Jump to content


Regarding Copyrights and Legal Rights!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
80 replies to this topic

#1 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 September 2007 - 22:52

I have heard that there have been various words thrown about by multiple parties regarding copyright infringements and legal actions, so before anyone gets too full of themselves, here's the actual, legal deal.

Any discussion about copyrights must come to me, as I am the legal representative of SoV and the legal account holder of the site hosting SoV.

Details to contact me are easily available, are listed on the website, are available from members, and were already known by ALL the parties involved in this pathetic accusation.

ALL legal correspondence with me MUST be done via email.
This provides a clear and legally binding audit trail to both parties involved.
The use of the forum or instant messaging for legally binding negotiation is not legally admissible and as such shall not be considered.
The forums and instant messaging may be used to inform members or other involved parties of legal standings regarding SoV, but any legally binding discussion of said things shall only be announced by me, and negotiation of such terms must be done via email with me.

Any attempt to intimidate or otherwise manipulate any companies that provide services to me without first contacting me in a legal fashion is ILLEGAL.
If anyone attempts to do such things, I shall respond with my lawyers. This is not a threat, this is a legal reality and I know my rights, your rights, and the rights of members of various guilds involved. If you are a member - or from another guild - and you wish for advice regarding your rights and the rights of others, I am happy to provide that.
Please note that I am NOT a lawyer and as such my advice cannot be considered legal advice; I do however know my way around such laws quite well and am happy to help if I can.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep active on these forums lately, so any concerns or questions regarding this should be directed to me via email.

You can email me at: guvnikov ;at; villanousity ;dot; com

If I see any more libel regarding copyright laws or childish accusations regarding the legal standing of SoV I will seriously consider having my lawyers get involved.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#2 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 September 2007 - 23:22

In response to questions:

I am an Australian.
I live and work in Australia.
The SoV site is hosted by an Australian company.
Legally SoV is an Australian organisation.
SoV has declared in many instances that legal dealings with us shall proceed under Australian law.

I will say it again though, just to be clear.
All dealings, agreements, contracts and other legally binding actions conducted with SoV shall be done so under the applicable Australian laws unless otherwise noted.
Where there is conflict between the laws of states in Australia, the laws of the state of Victoria shall be used.
I am the legal representative of SoV and as such no legally binding dealings with SoV are binding unless I have authorised and/or personally negotiated the terms of such dealings.

No one may act legally on the behalf of SoV without my express, written authorisation. Such authorisation must be received via registered post or via digitally signed, encrypted correspondence via email.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#3 Hesacon

Hesacon

    Sacred Hero

  • Citizen
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,035 posts
  • Local time: 09:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space

Posted 10 September 2007 - 00:12

Smoked.
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
]SoV[ Phidaissi: **** SoJ, always trying to destroy us in some distant future

#4 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 September 2007 - 16:17

In response to feedback: To clarify the SoV copyright policy in a short, simple way for everyone.

Any work done by members of the guild is still owned by the creating member, they reserve the rights to such work and SoV at no point wishes to take away any of those rights.

By submitting material to SoV for use by the guild you are granting SoV a perpetual, unrestricted license to use that work. This license is not revokable, it applies to all guild materials. Examples of guild materials include but are not limited to: website, forums, newsletters, guild pages on other sites, promotional media and anything else deemed guild related by the gods of SoV.

The license extends to all guild related materials, but does not cover personal use of guild materials. In such cases the original copyright holder and/or creator retains the right to allow or deny such usage.

-------------------

To make sure everyone understands this, I'll give a few examples that should clarify many points.

Say member X creates an image for SoV.

She submits this image to the guild - granting an implicit license to the guild to use said material.

SoV accepts this image under our copyright policy - elevating the guild rights to perpetual, unrestricted in relation to guild based materials - which the member agreed to as part of submitting said work. NOTE: This means that if you submit work to SoV and we do NOT accept it, we do NOT retain a licence to use such work. We do not wish to retain useless rights or detract from member ownership.

SoV uses this image in various ways on guild related materials - this is allowed.

An SoV member uses the image on their personal website. The original creator complains that she does not wish the image to be used on such a site. SoV will attempt to have the member cease usage of the image.
As such a site would not be guild related the original owner retains her copyright. As we are a friendly guild we are willing to help people solve such issues if we can.

The original creator decides to leave SoV, then demands that we cease using her image.

SoV may rightfully decline such a demand, as our copyright policy provided for perpetual, unrestricted usage in relation to guild sites.
We shall still attempt to prevent members using such material on personal sites, but we have the right to continue to use such material on the guild related media for as long as we desire.

If the original creator politely requests that SoV cease using her image, we may decide to honour that request.
Such an action would require:
1. Time to develop or acquire a replacement.
2. Agreement from the gods or a high god decree.
3. Politeness. Anyone making childish demands WILL be ignored.

SoV are under no obligation to honour such demands, we have the RIGHT to use said material; if we cease using it upon request it's because we're being NICE, not because we are obliged to.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#5 Hesacon

Hesacon

    Sacred Hero

  • Citizen
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,035 posts
  • Local time: 09:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space

Posted 10 September 2007 - 19:57

I thought we were EVIL?
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
]SoV[ Phidaissi: **** SoJ, always trying to destroy us in some distant future

#6 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 10 September 2007 - 20:40

Well, this is the sort of legal requirement corporations have on submitted content, and we all know that corporations are evil.

