Marvel & NCSoft Update
As we have noted here before, Marvel has filed a lawsuit against NCSoft and Cryptic Studios based upon claims that City of Heroes infringes Marvel's intellectual property. NCSoft has now retained Cooley Godward LLP and last Monday filed a Motion to Dismiss in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
The motion is made pursuant to the federal rule that allows a defendant to terminate a case where the plaintiff fails to allege facts that would support legal claims justifying further proceedings. Generally, the short memoranda that accompany these sorts of motions do their best to persuade the reader (the judge) that the suit should be thrown out. So they can have some punchy rhetoric thrown in. This one kicks off with the following:
Kids with wandering imaginations have long decorated school notebooks with pictures of fantastic and supernatural beings of their own design. The ingenuity of individuals, as expressed through the creation of characters incorporating timeless themes of mythology, patriotism, 'good,' and 'evil,' has been a source of entertainment in the form of role-playing games for ages. In the face of technology that enables individuals to engage in such activities in a virtual, on-line context, Marvel Enterprises, Inc. and Marvel Characters, Inc. (collectively, 'Marvel') have taken the unprecedented step of attempting to appropriate for themselves the world of fantasy-based characters...
The meat of the memo is the legal analysis, which I won't comment on, except to say that you'll find a lot of the citations and themes in the copyright section familiar if you followed the Napster litigation. After the legal analysis, the memo concludes:
City of Heroes is a tool that encourages originality, not slavish copying. It allows young and old to exercise their imaginations to create super-powered beings and send them off to interact with the creations of other individuals in a virtual world called Paragon City. If it should be banned, then so should the #2 pencil, the Lego block, modeling clay, and anything else that allows one to give form to ideas...
As I mentioned before, the EFF is paying close attention to how this unfolds and is looking for fans outraged by the lawsuit. Wendy Seltzer, staff attorney for the EFF, has posted over on Warcry:
If you've tried to play a character that looks like a Marvel character, we'd like to hear from you. You can post to this thread, or better yet, email me at wendy@eff.org.
Looks like the hearing on the motion is scheduled for February 7th.
Posted by greglas on January 18, 2005 | Permalink
« Plagued by Popularity | Main | Changing Realities »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5074/1691085
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marvel & NCSoft Update:
» Motion to Dismiss from CasdraBlog
Greg Lastowka of Terra Nova has written City of Heroes and being sued by Marvel, has filed a Motion to Dismiss. I�ve posted about this topic in the past. The motion is fairly interesting reading and I hope it is successful. [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 19, 2005 2:55:44 AM
» Re: Gaming to explain hierarchy? from tribe.net: terranova.blogs.com
Well, a lot of people are interested in researching emerging social structure... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 19, 2005 10:25:30 AM
» NCsoft Asks For Marvel Suit to Be Dropped from Kotaku
City of Heroes is fighting back. Last November Marvel decided to sue the massively multiplayer game maker because some players have been making characters that look an awful lot like creations from their comics. Last week, City of Heroes' parent... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 19, 2005 11:11:53 AM
» Marvel vs. City of Heroes from ***Dave Does the Blog
NCSoft has filed for dismissal in the suit brought against them by Marvel, which suit claims that City of Heroes allows folks to generate clones of Marvel's trademarked and copyrighted... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 20, 2005 12:35:36 PM
» City of Heroes vs. Marvel from Hello? Hello? Is this Thing Still on?
City of heroes has started fighting back against Marvel's IP infringement lawsuit. If you are not familiar with the situation, CoH is a MMoRPG (Massivley Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game) that allows you to design and create your own super heroes,... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2005 10:13:55 AM
» Q and A: The Hazards of Fine Particulate Matter from and A: The Hazards
and A: The Hazards of Fine Particulate Matter [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 10, 2006 5:28:16 PM
» Shimon Peres: Where's the Peace? from the Jews, the
Peres.
Only you know for sure why you don't have contempt for what the false prophet of a lying peace that has never materialized [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 7:59:33 AM
» Computer Simulations Help Nations Prepare for Flu Pandemic from data and travel
School of Public Health, Imperial College London and RTI International, simulated a response to a pandemic [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 18, 2006 8:41:00 PM
» NBA Finals are Miami Nice from what's in the
trophy,' Riley said of the inspirational '15 strong' playing cards that had filled the Heat's mysterious Larry [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 29, 2006 8:57:44 PM
» New IE 7 Beta 3 Features Drag-and-Drop Browser Tabs from icrosoft quietly
icrosoft quietly began shipping Beta 3 of Internet Explorer 7 on Thursday. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 30, 2006 11:52:41 PM
» Recent NBA News & Series Analysis from Hornets . Paul
has been a long time coming.
Series Analysis...
The Dallas Mavericks tried something different in Game 2 by starting Devin [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 9, 2006 9:22:14 AM
Comments
Greg Lastowka (quoting Wendy Seltzer)>If you've tried to play a character that looks like a Marvel character, we'd like to hear from you.
If Marvel win the case, wait 5 years. Then, it'll be "If Marvel have created a character that looks like your City of Heroes character, we'd like to hear from you".
Or, not being a lawyer, am I missing the point? Only it seems to me that if Marvel believes CoH contains Marvel IP, that means Marvel accepts that the characters in CoH are something which can carry IP. That being the case, any future Marvel superhero that matches any of the tens of thousands of characters created by CoH players must be violating CoH's IP. Wouldn't it be in Marvel's best interests to prevent CoH from having all that IP than to hand it to them on a plate?
Richard
Posted Jan 19, 2005 2:50:59 AM | link
Well, from that thread, someone asked Wendy the obvious question: why should anyone admit to having a Marvel-inspired character? Her answer:
"We don't think Marvel's trademarks or copyrights are infringed _even if_ players create characters that look a lot like Marvel's, any more than people who sketch Spider-Man should have to pay royalties for showing their friends.
Copyright law's fair use defense and trademark law's principles of use in commerce and "consumer confusion" both mean that not every use of an image is an infringement. If players aren't passing off their characters as Marvel, but instead using some of Marvel's ideas as inspiration for their own non-commercial creations, they shouldn't have to pay a Marvel tax."
Posted Jan 19, 2005 4:07:30 AM | link
Richard> If Marvel win the case, wait 5 years. Then, it'll be "If Marvel have created a character that looks like your City of Heroes character, we'd like to hear from you".
Why would CoH characters be trade marks?
Posted Jan 19, 2005 5:28:47 AM | link
CoH characters aren't trade marked, but they are owned and therefore copyrighted by Cryptic. Part of their "plan" was, when they contacted both Marvel and DC before release asking for lists of all prohibited characters, was to claim any character the CoH comes up with that isn't on the lists would be theres. And given the sheer number of them, it's going to be hard for DC or Marvel to create any new character that doesn't infringe in some way with some CoH character.
Bruce
Posted Jan 19, 2005 7:01:09 AM | link
Bruce, that would never hold, at least not on a global scale. CoH characters aren't recognized by the public, DC/Marvel characters are. What does copyright reward you for? Basically for the work you put into expressing an idea, but not the idea itself. What has Cryptic developed? Not the characters, but the character creation system... DC/Marvel have developed their characters. This is quite different IMO, at least on the ethical level. DC/Marvel characters are signs that point to real works i.e. specific stories. CoH characters point to play-experiences... not works.
Posted Jan 19, 2005 8:57:57 AM | link
Why should one piece of art have copyright protection whilst another should not?
I can see no (legal) difference between a specific story and a specific play experience.
Sure, Marvel characters may be recognized by the general public, however most CoH characters would be recognized as a CoH character/play experience by most anyone playing the game (100k+ subscribers).
Is this a popularity contest?
Posted Jan 19, 2005 9:21:00 AM | link
Copyright and Trademark aren't the same thing, Trademarks have much stronger protections and more flexible interpretations (for example, since UPS has trademarked the use of brown trucks and uniforms for a delivery service, someone who ran a courier service using brown minivans and business suits would probably lose in court, even though they aren't exactly the same).
