These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Okay, so, seriously.

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#101 - 2015-01-26 19:47:56 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Ad-homs galore.
Nobody cares to address the issue anymore, so now they're saying that I'm acting like a child in a sad attempt to discredit me. It won't work.


That's because we already know it will either CCP's way of handling it or the highway for anybody not willing to fit in CCP's systems. At the end of the day, they will make the rule and you will be free to not submit anything if you are not willing to abide by the rule of the system they want to use.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#102 - 2015-01-26 19:49:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Primary This Rifter
No, for those of us who already have logos in the game its either "abide by the new rule and have your logo defaced or get it ripped out of the game."

It's really not much of a choice.
Dradis Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2015-01-26 19:54:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dradis Aulmais
I wipe my hands of you. There's a shinny ship I need to "inspect" he seems to have a hull breach that has to be made larger.

No doubt you will claim a great victory here

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#104 - 2015-01-26 19:58:17 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
No, for those of us who already have logos in the game its either "abide by the new rule or get your logo ripped out of the game."

It's really not much of a choice.


It's still 2 rather meaningful options. From your point of view, only one is acceptable and I understand that but CCP decides what they want from the system. Even if any player was to provide a golden diamond incrusted solution to the issue, they can still say no and there is nothing we can do about it beside not embarking into this system. They pull the strings at the end of the day and that is what will matter at the end of it.

They are probably seeing it as much less of an issue if they own everything so they can use it as they see fit and permit whoever as they see fit than have to get a permission and then wander around in many many many many many different country copyright laws system in case there is some small partially hidden implication that could be used against them that would have to be covered in a separate way by contracts because we both know copyrights law differ from one country to another and contract are never really "layer bullet proof".
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#105 - 2015-01-26 20:14:10 UTC
Under the old system (where CCP had no ownership) there was NEVER any problem. Nobody filed suit against them over use of their logos. CCP's approach is nothing but paranoia. If we instead issued them the licenses as described there'd be even less of a chance of someone taking them to court. No player group has the resources to file frivolous lawsuits in the face of irrevocable, unlimIted licenses to use on the basis of some hidden loophole. The idea that this is at all likely to happen is absurd.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#106 - 2015-01-26 20:26:07 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Under the old system (where CCP had no ownership) there was NEVER any problem. Nobody filed suit against them over use of their logos. CCP's approach is nothing but paranoia. If we instead issued them the licenses as described there'd be even less of a chance of someone taking them to court. No player group has the resources to file frivolous lawsuits in the face of irrevocable, unlimIted licenses to use on the basis of some hidden loophole. The idea that this is at all likely to happen is absurd.


The idea of McDonald getting sued over some tard burning himself by spilling her coffee on her lap and yet, it happened in a country CCP has to deal with.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#107 - 2015-01-26 20:34:26 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Under the old system (where CCP had no ownership) there was NEVER any problem. Nobody filed suit against them over use of their logos. CCP's approach is nothing but paranoia. If we instead issued them the licenses as described there'd be even less of a chance of someone taking them to court. No player group has the resources to file frivolous lawsuits in the face of irrevocable, unlimIted licenses to use on the basis of some hidden loophole. The idea that this is at all likely to happen is absurd.


The idea of McDonald getting sued over some tard burning himself by spilling her coffee on her lap and yet, it happened in a country CCP has to deal with.



you do realize that law suit was more complicated then that right?

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#108 - 2015-01-26 20:43:14 UTC
DaReaper wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Under the old system (where CCP had no ownership) there was NEVER any problem. Nobody filed suit against them over use of their logos. CCP's approach is nothing but paranoia. If we instead issued them the licenses as described there'd be even less of a chance of someone taking them to court. No player group has the resources to file frivolous lawsuits in the face of irrevocable, unlimIted licenses to use on the basis of some hidden loophole. The idea that this is at all likely to happen is absurd.


The idea of McDonald getting sued over some tard burning himself by spilling her coffee on her lap and yet, it happened in a country CCP has to deal with.



you do realize that law suit was more complicated then that right?


It's still stupid to sue over dropping a hot liquid over yourself. If the employee had dropped the coffee int eh car, it would not be frivolous but FFS she spilled it herself.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#109 - 2015-01-26 20:44:25 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Under the old system (where CCP had no ownership) there was NEVER any problem. Nobody filed suit against them over use of their logos. CCP's approach is nothing but paranoia. If we instead issued them the licenses as described there'd be even less of a chance of someone taking them to court. No player group has the resources to file frivolous lawsuits in the face of irrevocable, unlimIted licenses to use on the basis of some hidden loophole. The idea that this is at all likely to happen is absurd.



That's actually not true. There was a post a while ago about how someone did put up copy written stuff and when ccp wanted to use it for something they got a Cease and Desist letter. So yes, i'm sure its happened before. And they were not expanding to comics, tv show, and other platforms where not having ownership might be an issue

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Leliana Cami Cotte
Daylight's Burning
#110 - 2015-01-26 20:58:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Leliana Cami Cotte
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP does not need ownership of the alliance logos in the game. All they need is an irrevocable, unconditional license to use.


