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.

That's right, you should look it up!
...
And this is just one of several pieces that could easily be adapted to the Alice/Bob scenario.

Parody would also work.

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)

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)

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.

Servers to host teamspeak/forums/killboards/etc are not cheap.

efb.

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

1.1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, CCP grants Licensee a royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license and right to use the Licensed Property for the manufacture and distribution of the Goods to defray costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of your Alliance.

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.

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.

i am starting to discover a love for my new favorite ccpism, the Clarification(TM)

didnt ccp a few years back take issue with fatbee's pickelhaube and make some crazy abomination of their own

you can own that one ok

I don't care what you're interested in, I care what's correct and that's what I was explaining. I am correct, at least with respect to American law and your initial post was wrong.

The point you're making now is however correct, in that litigation costs matter, and that's precisely what the post of mine you're quoting discusses. One of the significant problems with IP law currently is the extreme expense of asserting your rights in some cases (which ironically is probably the reason CCP's lawyers are getting so grabby).

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.

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.

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.

Right, so what about third party rights as per my first post? The response has so far been 'they don't need rights because we own it anyway' which is not useful.

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

Right, so what about third party rights as per my first post? The response has so far been 'they don't need rights because we own it anyway' which is not useful.

Third party rights for a company printing T-shirts? Licence is non-transferrable and can't sublicence so we would have to print ourselves.

1.3. Except as set forth in this Agreement, no express or implied license or right of any kind is granted to Licensee regarding the Licensed Property or CCP Marks, including any right to know, use, produce, receive, reproduce, copy, market, sell, distribute, transfer, modify, adapt, disassemble, decompile, or reverse engineer the Licensed Property or create derivative works based on the Licensed Property or any portions thereof.

You hereby irrevocably and without additional consideration beyond the rights granted to you herein, assign to CCP any and all right, title and interest you have, including copyrights, in or to any and all information you exchange, transmit or upload to the System or while playing the Game, including without limitation all files, data and information comprising or manifesting corporations, groups, titles, characters and other attributes of your Account, together with all objects and items acquired or developed by, or delivered by or to characters, in your Account. To the extent that any such rights are not assignable, you hereby grant CCP an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, assignable, royalty-free license, fully sublicensable through multiple tiers, to exercise all intellectual property and other rights, in and to all or any part of such information, in any medium now known or hereafter developed. The foregoing assignment and license in this paragraph shall not include User Content (defined below).

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.

No need. CCP is the one who would need to defend it by asserting their rights to someone else's property. Best of luck to them in that regard.

:edit: There are so many things that make that paragraph completely unenforceable it's pretty hilariously dumb. There are rights you just can't give up. What if I upload a coke logo? What if I use my real name? What if I send a friend a file? They cannot blanket lay claim to other's property merely because it passed through their servers. If that were the case you'd see this paragraph in the EULA of every ISP on the planet and they'd own everything.

This paragraph is just plainly dumb.

:edit2: As is the idea that if you can't assign the rights you somehow have the power to grant a license instead. UGH MY HEAD IS BREAKING FROM THIS

EULA circa 2006

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