I'll let you join the dots. ;)
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#7 Locke

Locke

    Enlightened Devout Knight

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Local time: 02:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina, USA

Posted 11 September 2007 - 03:47

What happened to cause all this?   :blink:
Posted Image

#8 Xylius

Xylius

    Inactive

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,436 posts
  • Local time: 01:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In da 520

Posted 11 September 2007 - 06:05

View PostLocke, on Sep 10 2007, 17:47, said:

What happened to cause all this?   :blink:
The SoV banner. :rolleyes:
Gunz IGN : Xylius
Xbox live gamer tag : XsV Asmodai
Runescape IGN : XsV Gilles
Xfire : xsvasmodai

#9 ryan

ryan

    Shol'va

  • Shol'va
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,133 posts
  • Local time: 02:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 September 2007 - 07:20

I'd like to see someone sue SoV.
;)

#10 Ferris

Ferris

    Shol'va

  • Shol'va
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,496 posts
  • Local time: 08:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester, NH

Posted 11 September 2007 - 10:45

[20:35] [Xfire-TTHS] SoV Ferris: I should hold you hostage with a peanut, then maybe you'd talk
[20:35] [Xfire-TTHS] SoV Ferris: Or maybe rig a jar of peanut butter to drop on you
[20:35] ]SoV[ SpaceDyeVest: >.
[20:35] ]SoV[ SpaceDyeVest: >
[20:35] ]SoV[ SpaceDyeVest: You wouldn't
[20:35] [Xfire-TTHS] SoV Ferris: I so would
[20:35] [Xfire-TTHS] SoV Ferris: >:o
[20:37] ]SoV[ SpaceDyeVest: I'd have to take you to SoV court
[20:38] [Xfire-TTHS] SoV Ferris: Pfft, take me to Australian court like a real man
[20:39] ]SoV[ SpaceDyeVest: lol
[20:39] ]SoV[ SpaceDyeVest: Move to Australia with me just so I can do it
[20:39] [Xfire-TTHS] SoV Ferris: Only if you pay
[20:39] [Xfire-TTHS] SoV Ferris: And only if I can throw my little pack of peanuts at you on the way
[20:41] ]SoV[ SpaceDyeVest: Deal

At least Dustin and I are making good of the situation!

Posted Image


#11 Orceo

Orceo

    Heathen

  • Heathen
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Local time: 09:33 AM

Posted 11 September 2007 - 12:16

The whole "By submitting work to SoV" bit was made AFTER the image was submitted and as such does not apply to the banner in question. The banner being currently used was submitted for use on the old invisionsfree, as this is not the old invisionfree the image should not be used here w/o the permission of the original creator, Sparky.

Also, if you want to ignore the fact that the current terms and conditions were set, and never agreed upon by the original creator, bit, then you most definately do NOT have permission to use the image in any way.

Quote

ALL legal correspondence with me MUST be done via email.
This provides a clear and legally binding audit trail to both parties involved.
The use of the forum or instant messaging for legally binding negotiation is not legally admissible and as such shall not be considered.
I believe the original deal was done via the forum.

Edited by Orceo, 11 September 2007 - 12:20.

Cogito Ergo Nom

#12 Hesacon

Hesacon

    Sacred Hero

  • Citizen
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,035 posts
  • Local time: 09:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space

Posted 11 September 2007 - 12:20

Actually, he made it for the website.
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
]SoV[ Phidaissi: **** SoJ, always trying to destroy us in some distant future

#13 Cyrax

Cyrax

    Heathen

  • Heathen
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Local time: 07:33 AM

Posted 11 September 2007 - 12:27

I find this laughable.

All because Sparky was half-joking about sueing SoV for his used banner.

Lawl. Gotta love teh Spark Spark.

#14 Xylius

Xylius

    Inactive

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,436 posts
  • Local time: 01:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In da 520

Posted 11 September 2007 - 12:28

Lolz srsly.
Gunz IGN : Xylius
Xbox live gamer tag : XsV Asmodai
Runescape IGN : XsV Gilles
Xfire : xsvasmodai

#15 Cyrax

Cyrax

    Heathen

  • Heathen
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Local time: 07:33 AM

Posted 11 September 2007 - 12:34

If SoV werent such rude dumbasses, they would do the obviously easy and right thing by taking Sparky's banner off and be done with it. I'm sure SoV, in its extreme power, could muster up someone who can do a half decent one. Can't they? I mean, you guys are the evil, almighty SoV for crying out loud!

#16 Xylius

Xylius

    Inactive

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,436 posts
  • Local time: 01:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In da 520

Posted 11 September 2007 - 12:43

Posted Image


Theres a new one :o
http://img181.images...age=rawrpe2.png

Edited by `sp4rky, 11 September 2007 - 12:43.

Gunz IGN : Xylius
Xbox live gamer tag : XsV Asmodai
Runescape IGN : XsV Gilles
Xfire : xsvasmodai

#17 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 11 September 2007 - 14:17

Orceo said:

The whole "By submitting work to SoV" bit was made AFTER the image was submitted and as such does not apply to the banner in question. The banner being currently used was submitted for use on the old invisionsfree, as this is not the old invisionfree the image should not be used here w/o the permission of the original creator, Sparky.
Incorrect.

Such a policy has always been in place as a standard "You make it for the guild thus it belongs to the guild", which is the copyright law STANDARD for work produced for others. The policy SoV created (on the OLD forums I might add!) was to give members MORE RIGHTS by enforcing that they retain ownership AND control over the work for any and all non-guild related instances.

Our policy was to give more rights to members and to clarify the legal standing of works submitted for people that are not familiar with copyright laws.

Orceo said:

I believe the original deal was done via the forum.