And actually it is a popularity contest, one of the purposes behind Trademarks is that they are so instantly recognizable because they represent a significant investment by the holder in building brand awareness. Infringing on the trademark in order to gain from its recognizability is exactly what the trademark protections are supposed to prevent. But I don't think that's Marvel's claim, rather Marvel is worried that the "lookalike" characters in CoH will dilute the value of the trademarked characters (trademarks that are not agressively defended can be lost). The lawyers present can feel free to correct me.
--Dave
Posted Jan 19, 2005 12:51:02 PM | link
Yes, but playing a resemblance of a Marvel character on CoH doesn't take anything away from Marvel (any more than designing and wearing your own Spiderman costume rather than buying one at Walmart)...unless Marvel is a) planning on releasing their own MMORPG based in the Marvel universe, or b) planning on licensing their characters to a game developer for a similar purpose. (The thinking being, I guess, "Why would I play Spiderman in that loser game 'Marvelworld' when I already play him in 'City of Heroes'?") Does anyone know if Marvel had any such plans? And why isn't anyone at DC launching a similar lawsuit? It's not like you couldn't just as easily impersonate certain DC characters (or Mattel characters, or certain celebrities)...
Posted Jan 19, 2005 2:22:57 PM | link
I love motions like this. So inflammatory and yet so.. empty.
Here's my guess on how this began:
Marvel sees that players can and do create look-alike characters in CoH. Marvel is not happy about this. Players may misuse the characters, say things they shouldn't, act inappropriately, effectively erode some of the good will Marvel has built up in the characters. Marvel instructs its attorneys to do something and so they sue NCSoft for various copyright, trademark and unfair competition claims, hoping to nip this in the bud. Marvel may also be worried about NCSoft creating look-alike characters of their own (Statesman). If it can, I'm sure Marvel wants to close that one down too to prevent others from doing similarly.
The big problem here is that they're dealing with a new nontraditional medium: computer games. NCSoft may have provided the means but does that mean they're wholly accountable if their subscribers create things that look like copyrighted chars? Words like "inducement" and "contributory" and "dilution" come to mind but no shoe quite fits this one.
Is it a commercial use by the infringers? Is there a profit realized by the infringement? Is there any dilution? Does the use affect Marvel's ability to realize a profit from similar uses of those same copyrighted and trademarked items?
I like the Napster cites and arguments but this is a new medium. It's not file sharing. It's not mp3s. It's not even all that similar to the Napster medium. (All my opinion of course.) This is the same reason the Grokster case is going to the US Supreme Court. It doesn't quite fit with previous decisions.
This is a 12(b)(6) motion, an exceedingly common one in law. Most if not all cases have one of these. The vast majority of these motions are not sustained and the case moves on to discovery or trial. My prediction is that this motion won't be sustained, certainly not in its entirety. I wouldn't be shocked, however, to hear that one or two causes of action are knocked off. A few of them feel light and ill-supported, though it's hard to tell from the (biased) defendant's motion (which is all I've read).
~//~
Richard Bartle> If Marvel win the case, wait 5 years. Then, it'll be "If Marvel have created a character that looks like your City of Heroes character, we'd like to hear from you".
You still need a registered copyright so the turnabout isn't quite guaranteed. For misappropriation you also need some connection between Marvel's new character and some element of inspiration drawn from the CoH character. Traditionally that is *very* difficult to show.
Lars Lien> I can see no (legal) difference between a specific story and a specific play experience.
Fixation. U.S. copyright law is based entirely on fixation. It's the reason performances can't be copyrighted. Arguably a "play experience" is not fixed and, hence, not capable of copyright registration and protection. However, the code that generates it *is* fixed and protectable. Subtle difference but significant.
Posted Jan 19, 2005 2:24:02 PM | link
*ahem* Marvel's own Squadron Supreme has characters that are obviously and admittedly similar to DC's Justice League. What I get from reading these cases over and over again is that we are looking at a plutocracy in which how much right one has to created works depends on the size of your legal team.
Posted Jan 19, 2005 2:55:27 PM | link
Yes, Marvel is working on their own superhero MMOG. However, that certainly doesn't have to be a requirement. Let's say I own a copyright on a character I created in a series of super spy novels. Now, just because I haven't licensed him to be used in a game yet, does that mean another company can run along and make a bunch of games using that character? Or a character almost exactly like him, with an obvious anagram of his name? No, I don't think so.
As for Squadron Supreme being a ripoff/homage to the JLA, yes they were. Marvel also ripped off the Legion of Super-Heroes via the Shi'ar Imperial Guard. But despite their obvious similarties, they did develop distinct stories of their own, and this was not used to gain advantage in the marketplace. No one bought issues of Squadron Supreme instead of JLA saying, "Hey, these are the same characters, so why should I buy JLA?"
The issue will come down to something similar here. That CoH will remove any direct "copies" of Wolverine in its game is a given. The question remains if CoH should remove any Wolverine-like characters that have claws and regeneration and an accent but a different costume. IANAL, but it seems to me one could argue given that these characters are player controlled and are in a completely different context with completely different backstories and history, they are sufficiently different IP. But getting back to the point, can it be said that no one will play Marvel Super Heroes Online because they can just as easily play Wolverine in City of Heroes? I don't think so. Firstly, you're not going to get to play Wolverine or other characters in MSH Online anyway, and secondly, the context of being in the whole Marvel Universe changes the very meaning of the character.
Bruce
Posted Jan 19, 2005 5:35:44 PM | link
I don't want this to come off wrong, but talking in breezy generalities about trademark law and copyright law is ill advised -- they are pretty complicated doctrinally. Most popular understandings of what they are and what they cover are at least partly wrong. For the basic principles, a good place to start on copyright is here and a good place to start on trademarks is here. Dave's statement that copyright and trademark are very different things is correct. If you're really curious, read Title 17 and compare it with Title 15, Chapter 22. And after that, start reading the caselaw. :-)
Richard>"If Marvel have created a character that looks like your City of Heroes character, we'd like to hear from you".
Hmm... there are a lot of issues to think about. One of the questions that interests me is this: suppose you generated your CoH character by hitting the "random" button -- and you end up with a really cool-looking character that way. Are you an author now? Is hitting a random generation button the kind of "authorship" that society should protect?
Posted Jan 19, 2005 8:09:50 PM | link
Quote: "Bruce, that would never hold, at least not on a global scale. CoH characters aren't recognized by the public, DC/Marvel characters are. What does copyright reward you for? Basically for the work you put into expressing an idea, but not the idea itself. What has Cryptic developed? Not the characters, but the character creation system... DC/Marvel have developed their characters. This is quite different IMO, at least on the ethical level. DC/Marvel characters are signs that point to real works i.e. specific stories. CoH characters point to play-experiences... not works."
Actually NCSoft/CoH have published many characters created in their game via their monthly comic sent out to all their subscribers. They most definately hold the copyright to those characters and content. Whether they hold any copyright on the characters that haven't been published existing only in-game is questionable.
Posted Jan 19, 2005 10:35:24 PM | link
If a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters produce an exact copy of Hamlet, is it copyright infringement? Okay, so Shakespeare is in the public domain and monkeys don't have IP rights, but you get the idea.
Bruce
Posted Jan 19, 2005 10:38:19 PM | link
I only have a short comment about this. Something on Marvel's part I don't understand. They should have realized how many superhero fans play CoH, and probobly many of those CoH Players are Marvel fans, or were. I know plenty of players from the game who used to love Marvel now have thier names on Marvel Boycott petitions agenst this lawsuit. Did Marvel not consider upseting thier fanbase?
Posted Jan 20, 2005 2:04:24 AM | link
greglas>Is hitting a random generation button the kind of "authorship" that society should protect?
It depends how many times you were prepared to hit it to get the character you want. That turns it into an editing process, which is a form of authorship. Photographers will routinely take hundreds of pictures at a shoot, then select the best ones to use; their art is as much in the selection of images as in the capturing of them. When the composer Dvorak was asked how he composed such beautiful melodies, he replied that he thought of all the possible notes then discarded the ones he didn't like - again, an editing process (although he probably was being a little facetious).
Richard
Posted Jan 20, 2005 3:56:23 AM | link
Greg > One of the questions that interests me is this: suppose you generated your CoH character by hitting the "random" button -- and you end up with a really cool-looking character that way. Are you an author now? Is hitting a random generation button the kind of "authorship" that society should protect?
