Spidey’s eyes may very well be trademarked/copyrighted; I seem to remember them being used for cover copy, although I was never into comics so it’s extremely difficult to say. The three claws thing is outright impossible to copyright, and has way too broad of application to not be in the game - it could apply to superheroes based on any number of animals. I don’t know much about the mask, but it would have been very much against the grain of the design to force people to avoid using some of the chargen tools with particular power sets, especially since they intended to police characters for trademark violations afterwards.
I have not actually. :|
Ok so the ninja claws used by ancient Japanese assasins is somehow a Wolverine infringement?
Don’t know about ninjas, but when I saw the claws I couldn’t help but think of Wolverine. Those are Wolverine’s claws!
Just a point here:
Marvel might not be doing anything wrong or greedy at all. From what I gather, they are claiming grounds on both copyright and trademark. As I recall, in order to retain posession of trademark, you MUST show active protection of the property. If someone can make the case that CoH can be used to play Marvel characters (and that is a point easily made) and that there is a fee involved in the playing of CoH, then Marvel must file a lawsuit or show some effort to protect their characters, even though they may not have a legally sound case.
There’s a similar issue in the use of property to generate profit, which is why you see certain characters dragged out periodically (Howard the Duck, etc).
Oh…and the claws thing…definitely Wolverine’s claws with the way they come out, and certainly could have been animated differently, and I would not be surprised if this suit produced a new visual for the set.
-AM Urbanek
That is NOT a point easily made. That has been my, um, point. All you can make are characters similar to Marvel characters. Go try and make a Captain America character in CoH. You’ll end up with a guy in red and blue tights with some kind of stars and bars design somewhere on his person, but is that enough to call him Captain America? If you actually saw a “Captain America-ish” character created with CoH’s builder, you’d have to laugh and say no. But let’s imagine you said yes. If that really was enough to call a character Captain America, then anyone wearing solid red tights would be equally guilty of copyright violation, inasmuch as the Flash and Daredevil both wear solid red tights. In fact, DC had better sue Marvel for copyright violation in that case…
Frankly, DC and Marvel have heroes in their universes that are FAR more similar to each other than anything you can produce with the CoH creator, for most characters. Which, I expect, NCsoft will point to if this actually goes to trial.
DC (or whatever it was called then) DID sue the creators of Captain Marvel (no relation to Marvel comics) for infringing on Superman. As I recall (this was the 30’s and I wasn’t born yet) DC won - in that Captain Marvel was deemed too similar to Superman (powerwise) but lost the part where they claimed they owned the rights to the concept of the costumed super hero.
Marvel is going to lose here, I think, but they might win some concessions like the Wolverine claws point.
Actually, ‘similar’ is all you need to show that there is the potential for TM infringement, and the potential is all that is required to force a company to file in order to maintain those TMs. In CoH it is very easy to make a Wolverine, Hulk, Jean Grey, or Dr. Doom clone, both in looks and abilities.
As an example of how far you can be from the source material and still be legally ‘similar’, take a look at the characters in X-Men Legends. Because of the art style, they really only resemble the heroes, and lack much of the detail, however they remain digital representations of Marvel’s work.
In the end, despite the elements which force Marvel into this suit, they really aren’t enough for successful litigation. Except, of course, those three metal claws.
-AM Urbanek
But isn’t a “trademark” only for, well, marks? Like logos and names and shit. You don’t “trademark” a character, you “copyright” it. Which means it is a different area and dilution wouldn’t come into play.
Yes? No? STFU?
But still, nobody would ever mistake them for the licensed character and Marvel isn’t going to be able to argue that anyone is gaining from this supposed infringement (any more than DC could claim Quicksilver, or Dash, are Flash ripoffs). This is a meritless case except on tiny details like the way the claws look. I agree that Marvel probably should fight the fight, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe that these are windmills they’re tilting at.
Anyway, if it were illegal to make character similar to Marvel characters, Image Comics wouldn’t exist. Actually no superheroes would exist except Superman and anything created by those who control Superman.
No. Fictional characters (and their graphic representation) have overlapping protection under both trademark and copyright law.
I agree that this is largely meritless, however this isn’t about if Marvel should fight the fight, it’s that they have to. If they don’t, they run the risk of losing their trademarks. I’d like to believe that Marvel is only doing this because their legal department tells them they have to, instead of for more malicious reasons. Then again, they could just be trying to beat down the only competition to the upcoming Mavel Superheroes MMO game.
-AM Urbanek
Cryptic has posted a terse response on their website:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BY CRYPTIC STUDIOS, INC.
As reported by The Associated Press, Marvel Enterprises Inc. and Marvel Characters, Inc. have sued NCsoft Corporation and Cryptic Studios. The complaint is meritless. Cryptic Studios is confident that the District Court will reject all of Marvel’s claims and fully vindicate Cryptic Studios in all respects.
Aren’t they pretty much required to say that though? That’s pretty much the same exact statement any publically traded company makes anytime they are sued.
The only thing they seem to be missing is the “defend themselves vigourously” or something like that. Is the adverb “vigourously” some sort of legal term?
Actually, it seems much more terse, as Creole Ned said, than usual. Usually, you get a “It is Company X’s position that Company X has done nothing wrong and is well within the limits of the law. Company X will therefore defend itself vigorously, yadda yadda yadda.” Cryptic’s statement comes across more like “Marvel are a bunch of assholes who have filed a nuisance suit. We don’t even acknowledge the need to defend ourselves, because it’s so obviously a nuisance suit that, if there’s any justice in the system at all, it will never make it to court in the first place. Assholes.”
As Superman was in many ways a ripoff of Doc Savage, and so on…
As Superman was in many ways a ripoff of Doc Savage, and so on…[/quote]
Also, Denny missed my post where I noted that DC DID sue everyone for infringing on Superman. It was an early case where they targeted Captain Marvel. They won in court that Captain Marvel infringed on Superman (and the owners had to pay up for a long time) but they lost on the “we own all superheroes” argument. Anyway, that’s how I remember reading it.
And bah, Superheroes, all of them, are a ripoff of mythological heroes. Nothing new, even under a red sun.
Doh! Someone owes Homer a lot of money.