sand Shardani
Amarrian Merchant Solutions New Eden's Misfits Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 17:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:BRB. Going to go make Candy Crush Saga Alliance.
Actually, I think anything with Candy in the name is copyrighted by that company. Which is very dumb. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
241
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ortho Loess wrote:Quote:CCPGÇÖs ownership of everything used in the game client is necessary under current intellectual property law Could you expand on this? The argument for pursuing a policy that is so clearly against the interests of your users seems to hinge on this point, but it's not explained why you need to own the logos. This is IP law. CCP can't use a copyrighted name/image in a product/service they sell to customers. This isn't true in some case (eg parody, news reporting, etc) but it wouldn't stop CCP getting dragged into court proceedings because some genius makes a "Ford Sucks" alliance or something along those lines. Basically not even touching copyrighted material at all means much less legal costs for CCP, even if they are in the right. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
241
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sand Shardani wrote:Bagehi wrote:BRB. Going to go make Candy Crush Saga Alliance. Actually, I think anything with Candy in the name is copyrighted by that company. Which is very dumb. They are in the midst of court proceedings over their attempt to copyright Candy and Saga, yeah. That was the joke. |
Ortho Loess
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
24
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:This is IP law. CCP can't use a copyrighted name/image in a product/service they sell to customers. This isn't true in some case (eg parody, news reporting, etc) but it wouldn't stop CCP getting dragged into court proceedings because some genius makes a "Ford Sucks" alliance or something along those lines. Basically not even touching copyrighted material at all means much less legal costs for CCP, even if they are in the right. That works for needing a license to use it, it does not explain why they need complete ownership or even an exclusive license. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
241
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ortho Loess wrote:Bagehi wrote:This is IP law. CCP can't use a copyrighted name/image in a product/service they sell to customers. This isn't true in some case (eg parody, news reporting, etc) but it wouldn't stop CCP getting dragged into court proceedings because some genius makes a "Ford Sucks" alliance or something along those lines. Basically not even touching copyrighted material at all means much less legal costs for CCP, even if they are in the right. That works for needing a license to use it, it does not explain why they need complete ownership or even an exclusive license. Sorry, updated my post with an explanation answering that question. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
989
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ortho Loess wrote:Bagehi wrote:This is IP law. CCP can't use a copyrighted name/image in a product/service they sell to customers. This isn't true in some case (eg parody, news reporting, etc) but it wouldn't stop CCP getting dragged into court proceedings because some genius makes a "Ford Sucks" alliance or something along those lines. Basically not even touching copyrighted material at all means much less legal costs for CCP, even if they are in the right. That works for needing a license to use it, it does not explain why they need complete ownership or even an exclusive license.
It's the easiest way to CYA. It's not uncommon for web forums to do this as well.
It also protects CCP from the derivative works problem, where someone creates original content that ties in to, or otherwise depends on, CCP's original content. If CCP didn't assert copyright then they wouldn't control the original content, but neither would the person who created it, and as some authors have found out, that can create really sticky problems down the road.
It's not the only way to proceed, but it's the easiest for CCP, or for whichever party is hosting a community hub or shared world of whatever kind. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Uma D
Uma D Ltd.
42
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:10:00 -
[20] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Ortho Loess wrote:Quote:CCPGÇÖs ownership of everything used in the game client is necessary under current intellectual property law Could you expand on this? The argument for pursuing a policy that is so clearly against the interests of your users seems to hinge on this point, but it's not explained why you need to own the logos. This is IP law. CCP can't use a copyrighted name/image in a product/service they sell to customers. This isn't true in some case (eg parody, news reporting, etc) but it wouldn't stop CCP getting dragged into court proceedings because some genius makes a "Ford Sucks" alliance or something along those lines. Basically not even touching copyrighted material at all means much less legal costs for CCP, even if they are in the right.
Still they do not need the ownership of IP. All they need is the usage rights. And since i need to be the owner of any IP i send to ccp anyway I can give ccp the right to use it and that is what the EULA also should reflect.
As long as i do not reference eve in anything i create I do not see why i should need a license to sell something i own. No matter if I sent it to ccp and allow them to use it for anything related to eve. I agree that they can use any material i create and submit to them... not the other way around.
Sorry but this whole devblog smells really fishy. |
|
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
590
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
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) |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
242
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
Uma D wrote:Bagehi wrote:Ortho Loess wrote:Quote:CCPGÇÖs ownership of everything used in the game client is necessary under current intellectual property law Could you expand on this? The argument for pursuing a policy that is so clearly against the interests of your users seems to hinge on this point, but it's not explained why you need to own the logos. This is IP law. CCP can't use a copyrighted name/image in a product/service they sell to customers. This isn't true in some case (eg parody, news reporting, etc) but it wouldn't stop CCP getting dragged into court proceedings because some genius makes a "Ford Sucks" alliance or something along those lines. Basically not even touching copyrighted material at all means much less legal costs for CCP, even if they are in the right. Still they do not need the ownership of IP. All they need is the usage rights. And since i need to be the owner of any IP i send to ccp anyway I can give ccp the right to use it and that is what the EULA also should reflect. As long as i do not reference eve in anything i create I do not see why i should need a license to sell something i own. No matter if I sent it to ccp and allow them to use it for anything related to eve. I agree that they can use any material i create and submit to them... not the other way around. Sorry but this whole devblog smells really fishy.