Ye-know that’s just the sort of thing that I wonder about too. It gets to one of the hearts of IP law, this thing we call an Author and how the legal fiction is constructed by a given society at a give time. At present we seem to want Authors to be human. I’m not sure about US law on this matter, I don’t think that there are specific provisions for computer generated works, but in UK law there are cases that have taken this into account.
In Express Newspapers plc v Liverpool Daily Post & Echo plc [1985] 1 WLR 1089 one newspaper created a competition that used ‘random’ 5 letter sequences as with most of these things the commercial point was to incentives people to buy the news paper so that they could be part of the competition, then another one decided that it wanted to print some sequences (the winning one I assume). They contested that as the sequences were generated by computer and the computer was not a human then they did not constitute a work and did not enjoy copyright protection. It was ruled that there was indeed a human author – the person that was operating the computer – from memory the judgment is actually a little unclear as the programmer was also the operator which in the case made no difference but for our purposes it does.
The next step on I think takes us into to SF where we could suggest that a computer program was sufficiently autonomous that it could legitimately be seen as the author or at least a human operator has insufficient input for them to make that claim; if the program was one an AI one that had mutated to its current form even the coders may have a tenuous claim.
In the case of the random button the weight, in respect of this specific question and in the light of this case, I think would fall on the side of the creator of the program i.e. NCsoft. As with all things IP and character related I’m not sure that this position is for the best but I won’t bang on about it again.
Posted Jan 20, 2005 4:11:09 AM | link
But Ren, a five letter sequence cannot be seen as a work for the same reason that a sentence cannot count as a work. So why would they even consider it as a copyright case? For randomness, sure it can be a work, if Dali splatted some paint on a canvas and signed it, you bet. It is highly unlikely that somebody else would come up with the exact same figure without building on Dali's splat. Even a white canvas can be a work, why not?
Regarding trademark, you should get protection even without a registered trademark. It is just weaker, and tied to fraud. I.e. you are not allowed to cause authorship confusion. What if CoH had aimed for Superhero satire? I bet they would have escaped the whole issue then.
Posted Jan 20, 2005 5:38:46 AM | link
Ola Fosheim Grøstad > But Ren, a five letter sequence cannot be seen as a work for the same reason that a sentence cannot count as a work. So why would they even consider it as a copyright case?
Well they did and I’m sure that the sequences were held to be a Work with an owner - it could have been the collection but I don’t think it was – anyone got the judgment to hand?
Posted Jan 20, 2005 5:59:11 AM | link
To quote me (Hands off MY avatar ! Issues with claims of virtual property and identity - 2003), quoting the judgment:
“In this case a computer program was used to generate unique five letter sequences which were printed on 22 million cards as part of a competition called Millionaire of the Month. Council for the defence argued that as there was no human author copyright did not subsist – hence the defendant was free to publish the winning sequence is their newspaper. Ruling, Whitford J defined the role of the computer as instrumental, saying “The computer was no more than a tool” and rejected the defence argument stating “it would be to suggest that, if you write your work with a pen, it is the pen which is the author of the work rather than the person who drives the pen.””
Posted Jan 20, 2005 6:05:52 AM | link
Ah well, but then the judge didn't even consider the possibility of it being a work? And even if it was, couldn't they just have claimed that it was "news" and therefore not copy protected? (Different countries have their own peculiar implementations, so it is hard to use single cases for reasoning about these issues, but the ethics is still interesting on a more global scale, I think.)
I wonder, is CoH's avatar creation system protected as a pattern (patent)?
Posted Jan 20, 2005 6:29:37 AM | link
Interestingly Marvel is fighting this stuff on the other side. The creator of The Hulk, Spider Man etc Stan Lee has just won a judgement entitling him to 10% of profits from them, well that’s my summary, see the news all over the place via google:
http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=stan+lee+marvel+robert+sweet&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr
Posted Jan 20, 2005 6:52:53 AM | link
The memorandum frightens me, because it seems to demonstrate a certain amount of lack of research on the part of NCSoft's attorneys. Perhaps it is standard legal practice, to force the other party to demonstrate every aspect of their claims, but the assertion that "none of the [copyright] registrations, on their face, are owned by either plaintiff" is flatly wrong. Zenith Publishing Corp, Canam Publishers Sales Corp, Leading Magazine Corp, and Cadence Industries Corp are all either former identities of or agents for Marvel.
Posted Jan 20, 2005 5:58:14 PM | link
I think the reason Marvel has gotten so riled up about this is because they are afraid people will say to themselves "hey, this game looks cool because I can play as wolverine on it so I'll buy it", and NCSoft will be making money off Marvels IP.
Not because:
"Players may misuse the characters, say things they shouldn't, act inappropriately, effectively erode some of the good will Marvel has built up in the characters."
-Alan
No one makes money off sketching spider-man on their school books or pretending to be him in their backyard.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 6:23:35 AM | link
I do like that idea that Marvel must also believe that their ‘good will’ is also associated with the IP rights pertaining to the vast range of villains that they have created.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 6:54:44 AM | link
I've heard rumours that the reason Marvel are having a hissy fit over this is because they are planning a MMORPG of their own and NCSoft beat them to it.
Meanwhile, Marvel very recently lost a court case with Stan Lee, creator of their superhero characters, because they didn't want to pay him the 10% royalties quite clearly printed in his contract. The fact that they would be willing to go to court with a legend like Stan Lee shows just how greedy Marvel have become.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 7:51:03 AM | link
Just so everyone is clear... Marvel and VU are NOT making a MMORPG anymore. The development was scrapped last fall, followed by this lovely lawsuit being brought by Marvel.
I think what this really comes from is the fact that NCSoft beat them to the punch. The plans for Marvel's ORPG was to have people play in the Marvel Universe where all of their characters exist, but not to actually play as one of their already existing characters.... so basically we "could look but not touch" as it were. Well honestly Cryptic has already grabbed the superhero market in this respect. The thoughtline would go.. " Why play my XZ character in the marvel universe when he already exists in the COH one where the only difference between the two is the addition of the marvel characters as NPC's in the Marvel Universe??"
It almost seems to me as if Marvel is trying to recoop their loses from their failed attempt at launching a MMORPG. I mean if they felt that their IP was being misused why did it take them this long to file a motion?? Wouldn't they have done this before COH had even launched considering the things that they are complaining about could be done all the way back into the Alpha/Beta testing??
Posted Jan 21, 2005 8:36:00 AM | link
Now, I'm not a lawyer. Nor am I even legally inclined, but I am a gamer, and I think that the gamer's voice should be heard. I haven't purchased City of Heroes yet, but I'm planning on it at the end of the summer (if it's still on the shelves) but I am an avid comic book reader.
"No one makes money off sketching spider-man on their school books..." - Tom
You'd be surprised what kids can do these days. When I was still in highschool, if you had enough artistic talent you could make as much money as the kid selling drugs at the back of the school. =/ The thing is that kids don't care or know about TM/C laws, but they do care about their heroes, and they do know how to spend money.
When Marvel started (ending just before Stan Lee was no longer a part of the "Marvel team"), they cared about their fans. Now it is just about the money, they know that they have millions of teen boys and young adults in the palm of their hand, and for every one that boycotts, there will be another two that may be considered loyal.
On another note, I don't think Marvel should be blaming NCSoft for the lack of imagination that has become such a distinct trait of this generation. After all, the game is just a medium inwhich players can unleash the imaginative process. Is it the game developers fault that We have grown lazy in our imaginative processing?
