31 replies to this topic

[GRiPSViGiL]

I stumbled upon the reddit thread by PEEFsmash about PGI not communicating or setting up profit sharing in terms of selling decals or likenesses of team's submitted logo/emblem art.

https://www.reddit.c...bottom-comments

http://mwomercs.com/...-finalist-pack/

Has this been resolved? What is the opinion of others in terms of what PGI should be allowed to do?

I already despise PGI as it is but I don't doubt that they tried to pass this by the teams participating.

Another reddit post with grmblings on the issue from the OP:

https://www.reddit.c...ad_about_mwowc/

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 24 October 2016 - 12:59 PM.

[Ghogiel]

This is what lead to that PGI flip flop about the top 31 teams decals and them giving 100% of the proceeds to the WC prize pool instead of 50%.

My advise for original copyright holders is to send a C&D. If that is ignored then it's ggclose, I can't imagine anyone is going to open a case as that's already going to cost like $600 just to file.

Edited by Ghogiel, 24 October 2016 - 01:02 PM.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

So a TL;DR is that PGI used the team's logos/insignias/emblems without the team's consent and making profit out of it?

[Bud Crue]

Ghogiel, on 24 October 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:

This is what lead to that PGI flip flop about the top 31 teams decals and them giving 100% of the proceeds to the WC prize pool instead of 50%.

My advise for original copyright holders is to send a C&D. If that is ignored then it's ggclose, I can't imagine anyone is going to open a case as that's already going to cost like $600 just to file.

Yep. Plus damages are usually based on profits, and so the cost of filing, lawyering up, discovery proceedings, etc. is likely going to cost more that any actual reward or likely settlement. By making the proceeds go to the pool would appear to be a good faith effort to negate that issue but it doesn't really. Nonetheless, the chances of success AND getting a damage reward that would cover legal expenses seems pretty slim here.

Then again, copyright violation, in the US anyway -no clue about Canada, can be a criminal offense as well (seriously). Anybody call the FBI?

[DaZur]

Good luck defending the status of IP ownership...

Especially if none of the (Logos / emblems) have been trademarked and or they have been attached to a prohibitive terms of use disclosure (This is typically on websites that wish to protect their IP assets from being ganked).

Even if there is wiggle-room of protected IP... It's a loooong, potentially expensive and arduous road.

Edited by DaZur, 24 October 2016 - 01:32 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Bud Crue, on 24 October 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

Yep. Plus damages are usually based on profits, and so the cost of filing, lawyering up, discovery proceedings, etc. is likely going to cost more that any actual reward or likely settlement. By making the proceeds go to the pool would appear to be a good faith effort to negate that issue but it doesn't really. Nonetheless, the chances of success AND getting a damage reward that would cover legal expenses seems pretty slim here.

Then again, copyright violation, in the US anyway -no clue about Canada, can be a criminal offense as well (seriously). Anybody call the FBI?

Usually you'd get damages and then legal fees awarded on top. At best they could walk away with no finacial loss, but they'd have to win the case and judges Fing hate copyright cases where no money (arguably) is changing hands over it. So it's just a huge risk.

DaZur, on 24 October 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

Good luck defending the status of IP ownership...

Especially if none the (Logos / emblems) have been trademarked and or they have been attached to a prohibitive terms of use disclosure (This is typically on websites that wish to protect their IP assets from being ganked).

Even if there is wiggle-room of protected IP... It's a loooong, potentially expensive and arduous road.

It's easily done. I've managed to get large companies to comply with my copyright claims via DMCAs and I have never trademarked anything.

[DaZur]

Ghogiel, on 24 October 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

It's easily done. I've managed to get large companies to comply with my copyright claims via DMCAs and I have never trademarked anything.

Well your sir are one tenacious fella.

That said, and not questioning the veracity of your statement... But I though the DMCA was only for going after/protecting copyrighted works?

[Bud Crue]

DaZur, on 24 October 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

Good luck defending the status of IP ownership...

Especially if none the (Logos / emblems) have been trademarked and or they have been attached to a prohibitive terms of use disclosure (This is typically on websites that wish to protect their IP assets from being ganked).

Even if there is wiggle-room of protected IP... It's a loooong, potentially expensive and arduous road.

Yes, the logos in this case are not being used as trademarks by their "owners" nor PGI, but merely as works of art. Thus, trademark law would likely not apply. Works of art are subject to copyright. Registration of copyright (at least in the U.S) is typically only necessary or even done in anticipation of litigation. Moreover the very nature of the event and these circumstances (PGI requesting submission of the logos) seems to me to be an effective recognition by PGI that they do not own these works of art. So I think, academically speaking that the artists who created or own the logos could make a case of copyright infringement. Would it be worth it though? Highly doubtful.

Ghogiel, on 24 October 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

Usually you'd get damages and then legal fees awarded on top. At best they could walk away with no finacial loss, but they'd have to win the case and judges Fing hate copyright cases where no money (arguably) is changing hands over it. So it's just a huge risk.

It's easily done. I've managed to get large companies to comply with my copyright claims via DMCAs and I have never trademarked anything.

Legal fees and increased damges are typical only in cases of willful infringement. In this case it seems pretty clear that PGI was clueless. Good luck proving wilfulness here.

Edited by Bud Crue, 24 October 2016 - 01:37 PM.

[Ghogiel]

DaZur, on 24 October 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

Well your sir are one tenacious fella.

That said, and not questioning the veracity of your statement... But I though the DMCA was only for going after/protecting copyrighted works?

It is.
Which is the laws that would be granting protections to the people who created logos and not trademark law.

