These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2014-02-13 20:30:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius JOHNSON
Don Aubaris wrote:
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?


Hi I'm CCP I want to have my cake (the great stories that thousands of people spent a kajillion hours to create) and eat it too (own their work). Fortunately most people with the organizational capacity and intelligence to do anything that grand aren't dumb enough to tell CCP anything more than to get stuffed, so CCP doesn't actually own any of this work they're just stomping their feet demanding they do.

That they chose to do this in the midst of the Candy Crush thing just shows how great their timing is.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#82 - 2014-02-13 20:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Don Aubaris wrote:

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?

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

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2014-02-13 20:34:07 UTC
Darius JOHNSON wrote:

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.

Do we actually own it though? The bee itself was a piece of clipart that we have a license for, but not ownership. We put the helmet on it, but which actual goon back in 2006 was responsible for it?


"He alone, who owns fatbee, owns goonswarm."
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-02-13 20:34:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Weaselior wrote:
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


That's right, you should look it up!

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/fair-use-logos-2152.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

Critical point:
Quote:
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.

Parody would also work.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2014-02-13 20:36:35 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:

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.

Do we actually own it though? The bee itself was a piece of clipart that we have a license for, but not ownership. We put the helmet on it, but which actual goon back in 2006 was responsible for it?


"He alone, who owns fatbee, owns goonswarm."


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.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2014-02-13 20:37:43 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
And this is just one of several pieces that could easily be adapted to the Alice/Bob scenario.

this should be self-evident to everyone who read the quote and noted how narrow the decision was (and that it clearly doesn't apply to any of pinky's examples) but under no circumstances should you rely on pinky's interpretation of that principle

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2014-02-13 20:38:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Darius JOHNSON wrote:

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 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 (the goonswarm fatbee) to which goonswarm inc. holds the copyright

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#88 - 2014-02-13 20:39:13 UTC
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.

That isn't an option CCP has currently provided based on that dev blog. It sounded more like "we're taking the IP, if you have a problem with us taking your IP, remove it from the game." The exact line was:

Quote:
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.
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2014-02-13 20:39:31 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:

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
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#90 - 2014-02-13 20:43:10 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:

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


...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.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2014-02-13 20:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius JOHNSON
Pinky Hops wrote:
Klyith wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:

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


...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.


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)
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#92 - 2014-02-13 20:50:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
Pinky Hops wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
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


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.

Pinky, the reality is that if you made a movie with a Coca Cola can in it without their permission, Coca Cola might sue you. It wouldn't matter whether or not they would win in the long run, they would sue you. They would drag it out in court for years. You would become financially bankrupt in the process. Because they can. Because they want control of the presentation of their product and they can destroy you if you disagree. They can drown you in legal motions until you submit. That's all there is to it.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#93 - 2014-02-13 20:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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 shop and sold them in your online store, do you really think CCP is going to sue you? Over Goonswarm shirts?

(Let's assume they don't have the CCP or EVE logo on them, shall we? Roll )

Horrible publicity. It just wouldn't happen.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#94 - 2014-02-13 20:53:18 UTC
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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)

well you'd have to check exactly what the terms were when the logo was submitted the first and second time and i suspect nobody paid great attention to the fine print there

but even if it said ccp owned fatbee in that fine print it didn't work

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2014-02-13 20:53:59 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.


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.
HVAC Repairman
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2014-02-13 20:54:21 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Anomaly One wrote:
Quote:
(including selling “Alliance logo” merchandise to help fund the costs of running an Alliance)


err what ?


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

efb.


its a good thing goonswarm has a non-functioning killboard, that might put us over the edge with our bills

Follow me on twitter
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2014-02-13 20:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Klyith
Pinky Hops wrote:

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

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:

Quote:
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.


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.



VVV edit: well yeah but Pinky Hops seems unclear on the subject
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2014-02-13 20:58:35 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:

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

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:

Quote:
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.


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.


Well they could if their juvenile attempts at claiming ownership were actually valid. In the really real world they can't do **** and just made a giant thread about nothing.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2014-02-13 20:59:03 UTC
i am starting to discover a love for my new favorite ccpism, the Clarification(TM)

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
HVAC Repairman
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2014-02-13 21:03:56 UTC
if you try to take my fatbee shirt away from me there will be repercussions

Follow me on twitter