Again, I am a gamer and a first year university student. I know nothing about the world of law and order, possibly everything I have brought up here is irrevelant. It is my opinion.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 9:29:21 AM | link
Like the previous post, I'm not leaglly inclined, but I'm a gamer that reads comics. I've been playing CoH for almost a year. during that time, I've created at least 6 different characters, and each one has been a creation of my own. That is, I didn't choose my outfits or powers based on something I saw in a comic or a movie. What I can say is that in the time that I have spent in CoH, very rarely have I seen a toon (or character for the non-geek) that resembles a Hulk, Wolverine, or popular Marvel creation. I believe this is because the idea is to be your own superhero. While I'm sure that there is the 16 year old comic geek that is dying to be Captain American, the vast majority of the toons are all original. Now, if CoH released a powerset that included wall crawling, throwing glowing playing cards, or stretching yourself out, I'd say that they have a case. For that matter, what about the Incredibles? Pixar created a slew of superheroes that had similar powers, where's that lawsuit? I mean, the boy Dash could run really fast, isn't that the Flash? Even their names are similar! and the Mrs. Incredible (Elastigirl) could stretch herself out just like Mr. Fantastic. Is Marvel and DC getting royalties from this movie? What if Pixar used Dash in an afterschool special where he smoked Marijuana? Does that mean that DC should sue because he looks like the Flash, runs like the Flash, but the flash doesn't smoke weed?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see where marvel is coming from here. They don't own the fact that someone has claws. They don't own people that are green. They don't own people that dress in purple and shoot arrows. I hope that I've at least made some sense, and I'll be following this story pretty closely.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 12:13:19 PM | link
"I think the reason Marvel has gotten so riled up about this is because they are afraid people will say to themselves "hey, this game looks cool because I can play as wolverine on it so I'll buy it", and NCSoft will be making money off Marvels IP."
Then what about pen and paper role playing games? You think no one has every bought Mutants and Masterminds to play the XMen? Or Silver Age Sentinels to play The Fantastic Four? There is nothing deliberately misleading about CoH in their advertising. They show all original characters, encourage YOU to make original characters and I believe, if I remember correctly, that in the user agreement policies you agree NOT to make any existing characters. You can't fault NCSoft for making such a robust character generator than people can make whatever they want out of it.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 12:31:21 PM | link
As I see it Marvel can't "claim" ownership of beings with super powers. However, they are not trying to claim any such thing in their lawsuit. City of heroes, full of guys with heat vision and super speed. Marvel in no way can say that by making an enhanced human in spandex you are infiringing on their copyrights.
However, some powers in city of heroes are definetly stolen. 3 metal claws coming out of a person's hand. If that doesn't immediately scream WOLVERINE (tm) than I don't know what would.
I believe Marvel has a legitimate case, but I do not thik it is wise of them to pursue legal action against them. City oh Heroes jsut lets fans who love comic book heroes play in a world as those heroes. Its just something marvel should see and smile about, knowing that people actually like their characters.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 2:04:17 PM | link
I think the outcome of this issue should depend on the details of the character creation in city of heroes. For example, if they allowed people to paint their own texture maps, they would hardly be responsible for someone making a spiderman texture. On the other hand, I don't think they should be able to provide a spiderman head, torso, arms and legs and web slinging abilities and say that people that put them all together are making their own creation.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 4:30:41 PM | link
Large companies have always walked all over their consumer base. They rely on their popularity, and their ability to influence the media to keep things like boycots out of the news.
Why attack their consumer base? It makes sense in the long term. Eliminate a competitor, and you'll generate bad press, and lose some business. Six months later no one remembers, but that competitor is still gone, and you've absorbed most of its consumers.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 4:43:56 PM | link
Okay Marvel is acting stupid again. I have a couple Marvel comic subsrciptions. I am a fan of the X-men. So are a lot of people. That is the problem here. The Marvel universe is populated with mutants of every size, power, and description. So the chances of someone making a character that unitentionally mimics a Marvel character are pretty good. Marvel wants a piece of the pie that is online gaming without having to pay any money for it. They are not losing any money. Nobody will cancel their subscriptions and follow the adventures of a Marvel rip off.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 5:34:33 PM | link
If you make a super-hero that is a shapeshifter, Marvel can't get you for copyright infringement, even though they have characters that are shapeshifters.
If you make a female shapeshifter named "Mystique" with dark skin then you are.
This comes down to a judgment call, something that lots of geeks don't like, because judgment involves interacting with people in suits and robes. You won't find a hard-and-fast rule for when it is and it isn't a violation, and if you nyah-nyah a judge with this fact, all you'll get is contempt.
Characters like "Icon," "Supreme," "Quantum," and "Hyperion" are obviously based on Superman, but they also serve as *commentaries* on Superman, so they are protected.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 6:42:22 PM | link
Bruce Woodcock: But despite their obvious similarties, they did develop distinct stories of their own, and this was not used to gain advantage in the marketplace. No one bought issues of Squadron Supreme instead of JLA saying, "Hey, these are the same characters, so why should I buy JLA?"
Well hrm. To start with, copyright these days is only marginally about gaining advantage in the marketplace. DC didn't need to show that Squadron Supreme affected JLA sales, only that significant similarities existed, and that Marvel profited from those similarities.
Which gets to my biggest complaint about the nature of copyright today. I've grown to accept the concept that Disney is probably going to have the exclusive right to peddle Steamboat Willie at the end of this century. However, we are now in a legal environment where mere similarity is sufficient to provoke legal action. At least part of Marvel's complaint is that a CoH iconic character looks similar to Captain America. Of course he looks similar to a dozen other patriotic character heros from a half-dozen other publishers as well.
A funny thing about the shift from copy to similarity is that IP law has been transformed into a plutocracy rather than an incentive for individual artists. Marvel can create Squadron Supreme as obvious parody, homage, or just downright plagarism of JLA not only because it is legally entitled to, but because it can afford a legal team necessary to defend that legal entitlement. I suspect that to some degree, there also exists a gentleman's agreement within the industry such that Astro City can riff on both Superman and the Fantastic Four. Even if users are creating their own Hulks, Wolverenes and Spidermen, there is a 50-odd year old tradition of homages, parodies, and similar characters.
But, copyright law these days is less about being right, but about getting a settlement. I found that out when local copy shops refused to photocopy the galleys of my book chapter. "Look," I said showing my driver's license. "I wrote this. My contract with the publisher permits me to hand out however many copies I wish." Eventually, we had to compromise in that I used their equipment and pressed all the buttons under their directions. That copyshop did go out of business under the weight of threatened lawsuits.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 6:46:10 PM | link
As for the character generator itself, all of the options they offer are 'generic' - i.e. there is no "wolverine" torso, although it can be mimicked with a tight spandex suit with a specific pattern and the yellow/black combination of colors. This, in addition to the rest of his suit, mutant origin, as well as claws and regeneration powers, effectively allows players to masquerade as Wolverine.
For pictures, look at the character walkthroughs here: http://www.cityofheroes.com/features/archetypes.html
The problem is that certain things draw too heavily from the original characters (the claws power is an example of this - I don't follow comics, but I can't think off the top of my head who else has three metal claws that extend from the knuckles). You do have to remember that someone, somewhere crafted these sections of models, and made them to look like their trademarked counterparts. But is that a serious violation in any way? (Like the no brown trucks thing that someone mentioned earler?)
Still, I don't know what kind of infringement a bunch of guys in a restricted environment who look kinda like Marvel characters could do to their IP rights. I think that's a distinction here, since the characters in the game are not public in any way (well, at least not those who are under the scrutiny of this case).
But then again I'm a far cry from any legal type of person, and have only been following this case loosely.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 7:06:55 PM | link
fronter: This comes down to a judgment call, something that lots of geeks don't like, because judgment involves interacting with people in suits and robes. You won't find a hard-and-fast rule for when it is and it isn't a violation, and if you nyah-nyah a judge with this fact, all you'll get is contempt.
My objection to the current state of this judgement call has less to do with interacting with people in suits and robes, but rather with my very well supported perception that what rights we have in regards to commentary, satire, parody, and fair use, might disappear because they are too expensive to defend.
In addition, I think what is at stake here is the idea of contributory infringement. I think that if we crack open that door on liability much further, then what we end up with is an environment where it becomes risky to create any social software that permits users to create and/or share information.
Characters like "Icon," "Supreme," "Quantum," and "Hyperion" are obviously based on Superman, but they also serve as *commentaries* on Superman, so they are protected.
Isn't that based on the assumption that the actions of a competing publisher are more worthwhile as *commentary* than my actions as someone doing performance of a character who is similar? (And I should add, without any commercial interest in said performance?)