F'Nok said:

The forums and instant messaging may be used to inform members or other involved parties of legal standings regarding SoV, but any legally binding discussion of said things shall only be announced by me, and negotiation of such terms must be done via email with me.
Legally binding discussion must happen via email. If I choose to discuss changes to legal requirements via the forums and then create those modifications myself that is my decision. However, negotiation of legal rights for content used by the guild must occur via email if you desire a solid, legal, audit trail.
It's also the only way to ensure that I will see it in a timely manner, as I cannot keep updated on the forums all the time.

Cyrax said:

I find this laughable.

All because Sparky was half-joking about sueing SoV for his used banner.

Lawl. Gotta love teh Spark Spark.
I actually agree with you 100%.

This announcement was made after Milz told several members that he was planning to contact my web host and attempt to have the content forcibly removed - which would be illegal on his behalf.

Sparky at no point has made any sort of demand or request of me, however I have received an email asserting to be on his behalf from Milz since I made this announcement.

Cyrax said:

If SoV werent such rude dumbasses, they would do the obviously easy and right thing by taking Sparky's banner off and be done with it. I'm sure SoV, in its extreme power, could muster up someone who can do a half decent one. Can't they? I mean, you guys are the evil, almighty SoV for crying out loud!
As stated, if I had been asked politely I would likely have done so.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#18 ryan

ryan

    Shol'va

  • Shol'va
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,133 posts
  • Local time: 02:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 September 2007 - 00:36

I think the funny thing here is, Sparky told us to take the banner down.

If I owned a forum using someone else's banner and they told me to take it down I would say

Lol

In their face.
And leave it at that ^_^

Edited by Ryan, 12 September 2007 - 00:36.


#19 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 September 2007 - 02:04

I think that's possibly the only important point.

We have shown in the past that when requested to honour the wishes of someone we shall - I have removed content on behalf of Mj and I believe a guide was removed for someone else as well.

This was not a request but a demand accompanied with a threat.
I will not tolerate childish threats; especially those of the illegal variety.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#20 Guest_King Sparky V_*

Guest_King Sparky V_*
  • _Guests_

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:07

Quote

Such a policy has always been in place as a standard "You make it for the guild thus it belongs to the guild", which is the copyright law STANDARD for work produced for others. The policy SoV created (on the OLD forums I might add!) was to give members MORE RIGHTS by enforcing that they retain ownership AND control over the work for any and all non-guild related instances.

Excuse me. I believe the topic in which I first posted my banner was named something around the boundaries of: "Stfu underlings and all of you come up with a banner FOR THE FORUMZ, although we know there's only really one person with a great amount of artistical value in this guild right now.

I made it for the forums, old forums I might add even though you've already given points against that. But seeing as the SoV website had an ugly but fitting layout at the time, I did not hand out permission for any usage on the website.

" OH HO HO, STFU 15 YEAR OLD WORM, THAT BANNER WAS SOV PROPERTY THE MINUTE YOU POSTED IT ON THE FORUMS GOTO SCHOOL! HO HO HO"

Miles already highlighted this for me, and yes, it was on behalf of me but seeing as only Ash, and IM have seen this I'd like to share it with you.

Quote

Copyright is free and automatic upon creation of the work. In general, the first owner of copyright will be the author (for literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works) or producer (for sound recordings and films) or broadcaster (for broadcasts). Under Australian law, where an employee is the author, the first owner of copyright is the employer (this is slightly different to the US works-made-for-hire doctrine: in Australia, duration of copyright is still measured by the lifetime of the employee author).

I am the first owner of copyright, meaning that at the time, I was the "employer" and that anybody wishing to use my banner for any purpose was my "employee", am I correct in saying this? So doesn't that no still give me the right to issue to the members of SoV where my banner can or can't be used?

Even if I fucked up on that point I'd like to add this:

Quote

Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died after 1956, will be out of copyright seventy (70) years after the author's death.

Also SoV's claim doesn't appear anywhere on what I've read on non-violating copyright actions in Australia.

Call me an ***** for this to but to be quite honest, it's just too frickin' funny and at 15, I'm allowed to be immature. :) I'd like my banner removed, as I do no longer want any of my work affiliated with this clan any longer, understood?

Quote

If I owned a forum using someone else's banner and they told me to take it down I would say

Lol

If I ever saw you crawl from under the rock in which you were formed by all sorts of rancid insects, I'd just say:

Lol.

And leave it at that.

- - -

My birthday on the 22nd, be sure to wish my happy birthday when the time comes, I'll check this topic often, that is, if Minkor stops trying to save the world and delete another of my accounts. :)

#21 ryan

ryan

    Shol'va

  • Shol'va
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,133 posts
  • Local time: 02:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:14

If the SoV forums were as popular as a site such as google, I could understand you wanting the banner to be removed.

But it's not, the forums probably don't get more than 100 visitors a day.

Good luck attempting to sue and remove the banner.

#22 Guest_King Sparky V_*

Guest_King Sparky V_*
  • _Guests_

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:17

Thanks. It means alot.

#23 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:22

View PostKing Sparky V, on Sep 12 2007, 03:07, said:

Excuse me. I believe the topic in which I first posted my banner was named something around the boundaries of: "Stfu underlings and all of you come up with a banner FOR THE FORUMZ, although we know there's only really one person with a great amount of artistical value in this guild right now.

I made it for the forums, old forums I might add even though you've already given points against that. But seeing as the SoV website had an ugly but fitting layout at the time, I did not hand out permission for any usage on the website.
I believe you are correct there; both the banner and the revised SoV copyright policy were on the old forums.

