Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LegendaryTsukasa
Trigger Online:
Server in the process: 5% Finished
ScreenShots of Sample GFX
All GFX is copyright of Trigger Software, 2004.
Trigger Software, created by Tsu, Worm, and Ajira.
Date of Release is December, 20th (Estamation)
|
Ok. First of all, you cant own a copyright to anything you upload to GraalOnline. If you do, you are forfeiting those rights the moment its uploaded.
Those graphics are not acceptable. You cant rip work belonging to another company and attempt to grant GraalOnline ownership rights to it.
I tried to find Trigger Online, but I only found Trigger. Is that yours? It looks nothing like those screenshots. So as far as I can tell those are not online currently; but if they are, remove them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LegendaryTsukasa
And If you go to many servers, you will find edited GFX from games.
|
Yes, please, show me where all these images are, scattered around the servers, which are comparable and indemnifies your project's work.
I tell you, just because there is something online that shouldnt be there, does not mean that I am condoning it, I just am not aware of it yet. Thats WHY I have to go around continuously looking for things which shouldn't be there, every server has the potential of uploading new, unacceptable material every second of any day. There is easily over 100 servers currently online, not fun.
Ok, and yes I am having Era remove the Core Cola soda machine images, for trademark infringement. I will cite the same documentation as I did to them, and as was recorded in the GGT forum area. This will apply somewhat to the current topic.
Quote:
Taken from http://www.bitlaw.com
The elements for a successful trademark infringement claim have been well established under both federal and state case law. In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services. To do this, the plaintiff should first show that it has developed a protectable trademark right in a trademark. The plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by plaintiff.
|
Its also important to note some cases involving trademark infringement:
RadioShack vs. PhoneShack
Warner Brothers vs. a site using "@cme"
Toys-R-Us vs. Roadkill-R-Us