City of Heroes Lawsuit

As some of you may know, Marvel has recently sued the mmorpg "City of Heroes", for having the ability to make players look like certain characters such as Wolverine and The Hulk.
Basically, they're suing city of heroes because the game gives them the ability through character creation to make one of their characters. But, claiming that means that marvel can sue Kinko's for being able to make photocopies of a marvel comic or something. In the end of the article it states that this will greatly impact online games. How do you think this will impact SL, depending on the verdict?

Here's the Story on Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041112/ap_en_bu/superhero_lawsuit_2

I think that LL is far more protected from such a lawsuit, though not immune. There is a great difference between explictly providing users with foot-long adamantium claws versus providing users with boxes which may be manipulated into looking like claws with enough time. Only the users of SL are truly liable for such cases of copyright infringement. I think LL has a pretty good case if they were ever to be sued.

The primary difference between this case and that of normal copyright infringement is that the CoH people have made very specific options available to their users. It's not quite the same as Kinkos allowing copies to be made, as Kinkos was neither designed to exclusively copy superhero comics nor do they make significant profit from such copying.

Would the users be truly liable though? One point they bring up in the article is that it's similar to the copyright infringement on Napster. However, if someone made their own karaoke version of a metallica song with the exact words and distributed it for free, are they still liable for being sued? Also, the users are not gaining anything except in game. The money in SL is worthless, even though you could exchange it, it specifically says in SL Terms of Service, that SL is just like play money and can be altered, deleted, and changed at any time.

Having come to SL after CoH, I'd say this is an outrageous lawsuit. Sure, the game has the ABILITY to make your hero look a little like a known comic book hero, but why would you want to? It's the players, not the game. I saw so many imaginative characters while I played. A fire/fire blaster called The Matchstick. He was dressed in white tights with a red head. That's just one example.

It's nearly impossible to have a completely original idea but it's just a cop-out if you don't try. CoH banned/erased many characters because the players made bad choices (sexually explicit, copyrighted) while in creation.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just some stupid lawyers trying to justify their existance.

Yeah, your absolutely right, I believe Marvel is doing this because they're thinking of making their own MMORPG and they want to steal some of the CoH players. If CoH deletes the characters shouldn't they just drop the lawsuit (I know they won't but it makes a good case).

From talking to people in City Of Heroes some of them have started to read comic books again, because of getting in the game. So I think its actually helping the comic book companies, not hurting them.

But to companies, it doesn't matter, if they make millions off a lawsuit, it's good for them.

see, this is why i want to get rid of my avatar store. Things with copyright. My avatars are things with Sylvesters and Teletubbies, and we all know those characters are copyrighted, so, shuld i jsut get rid of my avatars all together? sry for quick subject change, but just wondering.

The Lindens used to go around removing items from SL that were obviously trademarked (when they were notified of them). I haven't seen them do that in a while. I wonder if part of their IP rights changes that happened about a year ago (which allows users to retain most creative control over their own content) has absolved LL of most responsibility in copyright cases. In other words, David, if you have a Sylvester av that you sell and Warner Bros. ever decides they want to stop you from selling it... they will probably come after you and not LL.

I wouldn't worry about it until you actually receive a cease and desist notice. Then when (if) you do, you stop. Story over.

This seems like a really stupid move on Marvel's part. Why disenfranchise people who are probably already consumers of your products?

City of Heroes and Marvel can both suck me off. I don't buy there crappy comics or there crappy games.

This reminds me of the takedown letters sent to Star Trek fan sites. It amazes me how petty and shortsighted some companies can be.

Songs are a bit different...it depends on who owns the words or the music...sometimes a songwriter retains ownership of the actual song but a group/band may buy the rights to remake and distribute their version of the song and a karaoke company may pay ascap and bmi for the right to use/play the song but not distribute it...much like a bar/club/restaraunt. Then ascap and bmi pay the songwriters/soundmen/engineers ect.
This is a bit different from characters in film or print. Selling or distributing a character from a movie, cartoon or comic book could very well bring about a lawsuit. People worked to create those characters and then spent a ton of money to bring about global recognition. I agree with Chip in that Marvel may be cutting off their nose with this one. But I also see where they are coming from on the creator level. Nobody likes seeing their brain child ripped off...not even the big guys.

