"Copyright Infringement" Clarification
thedovahmon
✭✭✭✭
So one of the rules in the community guidelines reads:
Copyright Infringement: Names and Material: We do not allow copyright-protected names on our forums. Copyright-protected names are typically from well-known original characters in books, games, and movies. We also do not permit discussion about the illegal distribution or use of copyrighted material, such as private game servers or pirated movies, music, and games.
That last part is a no-brainer but what about the first part in bold? Are we just not allowed to namedrop these characters at all, does it just apply to usernames? is the Guidelines for this just outdated? I want to ask cause I tend to make pop-cultural references and (in case you guys haven't noticed already), post Reaction images on a regular basis.
Copyright Infringement: Names and Material: We do not allow copyright-protected names on our forums. Copyright-protected names are typically from well-known original characters in books, games, and movies. We also do not permit discussion about the illegal distribution or use of copyrighted material, such as private game servers or pirated movies, music, and games.
That last part is a no-brainer but what about the first part in bold? Are we just not allowed to namedrop these characters at all, does it just apply to usernames? is the Guidelines for this just outdated? I want to ask cause I tend to make pop-cultural references and (in case you guys haven't noticed already), post Reaction images on a regular basis.
"Voted most likely to reply with a reaction image. According to the Mournhold High School Yearbook."
0
-
Reverb✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~Friedrich Nietzsche3 -
thedovahmon✭✭✭✭Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
So we can't use them as user or character names. But we can mention them freely by name in discussions?"Voted most likely to reply with a reaction image. According to the Mournhold High School Yearbook."0 -
Sylvermynx✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Well... gee... no creativity there, I guess. Really? Y'all can't come up with names that aren't prohibited?
Oy.3 -
Ohtimbar✭✭✭✭✭
✭Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
Dorian Gray and Huck Finn are public domain and are not protected.forever stuck in combat13 -
yodased✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Well thats an interesting question because based on the forum conduct rules, discussion of real world events, other games or things not related to ESO are prohibited.
So, in theory there is nothing prohibited from me from saying, batman is bruce wayne, but if I were to say that the newest batman game is better than ESO, it would be a ding.
The general rule of thumb around here is to keep it classy and discuss ESO for the MASSIVE majority of time, but simply mentioning antoher copywritten work of art or character within, even without context for ESO is not grounds for immediate dismissal.
You may get a gentle nudge from the mods around here if you stray off the ESO path too much, but its pretty tame.
They don't like spiderman though, its a long story.Tl;dr really weigh the fun you have in game vs the business practices you are supporting.4 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
Dorian Gray and Huck Finn are public domain and are not protected.
Was about to say that.
There was a lawsuit around a decade ago with Marvel and Cryptic Studios, over the creation of "copyright infringing" characters in their game Champions Online. People were rolling up characters who matched existing Marvel superheroes (though, there were homages to other comics mixed in), and Marvel sued.
It turned out that the specific player characters that Marvel was suing over were ones their investigators had created in testing to see if it was possible, so the whole suit went kinda sideways. But it did leave a legacy where it might be possible to sue the studio if a user ripped off a character under copyright in an MMO.
So, you aren't permitted to use a, "copyright protected name," even though that term is incredibly vague.1 -
Ackwalan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's just legal speak. The rule is there incase ZOS gets sued, they can always point to the rules and say "we told them not to".5 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Yeah, Spiderman clones were one of the specific examples in the case I mentioned above.
Also, back in the day, ESO had a problem with goldsellers, and the chat architecture. Used to be you could use brackets in chat to create the illusion of someone else talking, and the chat UI would attribute whatever was said to that player. So that's how, [Superman] became one of the biggest goldselling advertisers. The actual bot would type a bunch of dashes, then when they were in the correct place to trigger a linebreak, they'd create the fake user, type up their ad, which would fill the chat window, then continue. But, when you right clicked on the fake name, you'd get your normal contextual menu for a player and character that didn't exist.
I want to say that got fixed in under a week, but it was pretty wild.2 -
TempPlayer✭✭✭✭✭How can any forum exist and stay relevant without mentioning Edward from Twilight. I just don't get it.