View PostKing Sparky V, on Sep 12 2007, 03:07, said:

" OH HO HO, STFU 15 YEAR OLD WORM, THAT BANNER WAS SOV PROPERTY THE MINUTE YOU POSTED IT ON THE FORUMS GOTO SCHOOL! HO HO HO"

Miles already highlighted this for me, and yes, it was on behalf of me but seeing as only Ash, and IM have seen this I'd like to share it with you.
I am the first owner of copyright, meaning that at the time, I was the "employer" and that anybody wishing to use my banner for any purpose was my "employee", am I correct in saying this? So doesn't that no still give me the right to issue to the members of SoV where my banner can or can't be used?
Under the Australian law we would qualify as the employer, you were a volunteer.
By default copyright law we could attempt to claim first ownership, but we do not wish to; and, to be honest, I'm not sure if such an action would be successful (as it would be cast in retrospect at this point). The SoV copyright policy was made to ensure that no SoV gods could abuse their position to take intellectual rights from members. To retain our ability to use the work even though the creator was defined as the owner the policy instead gave us perpetual licence to use the work - but ONLY for guild related materials.

If a member attempts to use your work for personal use I'll be the first to tell them whose permission they need (yours).

FYI: Australian law is in accordance with the Berne Convention, so given SoV's status as an Australian organisation almost any foreign court (including british or american) will also uphold the validity of our licence to use, and likely uphold your right to ownership - as we explicitly stated that all works remain under contributor ownership.

View PostKing Sparky V, on Sep 12 2007, 03:07, said:

Even if I fucked up on that point I'd like to add this:
Also SoV's claim doesn't appear anywhere on what I've read on non-violating copyright actions in Australia.
Standard organisational copyright. SoV gave up copyright (under our policy) in exchange for perpetual licence.
Had we not done that we could licence the material to members at our discretion, but under our policy that can not be done. The only one that can give licence for personal usage is you, but SoV has organisational licence.
This gives you more rights than is usual for this sort of work, which is what I felt was fair. It also prevents legal abuse by elected gods.

I realise people may have told you things to incite you to make demands (instead of simply asking me politely, as others have done in the past; which I was co-operative with) but they have misinformed you and acted to create conflict. I refuse to be party to such childish conflict.

If people/guilds want to play mind games with each other that's not my concern. In fact, I think it's part of the fun of being in a guild and encourage it.
When people start including threats or rumours of a legal nature it goes beyond gaming. It's at that point I will put my foot down and refuse to allow any more bullshit.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#24 Guest_King Sparky V_*

Guest_King Sparky V_*
  • _Guests_

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:29

Quote

nder the Australian law we would qualify as the employer, you were a volunteer.
By default copyright law we could attempt to claim first ownership,

Is that completely accurate? The technical bollocks aggravates me, but considering how Swords of Villanousity is not protected by trademark or copyright of any form, then doesn't that technically still leave me claiming the title of employer on this occasion?

And yeah, I do love conflict, it's a cool feature of mine.

#25 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:38

Trademark is only used for name recognition. Given the uniqueness of our name we are already under trademark protection even without formally registering it.
This feature of trademarks is part of Australian law but I am actually not sure how other nations treat non-formal trademarks so YMMV with other organisations.
It's not too important anyway, given that trademarks have no impact on this situation.

SoV is protected by copyright, and for quite a long time I have instructed our webmaster to include a copyright notice naming SoV on all of our web pages. Though this is not required under international copyright law (all signatories to the Berne Convention recognise implied copyright) it's polite to let people know that the guild manages those copyrights so they know whom to approach for permission to reuse.

SoV has operated as an organisation for several years, we even meet ALL legal requirements for incorporation under Australian law! Something I know no other guilds I've ever dealt with could say. As such I could register SoV as a non-profit and claim the associated benefits. I decided that such was not truly required yet (though if there's ever a time we reach 500 members I'll seriously consider it).
Please note that these forums are licenced to "The Swords of Villanousity", not to myself. Even though I personally purchased the licence, I donated it to the guild.
This has always been the case, and only serves to show to you that organisational ownership is enforced evenly - even on items that I have personally contributed.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#26 Reaper

Reaper

    Kai-God

  • Kai God
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,118 posts
  • Local time: 09:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:34

I would like to make a few comments. Firstly, Sparky only raised the removing of his banner after his account was banned for constant misbehavior and intentionally causing fights. The topic he made was not a polite asking, but a demanding posted from an account he made to circumvent the banning. I think it's poor form that only now does he attempt to claim ownership and exert it. For months IM and SoV have not been friendly, yet he chooses after he loses access on our forums to bring it up.

The only reason I've been deleting your accounts, Sparky, is because you are banned from these forums. Thanks to your dynamic AOL IP, I can't ban you via IP. You'll only keep an account until I feel you no longer need to talk to F'Nok about it on our forums. You are a guest and are only here because I let you be here. Once I feel your time is up, you will be gone.

#27 FknEddie

FknEddie

    Semi-god of Guild Wars 2

  • Semi God of Guild Wars 2
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,758 posts
  • Local time: 06:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Goshen, California

Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:09

lock this thread ban sparky(drama) and, uhh wait untill he makes the 9849874621316854 account 5 minutes later to get on our forums because he loves us so much...
[12:14:49 PM] Big_Boi connected.
[12:14:49 PM] Big_Boi moved in from Swords of Villanousity by the server.
[12:14:59 PM] To Refugee Camp: no go back
[12:15:04 PM] Big_Boi disconnected.
[12:15:07 PM] To Refugee Camp: good
[12:17:19 PM] Big_Boi connected.
[12:17:19 PM] Big_Boi moved in from Swords of Villanousity by the server.
[12:17:25 PM] To Refugee Camp: dude
[12:17:29 PM] To Refugee Camp: i dont want to have to tell you twice
[12:17:35 PM] Big_Boi disconnected

#28 Guest_King Sparky V_*

Guest_King Sparky V_*
  • _Guests_

Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:56

o plz no nt dat wt wil i do nao??//

Ash, I'll glide through any attempts Minkor has on banning me and contiue this intense debate when I gots more time. I still need to read through earlier posts and state a few more points I've left out.

