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?

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.

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?

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)

Of course that doesn't answer what happens if an IP clash is only noticed after the fact...

CCPGÇÖs ownership of everything used in the game client is necessary under current intellectual property law

BRB. Going to go make Candy Crush Saga Alliance.

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.

Actually, I think anything with Candy in the name is copyrighted by that company. Which is very dumb.

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.

That works for needing a license to use it, it does not explain why they need complete ownership or even an exclusive license.

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.

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.

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?

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

incidentally you probably don't actually own the copyright to any user-submitted logos under american copyright law whatever you try to say in your EULA because you didn't get a signed instrument of conveyance, note or memorandum of the transfer signed by the current copyright holder under 17 usc 204(a) and most of those were probably copyrighted under american law

stuff created in-game, you can probably swing under the eula: logos created outside the game and submitted, nope

fortunately for you i believe a failed attempt to transfer a copyright (like your eula) gives you instead the non-revocable royalty-free unlimited licence to do whatever you choose with it that you actually need

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.

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

3.3. Licensee shall not:
3.3.1. challenge the validity of CCPGÇÖs rights to the Licensed Property or CCP Marks or any registration thereof;
3.3.2. contest the fact that its rights under this Agreement are solely those of a licensee;
3.3.3. attempt to register the Licensed Property or any of the CCP Marks absent of or contrary to direction from CCP;
3.3.4. use the Licensed Property or CCP Marks in any manner that would jeopardize CCPGÇÖs rights therein; or
3.3.5. knowingly do any act that would invalidate or be likely to invalidate the CCPGÇÖs copyright and/or trademark registrations.

What I want to know is why CCP wants to steal other people's IP? What's the business plan here? That's a good question and if you're going to go back to pretending to be decent you might want to explain to people how you're going to profit from their work and exploit them going forward.

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

That wouldn't hold up either, for the same reason the original version wouldn't.

They'd have no legal recourse. The most threatening thing CCP could would be to remove your logo from EVE.

3.4. CCP shall be responsible for copyright and trademark registration and maintenance. Licensee shall cooperate with CCP and shall execute any documents reasonably required by CCP or supply CCP with any samples or other materials reasonably necessary to maintain the Licensed Property.

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 ownership of something i created and can not transfer the ownership of?

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

This likely has to do with upcoming comics and show if I had to guess.

Over time, we will be offering our existing Alliances the new license. We believe this will help with any inadvertent or accidental restrictions on the sale of Alliance products, and avoid any disruption to funding server and other GÇ£real worldGÇ¥ costs of maintaining your Alliance.

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.

(including selling GÇ£Alliance logoGÇ¥ merchandise to help fund the costs of running an Alliance)

err what ?

err what ?

I highly doubt CCP would ever let it escalate that far, it would be horrible for publicity and they would lose anyways.

You could still sue, and if CCP pointed to the lines where it said you "agreed not to" the judge would laugh.

It's kind of like per-marital agreements. They almost never hold up in court.

Copyright law trumps cute statements in EULA.

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

also you contractually agree to sign any document they shove at you to get the mark registered in their name:

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

[How does that work for third parties then?

the contract wouldn't bind third parties and they'd be able to point out ccp didn't actually own the ip if sued

but there would be no parties who would be able to sue ccp (presuming they got the holder of the copyright tagged with that licence) or anyone CCP licenced the IP to for money and that's what they're worried about, not so much going on the offensive

What are you talking about? That is exactly what happened in the last few months. CCP sent a cease and desist to a company producing alliance logo material without a licence. This new agreement does nothing to change that. The third party printer and distributor needs a licence.

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

Would an EULA as one sided as this one really be upheld in court? Sure you can sign away material rights but at some point the court steps in to state that the contract is unconscionable. Being able to effectuate a transfer of rights without registering the assignment seems like something a court would be very reluctant to allow as enforceable.

Would an EULA as one sided as this one really be upheld in court? Sure you can sign away material rights but at some point the court steps in to state that the contract is unconscionable. Being able to effectuate a transfer of rights without registering the assignment seems like something a court would be very reluctant to allow as enforceable.

Portraying logos in fiction (for instance - EVE Online) is not considered infringement.

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.

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

cafepress doesn't give a **** what the actual legal rights are they just don't want to get sued, so ccp sent them a cease and desist letter regarding CCP's IP (stuff like the eve logo and such) and cafepress just pulled everything to be on the safe side to make ccp go away so they didn't have to pay lawyers. this is ccp's reaction to that - they didn't intend to make cafepress pull the alliance logo stuff, but don't want to admit they don't own the IP for the alliance logos

the actual owner of the alliance logos (whoever created it) had the full power to licence cafepress to make stuff with the logo on it, but cafepress doesn't care about who is legally in the right: they just want to not spend money on lawyers

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, still trying to wrap my head around this so maybe someone could explain the following example:

A gaming community decides to create an EVE division. They already have their own branding etc in place and decide to reuse it for their EVE Online alliance logo. The copyright for the alliance logo has been passed to CCP and while the gaming community still has a license to use this logo in reference to their (defunct) EVE alliance they aren't allowed to use it for anything else, are they?

To reiterate CCP owns the copyright for this image.
There is a commercial Starcraft 2 and Dota 2 esports team that uses this image all the time.

To me the second image looks like an obvious derivative of the first and I certainly can't evade someone's copyright claim by simply putting my name under his IP (?).

Assuming the alliance logo was uploaded to CCP with the permission of the original copyright holder, would the esports team have to stop using a derivative of it as their logo? After all they are not only a commercial enterprise but they also promote competing games from other publishers - this is way outside the limits set by CCP's license for the copyrighted image.

What am I missing?