1 -
Vandellia✭✭✭Its normally when you use the name or brand in a way that damages the name. A copyrighted name can be used in a review a general discussion etc with out any illegality happening. and some things fall into a different section of infringement such as trade right infringement ...0
-
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's just legal speak. The rule is there incase ZOS gets sued, they can always point to the rules and say "we told them not to".
Also so they can then, immediately, nuke the infringing account, say, "thank you for bringing that to our attention," and then deep six the entire thing.
Which, you know, would suck, for someone on the receiving end of that, but still.0 -
Turelus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭You normally won't have any issues using one unless reported, just be aware if you use one then get reported for some reason you may need to change the name.@Turelus - EU PC Megaserver
"Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves."2 -
thedovahmon✭✭✭✭So again, just to confirm: I can't name a Toon after a copyrighted character explicitly, but I can talk about them freely in the forums, correct? I am only concerned about the latter, btw. I have no intentions of naming any of my toons after a copyrighted chara-Oh right...I got Cat Xehanort...Eek, should probably use that free name Change Token."Voted most likely to reply with a reaction image. According to the Mournhold High School Yearbook."0
-
Androconium✭✭✭✭✭
✭thedovahmon wrote: »So again, just to confirm: I can't name a Toon after a copyrighted character explicitly, but I can talk about them freely in the forums, correct? I am only concerned about the latter, btw. I have no intentions of naming any of my toons after a copyrighted chara-Oh right...I got Cat Xehanort...Eek, should probably use that free name Change Token.
CONFIRMED.
Get the Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Words; or Foyle's Philavery.
You'll find plenty of non-copyright there.
<<<=== starts with A: Means the scent *** of a male moth. See? EVEN. MORE. FUN.0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Androconium wrote: »How the bloody hell can *** be offensive?
I've learned not to question the word filter. It is a curious, and completely psychopathic beast, that wanders the forums devouring random words on its quest to recreate George Carlin's Seven Words routine.4 -
thedovahmon✭✭✭✭Androconium wrote: »thedovahmon wrote: »So again, just to confirm: I can't name a Toon after a copyrighted character explicitly, but I can talk about them freely in the forums, correct? I am only concerned about the latter, btw. I have no intentions of naming any of my toons after a copyrighted chara-Oh right...I got Cat Xehanort...Eek, should probably use that free name Change Token.
CONFIRMED.
Get the Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Words; or Foyle's Philavery.
You'll find plenty of non-copyright there.
<<<=== starts with A: Means the scent *** of a male moth. See? EVEN. MORE. FUN.
Excellent, the forum pop cultural references and reaction images can live on!!...Will definitely need to use the name change token later on though-....Or just delete Catnort entirely since I never bothered grinding them since their inception but that's neither here or there.
Anywho, we now return to our regularly scheduled program
"Voted most likely to reply with a reaction image. According to the Mournhold High School Yearbook."0 -
ookami007✭✭✭✭✭
✭Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
The copyright on Huck Finn has LONG since expired. That was written by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) in 1884. It is long since out of copyright.
As is Dorian Gray, who was first published in 1890.
Even most of Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright and in the public domain except for the last collection of short stories.
Most people have NO idea what copyright law is. It is NOT infinite but thanks to the Mouse (Disney) has been extended FAR, FAR past what the American founders intended and no longer even serves the purpose it was designed for.
Trademark is something different, but I'll let you do your own research.6 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
The copyright on Huck Finn has LONG since expired. That was written by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) in 1884. It is long since out of copyright.
As is Dorian Gray, who was first published in 1890.
Even most of Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright and in the public domain except for the last collection of short stories.
Most people have NO idea what copyright law is. It is NOT infinite but thanks to the Mouse (Disney) has been extended FAR, FAR past what the American founders intended and no longer even serves the purpose it was designed for.
Trademark is something different, but I'll let you do your own research.
Interesting footnote there, the Doyle estate argued that the Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright because of those last few short stories well into the 21st century. They finally got slapped down, I want to say, in 2009, when a court found that only characters and elements specific to those final short stories were under copyright.Edited by starkerealm on March 18, 2019 9:58AM2 -
Androconium✭✭✭✭✭
✭starkerealm wrote: »Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
The copyright on Huck Finn has LONG since expired. That was written by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) in 1884. It is long since out of copyright.