Can't believe I'm going to reference this but that's what they did at wordpress.com:

(After 2 years of asking for such a document)

Quote:
By submitting Content to Automattic for inclusion on your Website, you grant Automattic a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your blog. This license allows Automattic to make publicly-posted content available to third parties selected by Automattic (through the Automattic Firehose, for example) so that these third parties can analyze and distribute (but not publicly display) your content through their services.


Forgive me for not giving a link. I don't link to known hate sites.

Lookie, I found where to edit my Signature!
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#111 - 2015-01-26 21:04:59 UTC  |  Edited by: DaReaper
Frostys Virpio wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Under the old system (where CCP had no ownership) there was NEVER any problem. Nobody filed suit against them over use of their logos. CCP's approach is nothing but paranoia. If we instead issued them the licenses as described there'd be even less of a chance of someone taking them to court. No player group has the resources to file frivolous lawsuits in the face of irrevocable, unlimIted licenses to use on the basis of some hidden loophole. The idea that this is at all likely to happen is absurd.


The idea of McDonald getting sued over some tard burning himself by spilling her coffee on her lap and yet, it happened in a country CCP has to deal with.



you do realize that law suit was more complicated then that right?


It's still stupid to sue over dropping a hot liquid over yourself. If the employee had dropped the coffee int eh car, it would not be frivolous but FFS she spilled it herself.



Sigh... she was parked, the employee did not put the lid on correctly and the heat from the coffee gave the woman third degree burns and something like a year worth of surgeries.

The mcdonalds was found negligent because to cut corners that heated there coffee WAY hotter then it needed to be so they could shut off the coffee pot and let it cool longer thus saving power money.

That's why they lost.

I would think when you have bought coffee and spilt it you would get a mild burn.. but never expected to have 3rd degree over a large portion on your lap. Stop and think about that for a min.

Still think it was frivolous?

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#112 - 2015-01-26 21:16:36 UTC
DaReaper wrote:



Sigh... she was parked, the employee did not put the lid on correctly and the heat from the coffee gave the woman third degree burns and something like a year worth of surgeries.

The mcdonalds was found negligent because to cut corners that heated there coffee WAY hotter then it needed to be so they could shut off the coffee pot and let it cool longer thus saving power money.

That's why they lost.

I would think when you have bought coffee and spilt it you would get a mild burn.. but never expected to have 3rd degree over a large portion on your lap. Stop and think about that for a min.

Still think it was frivolous?


Yes but I won't push it since it's way off topic.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#113 - 2015-01-26 21:22:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ima Wreckyou
I am sure there is a Creative Commons licence which addresses exactly this issue. CCP and the rest of the gaming industry are not the first people with this problems and there are solutions for that.

It's basically the same problem with presentations (if they are about your company or your product) and pictures from the internet. So if they did not solve this issue already there, does that mean all their Fanfest presentations contain stolen pictures for which they have no license?

Edit:
Also, if the issue for the submission suspension is really only a legal one, how come they did not immediately remove the already existing alliance logos out of the same legal considerations?

Evil RatKid
Genevieve Bluecoat
The Good Place
#114 - 2015-01-26 21:43:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Genevieve Bluecoat
Primary This Rifter wrote:
No, for those of us who already have logos in the game its either "abide by the new rule and have your logo defaced or get it ripped out of the game."

It's really not much of a choice.


And some of us have already pointed out examples where the current CCP system already exposes them to IP infringement liability and where their willingness to do something for players has not been properly thought through as to its logical (and legal) consequences.

As already noted in my humorous, but factually accurate, previous post.

The Triumvirate logo is a case in point. This logo is a direct and obvious image belonging to (not just the IP of but actually stolen artwork if I am correct in how it appears), Games Workshop. Games Workshop are UK a company notoriously pro-active in defending their IP and actively litigious historically. The blatant use of their artwork is but one example of many as to how the current system cannot work and is a massive legal risk for CCP. It's worth noting that they are, by nature of their business also at the leading edge of UK IP law and while they often use strong arm tactics to acheive their aims, they do know the law and have successfully dealt with many such infringements, including with other computer games developers.

This is just one example, there are others, but it merely illiustrates a point. The art team or community team for CCP will not and cannot recognise every single example of IP infringement submitted by their playerbase. While that use is non-commercial the cover-all EULA of "you must own the rights to the image before uploading" is reasonable, when it comes to CCP potentially using it in artwork, publications and other means of actually earning money, they must be seen to do the proper due diligence and this is not acceptable. The effort and risks to CCP thus increase accordingly.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#115 - 2015-01-26 21:49:03 UTC
Genevieve Bluecoat wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
No, for those of us who already have logos in the game its either "abide by the new rule and have your logo defaced or get it ripped out of the game."

It's really not much of a choice.


And some of us have already pointed out examples where the current CCP system already exposes them to IP infringement liability and where their willingness to do something for players has not been properly thought through as to its logical (and legal) consequences.

As already noted in my humorous, but factually accurate, previous post.