Posted Jan 21, 2005 7:07:16 PM | link
I am a big fan of City of Heroes, I'd like to see the game prosper, even more than it already has. It is a superb game.
Having said that, clearly some of the powers, and pieces of costumes in their character generator are derivative. Not just generic powers, attributed to many super heroes, but very specific iconic images and powers, attributed to very specific and higly recognizable characters.
You cannot deny that Wolverine's claws, beard and trademark stogie are all easily accessed in the character generator. You'd be lying to yourself, if you did not admit the first time you saw those options in the character generator, you did not think of Wolverine as the origin.
My goodness even the sound effects are the same.
It seems to me, that when you augment your brand/company/product with something derived directly and undeniably copied from someone else's property, you violate copyright law.
If one of the options in the character generator would be a bright yellow rounded triangle with a red S on it, or wearing a magic ring with Green Lantern's specific symbology on it, DC would be knocking on CoH's door as well.
Seems to me, there's also makeup options in CoH, that look remarkably like the makeup of KISS. Gene Simmons has sued over this kind of thing before and won, I wonder how long before we KISS Ltd, try and get a piece of NCSOFT's cash cow? :)
Posted Jan 21, 2005 7:19:19 PM | link
I have no legal training, but I am an avid comic book fan who played City of Heroes from the day it came out until the day World of Warcraft came out. Putting aside any legal issues, I would never deliberately create a copy of an existing character. It's one thing to play Batman in a game about Batman, where Batman is the only choice of character, but I think people who copy characters in a game with this many choices are missing the point. The idea is to build on what has gone before. The big boys -- Superman, Spider-Man, and so on -- are there for inspiration.
I couldn't copy them in City of Heroes, because, in my mind, they were already out there in Paragon City, not because they'd been copied by someone else, but because they were as fundamental a part of things as gravity. Superman is like a colossus straddling the world. I'm not worthy to play him if there's another option. It would be blasphemy.
But how much inspiration can you take from something without it being called a copy? Infringement depends on just how much similarity you're willing to allow between the trademarked item and the new one. To illustrate, I've got two URLs below. Both are images, compilations of screenshots I captured in City of Heroes. I didn't doctor these up to change their look, just cut out wasted space and added character names.
http://premium1.uploadit.org/RoguePencil/infringecoh.jpg
This first image shows six obvious copies of existing characters, all seen by me in the game: The H_U_L_K, The T_H_I_N_G, Human-Fire, Iron-Man, Humann Spiderr, and Kent. This is by no means an exhaustive list of unoriginal characters. I saw four or five blatant ripoffs of Wolverine, as well as a couple of Green Lanterns, and at least a dozen different Hulks -- Controlled Hulk, Hulk II, Hulktoo, Raging Hulk, TheTheHulk, and so on. A friend of mine who played had a character named Nightcravvler, who looked just like Mr. Wagner, and another friend had a Ghost Rider (although the flaming skull was impossible to do, so it did not look much like him). I assume the problem is just as bad on the other servers. I can see why Marvel might be upset.
http://premium1.uploadit.org/RoguePencil/charsminecomp.jpg
The second image shows the eight characters I played, and demonstrates (I hope) the diversity of the character creation system. This diversity is exactly what's necessary to create the comic book character you want to play in the game, but it's the same flexibilty that allows such flagrant abuse by other players. I think my designs also show some of the gray area around what exactly defines infringement.
Broadsyde: He has a metal right arm. So do many existing characters. Is this infringement? How much like, say, Cyborg's arm would it have to look before it would cause complaint?
Cold Steel Kid: This design seems pretty original to me, but then, the high-tech armor costume has been done so many times, the Kid almost certainly looks like a trademarked character.
Penndragon: supposed to be King Arthur, who is in the public domain...at least, he better be.
Deuce Wyld: Here I tried to stay loyal to Silver Age costume concepts yet create an original design at the same time. Deuce looks like any number of heroes who wear spandex and large, folded gloves and boots. The little eye-mask has also been done to death. He's the same, but different. Who can sue?
Sszarno: He is supposed to be a derelict fire god. He's a flame-based character with spiky orange hair and glowing eyes, so he looks a bit like Firestorm. Can this provoke a suit from DC?
Johnny Impact: another vaguely Silver Age design. Out of all the concepts I brewed up with the CoH creation system (and there were many, many more than you see here), this was, by far, the one I liked the best. He was inspired by Iron Man, Captain America, and a few other old-school characters. I like to think of him as an homage to the greats. But is it an homage, or a courtroom battle?
Cool Whip: What better name for a character who combines ice powers and super speed? Superficially, he looks like the Flash, only blue/white instead of red/yellow. Does a palette shift count as sufficient difference?
The Gentleman Ghost: As far as I know, nobody's ever mixed the desperado look -- kerchief over the face and a large hat -- with a suit. I could be wrong.
My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that it's the people using the system to create clones of trademarked characters who deserve the slap. I think the memorandum has it right: you cannot fault the makers of a tool when that tool is deliberately misused. When someone uses a gun to murder someone else, who do we lock up, the murderer, or the crew working at the gun factory at the time that particular gun was made? I don't believe Cryptic should be held at fault for what's happened.
On the other hand, they didn't appear to be doing much about the problem when I was playing. It wouldn't be too difficult to root out characters who violate trademarks and simply delete them off the servers. Relevant accounts could then be cancelled or flagged with a warning, so the players can't simply go right back in and recreate the deleted clones. With the system Cryptic created, it had to expect that, sooner or later, someone would get upset and sue. It seems to me that, for much less than the cost of fighting Marvel, they could police their own servers, but what I'm really wondering is why this isn't already done.
Posted Jan 21, 2005 8:38:51 PM | link
In the attempt to develop a robust superhero creating engine, if powers associated with previous superheroes were scratched off the list what would we have left? Looking at three popular heroes, we're already seeing not very much...
Superman:
flight, super strength, heat vision, cold breath, super speed, x-ray vision, powers from the sun, alien origin
Wolverine:
Regenerative capabilities, claws, super-hard skeleton, berserker qualities
Phoenix:
Fire powers, psychic abilities, dual personalities
Posted Jan 21, 2005 9:09:23 PM | link
I look at it like this. If said people playing copyrighter superheroes were selling their accounts, then Marvel would have a a valid claim. But to sue their customers, their FANS... Well that's just silly.
This is like sueing a little boy because he drew Wolverine in his note book. These kids are playing their favorite super heroes and not hurting anyone by doing so. So what's the problem? I mean I don't see DC in an uproar as I have seen some obvious DC characters.
I don't see how this is hurting Marvel in the slightest. If anything this is making comics more popular. I mean I made me a Savage Dragon character because I thought he looked cool to play in the game. Is Erik Larsen beating down my door? No.
If Marvel wins, all it will do is hurt the MMO industry in the future as it will limit the creativity of designers, as it will put the fear of the lawsuit gods in them. CoH is unique because we get to play out our childhood fantasies. Just say no to Marvel stifiling your imagination...
Posted Jan 21, 2005 9:13:44 PM | link
This whole thing is mostly commercial politicking, broadening or defending the legal “territory” of each company. There are plenty of ruling that doesn’t make sense, but are still enforced. Kirk’s objections above are the things that we should think about more.
I recall the days when there were Apricot clones of Apple computers that were physically and operationally similar and Orange clones of Apple computers that were operationally similar, but physically different. There was international law/jurisdiction and trade complications, but one key factor in the fight was the ability to demonstrate and prove damages caused and putting a dollar figure on paper.
What dollar figure would you put on paper?
Posted Jan 21, 2005 10:55:08 PM | link
>This is like sueing a little boy because he drew
>Wolverine in his note book. These kids are
>playing their favorite super heroes and not
>hurting anyone by doing so. So what's the
>problem?
That's because it's just a notebook, very few people see notebooks, and little boys are known to draw on them. Just as little boys can dress up and play pretend.
But suppose, instead of Mead selling notebooks, they rented billboards. And every billboard they rent was specifically meant for someone to draw a superhero on. And some of the people who bought one put up artwork that looked like some Marvel superhero. And some of those superheros might not be doing things Marvel wants their characters to be seen doing. Surely Marvel would have a case against Mead for not stopping those billboard buyers?
