These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#141 - 2014-02-14 01:11:01 UTC
Also, whats even more of a joke is the claim to own corporation and alliance names. There's no submission process or license agreement for that, and we all know there are thousands of such names that are unquestionably the IP/trademark or whatever of a third party completely unaffiliated with any Eve player or CCP.

"**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.

GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#142 - 2014-02-14 01:24:35 UTC
Snap eve got serious...
Findell Ronuken
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2014-02-14 01:27:11 UTC
This was a terrible clarification much like your last patch was a terrible patch. I hope you release 3 or 4 updates to it next week to make it sensible just like the patch.
Drakonium
Sublime Tactic
#144 - 2014-02-14 01:34:13 UTC
I'm a little concerned by what I'm reading. I've created characters and corp names based on names that have personal meaning to me outside of Eve. I've used these names on other games and things outside from Eve. In fact, this year I started an LLC (a real company) which is named after one of my online characters. Of course, *my* names have no affiliation to CCP whatsoever and make no references about the game at all. The only link (if you want to call it that) is that they share the character/corp name.

My question is where do I stand on this? Am I violating CCP rules?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2014-02-14 01:46:05 UTC
The question is not "am I breaking CCP's rules", it's "is CCP breaking the law?"

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#146 - 2014-02-14 05:23:32 UTC
Meanwhile I'm just busily laughing my ass off over the whole situation.

EVE is a game that encourages militant viciousness that extends out of the game. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't more registered lawyers per head of population in EVE than any other MMO. Goonswarm alone has had 2 lawyers as CEOs. I'd like to say I'm surprised that CCP didn't see this coming, but I can't because myopia seems to be part of the corporate DNA.

I did know that the Fatbee logo was registered, but I didn't realise that Goonswarm was incorporated.

EVE is real alirght. Lol

Whole Squid: Get Inked.

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#147 - 2014-02-14 05:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
This is literally the dumbest thing CCP has ever tried, so I'm not going to bother making a serious post. When you had the walls painted at CCP HQ, was the paint made from random forest mushrooms?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#148 - 2014-02-14 05:53:53 UTC
I love how people keep talking about US law or German law or {COUNTRY_NAME} law.
You seem to be forgetting an important part: CCP Hf. is a company in Iceland subject to Iceland law.

I'm not saying this seems to be a good move, but your arguments why aren't very sound. I should also note, most of you aren't lawyers anyways.
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#149 - 2014-02-14 05:58:47 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:
I love how people keep talking about US law or German law or {COUNTRY_NAME} law.
You seem to be forgetting an important part: CCP Hf. is a company in Iceland subject to Iceland law.

I'm not saying this seems to be a good move, but your arguments why aren't very sound. I should also note, most of you aren't lawyers anyways.



TheMittani is. I'm sure amongst the 37000 odd CFC members we could scrounge up a couple more.

Whole Squid: Get Inked.

Desimus Maximus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#150 - 2014-02-14 06:01:23 UTC
If anyone wants a professional design, contact me in-game. I do this @#$% for a living, 7 years now.

I've done stuff for many in-game corps. Example: http://www.pushx.net/ (only the logo up top.. I do not take credit for the rest of the bad web design.)

Of course ISK is always welcome in return. :)
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#151 - 2014-02-14 06:14:15 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:
I love how people keep talking about US law or German law or {COUNTRY_NAME} law.
You seem to be forgetting an important part: CCP Hf. is a company in Iceland subject to Iceland law.

I'm not saying this seems to be a good move, but your arguments why aren't very sound. I should also note, most of you aren't lawyers anyways.


you're also forgetting that the majority of the alliance logos in the game weren't created by Icelanders

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#152 - 2014-02-14 06:15:09 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:
I love how people keep talking about US law or German law or {COUNTRY_NAME} law.
You seem to be forgetting an important part: CCP Hf. is a company in Iceland subject to Iceland law.

And the people who hold the copyrights for their alliance logos are subject to the laws of their country.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Darius JOHNSON
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#153 - 2014-02-14 06:17:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius JOHNSON
Xindi Kraid wrote:
I love how people keep talking about US law or German law or {COUNTRY_NAME} law.
You seem to be forgetting an important part: CCP Hf. is a company in Iceland subject to Iceland law.

I'm not saying this seems to be a good move, but your arguments why aren't very sound. I should also note, most of you aren't lawyers anyways.


You have no idea who is or isn't a lawyer in this thread aside from myself potentially and it's already been explained that Icelandic copyright law means precisely **** in this situation. Cool post though I guess if by cool post I mean you may as well have just said nothing as the content would be identical.

:edit: Also "HOW DO I INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS" "WHAT IS THE EU ECONOMIC ZONE" just read something before you open your mouth and humiliate yourself with your ignorance
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2014-02-14 07:02:27 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
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

this.

Imagine an author writes a book. Before publishing anything he creates two versions of his manuscript that only differ very slightly (maybe he replaces "which" with "that" in a few places, nothing substantial changes).
One version he sells to his publisher (whom he transfers the copyright or gives an exclusive license) but he doesn't mention the existence of the other version to the publisher at all.
Before the sold version can arrive in stores he self-publishes the second version putting it under CC.
The publisher is sol because all both versions contain slight differences and he only owns the copyright/has an exclusive license to one version but not to the other. The author pockets the flat fee he has negotiated and the public rejoices reading the CC version instead of buying anything from the publisher.

This seems to be what VOLT is doing and imho there is no way it can be legal.

.

Ortho Loess
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#155 - 2014-02-14 07:09:04 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
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

this.