[TKSax]

Bud Crue, on 24 October 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

.Moreover the very nature of the event and these circumstances (PGI requesting submission of the logos) seems to me to be an effective recognition by PGI that they do not own these works of art. So I think, academically speaking that the artists who created or own the logos could make a case of copyright infringement. Would it be worth it though? Highly doubtful.

The logo's were submitted because the prizes for the regional teams were in game decals, not with the idea that they were going to be used by PGI to profit or make the prize fund bigger. You also have to remember that there are not trademark laws for art and/or images. Art and images once they are created belong to the creator unless that creator gives you permission to use them as you see fit.

Do I think PGI did it intentionally? No. Did they do it without thinking it through, yes and that is not surprising.

[FLG 01]

TKSax, on 24 October 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

Art and images once they are created belong to the creator unless that creator gives you permission to use them as you see fit.

Did Lords ask Harvard for permission using their logo in a slightly altered fashion?

[TKSax]

FLG 01, on 24 October 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Did Lords ask Harvard for permission using their logo in a slightly altered fashion?

Yes actually Peef asked them this week if they had a problem with and they said no one would mistake if for the Harvard logo so they did not have an issue with it. But of course that is not the point of what PGI is did/doing.

[Bud Crue]

FLG 01, on 24 October 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Did Lords ask Harvard for permission using their logo in a slightly altered fashion?

Parody defense. Also possibly derivative work. Or the simple fact that there are no damages to be had makes it unlikely that Harvard would give a damn even if they were aware of its use/misuse.

[TLBFestus]

DaZur, on 24 October 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

Good luck defending the status of IP ownership...

Especially if none of the (Logos / emblems) have been trademarked and or they have been attached to a prohibitive terms of use disclosure (This is typically on websites that wish to protect their IP assets from being ganked).

Even if there is wiggle-room of protected IP... It's a loooong, potentially expensive and arduous road.

In a lot of these cases, especially in Canada, you simply have to prove that you were using it first to have a strong case in terms of proving a logo or identity is yours. Trademarking or registering it is nice, but not necessarily going to be "the thing".

I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere PGI slipped in a clause that gave them rights to stuff like this and you unwittingly agreed to it.

That said, it looks like they did an about face on it either out of goodwill, or the fact they went "oh cr@p...we didn't think of that".

I wonder about long term sales....is it just til the tournament is over or will they be available afterwards for cash for anyone?

Edited by TLBFestus, 24 October 2016 - 03:43 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

And people wonder why PGI will not consider putting community created maps into MWO? Honestly, PGI should just delete the content based on the created logos, refund the money people spent on them and walk away from this issue, lesson learned.

[Ghogiel]

TLBFestus, on 24 October 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere PGI slipped in a clause that gave them rights to stuff like this and you unwittingly agreed to it.

Unlikely. You'd have to make a leglly binding contract to transfer of rights to lose your copyright protections which isn't something you can unwittingly do, unless signing documents is something you do in your sleep.

[Ghogiel]

Rampage, on 24 October 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

And people wonder why PGI will not consider putting community created maps into MWO? Honestly, PGI should just delete the content based on the created logos, refund the money people spent on them and walk away from this issue, lesson learned.

I don't think people wonder why, I think most agree it's because "PGI", and it has nothing to do with copyright as most games that takes user submissions for paid content has a contract process where in you sign up to agree to specific usages. this differs to the MWO situation as there hasn't been any contract, and correct me if I am wrong they didn't know they were going to be selling their logos to the playerbase for profits in the next supporter pack.

Edited by Ghogiel, 24 October 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Ghogiel, on 24 October 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

I don't think people wonder why, I think most agree it's because "PGI", and it has nothing to do with copyright as most games that takes user submissions for paid content has a contract process where in you sign up to agree to specific usages. this differs to the MWO situation as there hasn't been any contract, and correct me if I am wrong they didn't know they were going to be selling their logos to the playerbase for profits in the next supporter pack.

The "for profit" thing has already been undone. But PGI did have to spend the man hours to take those designs and actually include them in the game so I have mixed feelings on whether they were ever going to profit from them anyway. Yet, apparently there is still an issue so as I said PGI should delete the content and give refunds to anyone that made a purchase.

I am curious as to whether the people who actually designed the logos are the ones that are upset or whether it is other people? Only the person or persons who actually were involved in the design should really be upset if they feel they were taken advantage of. Personally, as a fiction writer, I would be thrilled to have something that I created put into a game for thousands of people to enjoy. I do not write for a living however so if the people that designed these logos do it as a vocation and think that they should be paid for it then I can see their point and PGI should either compensate them or not use the material.

[Ghogiel]

Rampage, on 24 October 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

The "for profit" thing has already been undone. But PGI did have to spend the man hours to take those designs and actually include them in the game so I have mixed feelings on whether they were ever going to profit from them anyway. Yet, apparently there is still an issue so as I said PGI should delete the content and give refunds to anyone that made a purchase.

I am curious as to whether the people who actually designed the logos are the ones that are upset or whether it is other people? Only the person or persons who actually were involved in the design should really be upset if they feel they were taken advantage of. Personally, as a fiction writer, I would be thrilled to have something that I created put into a game for thousands of people to enjoy. I do not write for a living however so if the people that designed these logos do it as a vocation and think that they should be paid for it then I can see their point and PGI should either compensate them or not use the material.

The for profit thing isn't "undone". Fact is they are taking money, it doesn't matter if they donate the money to starving children or not, any money they generate from other peoples work is arguably not even theirs to donate.

The same way IP owners pwn non profit fan art creations all the time. No money is even changing hands and yet they DMCA simply because use if not authorised. It is still copyright infringement.

[Mycrus]

So much legal neck bearding... watch an episode of suits ang get it out of your collective systems...