#29 Xylius

Xylius

    Inactive

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,436 posts
  • Local time: 01:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In da 520

Posted 12 September 2007 - 16:56

Seriously sparkys will live forever >_<
Gunz IGN : Xylius
Xbox live gamer tag : XsV Asmodai
Runescape IGN : XsV Gilles
Xfire : xsvasmodai

#30 Guest_One Topic Wonder =IM=_*

Guest_One Topic Wonder =IM=_*
  • _Guests_

Posted 12 September 2007 - 21:31

Well well well...I guess I should delay my addition to this topic to first apologise to my =IM= guildmates. When you guys told me about this 'threat' thing I went straight to Lisa and told her about it in the hope that any uglyness could be avoided, and Henry's artwork would be removed from ANY page/section within the SoV website. A week later I arrive home from Bestival to this....and all I can say is whoaaaaaaa.

Now, and I will reiterate this later, I strongly advise the following:
1. Any talk of legal action from any party ceases right now.
2. SoV remove the image in dispute as there IS a working, suitable (and arguably more apt) alternative.
3. To avoid any future disputes such as this, SoV implements an artwork submission form to act as an ACTUAL license agreement between artists & SoV.

That being said I shall explain WHY I advise these things.
1. Nobody in this case can be entirely sure that, should legal matters proceed, they would triumph.
2. Regardless of who won or lost, is a forum banner really worth ALL of the involved parties being bankrupted (Judges often neglect to award costs in matters such as these with the exception of Prima Facie cases)?
3. In the case of all parties, including Ash, there is enough lack of understanding & misinformation here to fill the White House.

Regarding my third point directly above, here we go with the line-by-line:
Note: Below is merely how any lawyer worth their salt would defend/dismantle evidence given here. Personally, I think that everyone involved in this dispute needs a slap upside the head.

Quote

The use of the forum or instant messaging for legally binding negotiation is not legally admissible and as such shall not be considered.
The announcement of the SoV copyright policy was made via your old forums, thus according to your own stipulation, it is "legally inadmissable". Furthermore, where copyright is concerned, any license granted by the copyright owner MUST be made by individual agreement, and although there is provision for what is known as implied copyright license(as would be the case here), such license MUST be proven.

Quote

Actually, he made it for the website.
This point here WOULD serve as a strong case for judgement that an implied license agreement was in place (the extent to which exclusivity & perpetuality are debatable).
From the perspective of the plaintiff it can be argued that:
* The webpages in question were deemed at the time (by F'Nok himself) to be an UNOFFICIAL FANSITE, thus any license granted to Hesacon for use of the artwork in question should be deemed a private license agreement, therefore SoV in fact have NO LICENSE to use the artwork in question.
*  License to use the artwork was obtained under the pretense that it would be used on the OFFICIAL SoV website, and, as this pretense was clearly false, any license agreement entered into by Sparky & Hesacon can not possibly be deemed a 'fair dealing' as stipulated by the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia copyright act 1968, section 103. In light of this, any license agreement entered into by the aforementioned parties is void, and use of the artwork in question by Hesacon in ANY manner constitutes a clear infringement of copyright.

Quote

Such a policy has always been in place as a standard "You make it for the guild thus it belongs to the guild", which is the copyright law STANDARD for work produced for others. The policy SoV created (on the OLD forums I might add!) was to give members MORE RIGHTS by enforcing that they retain ownership AND control over the work for any and all non-guild related instances.
See the 3rd point of the advice I gave, as the presence of a policy document pertaining to copyright license COULD be over-ruled in a court of law if there is no evidence that sufficient and reasonable action was taken to make an artist aware of such policy, as seems to be the case here.

Quote

If I choose to discuss changes to legal requirements via the forums and then create those modifications myself that is my decision.
If this is the case mate, you must accept that any proclaimation or notice served via forums is not legally binding, and also bear in mind that any organisation MUST take due care to ensure that artists by whom they commission works are well informed of any policy in place pertaining to copyright license.

Quote

... Milz told several members that he was planning to contact my web host and attempt to have the content forcibly removed - which would be illegal on his behalf.
Incorrect on both accounts.
As mentioned above, it was myself who made SoV aware of this. I did this to try and avoid all of the nonsense that is currently going on.
Secondly, it would be illegal for MD to remove content/hosting without notice, however it is not by any means illegal for a member of the public to complain about a website to the company that is hosting said website.

Quote

We have shown in the past that when requested to honour the wishes of someone we shall - I have removed content on behalf of Mj and I believe a guide was removed for someone else as well.
This is something I can attest to 100%. Ash had no problems in removing content when he saw that requests he had made to Hesacon for its removal were ignored.

Quote

I made it for the forums, old forums I might add even though you've already given points against that. But seeing as the SoV website had an ugly but fitting layout at the time, I did not hand out permission for any usage on the website.
Sorry Henry but any defence lawyer would have a field day with this. Since no official license agreement was entered into, and you were obviously happy to grant license for SoV to use your work on their (old) forums, it can be argued that such an implied license can be transferred to any new SoV forums.
The only comeback that lawyers for the plaintiff would have here is precedent, whereby in the past, a film company who paid for the creation of a special effect (without any official license agreement) was judged to have implied license to use the effect in the film they commissioned the effect for, however, that any future films made by the company would require a new & separate license agreement.
At the end of the day it's a tough call and would rely solely on how the judge interprets the law and applicability of the precedent.