Imagine an author writes a book. Before publishing anything he creates two versions of his manuscript that only differ very slightly (maybe he replaces "which" with "that" in a few places, nothing substantial changes).
One version he sells to his publisher (whom he transfers the copyright or gives an exclusive license) but he doesn't mention the existence of the other version to the publisher at all.
Before the sold version can arrive in stores he self-publishes the second version putting it under CC.
The publisher is sol because all both versions contain slight differences and he only owns the copyright/has an exclusive license to one version but not to the other. The author pockets the flat fee he has negotiated and the public rejoices reading the CC version instead of buying anything from the publisher.

This seems to be what VOLT is doing and imho there is no way it can be legal.


There was an article in the Economist recently about scientific journals enforcing the copyright that scientists sign over to them when submitting articles for publication. Several scientists have been ordered by the publishers to take down the copies of their articles they had on their websites, as they had granted an exclusive license to said publisher.

It was specifically stated in the article, and admitted by the publishers involved, that this ONLY applied to the final version as submitted. They were perfectly within their rights to use any prior versions as they saw fit.

Obviously the situations are not identical, but clearly closely related.

It is important that the version submitted to CCP was a derivative of the one we use, not the other way around.

I'm sure that book publishers include provisions in the contracts to guard against the situation you describe. The EULA contains nothing of the sort.
Tuttomenui II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2014-02-14 07:28:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tuttomenui II
I would prefer CCP changed the wording and only claimed a license, it is just ridiculous to try to claim ownership. It is over kill and really uncalled for.

Vera Algaert wrote:


Imagine an author writes a book. Before publishing anything he creates two versions of his manuscript that only differ very slightly (maybe he replaces "which" with "that" in a few places, nothing substantial changes).
One version he sells to his publisher (whom he transfers the copyright or gives an exclusive license) but he doesn't mention the existence of the other version to the publisher at all.
Before the sold version can arrive in stores he self-publishes the second version putting it under CC.
The publisher is sol because all both versions contain slight differences and he only owns the copyright/has an exclusive license to one version but not to the other. The author pockets the flat fee he has negotiated and the public rejoices reading the CC version instead of buying anything from the publisher.

This seems to be what VOLT is doing and imho there is no way it can be legal.


The 2 situations are not the same. Usually a publishing company shares the copyright with the Author but holds a larger share of it because the way publishers do things. It is really a different situation.

It is better to liken it to paintings, you can buy an original one of a kind painting but that doesn't mean you also get the copyrights.
Unless it is a situation where the art was commissioned and the agreement states that the person commissioning the art controls the copyrights.

Now we can go to Books for a different angle in the area of ghost writing, a ghost writer is commissioned to write a book the person that commissions it hold the copyrights and then they can deal with the publishers themselves. Usually you provide short stories and character ideas and you work along side a ghost writer.

It all really comes down to how the contract is written up.

Read some employment contracts sometime. some of those stipulate that they are entitled to tips that exceed a certain number. They claim ownership of any of your work you do in your spare time at home, usually only works though if the work is related to what you do in the job or what the company you work for does business in.
Don Aubaris
#157 - 2014-02-14 07:39:10 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
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"


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


It's not because something is legit that it's right.


I can hardly wait on next press-release :

Eve Online moves into the real world.
Watch a replay of the Battle at the Bench
Over 400.000$ destroyed in lawyer fees.
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#158 - 2014-02-14 08:10:01 UTC
If you guys all withdraw your IP, CCP will have to make movies and shows about those that don't care....



Op Success. Spell our names right, CCP.

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#159 - 2014-02-14 08:19:53 UTC
Arkady Romanov wrote:


TheMittani is. I'm sure amongst the 37000 odd CFC members we could scrounge up a couple more.

Mittens hasn't posted here.

Darius JOHNSON wrote:
Xindi Kraid wrote:
I love how people keep talking about US law or German law or {COUNTRY_NAME} law.
You seem to be forgetting an important part: CCP Hf. is a company in Iceland subject to Iceland law.

I'm not saying this seems to be a good move, but your arguments why aren't very sound. I should also note, most of you aren't lawyers anyways.


You have no idea who is or isn't a lawyer in this thread aside from myself potentially and it's already been explained that Icelandic copyright law means precisely **** in this situation. Cool post though I guess if by cool post I mean you may as well have just said nothing as the content would be identical.

:edit: Also "HOW DO I INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS" "WHAT IS THE EU ECONOMIC ZONE" just read something before you open your mouth and humiliate yourself with your ignorance

Is being a gigantic douchebag a requirement for membership in goonswarm? If you're really worried about CCP having your IP, maybe you should change it to something more accurate like Assholes Anonymous, and not give CCP the name and logo.
===
You're right I don't know who is a lawyer, but I can be sure most of the people who post on these forums aren't, but are just blowing smoke out their ass. In fact one of the people I was referring to specifically state they weren't a lawyer, and I wasn't referring to your posts at all, and, again the posts I was referring to don't mention internationally recognized, just "Well I don't really know legalese but this one paragraph in my one country seems legit"

You could just read what I posted before stepping up to stroke your own self importance. If you wanna get mad why don't you get mad at ALL the ignorant posts.
CCP Falcon
#160 - 2014-02-14 08:26:45 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)


I randomly selected a group of logos from a folder I had on my computer and uploaded them to make the blog pretty.

No tinfoil required Smile

As for the questions that have come up in this thread, I'll see if we can get them answered for you buy legal over the weekend and early into next week Smile

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3