These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Alliance Logos & You - Clarification on submissions

First post First post
Author
Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2014-02-13 19:52:45 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Klyith wrote:
[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.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

rofflesausage
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2014-02-13 19:53:04 UTC
Hi Falcon

I have 2 simple questions:

*Why does CCP feel the need to take "ownership"? Nothing in the devblog actually covers this. You could just as easily require that alliances distribute their logos under the Creative Commons licence, or a long term / irrevocable licence for CCP.

*Given that the client downloads and TQ are hosted in the UK, surely the law there is the one that could cause an issue?
The law in the UK is seems to be very clear that a signed contract is needed for this?

Before any internet superheroes jump on me, these are two questions - not statements.

Regards
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2014-02-13 19:57:55 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Klyith wrote:
[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.

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

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Nairb Hig
Feathered Exploration
#64 - 2014-02-13 19:59:23 UTC
Weaselior wrote:

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.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-02-13 20:01:33 UTC
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.
Bagehi
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#66 - 2014-02-13 20:02:05 UTC
Nairb Hig wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

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.

Might just be a "no one would actually take this to court to challenge us on this" type of situation.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2014-02-13 20:05:08 UTC
Nairb Hig wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

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.

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

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2014-02-13 20:06:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Pinky Hops wrote:
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.

i repeat once again this has no relationship with reality and anything pinky hops says about the law should never be considered to have any connection with any real law except through sheer luck

(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)

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#69 - 2014-02-13 20:08:46 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Nairb Hig wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

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.

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


anything Weaselior posts abut law has no relationship with reality. any similarities are merely coincidental.

be warned.
Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2014-02-13 20:14:53 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Klyith wrote:
[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.

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

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.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#71 - 2014-02-13 20:17:23 UTC
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 ,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)


Minor correction there; Electus Matari only officially disbanded as of Feb. 2014 and the executor corp and one corp are still in the alliance.

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.

Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2014-02-13 20:18:29 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
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?

A great example.

In that case, let's assume the person who submitted the image to CCP was not the owner of the copyright. So if it ever went to court, the real owner (Team Liquid) would be able to enforce their IP against CCP since the eula transfer was completely invalid. CCP would then try to pass along all damages to the person that gave them the image, or add them into the lawsuit directly. That's what section 5. INDEMNIFICATION is about.




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.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2014-02-13 20:18:33 UTC
Zappity wrote:

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.

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).

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#74 - 2014-02-13 20:19:29 UTC
Ortho Loess wrote:
Quote:
CCP’s 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.


The same sentence popped up in my radar, explanation very much wanted.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.

Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2014-02-13 20:20:48 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
Avalloc wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.


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

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!


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.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2014-02-13 20:22:49 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Ortho Loess wrote:
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.


Prepare to have your logo removed from EVE.

This seems to be the only recourse CCP has allowed for.


If CCP wants to remove a logo that is arguably the best branding of an in-game entity they've ever had and widely circulated which in turn brings people to their game then that's their call.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-02-13 20:23:25 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
(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


...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.

Weaselior wrote:
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)


Only somebody who is broke-as-**** or otherwise incredibly insecure about their own personal finances would talk this way to a random stranger on the internet.

Pretty sad, dude.
Juliette Asanari
Voodoo Children
#78 - 2014-02-13 20:26:21 UTC
Klyith wrote:


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.


There are jurisdictions where you cannot transfer ownership of IP (e.g. Germany, where the only way would be inheritance). You can only give exclusive rights for usage of that IP. But your point stands :)
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#79 - 2014-02-13 20:27:51 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:

...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.

as everyone probably has figured out by now: under no circumstances should you rely on pinky's idea of what fair use is

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Don Aubaris
#80 - 2014-02-13 20:28:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Don Aubaris
This is a rather greedy stance that CCP takes...

While I can understand 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 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?