Quote

I am the first owner of copyright, meaning that at the time, I was the "employer" and that anybody wishing to use my banner for any purpose was my "employee", am I correct in saying this? So doesn't that no still give me the right to issue to the members of SoV where my banner can or can't be used?
Again, sorry mate but this is wrong. For legal purposes SoV would be the organisation employing you and you would class as a volunteer employee, thus under normal circumstances it would be SoV who owned the intellectual property rights to any works you created whilst working for SoV.
Two points on this: 1. Can it be proven beyond the balance of probabilities that you were 'working for SoV' when you created this image? (Given the nature of the image, the answer is clearly YES)
2. SoV have openly relinquished their intellectual property rights in favour of a licensing agreement policy. The arguments surrounding such a policy have already been laid out above.

Quote

FYI: Australian law is in accordance with the Berne Convention, so given SoV's status as an Australian organisation almost any foreign court (including british or american) will also uphold the validity of our licence to use, and likely uphold your right to ownership - as we explicitly stated that all works remain under contributor ownership.
There is a slight variation between the Australian & American laws surrounding intellectual property and organisations, otherwise this is true.

Quote

Standard organisational copyright. SoV gave up copyright (under our policy) in exchange for perpetual licence.
Had we not done that we could licence the material to members at our discretion, but under our policy that can not be done. The only one that can give licence for personal usage is you, but SoV has organisational licence.
See the point above relating to due care to inform artists of agreements they are entering into.
Additionally, when an organisation relinquishes its intellectual property rights, ANY licensing agreements MUST be agreed upon by both parties. An organisation that allows its members to retain copyright ownership can not simply assume license, perpetual, exclusive or otherwise.

Quote

SoV has operated as an organisation for several years, we even meet ALL legal requirements for incorporation under Australian law! Something I know no other guilds I've ever dealt with could say. As such I could register SoV as a non-profit and claim the associated benefits. I decided that such was not truly required yet (though if there's ever a time we reach 500 members I'll seriously consider it).
Who was it that dug out all the information on that for you, huh huh huh? Do you still have all of the forms I sent back then (Privacy policy & such)? :P

Quote

You'll only keep an account until I feel you no longer need to talk to F'Nok about it on our forums. You are a guest and are only here because I let you be here. Once I feel your time is up, you will be gone.
I I I I I, there's no I in team you gimp, but it's good to see how rapidly you're resettling into your comfort zone now that you have your precious back. Anyhow, feel free to ban this account if you like, though I warn you that I am acting as legal advisor to Sparky, and any attempt made to impede said legal advice is a very very naughty thing to do. ;)

I strongly advise the following:
1. Any talk of legal action from any party ceases right now.
2. SoV remove the image in dispute as there IS a working, suitable (and arguably more apt) alternative.
3. To avoid any future disputes such as this, SoV implements an artwork submission form to act as an ACTUAL license agreement between artists & SoV.
Taking this matter any further than it has already gone will result in only one winner: Greedy Lawyers!!

Edited by One Topic Wonder =IM=, 12 September 2007 - 21:55.


#31 Silent Supremacy

Silent Supremacy

    Divine Knight

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • Local time: 01:33 PM
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2007 - 22:17

These 'legal terms' are really lame, infact this entire situation is quite outrageous on both ends. I see massive esposure, that will only lead to further fueds, and conflict. Though I do see the points that have been stated.

    All in all, I personally beleive this was a waste of time for me to read every post, and reply.

Posted Image
All that matters is knowing what you really want, and going after it.


#32 Little

Little

    Shol'va

  • Shol'va
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,532 posts
  • Local time: 02:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:LONDON, England

Posted 12 September 2007 - 22:42

*sighs*

Guyyys this is the interwebs. you are all taking it far far far too seriously. seriously. wayyy tooo far.

so lets all take a chill pill

~ Little ~


#33 Locke

Locke

    Enlightened Devout Knight

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Local time: 02:33 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina, USA

Posted 13 September 2007 - 01:26

I don't see what the big deal is...Sparky submits a banner for SoV that even says SoV on it.  Now he wants to take it back?  I don't know this whole thing seems way to big and out there for me.  I'm just gonna go find a cookie and eat one.  That will make me feel better.
Posted Image

#34 Parsaw

Parsaw

    Shol'va

  • Shol'va
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,828 posts
  • Local time: 06:33 AM
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2007 - 01:33

WOOH!

#35 Hesacon

Hesacon

    Sacred Hero

  • Citizen
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,035 posts
  • Local time: 09:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:21

[On second thought, this isn't worth the trouble.]

Edited by Hesacon, 13 September 2007 - 02:28.

Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image
]SoV[ Phidaissi: **** SoJ, always trying to destroy us in some distant future

#36 felty

felty

    Sacred Hero

  • Citizen
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts
  • Local time: 06:33 AM
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2007 - 08:40

Maybe the courts can make InvisionFree restore the old forums faster, due to the evidence which they may contain. :P

Though even then they'd take the better part of this millenium to actually do it.

Edited by felty, 13 September 2007 - 08:40.