I'm not interested in an argument about ownership. The only way that can be resolved is through an expensive suit which I doubt will happen. The fact that YOU disagree with CCP's statement of ownership does nothing to limit a third party's exposure to CCP.

So the issue is ensuring that third parties are comfortable with the licence arrangements and will produce stuff for us. The current licence does not allow that.

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.

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.

(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)

A more interesting thing to note is that for most every alliance I would bet that the alliance executor CEO (the guy submitting the logo) was not the original artist. So unless they first got a legal transfer of ownership from whichever guy in the alliance actually drew it, they would be perjuring themselves to sign any document CCP put in front of them later.

...This is a contortion of the original argument.

It's just suggesting Alice might be in a position to sue immediately - but she doesn't need to because it can legally be considered fair use.

...For much the same reason making a fictional movie and having the Coca-Cola logo come up inside it is fair use.

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?

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?

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.

And this is just one of several pieces that could easily be adapted to the Alice/Bob scenario.

We went so far as to incorporate in order to have a place to store funds for legal issues and such. Solo can say with certainty but I'm quite certain that's the owner of the license here. I thought we exclusively owned the original artwork but I could be wrong.

M87 was the creator of the logo iirc.

I'm sure we would have had no problem allowing them to use it. I'm also sure we won't be giving them ownership of it.

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.

That's right, you should look it up!

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

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

You can't arbitrarily decide I've granted you a license merely by virtue of data passing through your server though is what I'm getting at. That was written before I saw the license grant.

Basically what they're saying is that if Paul Mcartney sends his buddy in eve a copy of an MP3 file of the most famous Beetles song he still owns CCP has a license to use that forever however they like or it becomes theirs since he owns it. That's how flat out stupid this paragraph is.

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!

to be honest the EULA clauses don't bother me. the attempt to grab ownership simply fails and the rest of the stuff is reasonable for ccp's protection from IP litigation

the licencing agreement though, nobody should ever sign that, that's a hilariously viciously stacked contract that goes out of its way to **** you as hard as it can and really tries to scrape of every possible legal right you could have to use your own alliance's logo instead of just protecting CCP from malicious IP claims

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

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

Based on the way the license is written currently, I think you were correct to say that you would have to print shirts at home to comply with it. It says:



Which states explicitly you do not have the right to transfer your right to reproduce your alliance logo "to defray costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of your Alliance" to a printing company. I am not an attorney though. I only needed a dozen credits in contract law for my degree, so take my opinion on the topic for what it is worth.

Is there an international copyright law? or does CCP have to abide by Icelandic copyright law? or by the users' home country's copyright law?

Also, what about Legal stuff in general that we have to abide by for EVE? what country's laws are we following?

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.

CCP has no ownership stake. Posts on forums aren't valid transfers of ownership. Registration with copyright offices is defining ownership. CCP is not a position to sublicense anything.

This is clearly not true. You agreed to the contract when you uploaded the graphic or accepted the EULA. Of course ownership and licences can be transferred by contract. We do it all the time.

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.

This is clearly not true. You agreed to the contract when you uploaded the graphic or accepted the EULA. Of course ownership and licences can be transferred by contract. We do it all the time.

This is clearly not true. You agreed to the contract when you uploaded the graphic or accepted the EULA. Of course ownership and licences can be transferred by contract. We do it all the time.

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

This is clearly not true. You agreed to the contract when you uploaded the graphic or accepted the EULA. Of course ownership and licences can be transferred by contract. We do it all the time.

The reasons why that doesn't apply to the VOLT logo are in my original post here. The third point, at least, should apply to any alliance who's logo was submitted under the old system. The others will depend on circumstances.

Or we can just leave it in there instead of doing their work for them and tell them to eat a bag of dicks which is the only response anyone has earned here.

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.

I'm amazed at how many lawyers are in Eve Online! I had no idea it was the majority of the player base!

I'm amazed at how many lawyers are in Eve Online! I had no idea it was the majority of the player base!

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.

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.

-º 29
Rechtsgesch+ñfte ++ber das Urheberrecht

(1) Das Urheberrecht ist nicht ++bertragbar, es sei denn, es wird in Erf++llung einer Verf++gung von Todes wegen oder an Miterben im Wege der Erbauseinandersetzung ++bertragen.

(2) Zul+ñssig sind die Einr+ñumung von Nutzungsrechten (-º 31), schuldrechtliche Einwilligungen und Vereinbarungen zu Verwertungsrechten sowie die in -º 39 geregelten Rechtsgesch+ñfte ++ber Urheberpers+¦nlichkeitsrechte.

Translates to:

-º 29
Transactions on copyright

(1) Copyright is not transferable, unless it is transferred in execution of a testamentary disposition or joint-heirs by way of inheritance disputes.

(2) are permitted the granting of rights (-º 31), debt legal consents and agreements on exploitation rights and the regulated in -º 39 legal transactions on moral rights.

---

Which means... even if i wanted to i can not transfer the ownership of my intellectual property.

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 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.

If the option was ever that we sign over our identities or we have logos in the game the logos would never have been there in the first place. Don't be obtuse. The reasons there's no logos on ships have nothing to do with legality.

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

(2/15/2014 12:06:17 AM) directorbot: GOOD AFTERNOON BARRISTERS/SOLICITORS/whatever the hell they call the lawyers in your cozy European country. We're assembling yet another ~interest group~, Lawyerswarm, in the aftermath of a recent CCP dev blog trying to claim ownership of alliance logos. If you're a lawyer/attorney/etc and in the CFC, please join lawyerswarm@xxx ; the US TZ turned up about twenty of us just from one broadcast last night.

*** This was a broadcast from the_mittani to all-all at 2014-02-14 13:36:17.250261 EVE, replies are not monitored ***

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.