Of course, billboards are pretty static, so the amount of "damage" a billboard could do to an IP is not so great. But video games are far more than mere billboards, because they are interactive.
There are other analogies, of course. Sure, you can draw Spider-Man on your notebook. But suppose this notebook could then magically create thousands of exact copies of that notebook. And you don't sell them, but you give them away to all the kids. How is Marvel supposed to sell their notebooks with Spider-Man on them if others can get them for free? The notebook maker in this analogy isn't just making money selling notebooks, it's making money specifically selling notebooks for people to put super-heroes on and copy them so everyone else can see.
Bruce
Posted Jan 22, 2005 12:24:42 AM | link
> What dollar figure would you put on paper? - magicback
The projected profits that Marvel would have made from their own MMORPG.
As someone has said earlier, Marvel had their own plans for an MMORPG which they cancelled, and then proceeded with this action against NCSoft.
Now this, along with the fact that they didn't immediately jump into a lawsuite at CoH's release, indicates to me (purely speculation mind you) that part of Marvel's market research found "Why play as generic XZ character in the Marvel Universe and get wave at Wolvernine, when I can already play as Wolverine in CoH". And if this was the case, here we have NCSoft profitting from Marvel's IP.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 12:31:56 AM | link
Here's why NCSoft is probably going to lose this case: Not because they designed a character generator which allows people to duplicate characters which belong to Marvel. If people were just making up Marvel look-a-likes and playing them at home, Marvel wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
But NCSoft is exposed because City of Heroes is an online game. People aren't just doodling pictures of Spider-man in their notebooks; they're xeroxing their notebooks, sending them to NCSoft, and then NCSoft is DISTRIBUTING IT TO MORE THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE.
By way of analogy: A company selling bristol board that somebody draws an unlicensed Spider-Man story on is not liable for anything. But if that same company says, "Once you're done drawing on that bristol board, we'll publish it and distribute it to a 100,000+ paying subscribers." Then the company is in trouble. Even if the company can honestly say, "We never even looked at what was on that bristol board, your honor."
And if Marvel can make that stick, then this is a problem that all of the massive on-line games are going to have to take a serious look at. How many Conans are wandering through the woods of Everquest, Ultima Online, and the like?
Posted Jan 22, 2005 2:10:07 AM | link
The way I see it is that Marvel copywrighted the character "wolverine", not the power "claws", they cant make NCsoft change that power because its not theirs.
Now if someone made a look-a-like character of "Wolverine" thats a different story, but in that case its not NCsofts fault, all they did was put together a whole lot of un-copywrighted ideas and let the gamers do what they want with them.
What do you guys think?
Posted Jan 22, 2005 2:18:21 AM | link
I don’t think Marvel could touch NCsoft. Please correct me if I’m mistaken but the program "Kazaa" for PC is a huge Copyright infringement cesspool. For those of you who aren’t familiar with "Kazaa", its a program which allows thousands of people to download software directly from each others computers weather it's music, games, pictures or anything else.
Now the music industry is packing a huge spaz because people are getting music for free by downloading it from other people. The reason the music industry hasn’t sued "Kazaa" and all other programs like it, is because "Kazaa" can say they invented the software for other purposes (like downloading each others homework or something) and that its the individuals that use the program are at fault.
NCsoft can just say that they meant for people to make original characters and that it’s the gamers that are at fault.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 2:38:51 AM | link
Just a short comment of my own:
It seems to me that suing NCSoft for people using their generation tools to copy known superheros seems an awful lot like suing a pencil manufacturer because their customers used their pencils to draw a picture of Wolverine.
Surely there should be some individual accountability in this?
Posted Jan 22, 2005 3:32:30 AM | link
A few points:
1. The claws in City of Heroes do not actually extend from the hands themselves. For anyone playing, look closer: they are connected to a box shape that is attached. Similar weapons have existed historically, and in this case the only reason they appear like they do is the game has no mechanism to display the claw base permanently.
2. Trademark and copyright violation by the players is a violtion of the EULA (End User Licence Agreement) that is enforced by NCSoft and Cryptic. However, it is not a simple process to actively filter through every character in the game. Some names are easy to find via automatic filters, but others are not. Likewise, while it's easy to find the infringing characters just by looking at them, it's not nearly as easy to be in all places at all times. Unless they get reported by players, many of the duplicates miss notice. That doesn't mean that the companies behind City of Heroes aren't enforcing it, it means that they aren't omniscient. This is similar to saying that, because people can smoke marijuana without getting caught, it means that the police force in the area is actively allowing the use of illegal drugs, and not only that, but the police all light up in their spare time, too.
3. A daycare was threatened with legal action by Disney over something similar. If I remember correctly, it had Disney characters painted on the inside walls, and while it wasn't doing any harm that I know of to Disney (unless Disney has a national chain of daycares that I've not been told of), there was a legal problem. The difference is that NCSoft and Cryptic aren't the creators of these characters, the players are. I suppose if Marvel chose to file lawsuits against their fans for recreating their characters they would win, though it would seem to be a bit counterproductive, I think.
4. Marvel's property, I believe, is the exact combination of abilities, personality, and physical characteristics that make up their characters. Claw-type weapons have existed before, as have bad attitudes, facial hair, and the word' bub.' In fact, I believe even Canadians may have existed well before Marvel made a character from Canada, though this is unproven at this time ;) Unless there is an extreme likeness, Marvel should have no basis to work from (though with US law as it is, this doesn't mean much). Otherwise, with Marvel's existing line of heroes and villains, every possible ability that could be used as a superpower will be off limits.
If this lawsuit succeeds, expect these and more:
God vs. Marvel over the use of the word "wolverine" and claws as weapons (animals have been using them for thousands of years).
Marvel vs. bodybuilders: Hulk has bulging muscles, bodybuilders have bulging muscles. Figure it out.
Marvel vs. the USA: Politics over the past few years have tarnished the "America" in "Captain America." Marvel seeks recompense.
God vs. Marvel (again): This time, for the use of wings. Angels clearly have precedence on this.
Rumour has it that other parties are preparing lawsuits, should the Marvel vs. NCSoft/Cryptic case pan out. Some interested parties are as follows: Norse gods (Thor and Loki are outraged at the use of their names), various members of the medical field (why is it "Doctor " seems to always be a villain? Doctors are offended by this), and Webster (look at how many Marvel heroes can be found in the dictionary). It has also been whispered by those 'in the know' that Shaft is planning a lawsuit, as well. Too many Marvel heroes have attitudes, and nobody else is allowed to be one bad mother . . .
Posted Jan 22, 2005 3:34:47 AM | link
While I think about it, where was the lawsuit against Freedom Force? It was supremely easy to make a Marvel superhero within Freedom Force, and distribute on their website for all the world and his wife to download at their leisure. And doesn't Minuteman pose as much of a resemblance to Captain America as Statesman?
I agree with the earlier comment that it seems that the only reason Marvel are going ahead with this lawsuit is it's possible profitability, and the fact that their own attempt at a similar game was canned.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 4:31:41 AM | link
Sirius: Do some research, Marvel threw its legal weight around over Freedom Force, too. It aimed at sites and players that created its characters, though, not the developer. DC actually got in on this one as well, I believe.
Marvel has also threatened action against people for player-made Sims content for the same thing.
Interesting how in all other instances, they go after the fans, but this time they're trying something different.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 4:49:29 AM | link
NCSoft are charging for access to the player-created content and have taken on editorial responsibility, that makes a major difference compared to other cases mentioned in this thread IMO. At least in the ethical sense.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 7:38:50 AM | link
And claiming that moderation is too difficult to manage is not entirely right. All you need is to collect complaints and have a screening tool which displays the reported characters on a webpage or similar. If you can do this for bugs then you can do this for IP violations too.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 7:50:26 AM | link
Little kids playing in their backyard as hulk or heman or power rangers arent violating any copyrights or trademarks they're just playing. But a company providing people a service where they can play as the hulk or the thing or spider man just might be. They are gaining money from peoples desire to be their favourite super heros. But does this still apply if they explicitly told gamers not to play pre-existing characters or ones that infringe on copyrights and trademarks? Should NCsoft be made responsible for the actions of players in their game? Especially if they made it clear that players should not infringe on copyrights or trademarks?