#37 Rocket Man

Rocket Man

    Inactive

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,420 posts
  • Local time: 06:33 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pokke Village

Posted 13 September 2007 - 11:58

Seriously, why does Sparky want it off? Just so he could make his e-penis grow?
Posted Image

"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little children jump up and down and run around yelling and screaming. They don't know I'm only using blanks."
~Emo Phillips

My GTA SA Modding Tutorials Index

#38 Phidaissi

Phidaissi

    Kai Goddess

  • Kai Goddess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
  • Local time: 11:33 PM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:07

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Well well well...I guess I should delay my addition to this topic to first apologise to my =IM= guildmates. When you guys told me about this 'threat' thing I went straight to Lisa and told her about it in the hope that any uglyness could be avoided, and Henry's artwork would be removed from ANY page/section within the SoV website. A week later I arrive home from Bestival to this....and all I can say is whoaaaaaaa.
It was the correct thing to do, and could likely have been solved silently to the satisfaction of all involved if Milz had not been throwing around legal aspersions.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Now, and I will reiterate this later, I strongly advise the following:
1. Any talk of legal action from any party ceases right now.
2. SoV remove the image in dispute as there IS a working, suitable (and arguably more apt) alternative.
3. To avoid any future disputes such as this, SoV implements an artwork submission form to act as an ACTUAL license agreement between artists & SoV.
1. I agree, this was my first statement. I will not allow talk or threats of legal action to bounce around. Once you enter a court room the only true winners are the lawyers.
2. I adressed why this has not been done yet. It is under consideration however.
3. Though not legally required it would be more informative to members, so I think it's probably a good idea.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

That being said I shall explain WHY I advise these things.
1. Nobody in this case can be entirely sure that, should legal matters proceed, they would triumph.
2. Regardless of who won or lost, is a forum banner really worth ALL of the involved parties being bankrupted (Judges often neglect to award costs in matters such as these with the exception of Prima Facie cases)?
3. In the case of all parties, including Ash, there is enough lack of understanding & misinformation here to fill the White House.
1. I am actually 100% sure. I have been involved in IP battles between companies on several occasions, so I have actual practical experience with this exact situation.
2. I agree. However there would be no legal costs to me.
3. Perhaps my explanations weren't as clear as they possibly could be, but I actually have a full working knowledge of this material.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Regarding my third point directly above, here we go with the line-by-line:
Note: Below is merely how any lawyer worth their salt would defend/dismantle evidence given here. Personally, I think that everyone involved in this dispute needs a slap upside the head.

The announcement of the SoV copyright policy was made via your old forums, thus according to your own stipulation, it is "legally inadmissable".
Incorrect. The forums may not be used for legally binding negotiation (ie, the negotiation of what terms would be included in a particular agreement between one provider and one licensee) however they are perfectly fine as a means to notify members of changes and/or conditions of standard SoV policy.
For that matter, given that SoV was giving up rights, we do not need it to be legally admissable anyway. If it were deemed invalid it would be to our benefit.
So in either case, it's moot.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Furthermore, where copyright is concerned, any license granted by the copyright owner MUST be made by individual agreement, and although there is provision for what is known as implied copyright license(as would be the case here), such license MUST be proven.
SoV grant the licence then relinquish all other rights. Individual agreement is not required in this case because ownership is granted prior to agreement. We then give it back after granting a licence. (If you want to look at it from a step-by-step view)

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

This point here WOULD serve as a strong case for judgement that an implied license agreement was in place (the extent to which exclusivity & perpetuality are debatable).
From the perspective of the plaintiff it can be argued that:
* The webpages in question were deemed at the time (by F'Nok himself) to be an UNOFFICIAL FANSITE, thus any license granted to Hesacon for use of the artwork in question should be deemed a private license agreement, therefore SoV in fact have NO LICENSE to use the artwork in question.
It was deemed as a non-official site, but still a guild site. The designation of official site is only to indicate the preferred and trusted outlet for SoV information via website.
This determination can be verified by yourself as at the time I told both you, Lisa, Hesacon and others working on either site that any content published on either site was deemed guild material and thus allowed to be used on the alternate site. You and Lisa had licence to use content from Hesacons site, just as he had licence to use content from yours. This was a practical application of organisational copyright and was done before this incident, demonstrating the historic use of this copyright policy.

I have logs and emails that verify my advise to parties in the above matter those many month ago as well.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

*  License to use the artwork was obtained under the pretense that it would be used on the OFFICIAL SoV website, and, as this pretense was clearly false, any license agreement entered into by Sparky & Hesacon can not possibly be deemed a 'fair dealing' as stipulated by the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia copyright act 1968, section 103. In light of this, any license agreement entered into by the aforementioned parties is void, and use of the artwork in question by Hesacon in ANY manner constitutes a clear infringement of copyright.
This is not true, see above.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

See the 3rd point of the advice I gave, as the presence of a policy document pertaining to copyright license COULD be over-ruled in a court of law if there is no evidence that sufficient and reasonable action was taken to make an artist aware of such policy, as seems to be the case here.
This would be true if the copyright policy was granting SoV additional rights. Given that the policy relinquishes rights then any such argument in a court would be dismissed.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

If this is the case mate, you must accept that any proclaimation or notice served via forums is not legally binding, and also bear in mind that any organisation MUST take due care to ensure that artists by whom they commission works are well informed of any policy in place pertaining to copyright license.
Re: Forums announcement, see new beginning of this post.
Re: legal agreement, see previous paragraph.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Incorrect on both accounts.
As mentioned above, it was myself who made SoV aware of this. I did this to try and avoid all of the nonsense that is currently going on.
You made us first aware of the potential issue, but before any action was made regarding it Milz did make threats of a legal basis, posts to other forums claiming they could sue and followed up my announcement here with an email indicating that he may take legal action.
You may not be aware of such actions, but they did occur.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Secondly, it would be illegal for MD to remove content/hosting without notice, however it is not by any means illegal for a member of the public to complain about a website to the company that is hosting said website.
If they do not know how to contact the owner of the site then the appropriate method is to report it to the hosting company so that the hosting company may forward to complaint to the owner and then the owner may make direct contact.

