This doesn't make sense. According to the Berne Convention, to which Iceland has been a signatory since 1947, all artistic material created, 100% of it, is *instantly* copyrighted when created. It isn't possible for someone to submit a logo that isn't already copyrighted by the creator.

What did you (CCP) intend by the above restriction? (Because what you wrote is nonsense.)

MDD

From the devblog:



Does this mean that iconic logos for alliances such as Test, Goonswarm Federation and Get Off My Lawn will now be scrapped, because they don't meet some arbitary requirements drummed up by one of the art nerds?

Edit: And if the answer is yes, I'd recommend ignoring whoever came up with these guidelines, and instead talk to someone with a grip on reality.

If you submit your own work, it's fine.

If you submit a trademarked logo, character, or anything that is part of an IP, it'll be rejected.

Pretty simple when you apply common sense to the statement

IANAL, but my brother is a lawyer, with a specialty in intellectual property (IP) law, and has recently passed the USPTO "Patent Examiner's Exam". Dinner conversations with him are interesting.

First, this is IP law. You can put aside "common sense" arguments right now.

If it is CCP's intention to say "material for which you do not hold copyright will be rejected" then that is what CCP should say. Unfortunately, this leaves out the cases where the submitter does not hold copyright but does have permission, such as the presumably very common cases where the alliance executor is not the logo artist.

So what CCP really needs to say is "CCP requires permission to create a derivative work from the copyright holder of the submitted alliance logo." Then CCP needs to spell out how they want evidence of that permission submitted. Please go to your lawyers and see what they say about this.

MDD

Fair one, and after thinking this over last night, I've dropped the requirement from 250 to the original 150 from the old proces, as it seems like there's genuine concern around it.

Will update the blog and forum post to reflect this.

Fair one, and after thinking this over last night, I've dropped the requirement from 250 to the original 150 from the old proces, as it seems like there's genuine concern around it.

That still means The Camel Empire and Hydra Reloaded can't have alliance logos. Neither are 150 pilots and neither are likely to exceed 150 pilots in the future. Why not just eliminate this restriction entirely and stick with the "six months old" restriction? That should be just as effective, if not more effective, at keeping troll submissions out of your inbox.

That still means The Camel Empire and Hydra Reloaded can't have alliance logos. Neither are 150 pilots and neither are likely to exceed 150 pilots in the future. Why not just eliminate this restriction entirely and stick with the "six months old" restriction? That should be just as effective, if not more effective, at keeping troll submissions out of your inbox.

That still means The Camel Empire and Hydra Reloaded can't have alliance logos. Neither are 150 pilots and neither are likely to exceed 150 pilots in the future. Why not just eliminate this restriction entirely and stick with the "six months old" restriction? That should be just as effective, if not more effective, at keeping troll submissions out of your inbox.

Fair one, and after thinking this over last night, I've dropped the requirement from 250 to the original 150 from the old proces, as it seems like there's genuine concern around it.

Will update the blog and forum post to reflect this.

There should still be a minimum in place to keep CCP staff from being flooded by submissions from 3 man personal alliances. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to own an alliance logo, but they should be required to work for it. Perhaps "will join alliance for logo purposes then drop for a fee" might be a new way for newbros to make a bit of isk? I would have to agree that something around 50 or 75 would be considerably more reasonable while still screening a good number of smaller groups.

150 is better than 250 but Ripard has a point here. You are doing so many things to make it more viable for smaller entities to live in 0.0 and 'plant their flag'. Yet you are now adding an artificial requirement for the size an alliance has to be to be able to do so. Seems unlogical to me.

If you need a lower limit make it something like 25 or 50 characters at most.

As a wormhole alliance I have absolutely no interest in blowing up to 250 members - the nature of wormholes makes that exceedingly hard to sustain. Are we then excluded from showing our pride with an in-game logo? Member count is not the only way to judge stability.

What does constitute stability? I like to look at member delta - if an alliance is hemorrhaging members or fluctuates by a large percentage, I would call that unstable. Here's my alliance's stats as an example. We're definitely not "stable" at 250 members, but the member count is stable if not growing. I would ask CCP to reconsider this hard member count as it's extremely prohibitive towards some of us smaller groups.

Aside from being flooding with logo submissions, is there any technical reason to prevent smaller alliances from having their own logo? Or is it just a manpower issue? I can understand if for the first few months CCP would rather limit submissions to the larger groups (as there'll surely be a massive day-1 review queue) but once that backlog is cleared I'm sure the reviewers might have enough time to accept some smaller groups' requests.

If CCP insists on enforcing this 250 member count, what's stopping me from temporarily recruiting a corp with 150 alts, submitting a logo, and then kicking it? I see lots of potential for abuse here.

At the end of the day I'm just glad to see logos are once again being accepted, and I feel the compromise of watermarking the content in combination with the concise guidelines on logo content are an excellent solution to the previous system's issues.

There should still be a minimum in place to keep CCP staff from being flooded by submissions from 3 man personal alliances. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to own an alliance logo, but they should be required to work for it. Perhaps "will join alliance for logo purposes then drop for a fee" might be a new way for newbros to make a bit of isk? I would have to agree that something around 50 or 75 would be considerably more reasonable while still screening a good number of smaller groups.

If you want to talk legal stuff, please do so in the other thread. This thread is for questions directly related to alliance logo submissions that fall under art and technical requirements.

If you submit a trademarked logo, character, or anything that is part of an IP, it'll be rejected.

Alliance logo with egg (aka pod) denied, alliance logo with chicken approved. Logic ?

i submitted the New logo for Pirate Coalition last monday ( the 11th of may)
when can i expect an answer if it will be accepted or not ?

also when is the next patch due ?

Patch is scheduled for Tuesday, June 2.

As far as I know, they only contact you if your logo will NOT be accepted. So you're pretty much in my boat of waiting and hoping.