I hope not.
It would seem that NCsoft made it possible for people to play as a character from a Marvel comic or any other superhero for that matter. But to be honest if they did not then what would be the point in playing? No mutants, no aliens, no costumes, no powers. The mistake they have made is to let people get away with creating the characters that infringe on copyrights and/or trademarks. Someone earlier mentioned that NCsoft told users not to make pre-existing characters. Whether this is true or not NCsoft, in light of recent events, should have made a better effort to police these infringements. No matter how hard it is, if they don't want to be sued then they should have either done this or not made it possible to play as the Hulk.
But I'm not even sure if they did make it clear to players not to make pre-existing characters, especially since they havent been policing the infringements. To be honest if they lose the case I feel they only have themselves to blame, for making such things possible without thinking of the ramifications of their actions.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 10:06:26 AM | link
The Ogre:
They show all original characters, encourage YOU to make original characters and I believe, if I remember correctly, that in the user agreement policies you agree NOT to make any existing characters.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 10:13:57 AM | link
A lot of the comments about the characters just being user-created avatars that have nothing to do with NCSoft miss the boat. NCSoft made the character creation program. The only reason that I can create a character that is huge, bare-chested, green-skinned, barefoot and has ripped purple pants is because NCSoft gives me that option through their character creation program. The reason that I can name that character "TheHulk" is because the name filter doesn't reject it. The reason that my green skinned, purple pants wearing, barefoot behemoth uses the same moves that you see The Hulk using in comics and movies is because NCSoft programmers animated it that way. There's no reason science tankers have to use foot stomps and hand claps and pound the ground like The Hulk (when I played COH literally first PC I saw was exactly the chracter I just described, down to the name, "TheHulk").
Marvel's argument isn't that they have trademarked or copyrighted "super strength" or "claws" or "ripped pants" or even "shockwave-inducing hand claps and foot stomps" so that no one else in the universe can dare dream of these things. Nor do they claim that they are the only ones entitled to make games about superheroes where people can jump and fly and pick up cars and run fast and shoot eye beams.
They are arguing that NCSoft's program shouldn't allow customization to the degree that it allows for some near-exact copies of some very recognizable Marvel properties. There are hundreds if not thousands of possible combinations, and it's certainly not impossible for NCSoft to have come up with a creation program that doesn't even allow me to make a Hulk or Wolverine clone. It's not like I can make my Everquest character look like Daredevil or run around as The Thing in World of Warcraft. Obviously those aren't superhero games, but the point is that a character creation program doesn't have to allow players the opportunity to create duplicates of other people's protected characters.
Despite the rhetoric, it's not the same as suing crayon makers because kids are drawing superheroes in art class or suing the manufacturers of red towels because a towel also serves as a makeshift Superman cape. Nor is a EULA that says, "be original, winners don't use drugs nor infringe intellectual property" an ironclad shield against liability. The Everquest EULA tells me that I can't use copyrighted or trademarked names or characters too, but the game actually *prevents* me from making a character named "Xena" that looks exactly like a certain warrior princess.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 1:02:02 PM | link
Horus> Should NCsoft be made responsible for the actions of players in their game? Especially if they made it clear that players should not infringe on copyrights or trademarks?
Well, my take on this is: yes, they do take on themselves this responsibility exactly because they do tell players what to do and make some effort in that direction. In other words, if they claim to be editors then they are responsible for the content too. NCSoft basically have to decide what foot to stand on, but I think it is very difficult to claim that you aren't responsible for the content in these controlled game designs. It isn't exactly a free-for-all virtual sandbox; they provide more than the means to communicate.
Right now they seem to claim that players are not infringing, but they have told players not to infringe... How consistent is that?
Posted Jan 22, 2005 1:13:20 PM | link
"And claiming that moderation is too difficult to manage is not entirely right. All you need is to collect complaints and have a screening tool which displays the reported characters on a webpage or similar. If you can do this for bugs then you can do this for IP violations too."
The problem is that this is entirely dependent on the playerbase. A thousand people can hit a bug, but only five may actually report it. Likewise, as many or more may see an IP-violating character, but none actually bother to report it as a problem.
After all, the majority of players are paying to play a game, not to spend time filling out reports to customer service over things like that. The way it can be looked at is simple: the less it affects or offends the player directly, the less likely it will be reported. Some people do still report these problems, but most just shrug it off with a remark about the other person being an unoriginal moron.
The news that Marvel is suing Cryptic and NCSoft increased player policing drastically, as players' awareness of the seriousness of IP violations in the corporate world increased, but how long will that last?
And furthermore, what about players crying 'wolf'? Some people will report others over anything, even the most trivial, coincidental likenesses. Even under the ridiculous assumption that all players are diligently reporting IP violations, one still has to sort through all the superfluous ones.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 6:14:54 PM | link
Since I forgot to say it before, I'm going to add that I'm not saying that Marvel has no case, because I think it does. However, I think it's misdirected. Any game that has sufficient freedom of customisation can allow players to create likenesses of existing, trademarked characters.
The real problem, I believe, are the people choosing to abuse their freedom. Just because you _can_ recreate existing Marvel characters doesn't mean you _should_, and the ones abusing their freedom of creation are the ones that should be targeted. NCSoft has the account information of the players, and Marvel could most likely get names and addresses to go with all the "TheHulk1234" characters to pursue legal action against the players.
It's just not going to be a very profitable endeavour then, so what's the point?
Posted Jan 22, 2005 6:22:30 PM | link
I can understand the reasoning behind Marvel being flustered but it looks a lot more to me like they're embarrassed by getting beat to market and trying to squeeze some money out of it anyway. I'll certainly not deny that some of the characters can obviously be made to look or even function much in the same way as the original characters but let's cut the crap... The average super hero isn't really that original appearancewise anyway. Most wear a mask (how many masks do you honestly expect there to be?) and have some kinda symbol representing them on their uniform. Bravo... So the Super Character formula is "Let's play dress up and hide our identity somewhat!" Big deal. I can certainly respect defending your intellectual property when it's original and the stories behind the character are certainly just that but the appearance? Give me a friggin break.
As a point of reference of the kid saying it's much like a kid drawing a picture of the superhero on his notebook being the same thing and it being disputed... I would say it's much more like the kid dressing up on halloween as their favorite super character and going trick or treating. Marvel (or any other company for that matter) certainly isn't beating down doors of kids who try to be like their characters and not all costumes are made in a manner that would warrant royalties... So here you got hundreds, thousands, possibly even tens of thousands of kids running around on halloween imitating your intellectual property and you aren't lifting a finger? Why not sue the makers of red fabric since obviously it can easily be used to create Superman capes or perhaps go after the producers of spandex (which judging by the avg person who actually wears spandex this might be a good idea...) and sue them for selling stuff that could be made into a costume similar to your super hero IP.
Spare me, I've went and seen many of the movies based upon comic books. Especially in the relatively recent few years but at this point screw you Marvel. I ain't putting another dime towards your pos company. Most of them sucked and drained money away from me that woulda probably been better used elsewhere anyway. I now regret all the money you received from me when I was a child. Regardless of how much work creating the story was you quite obviously don't deserve it. I feel like all my money was sent to the corporate version of Bin Laden all those years. Piss off.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 8:02:48 PM | link
TrevvyTrev:
The only reason that I can create a character that is huge, bare-chested, green-skinned, barefoot and has ripped purple pants is because NCSoft gives me that option through their character creation program. The reason that I can name that character "TheHulk" is because the name filter doesn't reject it. The reason that my green skinned, purple pants wearing, barefoot behemoth uses the same moves that you see The Hulk using in comics and movies is because NCSoft programmers animated it that way.
I agree at some level but should they have ommited huge stature from their game? Or Green skin? or ripped clothes? or the colour purple? I think even if they had made it harder to create copycat characters people would still have tried like that guy in the above posted pictures who has a bug on his chest instead of a spider. In relation to picking the Hulks trademark moves, does Marvel have a monopoly on slapping the ground in an angry way? And I think it wouldve been fairly pointless to try and filter out names, since there's any number of combinations of hulc hullk, hulkk, H-U-L-K, etc etc that cant be picked up and most names of superheros are just words from the dictionary anyway like super and man, try filtering those out.
