These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2014-02-13 21:07:16 UTC
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
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2014-02-13 21:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Darius JOHNSON wrote:
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.


I agree with your rage and your principle.

If it were me in charge of Goonswarm IP, I would replace the alliance logo with a yellow circle and give CCP the big middle finger.

It's not like Goonswarm doesn't have a brand outside of EVE anyways. Isn't a "Goon" a SA poster?
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2014-02-13 21:11:02 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
i am starting to discover a love for my new favorite ccpism, the Clarification(TM)

It seems some players were confused whether they were subscribing for $14.99 / 1month or $38.99 / 3months. We have Clarified(TM) that everyone will now be billed $150 / 12months.


I wonder if CCP pink slips have the headline Clarification On Your Employment?

HVAC Repairman wrote:
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

Duncebee never forget.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#104 - 2014-02-13 21:25:00 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
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).

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.

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

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#105 - 2014-02-13 21:33:56 UTC
Zappity wrote:

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.

It was absolutely a "metaphysical discussion about rights" that you jumped into the middle of. Next time be more careful about distinguishing between a discussion of legal rights, and the application in the real world (both were occuring) and we won't need to waste time clarifying the discussion for you.

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

Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#106 - 2014-02-13 21:34:26 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
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).

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.

Because no one likes paying for lawyers. They tend to be expensive.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2014-02-13 21:34:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius JOHNSON
Zappity wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
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).

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.


The company or person receiving any kind of C&D decides what to do with it themselves. In this case CCP is claiming ownership of things they don't own, which hilariously enough, were the Goonswarm logo to be part of any takedown like a DMCA would mean they've likely perjured themselves as they have to declare ownership of the material to be taken down. C&D compliance is voluntary. I find it hard to believe that Cafepress all on its lonesome took down alliance logo gear though but rather received some wording from CCP that was as overly broad as the statement here and crapped themselves and pulled down everything. That OR CCP SAID they owned said logos, falsely, and Cafepress merely complied with the C&D. Since we've not seen it nobody knows.
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#108 - 2014-02-13 21:36:25 UTC
actually i redact all my previous statements, please sue all trademark infringements that goonfleet dot com has recklessly allowed the past several years

starting with remedial. and really you can just end there
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#109 - 2014-02-13 21:41:50 UTC
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's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#110 - 2014-02-13 21:48:54 UTC
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.

the question you're asking in this post is not the question you're interested in per your other posts

the answer to the question you're asking in your other posts is that 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

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

Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2014-02-13 21:50:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius JOHNSON
Weaselior 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.

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


Except that in this case we could simply prove to Cafepress that we own the logo because we do. We and Cafepress would then have a potential issue with sorting out any potential damages related to CCP's false claims of ownership. What CCP is doing here is granting a license to share with Cafepress for content CCP doesn't own which in and of itself is pretty hilarious.

Cafepress could still decide not to do business with us because CCP could continue threatening them and they're bigger than we are in their own minds - See: Candy Crush Saga in the recent news.

:edit: Countdown to CCP buying a game with the words "goon" or "swarm" in it with a bee for cover are that predates the forming of Goonswarm and threatening to sue for prior art a la King
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#112 - 2014-02-13 21:54:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
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.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#113 - 2014-02-13 22:04:49 UTC
interestingly the licence agreement doesn't purport to give you the right to use (your own) IP out of game for things like your alliance's website or killboard, just the merch

so you'd have to ask nicely to have your own logo on your own killboard or internal forums

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

Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#114 - 2014-02-13 22:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
EULA circa 2006

11. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
B. Rights to Certain Content
Quote:
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).


Obviously, that would be an interesting court case if anyone ever decided to contest that clause. But, as we've already pointed out about real world versus law book world, that would be highly unlikely to happen.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2014-02-13 22:12:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius JOHNSON
Bagehi wrote:
EULA circa 2006

11. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
B. Rights to Certain Content
Quote:
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).


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
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#116 - 2014-02-13 22:18:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Darius JOHNSON wrote:

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.

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

Darius JOHNSON wrote:

: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


that is true though: you can't convey IP by the EULA because it violates laws on requiring a writing to transfer ip, but there's no similar requirement for a licence

it's not you have no power to convey the copyright if you jump through the right legal hoops, it's that the EULA's attempt to do so fails

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

Ortho Loess
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#117 - 2014-02-13 22:20:16 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
EULA circa 2006

Obviously, that would be an interesting court case if anyone ever decided to contest that clause.


Just ran a quick diff, the only change to current is replacing sublicensable with sub-licensable

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.

The new license doesn't affect anyone until they accept it. (new submissions will be forced to)

There is no way VOLT would willingly accept this agreement.

I would happily grant a royalty free, permanent, non-exclusive license. In fact we already have by releasing under Creative Commons. We still have the one that was emailed to CCP, we'd even be ok with giving them an exclusive license to that one, since the odd submission requirements made for a crappy looking file. They've not responded to the offer yet.
Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2014-02-13 22:22:00 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Darius JOHNSON wrote:

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.

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.
JustSharkbait
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Dock Workers
#119 - 2014-02-13 22:24:39 UTC  |  Edited by: JustSharkbait
CCP just wants to make as much money as they can off of all the IP contained in their game. For example, if at some point CCP wanted to be able to sell alliance merchandise themselves then they would need the legal right too.

Since it is used so much, let us use Goonswarm. If CCP eventually wants to sell GSF logo shirts as another way to make money they would need rights to do. They would also need the ability to tell GSF to stop providing items for sell using the name/logo. Then, CCP could open an "alliance merchandise shop" and sell custom stuff with alliance logos while preventing anyone else from doing so.

GREAT WORK CCP. While it is nice that we are allowed to create in-game logo's and names, CCP most certainly does NOT own my character name or any group names i create and I use them in other games and media and own registered domains with them as well.

Now, for marketing purposes they can use what they want to promote their game, as long as it comes from within the game, but if they were to ever make a show or comic, etc, they would still have to get the permission of those involved to feature them/their group in a show/movie.

For example, I don't think they can make a movie called "GOONS VS NCDOT" without getting both parties permission to feature them in a medium that is not within the game itself. So even if their cute little EULA meant something in the long rung, they still would have issues from other areas, not just a logo. However, if they made an EVE promotional video and featured real groups, then they would be able to do that.

If all games tried to be this picky about IP stuff then there would be no branding and we would have to use different names in ever game we play. That is BS and not conducive to a good gaming experience.

Regardless of whether my examples work, this just seems like CCP is saying "we have more money then you, so if you disagree COME AT ME BRO". that is just sad. CCP are griefers. LOL.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2014-02-13 22:31:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
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!

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