Infringment is not a matter of money being made or not.

There is a bigger reason, if they allow copying they are essentially putting it in the public domain.

The short answer is yes. The long answer is how do you feel about others copying your designs and selling them? Is there a difference? Does the creator have the right to decide how his/her creation is used?

Also when Nintendo sent the Suicide Girls site a cease and desist notice, because a member had mentioned some of their games in their profile. When they noticed what they had done, they sent the owners of the site and the member some free consoles and games.

Funny you say that, I was just thinking of the number of "so and so is making a knock off version of my widget" "So and so stole my textures" threads in the forums...most of the creators in SL understand what it feels like to be knocked off and ripped off. This is no different. Many times though people do not feel bad for the creator if they are profiting off of the creation. Nobody cares if Chuck Jones or Disney characters are knocked off for personal gain...those guys made a mint off of them so why shouldn't I? Well, my thought is that making a mint off of a knock off stifles innovation. Why shouldn't these people have to work just as hard to create a memorable character/game/icon/song or at least pay royalties. At least then progress would occur...we would have new innovations, new characters to remember. So City of Heroes...make your own heroes or buy the rights to the ones you want to knock off.

This reminds me of the time I ran an Ally McBeal fansite and Fox sent me a cease-and-decease letter. Shortly after, the show tanked. I wasn't the only Ally fan they were gunning down, and the community left in droves. Copyright protection is one thing, supporting the ones who support you is another.

running a fan site based on a fictional character and creating a game which profits off of the use and distribution of a fictional charachter which was created by someone for a specific purpose are two totally different animals.

Not to hijack this thread or anything, but I loved that show too lol. Have you seen the show Kevin Hill on UPN? It really reminds me of Ally McBeal in a lot of ways. Anyway, back to evil copyright holders!

I'd like to think so too, but looking at past litigation cases, they are connected. They both have to do with appropriation of material in an adaptive form beyond the original "canonical" (as some dub it) source. In my Ally McBeal instance, noncommercial fanfiction was being created, but entertainment lawyers would argue that property of this nature still has to be protected (i.e. the thorny area of "slash" situations). Complications similar to this also arise in licensing of major franchises such as Star Trek. In other words, it's more like a chimera.



I have never watched Kevin Hill, but now you have my curiosity piqued, Ano. I may be able to relive those whimsical memories yet.

Im sure NC Soft has lawyers and discussed any reprocussion possibilities or infringement with them before they made the game. As for a player being able to make a Hero look like any Marvel, DC or any other Comic Character any Comic Book creator..there are only so many possibilities that the brain can come up with and most of these ideas were already taken..question is can you copyright an idea? If every possible combination imaginable has been taken..should that hender the creativity of individuals to make their own characters if they happen to look like an idea that has already been conceived?

IF someone makes a character that is Green and Bulky/muscular that looks like "The Hulk" is that violating copyright infringements? I don't think so. However if they label the character as "The Hulk" then I do think so and as far as my experience..alot of people did a rememberance of Christopher Reeves "Superman" and those that tried to name their character "Superman" were told to delete the name and any other character that had any previous copyrighted name. The question is..should the name only be protected by copyrights or should any likeness thereof be protected as well? If that is the case..after decades of existance..no one will be able to create anything because all ideas of likelyness will have been conceived eventually and no one will be able to create avitars.

My character looks a little like "Elvis" in the face..but my AV's name is not "Elvis". Kinda like if I was "Ford" and invented the first "Automoble" and saying..other Automobiles look like mine. There are only so many things you can do with a Human figure...or whoever invented the "Paved Road" should no one be able to use a "Paved Road" unless the inventor gets money from people driving on it all over the world? AND THE BIG QUESTION IS..WHO INVENTED THE HUMAN? SHOULD WE BE PAYING SOMEONE FOR USING SIMULAR NAMES LIKE "MIKE" AND "JONNY"?

In conclusion..if that is the fact..then we all owe somebody reimbursement.

Good philosophical question, Blake. I think you should ask it in a new thread.. I'd LOVE to see the ensuing discussion on that one

That, and the proverbial:

"We all stand on the shoulders of giants."