Giving them the right to use it opens up the fact that you would also have the right to tell them to cease and desist the use of it later. Enter the crazy land of Eve drama mixed with silly IP law where I can claim the rights to your alliance logo and CCP would have to respond. It would be a nightmare. Hard to fault them from staying as far away from IP issues as possible.
|
Fix Lag
760
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:23:00 -
[23] - Quote
This is a blatant attempt at thievery of IP that CCP does not own. CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
Uma D
Uma D Ltd.
42
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:
Giving them the right to use it opens up the fact that you would also have the right to tell them to cease and desist the use of it later. Enter the crazy land of Eve drama mixed with silly IP law where I can claim the rights to your alliance logo and CCP would have to respond. It would be a nightmare. Hard to fault them from staying as far away from IP issues as possible.
This could easily be solved by setting up a license prototype the other way around, which could state that ccp gets the right to use the material as long as they want to, as long as they only use it for eve related things. That way they are safe and ownership stays untouched.
And just because they want to make things easier for them it still does not give them the right to steal the ownership of my IP. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
244
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
Uma D wrote:Bagehi wrote:
Giving them the right to use it opens up the fact that you would also have the right to tell them to cease and desist the use of it later. Enter the crazy land of Eve drama mixed with silly IP law where I can claim the rights to your alliance logo and CCP would have to respond. It would be a nightmare. Hard to fault them from staying as far away from IP issues as possible.
This could easily be solved by setting up a license prototype the other way around, which could state that ccp gets the right to use the material as long as they want to, as long as they only use it for eve related things. That way they are safe and ownership stays untouched. And just because they want to make things easier for them it still does not give them the right to steal the ownership of my IP. 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. |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
169
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
Why, precisely, can't CCP instead be given a universal, assignable, non-revocable, royalty-free licence to use alliance logos as part of the submission process, and avoid this blatant copyright land-grab that will just lead to lawyers getting richer if ever used in anger? ~ |
Fix Lag
761
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
RDevz wrote:Why, precisely, can't CCP instead be given a universal, assignable, non-revocable, royalty-free licence to use alliance logos as part of the submission process, and avoid this blatant copyright land-grab that will just lead to lawyers getting richer if ever used in anger?
Because it's CCP. CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
336
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote: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 , evewhoAscendant Frontier - Dead 2011 - eve wiki on ASCN, evewhoVeto Corp - Dead 2012 - TMC article on Veto closing, evewhoMercenary Coalition - Dead 2009ish - eve wiki on MC, evewhoGoonswarm - Dead 2010 - (Lives on as Goonswarm Federation, same logo evewho ) Morsus Mihi - Dead 2011 - eve wiki on MM , evewhoLotka Volterra - Dead 2007 - eve history on LV, evewhoElectus Matari - Dead 2012 - Went to faction warfare, 18 people evewhoJust 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)
Just going to quote this and let you know that CCP owns neither the Goonswarm logo, 'nor the name. Putting a name in a videogame doesn't make it yours and if you think for a minute that's an arguable case then your lawyers might want to have a chat with some other lawyers. These rights were purchased long ago and it's pretty disgusting to try and assert any form of control over the art. You don't need to do this and any argument that you do is patently false.
It's nice to see the gloves coming off though and that all pretense of being a decent business are being thrown to the side.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
336
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:43:00 -
[29] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Uma D wrote:Bagehi wrote:
Giving them the right to use it opens up the fact that you would also have the right to tell them to cease and desist the use of it later. Enter the crazy land of Eve drama mixed with silly IP law where I can claim the rights to your alliance logo and CCP would have to respond. It would be a nightmare. Hard to fault them from staying as far away from IP issues as possible.
This could easily be solved by setting up a license prototype the other way around, which could state that ccp gets the right to use the material as long as they want to, as long as they only use it for eve related things. That way they are safe and ownership stays untouched. And just because they want to make things easier for them it still does not give them the right to steal the ownership of my IP. 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#post4232406So 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.
There are a number of logos that have been registered outside of CCP because guess what? CCP didn't make them. That's common practice. CCP didn't make the identity and doesn't own the identity. Any claims otherwise are false as evidenced by prior registration of many of these logos to submitting them to CCP. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6409
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
you do not need the ownership of the IP, you need a non-revocable licence to the IP
you need better lawyers Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |