test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
PUT the warning in the character creator.
chaelk
Posts: 7,732 Arc User
How many people actually read the TOS before ticking it and creating their first character?.. well apart from me
How many people have read the costumes and behaviour guidelines?
Put them in the character creator for your first character on the account. Make people tick both boxes. put a timer on it if necessary, to give them time to read.
edit add in:
last night I saw a mr Sinister clone , I've seen around a lot . Last few months.
previously he used title Mister, name Sinister
last night he had title Sinister, name Mister,
only change to costume I could see was string cloak changed to full.
still easily recognizable and identifiable as Mister Sinister.
so it looks like he got reported and decided NOT to change it from a clone.
notice the penalties and that is the actual guidelines;
temporary suspension of acct or permanent ban.
what do people get;
a free rename and a note to change the costume.
a second report gets a generic.
and yes, I have seen people in the PH openly discussing how someone genericed their perfect copy of something and they remade it again.
How many people have read the costumes and behaviour guidelines?
Put them in the character creator for your first character on the account. Make people tick both boxes. put a timer on it if necessary, to give them time to read.
edit add in:
last night I saw a mr Sinister clone , I've seen around a lot . Last few months.
previously he used title Mister, name Sinister
last night he had title Sinister, name Mister,
only change to costume I could see was string cloak changed to full.
still easily recognizable and identifiable as Mister Sinister.
so it looks like he got reported and decided NOT to change it from a clone.
notice the penalties and that is the actual guidelines;
temporary suspension of acct or permanent ban.
what do people get;
a free rename and a note to change the costume.
a second report gets a generic.
and yes, I have seen people in the PH openly discussing how someone genericed their perfect copy of something and they remade it again.
Post edited by chaelk on
0
Comments
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
Make it so!
Whoever you are, be that person one hundred percent. Don't compromise on your identity.
Handle: @drgmstr
"Embrace your dreams"
Come Check Out My PRIMUS Database Page!
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
=^ _ ^= Kitty Lives!
what they need to do , is;
1. amend the TOS.
2. Post on the character select screen after it has been amended the new TOS, as usual, to sign PLUS the costume and behavior guidelines to sign. With the new rules and punishments
3.
1st offence, generic the character. save a copy of character clone.
send message with the attached clone picture and it's original.
stating that if this character is found to be a clone again. it will be summarily wiped.
2nd offence- send original message and pictures, with new pictures and the note, that that character has been wiped. Any more clones on that acct and the acct will be banned.
3rd offence- guess what.
after the first couple get done and complain loudly in zone and the forums. You should have a sudden drop in clones, as people try to avoid losing gear and items on clones.
It may sound harsh but it's not exactly hard to see the current approach isn't working.
People just remake them because they know, nothing bad will happen.
How many SG's do we have devoted to clones?
Mind you, one of them I have noticed is making an effort to make blendings of characters.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Handle: @drgmstr
"Embrace your dreams"
Come Check Out My PRIMUS Database Page!
Who cares if you're portraying fictional character because you had some sentiment towards it?
If anything it lacks creativity, It's like getting a commission of *Insert Recognizable Character here* and claiming it to be you, it doesn't... with human legalities claiming this and controlling that, while I understand why,
The only reason why this stifling exist is because of Profit and the programming on how it affects the masses to give it it's importance, otherwise it's just paper, digits on a computer screen.
I just had to say something... Hope you can understand.
I take this quote from a review that I agree with.
"customisation is so linear; everyone is after the optimal dps:survivability ratio with 0 reliance on other players = autonomous gameplay... Players don't need each other anymore... which in my opinion is a bad thing."
I support this just so people know the rules, but I don't feel any grudge or hate towards clones like the rest of the community.
I'm just that sort of player.
Whoever you are, be that person one hundred percent. Don't compromise on your identity.
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
What is the problem?
What I mean is, if CO were an offline game that you played at home in private, would it be illegal or a Trademark violation to make and play a "clone" character? By the same token, are people who draw and post images of established heroes on something like DeviantArt guilty of Trademark infringement?
I think the problem actually stems from the fact that Cryptic says that all characters created and played are their property.
So we shouldn't make and play characters that Cryptic cannot claim as their property. I've written a comic book. I do not create and play my characters in CO, because I am not willing to cede ownership of those characters to Cryptic.
Are you asking people to agree that something that is not a clone is a clone? Why? Think about what you are doing and why you are doing it!
Was this character:
1. Named Ichigo?
2. Identical to Ichigo?
It sounds like the answer to both of those questions is no, otherwise you would not be asking for the rules to be extended to homages.
I'm trying to impress Iron "Defender" Man, doing missions for his team mates Scarlett Witchcraft and Black Flash and Martian "IronClad" Manhunter and the Sapphire Dazzler. I'm rescuing the passengers from LOST, navigating my own private Westside Story, facing off against Serpentor, while trying not to get trampled by a Large. Green. Irradiated. HULK! Buffy the Vampire slayer anyone?
You say that character WAS Ichigo. I say Amphibian IS Aquaman, by your standards.
Clones are a problem for Cryptic. Report them.
Homages, parodies, and inspirations are obviously not a problem. The evidence is overwhelming, everywhere you look ingame, everywhere you read.
So again, what is it that you are seeking to accomplish? Why should we expand the rules?
Someone who likes Ichigo didn't break the rules, so you want to change the rules! C'mon, that's sad isn't it? Go have an incredibly original and never previously uttered conversation with someone about how superior your creativity is instead. The satisfaction you're trying to find through witchunts and shadenfreude will only be fleeting, at best, anyway.
To prevent this from happening to Cryptic again.
The point where you exceed the criteria established by Cryptic is the point where you cease being heroes defending the game, and become vigilantes motivated by personal reasons, possibly selfish and/or ignorant.
Look at The Night Avenger and The Savage archetypes. Read their descriptions in the C-store. Do they conjure up any similarities to Batman and Wolverine? The game encourages us to have iconic experiences, without making clones. So let's not persecute people who are having iconic experiences, without making clones.
"The lawsuit has always looked to conclude in NCSoft's favor; last March, the judge overseeing the lawsuit dismissed half of Marvel's complaints, citing that many of the complaints were spawned from characters made in the game that Marvel employees, themselves, had created."
There is nothing that anyone can do to prevent Marvel or anyone else from filing frivolous lawsuits. Cryptic has established criteria for what is and is not permissable. drgmstr wants to expand that criteria because he "knows" that someone who is not actually playing Ichigo is secretly pretending to be Ichigo. This is Thought Police stuff. Crimes of the imagination.
How does making it easier to be in violation of a policy like this benefit anyone except a company like Marvel and/or hysterical busy bodies traumatzed by lawsuits they didn't understand?
I think the OP's idea is a good one in that it establishes that Cryptc has emphasized that aspect of the TOS. I don't think we need to hold other players to a higher standard than Cryptic hold itself or us.
- A big strong guy who is invulnerable to harm (Colossus, Superman, Hercules).
- The wise all-knowing father figure (Zeus, Odin, Professor-X).
- The Patriot (Uncle Sam, Captain America). And so on..
Archetypes go back to the very beginning of time and you can find them everywhere. See Joseph Campbell's the "Hero with a thousand Faces". Comic books lend themselves to archetypes quite easily. Also parodies and homages aren't illegal and that's what Cryptic bases it's TOS on - the actual law in the U.S.
You can parody and pay homage to established characters. Cryptic can't legally block parodies or homages. That's why comedians can make spoofs of popular movies. Or how some various fan created homage videos can be made. There's nothing wrong with homages... even if you don't particualarlly like them. Most superheroes are actually homages to the Greek Gods (especially DC). Anime is filled with homages to Japanese mythology. And Marvel comics Thor is a straight nod to the Norse pantheon.
If a knowledgeable (about the source material) observer goes 'that looks pretty much exactly like character X', it's almost certainly a clone. Homages make substantial changes while retaining elements inspired by the character they're homaging.
To use some existing characters:
Gladiator (Marvel) is a homage of Superman.
Quicksilver is a Flash homage
Squadron Supreme (Marvel) is a Justice League homage.
Deadpool is a Deathstroke homage
Note that there's substantial visual differences between the homages and the inspiring characters (because you can bet lawsuits would have otherwise resulted). That's a small sample, and all on the Marvel side because I'm more familiar with Marvel, but generally homages take particular elements of the inspiring toon (possibly from looks, powers, background, etc...) and then mix in a large dose of different material so the character isn't too similar. Especially visually.