As is Dorian Gray, who was first published in 1890.
Even most of Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright and in the public domain except for the last collection of short stories.
Most people have NO idea what copyright law is. It is NOT infinite but thanks to the Mouse (Disney) has been extended FAR, FAR past what the American founders intended and no longer even serves the purpose it was designed for.
Trademark is something different, but I'll let you do your own research.
Interesting footnote there, the Doyle estate argued that the Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright because of those last few short stories well into the 21st century. They finally got slapped down, I want to say, in 2009, when a court found that only characters and elements specific to those final short stories were under copyright.
The Doyle Estate. "We should like to continue making money from something we didn't ecktually create"3 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Androconium wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
The copyright on Huck Finn has LONG since expired. That was written by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) in 1884. It is long since out of copyright.
As is Dorian Gray, who was first published in 1890.
Even most of Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright and in the public domain except for the last collection of short stories.
Most people have NO idea what copyright law is. It is NOT infinite but thanks to the Mouse (Disney) has been extended FAR, FAR past what the American founders intended and no longer even serves the purpose it was designed for.
Trademark is something different, but I'll let you do your own research.
Interesting footnote there, the Doyle estate argued that the Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright because of those last few short stories well into the 21st century. They finally got slapped down, I want to say, in 2009, when a court found that only characters and elements specific to those final short stories were under copyright.
The Doyle Estate. "We should like to continue making money from something we didn't ecktually create"
I mean, that's +70 anyway. But, you know.0 -
ookami007✭✭✭✭✭
✭starkerealm wrote: »Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
The copyright on Huck Finn has LONG since expired. That was written by Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) in 1884. It is long since out of copyright.
As is Dorian Gray, who was first published in 1890.
Even most of Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright and in the public domain except for the last collection of short stories.
Most people have NO idea what copyright law is. It is NOT infinite but thanks to the Mouse (Disney) has been extended FAR, FAR past what the American founders intended and no longer even serves the purpose it was designed for.
Trademark is something different, but I'll let you do your own research.
Interesting footnote there, the Doyle estate argued that the Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright because of those last few short stories well into the 21st century. They finally got slapped down, I want to say, in 2009, when a court found that only characters and elements specific to those final short stories were under copyright.
You are correct. Once it completely clears copyright, I'm sure Disney will find a way to profit from it, like they have from all their other public domain works turned into films.0 -
Danikat✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's just legal speak. The rule is there incase ZOS gets sued, they can always point to the rules and say "we told them not to".
That's what I was going to say.
If the owner of a copyrighted character somehow found out their character was being used by a player in ESO they're more likely to sue ZOS than the player. Firstly because they're easier to find and take legal action against, but also because it's more likely to be effective - including preventing anyone in ESO from using that name instead of just the one person.
This way ZOS can avoid being held responsible by showing that they'd already taken steps to prevent it (by putting that in the TOS) and can respond by forcing the player to change the characters name and save everyone involved a lot of legal hassle.
It's the same idea behind concert tickets having terms and conditions which ban things like moshing and crowd surfing. They're not actually going to stop you, but if you break your arm in the pit you can't sue the venue or the artist/promoter for failing to protect you because you were doing something they explicitly told you not to do.PC EU player | She/her/hers | PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!
"Remember in this game we call life that no one said it's fair"1 -
dazee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭starkerealm wrote: »Examples would be Dorian Gray, Huck Finn, Jim Halpert, Jason Borne, Pepper Potts, etc. Those are protected and can’t be used as either an @name or character name.
But parodies aren’t protected. So you could be Pooper Potts, or Dorian Graymane.
Dorian Gray and Huck Finn are public domain and are not protected.
Was about to say that.
There was a lawsuit around a decade ago with Marvel and Cryptic Studios, over the creation of "copyright infringing" characters in their game Champions Online. People were rolling up characters who matched existing Marvel superheroes (though, there were homages to other comics mixed in), and Marvel sued.
This actually happened in City of Heroes.Playing your character the way your character should play is all that matters. Play as well as you can but never betray the character. Doing so would make playing an mmoRPG pointless.1