This is not the case in this situation for two reasons:
1. All parties have direct or indirect means to contact me without involving my hosting company. Contacting my hosting company needlessly to complain about our conduct is an indirect form of harassment.
2. The stated intention of contacting my hosting company was to have the content removed against our will.

For these reasons, the act of contacting the hosting company whilst intentionally not contacting me first is illegal. It's a violation of harassment laws, a violation of due process for copyright infringement notification, and if the hosting company actually removed the content without due notice (and given that was the stated intention) it would also be an act of accessory to service denial.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

This is something I can attest to 100%. Ash had no problems in removing content when he saw that requests he had made to Hesacon for its removal were ignored.
Thank you.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Sorry Henry but any defence lawyer would have a field day with this. Since no official license agreement was entered into, and you were obviously happy to grant license for SoV to use your work on their (old) forums, it can be argued that such an implied license can be transferred to any new SoV forums.
The only comeback that lawyers for the plaintiff would have here is precedent, whereby in the past, a film company who paid for the creation of a special effect (without any official license agreement) was judged to have implied license to use the effect in the film they commissioned the effect for, however, that any future films made by the company would require a new & separate license agreement.
At the end of the day it's a tough call and would rely solely on how the judge interprets the law and applicability of the precedent.
Though you are right here, the precedent is not applicable because this was a revised work, not a new work.
The new forums are a direct revision and replacement for the old forums, all implied and explicit agreements are transferable unless the agreement specifically prohibits future development.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Again, sorry mate but this is wrong. For legal purposes SoV would be the organisation employing you and you would class as a volunteer employee, thus under normal circumstances it would be SoV who owned the intellectual property rights to any works you created whilst working for SoV.
Two points on this: 1. Can it be proven beyond the balance of probabilities that you were 'working for SoV' when you created this image? (Given the nature of the image, the answer is clearly YES)
2. SoV have openly relinquished their intellectual property rights in favour of a licensing agreement policy. The arguments surrounding such a policy have already been laid out above.
There is a slight variation between the Australian & American laws surrounding intellectual property and organisations, otherwise this is true.
I can't remember the exact difference, but it had something to do with dual ownership and IP transferance. Both cases aren't applicable here though.  ;)

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

See the point above relating to due care to inform artists of agreements they are entering into.
The agreement was an act of gifting on the behalf of SoV.
The artist can refuse to accept the ownership relinquished by SoV but the result of such an action would be to actually leave SoV with ownership.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Additionally, when an organisation relinquishes its intellectual property rights, ANY licensing agreements MUST be agreed upon by both parties. An organisation that allows its members to retain copyright ownership can not simply assume license, perpetual, exclusive or otherwise.
That's dependant on the nature of the works, the organisation, and the licence.

By doing the works for an organisation you implicitly grant ownership to that organisation. As such ownership is not the interest of SoV we instead take a perpetual licence and then relinquish ownership back to creator.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

Who was it that dug out all the information on that for you, huh huh huh? Do you still have all of the forms I sent back then (Privacy policy & such)? :P
You did in fact provide much of that information, and it was pretty good stuff.
I may be very well versed in copyright and IP laws but it was you that taught me where to look for non-profit incorporation information. ;)

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

I I I I I, there's no I in team you gimp, but it's good to see how rapidly you're resettling into your comfort zone now that you have your precious back. Anyhow, feel free to ban this account if you like, though I warn you that I am acting as legal advisor to Sparky, and any attempt made to impede said legal advice is a very very naughty thing to do. ;)
Though impeding such advice would be bad it's for this reason that negotiation of legal terms isn't considered admissible on the forums - as voices may be silenced for other non-legally related matters. Thus email is always an option and the legally binding option at that.

However, for the purposes of this debate, I agree that all parties should be allowed a voice. If they abuse the right to voice by posting anywhere but here then they should also accept that the loss of such a voice may occur.

View PostOne Topic Wonder =IM=, on Sep 12 2007, 21:31, said:

I strongly advise the following:
1. Any talk of legal action from any party ceases right now.
2. SoV remove the image in dispute as there IS a working, suitable (and arguably more apt) alternative.
3. To avoid any future disputes such as this, SoV implements an artwork submission form to act as an ACTUAL license agreement between artists & SoV.
Taking this matter any further than it has already gone will result in only one winner: Greedy Lawyers!!
1. Agreed! Legal action is not good for anyone involved. It is not my desire to harm the wallets of young gamers, no matter how rude or borderline legally liable they may be!
2. This is under consideration.
3. Likely a good idea, just to ensure members are well informed.
Phireya: omg, why does my guild hate me? T.T
Ekosyde: you kicked my 3 best friends, i did say i needed someone new to hate :o

#39 Silent Supremacy

Silent Supremacy

    Divine Knight

  • Inactive
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • Local time: 01:33 PM
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2007 - 16:01

Wow.. just wow.

Uhm Nokky. I never knew you had such a strong pimp hand. I'm impressed.

Posted Image
All that matters is knowing what you really want, and going after it.


#40 Guest_King Sparky V_*

Guest_King Sparky V_*
  • _Guests_

Posted 13 September 2007 - 16:47

Quote

Seriously, why does Sparky want it off? Just so he could make his e-penis grow?

My e-penis has already broken several world records. SoV are relentlessly trying to prune all existance of me, why not the biggest reminder of them all?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users