That said, certain things simply can't be trademarked, and thus 'clones' of them aren't illegal. If you made a Men in Black clone, there's nothing distinctive about a black suit and shades, so there's no legal problems there. But the moment the visual aspects of the original become distinctive, then you have a legal problem, and in CO's case, then cryptic has a legal problem.
re: Deviant Art - most deviant art works are fan images that get covered by fair use in the US. (In many European countries, those deviant art images may well be trademark violations - because they don't have the US's concept of fair use). But Cryptic is a business that profits off selling us (among other things) a versatile character creator. Cryptic's profiting off the trademarked materials of other companies would be illegal if they aided and abetted it.
A homage would share many aspects and inspiration from the original, but does NOT copy it's likeness... many people have a hard time grasping this fact though. A parody however may mimic the likeness to an extent, but parodies have their own set of legal restrictions that you are welcome to research on your own time.
Handle: @drgmstr
"Embrace your dreams"
Come Check Out My PRIMUS Database Page!
And another one
Here is a link to an image of the Supreme Serpent, the green and yellow snakeclad fang-helmed and caped leader of Viper.
You say "would share many aspects and inspiration from the original, but does NOT copy it's likeness", I have to ask, specifically with regard to appearance:
Do Serpentor and the Supreme Serpent resemble each other or not? How do you reconcile the inconsistency between your interpretation of the hard to grasp legal nuances and the example set by Cryptic themselves?
It looks like I won't have to do any research, after all. Basically, if Cryptic did it, it's an homage or a parody. If a user did it, it's almost certainly a clone. Because screw other people.
If someone is not violating the TOS, and hasn't exceeded the standard that Cryptic has set themselves, any attempt to harm that person's experience essentially constitutes harassment, imo. I understand that there are legal issues, perhaps even complex legal issues, but if a person cannot objectively apply criteria evenly to both Cryptic-generated content and user-generated characters, then I question that person's motivation, or competence as it relates to this partcular subject.
Before any attempt to use the Duke Nukem jogger or any of the myriad of Duke Nukem & other Atarii game references within Champions Online, I will remind you that Champions Online (the game) was originaly published under Atarii, those apperances were authorized by their respective license owners. Though that authorization to this day extends ONLY to NPC and quest titles/dialogs. Clones of Duke are still subject to the very same rules violations as clones of any other reognizable IP. Quite frankly, Duke Nukem clones are actually more detrimental to Champions Online than other clones sine they can not only be seen as IP Infringement, but they also can be used as grounds for a breach of contract with Atarii which could very well spell the end of CO entirely.
Whoever you are, be that person one hundred percent. Don't compromise on your identity.
GI Joe's first toy line came out in 1982, with a comic (by Marvel) cover-dated June of that year as well (Meaning it probably was for sale in March, because reasons). (Note that writer Larry Hama had originally proposed a new Nick Fury comic, so Cobra was intentionally modeled off of Hydra when this became tied to Hasbro's toy line instead - there's no evidence Hama or Marvel was even aware Champions existed).
Champions 1st edition came out in 1981 as a roleplaying game.
Trademark applies to specific domains: Hasbro would have held the trademark for toys, Marvel for comics, and Champions for roleplaying games. These are distinct areas. (Marvel's comic trademarks may have been held in proxy for Hasbro, since it was a licensed property).
Champions would also have been vulnerable to a counter-suit of trademark violation in regards to Hydra if they had attempted to bring suit against GI Joe. Viper is far more similar to Hydra, including *color scheme*, than either is to Cobra.
It's also not clear how much trademarkable material there was relative to Viper in the 1981 edition, or if Viper even existed at all. The current visual look in CO is almost certainly not that old (and almost certainly informed by GI Joe Cobra imagery, and not the other way around).
(It's also not two years. It's probably less than one, and Cobra Commander has no visual similarities to Supreme Serpent anyway).
Serpentor is 1986. (The comic story is cover-dated summer 1986, which means spring sale date. Not sure about the cartoon). We'd need specific Champion's visuals of Supreme Serpent before and after 1986 to know if there was anything problematic, but i'm guessing Champions is the one copying.
If someone were to make a character named "Generic Man" and give them either no bio or some random bio and then design them to look exactly like Superman, Hulk, Spiderman, etc... it does not matter that they claimed to be "Generic Man" and that their bio differs from the original, they are a blatant clone of the original and worse, by making their claim to be someone else entirely they have crossed from Trademark Infringement over into IP Theft...