The Triumvirate logo is a case in point. This logo is a direct and obvious image belonging to (not just the IP of but actually stolen artwork if I am correct in how it appears), Games Workshop. Games Workshop are UK a company notoriously pro-active in defending their IP and actively litigious historically. The blatant use of their artwork is but one example of many as to how the current system cannot work and is a massive legal risk for CCP. It's worth noting that they are, by nature of their business also at the leading edge of UK IP law and while they often use strong arm tactics to acheive their aims, they do know the law and have successfully dealt with many such infringements, including with other computer games developers.

This is just one example, there are others, but it merely illiustrates a point. The art team or community team for CCP will not and cannot recognise every single example of IP infringement submitted by their playerbase. While that use is non-commercial the cover-all EULA of "you must own the rights to the image before uploading" is reasonable, when it comes to CCP potentially using it in artwork, publications and other means of actually earning money, they must be seen to do the proper due diligence and this is not acceptable. The effort and risks to CCP thus increase accordingly.

None of CCP's proposals protect them in this scenario.
Genevieve Bluecoat
The Good Place
#116 - 2015-01-26 21:56:11 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:

None of CCP's proposals protect them in this scenario.


The proposal to give players tools in the same manner as corp logos does this far better than most, because it would be extremely difficult to produce a custom IP protected image when using generic symbols and it is much easier to argue that the use of generic symbols in conjunction with one another created such a situation co-incidentally and for which IP would be much harder to claim due to the use of something generally in use rather than specifically designed.

Nothing is entirely foolproof, given some of the images some companies have claimed IP for, but th wholesale upload of images on an "honour" based honesty system with little or no oversight is foolhardy in the extreme and should be recognised as such.

Does it suck to change? As a player, yes.

Do I prefer CCP to get sued? As a player, no.
Grivan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#117 - 2015-01-26 22:05:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Grivan
I have followed various of these threads, particularly the long running one following the dev blog. I'm not entirely sure what we are arguing about any more.

Originally CCP said they had to own all the content packaged in the their game, people pointed out that with regard to logos this is technically impossible or difficult (the German copyright law, for example). CCP have taken that away and come back with this proposal - correct me if I have mis-understood this:

A player creates a logo, they own this logo. They upload the logo, CCP modifies it (watermark, border, kangaroo, whatever) and they own this derivative work. The derivative is used within the game and all official CCP shebang. The original artist is free to use their original logo as they like (or to use the derivative, I imagine). One question raised was if the ownership of the original and the derivative are truly separate? As in, if you agree to, can you give your original to someone else, they make a change and they now have full ownership of that? Because, if not, that leaves us back at square one with the copyright laws being in the way.

Assuming that the above is correct and legal, then what are we arguing about? The fact that the in-game version has to be modified in some way? 1) We don't know what this will look like yet, so shouting and screaming is unlikely to do very much right now and 2) CCP want their game, tv series, website, comics, sauna's, moonbase to look cool - they won't uglify the logo's and then plaster them all over the internet.

A nifty little 'CONCORD' border on all logos (mandatory by intergalactic law for all custom vessels) could be used. Might even make the logo's look cooler.

We're now just waiting on the art team finalising the technical specs of the logos.

That's my understanding, can someone correct me and point out on which bit we're arguing/annoyed about? It seems pretty reasonable to me, you see - and I was waving my pitchfork with everyone else when they went for the landgrab originally.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2015-01-26 23:13:33 UTC
Grivan wrote:
That's my understanding, can someone correct me and point out on which bit we're arguing/annoyed about? It seems pretty reasonable to me, you see - and I was waving my pitchfork with everyone else when they went for the landgrab originally.
Indeed it's a reasonable compromise, depending on how they'll define it exactly.

I can picture the art team showing the laywers an alliance logo with 'EVE ONLINE' smeared all over it in huge letters, and the lawyers saying 'nah, that won't work, we can still see some of the origial logo in-between the letters!!!'.

Still, if you put aside all the legal crap for a moment, it does seem a bit silly, no?


Also, I disagree with people saying 'it's CCP's game - HTFU or GTFO'. That's an excellent argument for a single special snowflake that doesn't like, say, a game mechanic, but it's simply not true in the case of alliances.

Large groups of players bring their own unique identity, culture and creativity to the game. EVE wouldn't be such a rich virtual world without all these Communities enriching everybody's game with the stories and content that they bring.

A logo is a symbol of all that, CCP should certainly not dismiss the issue lightly (as some seem to suggest).

Thankfully, they're not - though I hope it won't take another year.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#119 - 2015-01-27 00:31:46 UTC
Even SOE handles this better... come on CCP.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#120 - 2015-01-27 00:36:53 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
Even SOE handles this better... come on CCP.


Really?

"Any and all User Content submitted (e.g., by uploading or transmitting) to SOE shall be deemed, and shall remain, the property of SOE and/or its Third Party Providers from the moment of uploading or transmission. Accordingly, SOE shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing copyrights and all other intellectual property rights to all User Content of every kind and nature, in perpetuity, throughout the universe "