66 replies to this topic

[GotShotALot]

Actually this smacks of "Yeah? You have problems with the way we implemented this? Fine then nobody gets anything."

I really wish the decision makers at PGI could show a bit more maturity and class.

Perhaps those will be added next patch.

Edited by GotShotALot, 28 October 2016 - 10:10 AM.

[Mole]

GotShotALot, on 28 October 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

I really wish the decision makers at PGI could show a bit more maturity and class.

Maturity and class will be implemented within 90 days.

[RedDragon]

Apparently, this is NOT a thinking man's shooter

[Cy Mitchell]

Ironically, the "Team Brand" that was at the center of the controversy was a direct rip-off (parody, as the House of Lords spokesman called it) of a trademarked and copyrighted Harvard University logo.

PGI screwed up but they were not the only ones.

[Deathlike]

TKSax, on 28 October 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

I removed it on my own accord because I was not sure the Authors authenticity to the issue.

Well then, I apologize.

It wasn't obvious to me.

Internets get real quick.

[Mystere]

Summon3r, on 28 October 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

https://youtu.be/VcqES-BLygE

PvP Live? Oh the irony!!!

[TKSax]

Deathlike, on 28 October 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

Well then, I apologize.

It wasn't obvious to me.

Internets get real quick.

Yea I kinda sucks that there is no way to tell if it was user deleted or mod Deleted. However, the article was written by an outside entity so I am good with now, as far as it being an article. (I am not sure I like how sensationalized it was)

[Deathlike]

TKSax, on 28 October 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Yea I kinda sucks that there is no way to tell if it was user deleted or mod Deleted. However, the article was written by an outside entity so I am good with now, as far as it being an article. (I am not sure I like how sensationalized it was)

The current Internet era of media, you have to make garbagy trash titles that normally would be associated with rumor mags just to get people to read the thread and respond to.

It's no different than the current thread's title.

[Dee Eight]

In before the lock/deletion/modhiding/whatever.

[Besh]

Im not from the USA, so I do not know whether the Teams automatically own the rights to their ( submitted ) Logos . Just out of interest, could someone maybe provide some insight into the actual legalities involved ?

Edited by Besh, 28 October 2016 - 11:09 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Besh, on 28 October 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

Im not from the USA, so I do not know whether the Teams automatically own the rights to their ( submitted ) Logos . Just out of interest, could someone maybe provide some insight into the actual legalities involved ?

You might want to read some of the threads pertaining to this issue here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutreachHPG/. There is lots of opinions there including some legalize from a person who identifies himself as a copyright and patent attorney.

[kuma8877]

Rampage, on 28 October 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

Ironically, the "Team Brand" that was at the center of the controversy was a direct rip-off (parody, as the House of Lords spokesman called it) of a trademarked and copyrighted Harvard University logo.

PGI screwed up but they were not the only ones.

I was wondering myself how many of the logos were wholly original and not pieced together from other people's work. I mean, one of the finalist teams is using PGI's art right in their logo (I'm assuming no C&D was issued). Legally this cuts in a lot of directions if the matter was to be fully pushed about what rights teams have that have used other's assets to create their logo design. The only ones with legal grounds to protect their work would be those that had it specifically created from scratch by a member of the team or as a commission where the artist has previously given up his/her rights to the logo design.

[Besh]

Rampage, on 28 October 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

You might want to read some of the threads pertaining to this issue here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutreachHPG/. There is lots of opinions there including some legalize from a person who identifies himself as a copyright and patent attorney.

Thanks a lot for the Link . Will read .

[Novakaine]

I simply have no words.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rampage, on 28 October 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

There is lots of opinions there including some legalize from a person who identifies himself as a copyright and patent attorney.

Said person is aptly named "thelegaldept" as well.

[C E Dwyer]

For a person with only 1575 subscribers he takes himself way to seriously

Sad so sad

[Jabilo]

I see it as inept but without malice.

They probably thought the teams would think it was really cool to have their logos in the game and would not mind.

I hope they get something sorted where everyone can be happy.

[C E Dwyer]

Also as four teams are using copyright material in their badges, should they be crowing quite as loudly about it

[DaZur]

What I find really amusing is the general community reaction to this whole debacle... I'm finding it largely disingenuous at best.

For clarity, PGI created this fiasco by either blithering ignorance or unadulterated hubris. No way around it, it's their crow to eat.

That said, both in this thread and others... The knee-jerk reaction is to pile on PGI with condemnation and ridicule (well-deserved mind you) but there is little genuine discussion in regards to the ramifications being felt by the tournament groups and the individual participants.

It's like folks are more concerned with making sure they've gotten a kick in on PGIs nuts than actually giving a rats arse over the fallout of this development.

[TKSax]

DaZur, on 28 October 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

What I find really amusing is the general community reaction to this whole debacle... I'm finding it largely disingenuous at best.

For clarity, PGI created this fiasco by either blithering ignorance or unadulterated hubris. No way around it, it's their crow to eat.

That said, both in this thread and others... The knee-jerk reaction is to pile on PGI with condemnation and ridicule (well-deserved mind you) but there is little genuine discussion in regards to the ramifications being felt by the tournament groups and the individual participants.

It's like folks are more concerned with making sure they've gotten a kick in on PGIs nuts than actually giving a rats arse over the fallout of this development.

So I belive PGI did not do it out of malice. I feel bad for the guys in my Unit who are losing the logo's and the other units that are.

However, PGI Could have avoided this by not being so short sighted and actually communicating their intentions. Yet PGI continues to repeat a pattern of short-sightedness and lack of clear communication. So are we just supposed to keep giving them a pass? Pat them on the back and send them on the way with a ," we understand I am sure you will do better next time " over and over and over again? PGI's lack of clear communication and short-sightedness is why I have no intention of spending any more money on this game. I keep hoping they will change... maybe someday they will figure it out.

Edited by TKSax, 28 October 2016 - 12:13 PM.