But in the end I do agree with you, there are lengths they could have gone to to prevent players from these infringements and in the end, as I said earlier, they only have themselves to blame.
Posted Jan 22, 2005 9:08:33 PM | link
Well, for one, a copyright suit is going to have to show two things. The first is a distinct similarity, purposefully done.
That is possible to show here, but would be hard to blame on NCSoft. After all, the individual person is the one choosing to assemble the character.
The second is that the "mimic" is harmful to Marvel's sales, image, or some aspect of the company.
This is nearly impossible to prove as NCSoft's fault! If Marvel HAD released an MMORPG, and its sales had suffered, they would have a case. A pretty strong one.
But proving that you had to shut down a work because of someone else's is going to be very difficult. There is no way to prove that CoH meant Marvel's game could not succeed.
Additionally, the fault lies with the players of CoH for any defamation issues (like the "weed" example). Not NCSoft.
NCSoft can't police everyone on their game for morality or copy...it is an impossible task. No rational person could expect it from them.
This suit smacks of the one that was in fact levelled at file-sharing companies. The company itself holds no responsibility for users downloading copyrighted materials. This is why the RIAA is hitting people. They can't touch Kazaa or Bearshare.
Similarly, I do not think that Marvel should be able to touch NCSoft, who has merely created a device that allows for diverse creation. NCSoft did not create a system for the purpose of mimicking Marvel characters, as is clearly shown in their marketing of the game and diverse system. They are not at fault.
Posted Jan 23, 2005 1:23:19 PM | link
Hold on a minute, NCSoft claims that Marvel is trying the "unprecendented step" of appropriating the entire world of fantasy characters?
But based on NCSoft's actual and unpublished real legal position regarding the player characters...that is EXACTLY what NCSoft is attempting to do! It is NCSoft that is attempting to appropriate the entire world of fantasy characters by stating that THEY own EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER used in City of Heroes, and yes folks that includes all the player characters. And right at this moment they are actively negotiating with YOUR Intellectual Property rights as if they are theirs to profit from. In short, NCSoft has gotten YOU the player to PAY THEM for the privledge of working for the greatest sweat-shop in history!
So Marvel is the bad guy here? No, they just woke up to the greatest theft of Intellectual Property attempted in some time. Even the EFF has started to clue in to what is really going on here, as the feedback to them and to Marvel is showing both of them that other "3rd Parties" are waking up to this outright Theft of THEIR Intellectual Property BY NCSoft.
It's about time players finally started confronting NCSoft over this continued manipulation of the facts and started to become aware just who the villian in this affair really is. It's easy to paint Marvel as the villian, but to use an analogy hasn't even Magneto fought and won for the good guys at times as well?
Now I can hear the arguement, "well Cryptic and NCSoft own the tools that make the character". That's true, but NCSoft has/is taking the position that they own the character itself lock stock and barrel and can do anything they want with it, and that includes exploiting it for profit, and banning anyone else from ever using it. Now who's on the wrong side of the "Number 2 pencil" arguement?
With the list now at over 2 MILLION charaters, what are the odds any new comic creation will bump into that and have to pay a "NCSoft-tax" or just scrap the idea entirely? The future of electronic Intellectual Property, and the PLAYER's rights are what is at stake here. And like it or not Marvel is the only one currently fighting for that, NCSoft sure as hell isn't the player's friend in this case.
I want to see NCSoft explain in court why they assign Liability to the players, yet none of the Ownership rights. That's like having your cake and eating it too is it not?
Posted Jan 23, 2005 1:47:11 PM | link
GlennJ> NCSoft can't police everyone on their game for morality or copy...it is an impossible task. No rational person could expect it from them.
Well, actually, if free web-services can actively moderate user-uploaded content, then they can too... You just go over 200 avatars at a time, clicking on those that look like well-known characters. You can easily do 1000 avatars per hour, all you need is a simple tool.
Besides, if it is true that they are contributing to IP infringements, then they either have to stop it, buy a license or shut down the entire system. You can't say "I have to break the law, coz that makes me rich". Sorry.
Posted Jan 23, 2005 3:00:25 PM | link
GlennJ> NCSoft can't police everyone on their game for morality or copy...it is an impossible task. No rational person could expect it from them.
What about There? They seem to have established precedent for the workability, at a certain volume, of validating uploaded content into a 3D VW.
Posted Jan 23, 2005 3:39:09 PM | link
The dictionary defination of a Hulk is a bulky clumsy person. The only thing marvel did was to add the color green and demand that to be their IP? Huh? If today i create a comic character of my own. Big. bulky. clumsy. and Purple. And I call it the hulk. But the backstory of my character would be he turns into this big huge purple monster whenever its full moon. Would it still mean that I'm infringing on Marvels IP?
How do you suppose NCsoft can actually prevent people from these infringements? by stopping all forms of customization in mmorpgs?
Lets say a new multiplayer racing game appears on the market and limits the customisation to only allows users to design their team mascot/logo and the team name (seems fair so far). But what if some kid happen to draw 3 black circles and calls the team, "team disney" who would be liable?
Lets face it, the icons created for Marvel universe are, well fairly generic. most of em are modelled after human beings in different colored spandex suits. The silver surfer is a silver colored being that travels on a surfboard. The Hulk is, a green hulk. The human torch is a human torch. The beast is a beast. Super beings that belongs to the good faction are known as Superheroes and the villains are known as super villains. Its not like NCSoft is going out if its way to infringe on Marvels intellectual property but rather isnt it alot harder for them not to?
Sure, you may be able to create the exact same character but the story line is different, the universe set for the characters of both games are different, nobody is being fooled or deluded into thinking City of Heroes is game set within the confines of the Marvel Universe.
NCsoft has even gone to the extent of warning its users against possible copyright infringement.
So then why is there a problem?
Posted Jan 23, 2005 6:32:46 PM | link
myron> Would it still mean that I'm infringing on Marvels IP?
A purple Hulk howling at the full moon would at worst be satire.
myron> How do you suppose NCsoft can actually prevent people from these infringements? by stopping all forms of customization in mmorpgs?
Marvels claim seems to be that NCSoft are acting as if enabling the creation of avatars that are close to popular comic book characters is a commercial advantage for them. And they are probably right too...
How do newspapers prevent illegal adverisments in their classified advertisment section? Editing.
myron> NCsoft has even gone to the extent of warning its users against possible copyright infringement.
What difference does this make? It's like renting out your flat to hookers and telling them that organized prostitution is illegal, but not minding taking money earned from having sex. You may still be held responsible if you should have known that the practice you warned against actually was enabled by the environment you provided... (i.e. you might be charged for being a pimp)
Posted Jan 23, 2005 6:51:54 PM | link
Regardless of legalities, Marvel are being dicks about this.
Put it in perspective: Are NCSoft encouraging the replication of copywrited characters, advertising their game by displaying said replicas, and running story-arcs lifted from comics featuring those characters? No. The worst case is that against NCSoft's specific instruction, a few over-enthusiastic gamers might make characters that resemble members of the Marvel stable. This is not a doomsday scenario. It doesn't even happen very often. The actual cost to Marvel of allowing it to continue, perhaps with a nominal fee from NCSoft to cover 'trademark defence' requirements? Negligable. Heck, CoH is free advertising for comic books in general.
On the other hand, what are the ramifications of a verdict in Marvel's favour? Nobody gets to make a superhero game except Marvel. Then, when all the other publishers make a fuss too, we are left in a situation where it is legally impossible for anyone to make a game where you play a superhero you design yourself (except perhaps a quango of all the major comic book publishers). And do you really think the 250,000 people playing their level 30 CoH characters are going to be so pleased with Marvel's legal team when the game is shut down that they'll buy and play an 'official' product?
This isn't a brand of soap-powder we're discussing. It's comic books, superheroes - it's *cool*. Superheroes aren't supposed to be petty bureaucrats. Did Robin ever dash to the Bat-Fax to serve a restraining order?
I might go so far as to say that superhero comic books are inspirational: parables for the modern child. We're *supposed* to want to be l