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.

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.

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 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.

doubt a different background makes it a different design mate, you're no better off than using the same image

you're right not to accept the new licence though eh

this.

Imagine an author writes a book. Before publishing anything he creates two versions of his manuscript that only differ very slightly (maybe he replaces "which" with "that" in a few places, nothing substantial changes).
One version he sells to his publisher (whom he transfers the copyright or gives an exclusive license) but he doesn't mention the existence of the other version to the publisher at all.
Before the sold version can arrive in stores he self-publishes the second version putting it under CC.
The publisher is sol because all both versions contain slight differences and he only owns the copyright/has an exclusive license to one version but not to the other. The author pockets the flat fee he has negotiated and the public rejoices reading the CC version instead of buying anything from the publisher.

This seems to be what VOLT is doing and imho there is no way it can be legal.

Imagine an author writes a book. Before publishing anything he creates two versions of his manuscript that only differ very slightly (maybe he replaces "which" with "that" in a few places, nothing substantial changes).
One version he sells to his publisher (whom he transfers the copyright or gives an exclusive license) but he doesn't mention the existence of the other version to the publisher at all.
Before the sold version can arrive in stores he self-publishes the second version putting it under CC.
The publisher is sol because all both versions contain slight differences and he only owns the copyright/has an exclusive license to one version but not to the other. The author pockets the flat fee he has negotiated and the public rejoices reading the CC version instead of buying anything from the publisher.

This seems to be what VOLT is doing and imho there is no way it can be legal.

that's dumb and what ccp should be asking for (the non-revocable royalty free licence to make derivative works re-licence etc etc, basically everything ownership entails except the ability to restrict the actual owner) is legit and they probably have that already as a result of their failed attempt to get ownership through the logo submission process, there's no problem with CCP wanting to be able to make an eve movie or comic book about the actually interesting parts of eve (the player empires) without having to go through a legal morass or paying people

it's just the actual attempted grab of the IP that is the problem because they're suddenly trying to restrict what the alliances can do with their logos, not just giving ccp free reign to create their own stuff

TheMittani is. I'm sure amongst the 37000 odd CFC members we could scrounge up a couple more.

You have no idea who is or isn't a lawyer in this thread aside from myself potentially and it's already been explained that Icelandic copyright law means precisely **** in this situation. Cool post though I guess if by cool post I mean you may as well have just said nothing as the content would be identical.

:edit: Also "HOW DO I INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS" "WHAT IS THE EU ECONOMIC ZONE" just read something before you open your mouth and humiliate yourself with your ignorance

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)

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 randomly selected a group of logos from a folder I had on my computer and uploaded them to make the blog pretty.

No tinfoil required

As for the questions that have come up in this thread, I'll see if we can get them answered for you buy legal over the weekend and early into next week

No tinfoil required

For example, Alice creates a logo, and a group.

Bob takes this logo and uploads it to EVE Online.

Bob is now in violation of the EULA between him and CCP (he did not have the rights to transfer ownership to CCP). Alice does not care about the relationship between Bob and CCP.

Alice is aware that her logo is portrayed within the fiction of EVE Online, and considers that fair use.

If CCP were to start monetizing the logo Bob uploaded (by say - selling a T-shirt with the logo on it), Alice would now be in a position to sue CCP. Bob might also have legal troubles with perhaps both CCP and Alice.

Wait, the wiki says logos will be community vetted now first? Good luck getting anything passed through.

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.

Why CCP claims copyright on alliance logos is so that I can't create a logo, upload it to Eve Online, later change my mind and send a cease and desist to CCP to remove all traces of my copyrighted material from their game. Imagine me claiming I own the rights to GSF's logo, as another example. Even if I didn't make it, it would still kick in the legal proceedings and costs associated with that. Knowing some of the insane drama that happens in Eve, that has either already happened or would most definitely happen. So, again, legal costs for dumb stuff sucks.

I randomly selected a group of logos from a folder I had on my computer and uploaded them to make the blog pretty.

No tinfoil required

As for the questions that have come up in this thread, I'll see if we can get them answered for you buy legal over the weekend and early into next week

No, you don't need ownership. Whoever told you that was lying.

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.

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.