EVE Information Portal

Actually, I think it's a fair question - is CCP maintaining some kind of versioning on these so that a new submission that's rejected doesn't automatically remove an old logo that was approved? Or is this a one and done kind of thing, where once you have one that's accepted, no new ones will be approved?

No, everyone is justified because of bullshit like this.

What a load of hypocrisy that CCP won't allow this, but this and this are totally fine. Because they're "iconic"? Sounds like favoritism to me. Sounds like D20.

If CCP actually practiced what they preached:

and gave the players agency to express themselves within the EVE universe, now, that would be iconic.

Hi Falcon

First off, thanks for once again manning the fort while we all vent our collective spleens at you. I know its part of the job, but I get the impression that being a community manager must be a somewhat thankless task at times. So…. consider yourself thanked!

I’ve read through the various odds and ends (the dev blogs the csm minutes etc), and hurf-blurfing aside, there’s one point I really just can’t get my head round. In the CSM minutes you said:


While the first point seems a bit dubious, as it’d be relatively trivial to force people to either simultaneously issue a general purpose license (creative commons non-commercial or some-such) or to grant ccp the rights to re-license it in whatever you manner they saw fit. What I really don’t get though is the 2nd point, or rather why it isn’t also a barrier to the current plan of creating a derivative work. (Because you’d still need to obtain permission to create it)

I appreciate you’ve already said you’re not a lawyer, and that we should contact the legal department directly if we want to argue over semantics. As much fun as that might be, I think most people are just similarly struggling to grasp the rationale behind the decision rather than wanting to engage in petty one-upmanship.

All that said, at the end of the day its CCP’s bat and ball and it’s a bonus that you allow us to have our logos in your game under whatever terms you care to dictate. It would nevertheless be nice if someone from the legal department could be persuaded to make a post explaining the details of their thought process some more rather than making anyone who’s interested contact them individually.

Moving away from the barrack-room lawyering; Earlier in this thread Lena Lazair made an excellent suggestion about allowing alliances to use the regular corp logo creator. This really is a great idea, and I hope it gets picked up by the dev team as I think it’d go a long way towards alleviating the issues of smaller alliances who currently have the choice of padding their numbers of having nothing.

Since i’m already here writing this horrific wall of sperg… I might aswell toss in a terrible suggestion of my own.

You’ve said that in an ideal world ccp would own the copyright on the Images outright, but since that went down so badly the current solution has been devised as a compromise.
To my mind the basic problem people seemed to have with the idea of handing over the copyright is as much one of emotional ownership (having spent however long coming up with it) rather than being particularly interested in the technicalities of IP law.


…. So could CCP just remove that from the equation?

How about allowing alliances to buy a days’ worth of an artist’s time (paid for in plex), and CCP creating a logo for them out of whatever rough sketches / ideas they give you?
I’m no artist, but I’m assuming a day would be long enough to come up with something and make a couple of small revisions (…but they could always just buy another day if the alliance wants to faff about!). I’m also assuming that after the initial glut at launch, the demand would be low enough for it to serve as an amusing side project for your artists rather than a major distraction from their regular work …. but if they’re manically busy you could always just brief some sketch artist on the guidelines and farm the work out.

Along with the fringe benefit of some extra monetization, the main upshot from the company’s point of view would be that there then couldn’t be any argument about who owned it, as it would be CCP's property by default. (As an act of largess the company could still give people permission to put it on their website / t-shirts etc without having to worry about it appearing in other games).

From the players perspective it would transform the proposition from “ccp wants to borg my stuff” to “ccp has taken my crappy ms-paint scribble and turned it into this awesome thing”, which would be a great service to outfits without any perticularly artistic members. It would also have the benefit that by definition whatever was produced would fit the theme guidelines.

I'm sure there’s plenty of people who for one reason or another would still rather use their own logo, so If you wanted to really go nuts you could do it as a 3 tiered system that ought to keep everyone reasonably happy
• Corp logo creator by default
• The current plan with a watermark etc
• CCP makes you a logo for a fee (could also be open to smaller outfits, because money is money at the end of the day)

….. Although at this point I’m probably stretching a bad idea further than it’ll go, so I’ll shut the hell up now and go sperg at my corpmates instead.

what does isk have to do with logos? its already been explained as to why ccp need logos designed in a specific way, its not an issue its just people have to be a little more creative and follow a simple set of rules so the logo can be applied to ships, if ccp let anything go and your logo looked **** when on a ship then people would complain, i dont get the whole watermarking tbh but if thats what they want and the legal team says this is ok then im good with that

Unfortunately, thats exactly what most people are trying to do, engage in petty one-upmanship that has one end result - alliance logos getting removed altogether.


That's the problem, we collectively threw such a fit over the idea of letting CCP own "our" logos, that they had to find a compromise. As several people have said, the reason is obvious - CCP want to sell ship logos back to us, and for reasons that should be obvious, they cannot sell something to the people who already own it, they have to own the logo that goes on our ship. If they don't, some smart arse (pick the likely culprit from this thread) will pull a stunt to try and be clever, and "prove a point", and bang, we all lose alliance logos and ship logos. Thanks *******.


Heh heh, ask any Goon about "Not Fatbee". CCP went that route before, and the result was silly, to the point that many years later its still a running joke

Ultimately, end of the day, this is a mostly painless solution to everyone but a handful of asspained internet lawyers who just want to prove a point that their elawyer skills are better than CCPs. To the rest of us, "yaay, we are getting alliance logos back", and about bloody time, with a bonus of "yaay, maybe ship logos on the horizon". The only genuine gripe is the slightly silly guidelines (only real guidline should be nothing offensive, nothing that screws with the shipskin system), and the threat of existing logos getting rejected for asanine reasons.

To the asspained, stop trying to screw the rest of us.

Aralyn Cormallen.

He gets it.

Probably from the fact people keep asking leading questions intended to get some poor bastard at CCP to give an answer so you can pick it apart to prove yourselves right. Questions like:


I get it, you think this is enough. CCP don't, and on a scale of who has any say in CCP legal policy, you don't rate against their lawyer. Suck it up, and move on, because if CCP's lawyers don't think a certain way of doing it is going to protect them from a massive law suit, they are not going to say "but Natya Mebelle says it will, with absolutely no credentials in the proffession what so ever, so screw it, lets ignore the paid lawyer whose job it is to sort this out and listen to her, whats the worst that can happen".

And to think they would do otherwise is... a little egocentric

No, he gets the part where if we ***** and moan enough CCP will say screw it and give us a half assed alliance logo designer that looks very much like the half assed corporate logo designer we already have.

I'm not saying people don't have concerns, and I'm sure some of them are legitimate - especially since we're dealing with multiple nationalities, all with differeing IP laws. But pissing and moaning on the forums isn't going to do anything - we were told where to get answers - if you don't care enough to sit down and write an email, obviously it's not that big a deal to you.

*Note, not you specifically, Natya. You in general, as in all of us.

I did not create this list and am not maintaining it. But someone has begun documenting which Alliance logos have been denied here.
http://aether.space/ccp-denied/

There's also a page put together by Squizz (of zKb fame) cataloging current state alliance logos here.
http://logos.zzeve.com/

Reddit thread detailing the effort here.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/352s1a/did_your_logo_get_denied_tell_me_about_it/



All in all, this process seems completely arbitrary and the growing lists of approved versus unapproved logos smacks of some combination of favoritism and nepotism. Poor form on the part of CCP and their handling of this. Poor form indeed.