These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#121 - 2014-02-13 22:35:01 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:

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!


Oh I know completely what the intent here should be but that intent starts to look pretty damn different when ownership of something that you don't own is asserted and in this case that ownership assertion is CLARIFIED. I don't think anyone would have a problem with, as I think we've both said, allowing CCP a license to use such things for marketing materials (as they have) among other things. However when they're doing so or issuing C&D's on the basis of ownership they themselves are committing the bad act and then you have to start wondering why they feel they need to own something that they don't actually own or need to in order to continue doing business.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#122 - 2014-02-13 22:37:07 UTC
Anything that runs on my PC from now on is my property including all artwork, code, music or text of any kind and solely my property. Grats, the next time EVE launches I own it.
Huttan Funaila
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#123 - 2014-02-13 22:38:53 UTC
7-11 uses the fatbee on coffee syrup. Or the clipart that fatbee is based on. Or they're run by goonswarm. Grrr goons.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#124 - 2014-02-13 22:40:51 UTC
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

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
JustSharkbait
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2014-02-13 22:47:20 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
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


agree. I can understand they need some protections, but the rest is LOL.

don't sign anything.

Hoo Ha Ha!!
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#126 - 2014-02-13 22:47:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Huttan Funaila wrote:
7-11 uses the fatbee on coffee syrup. Or the clipart that fatbee is based on. Or they're run by goonswarm. Grrr goons.


http://www.fatbeeswag.com/index.php/

Quick CCP! SUE!!!

/popcorn

Their "about" page is funny.

Quote:
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
Logix42
Taxation Damnation
#127 - 2014-02-13 23:07:33 UTC
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?

Go beyond the edge of space... Explore
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#128 - 2014-02-13 23:11:47 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
i am starting to discover a love for my new favorite ccpism, the Clarification(TM)


Personally I'm awaiting the re-clarification of the re-wording of the re-clarification before I pass too much comment. Those have been the best recently.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#129 - 2014-02-13 23:26:23 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
Zappity wrote:
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.

Zappity wrote:
Third party rights for a company printing T-shirts? Licence is non-transferrable and can't sublicence so we would have to print ourselves.

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:

Quote:
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.


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.

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.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#130 - 2014-02-13 23:27:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Logix42 wrote:
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?

i'm actually a little fuzzy on this point but I don't believe a copyright I hold under US law can be transferred in violation of US law by icelandic contracts even if those can transfer an icelandic copyright and I believe icelandic law doesn't purport to govern foreign copyrights

so i'm pretty sure that they're governed by the law of the country it was created in

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2014-02-13 23:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius JOHNSON
Zappity wrote:
Bagehi wrote:
Zappity wrote:
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.

Zappity wrote:
Third party rights for a company printing T-shirts? Licence is non-transferrable and can't sublicence so we would have to print ourselves.

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:

Quote:
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.


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.

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.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#132 - 2014-02-13 23:40:46 UTC
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2014-02-13 23:49:07 UTC
Zappity wrote:

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.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#134 - 2014-02-13 23:51:24 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Zappity wrote:

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.


I've also already stated why thinking you could claim ownership of anything transferred over your servers is flat out dumb and legally unenforceable. CCP may as well use that paragraph for toilet paper if the intent is to gain ownership over IP, which nobody thought it was until someone wrote a dev blog today.
Uma D
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#135 - 2014-02-13 23:54:36 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.


§ 29
Rechtsgeschäfte über das Urheberrecht

(1) Das Urheberrecht ist nicht übertragbar, es sei denn, es wird in Erfüllung einer Verfügung von Todes wegen oder an Miterben im Wege der Erbauseinandersetzung übertragen.

(2) Zulässig sind die Einräumung von Nutzungsrechten (§ 31), schuldrechtliche Einwilligungen und Vereinbarungen zu Verwertungsrechten sowie die in § 39 geregelten Rechtsgeschäfte über Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte.

Translates to:

§ 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 (§ 31), debt legal consents and agreements on exploitation rights and the regulated in § 39 legal transactions on moral rights.


Which means... even if i wanted to i can not transfer the ownership of my intellectual property.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#136 - 2014-02-13 23:59:01 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.

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

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#137 - 2014-02-14 00:09:02 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.

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


As I had said as an example there'd be no reason otherwise that your ISP couldn't put the exact same wording in their EULA and claim ownership over any data that passed through THEIR systems on the internet, eventually owning the entire internet. That's how stupid this wording is.
Huttan Funaila
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#138 - 2014-02-14 00:21:00 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.

This sort of issue comes up in open source software projects. I, like all salaried programmers in the US, have a contract with my employer that gives them all the rights to my inventions even done outside of work and on my own time with my own tools (if you're salaried and you don't think you have such a thing, then you weren't paying attention to what you signed when you got hired). Anything I upload belongs to my employer, and no amount of EULA can change that. People can huff and puff and rant all they want, but nothing that I upload is something that belongs to me, therefore no clickwrap, no EULA, no "I agree" can change that. That's why I can't help with EveMon and can't write other apps to give away - they aren't my property to give away. I'm a digital sharecropper, massah owns it, not me, not you, not CCP.

This is the state of copyright law in the US as it collides with employment law. And it is one legacy of section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 - that it is very hard for professionals like engineers and programmers to be real contractors (this section removed the "safe harbor" provisions for these categories of workers). So while "contracting" is a big thing, and lots of programmers are called "contractors", they're really W2 employees of the contracting agency (very few set up their own LLC in order to be a real contractor).

Sample:
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node=Professional%20Employees%20and%20Works%20for%20Hire
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#139 - 2014-02-14 00:58:42 UTC
Nice devblog, but its not very convincing. CCP is receiving a license to use the submitted IP, not the other way around. Calling it like it is would just be too much of a hassle for the legal office, which is a sad reality.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#140 - 2014-02-14 01:01:49 UTC
Ortho Loess wrote:
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.

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