Legal Machinima - anybody got sued already?

I wonder how much I can do to avoid being sued if I release a machinima serial filmed in Second Life. It's a sort of "twilight-zone" stuff (we call it SlipStream) and we all have a hard time to find out all creators for places, items, textures, avatar-Skins etc. to get their permission to use all this in the movie.

Anyway, is there anything that we may have overlooked and where we can being sued for? We are careful not to use brands in the shoots (or we try to get permission from the owner of the brand), but I'm not sure if we can held liable for example if we show a texture that have been uploaded in SL illegally, even if we bought the item/texture officially in SL.

So maybe some of you have already experience with this (I do not hope so ) and can share his/her knowledge here.

Any hint will be appreciated.

Jim

I think copyright for film production in SL is complicated and will only become clear after a couple of test cases. Someone is going to get sued at some point... probably the first person to have a major commercial success.

All I can suggest is you're thorough in getting permissions for usage in films... especially with avatars. As you so rightly pointed out, the biggest danger is that someone created something from an already copyrighted article in RL, which you bought in all innocence.

In terms of tracing the builder: on objects if you right click the wheel comes up... if you click "more"... then hit "more" again you'll see and option called "inspect" click that and the creator of all the elements in the object appear as a list.

If you're planning to do a commercial release (make money from sale of your series) then you have to have the legal aspects nailed down... basically, when in doubt make it yourself or pay for a custom build.

What I'd like to see is a clarification from Linden Labs of the legal situation for film makers in SL. In real RL if I buy a prop for a film I don't have to acquire permission to use it in a film, unless it represents a brand or registered trademark. If someone creates a character or original avatar in SL and then sells it, is it a prop (an object) or is it a work of art whose creative content is held in copyright by the owner?

If it's the latter and everything in SL life is held under creative copyright of the creator, then ALL filming in SL is in violation of copyright. If however, the objects are just that... then there is total creative freedom for film makers.

Like I said, this isn't going to get resolved until someone gets sued... or until Linden Labs take stance on this issue. In the mean time, I think you're taking the right approach, assume that the creator holds copyright and get permission to use the objects in your film.

The problem is, where is the line drawn? Do I have to trace down the animator who created the animations in an AO, if it is part of an avatar? Do I have to trace every texture?

Until these issues are resolved the growth of film making in SL is going to be restricted to hobbyist.

Thanks for your reply. I agreee with you that we need a clear statement from Linden about that.

Today I'm just busy to blur-out an SL-Logo that I found on a uniform that one of our actors was wearing in the movie

This an important issue for me too. I'm looking at what SL could be, if it makes it possible for filmmakers to work here without every object requiring copyright clearance. It's a key legal decision, if it goes one way SL will never develop as a legitimate film platform... if it goes the other way... well, very exciting things could happen.

Part of the problem at the moment is Linden Labs still see themselves as a games platform, rather than as a very clever 3D animation platform. I'm still not sure they've fully grasped the potential of SL in this arena, because if they had, not only would the copyright issue have been nailed... they also would have made the default camera setting more film maker friendly. LOL

I'm still trying to figure out how to open a dialogue with Linden Labs about these issues... there is a conversation to be had... but to be honest it's not one that ought to be done in the public domain; in the first instance. Somebody needs to be able to talk for the media industry in SL... someone with a RL film background.

You are right, it's best to talk with Linden Lab about this. If you don't mind, please keep me informed about any progress. I don't want to spend too much energy in all this legal stuff, so I'm always open to jump in as director/cameraperson/cutter/special-effects person if I can find a team that has already solved these issues.

Just contat me in world or send me an e-mail.

I wonder if a painter would have to seek the permission of a farmers field should he include that in his work?

We try hard to keep the right side of the law, by having animations made for our machinima, music, places/sets and other items, but what would happen is someones skypod or aeroplane, appeared in one of our shots?

For the most part, is anyone sees one of our films and likes say 'those shoes' we used, we would try and find out who made them and pass that information on. We don't deliberatly hide other peoples wares, nor do we steal them to use, we buy them, and unless we are specifically told/informed that they may not be used in any form of commercial broadcasting media, we assume they would enjoy the exposure.

The vast majority of our media is for advertising/commercials. Where possible, anything used in shots that is prominent or a focal point that is not included within the contract, we try and seek permissions.

Andy Wahol didn't seek permissions to use a Coke can in one of his paintings, yet he made a fortune from it. I can understand logos and other forms of branding, but isn't it more a point of how you portray that brand? Consider news broadcasting, if they report on a criminal and show them in a broadcast, would they need to seek permissions of the shoe manufacturer, that the criminal was wearing, beforehand? They may wish to, if say the shoe was the weapon used to commit the crime. It may sound 'out there' but the principals are the same.

Just follow the same rules that apply in making a standard film--make sure you keep RL and SL products out of the film (if you plan on making money with the production).

Sounds like you know what is safe and unsafe already.

It's probably just safe to not show any 'name brands', regardless of their origin. As far as textures...pshhh, don't worry. As long as the texture doesn't have a name brand on it, nothing can (or will) be proved. I'm not advocating the theft of another persons' IP...I'm just saying no one is going to call you out about your window or door textures.

You can't reason with copyright law... something is either legal or not. It is that simple. (actually, it isn't... but for the sake of argument let's assume that it is)

Even though you buy an object in SL, you buy it for a use... you don't acquire the copyright to that object.

The clearest example I can give in RL is music. If you buy a Metallica CD, then you have the right to listen to that CD, to copy the tracks onto your ipod and make personal use of it. If, however, you decided to use the track "Master of Puppets" in your film you'd find yourself in court so fast your eyes would bleed.

This is because when you bought the track, you didn't acquire the mechanical and broadcast rights.

SL is the same... we buy an object and we buy it for the purposes of using within the games platform. Any commercial exploitation of that object within the broadcast media is PROBABLY a violation of international copyright law.

As I understand it, Linden Labs conceded the copyright of any object created with SL to the creator. The problem is the issue could be interpreted other ways... and at the moment, until someone gets sued and a court somewhere makes a decision it's all up in the air.

At the moment anyone planning to use SL for commercial film making is skating on incredibly thin ice legally... a position that can't continue.

The first big profit making machinima that hits the screens is bound to see legal contention, as has been said above. However the legal wrangling would undoubtedly be picked up by the media and create a great deal of interest, leading to minor fame for all concerned. The question is, have you got the bottle, and more importantly anything to lose, if the decision goes against you? Maybe you could hire someone, who has nothing to lose, to be the paper producer/director. While you are the ghost producer/director. If anything kicks off, those wishing to legally pursue the matter will be faced with a broke individual. Criminal law applies to everyone ........ civil law only applies to people with money!

There is another option, which is to make sure you've contractual agreements in place for all the objects you use. It's standard practice in every other part of the industry. All it requires is for people to get their heads around the world they're creating in... it's not virtual reality, it's just a 3D animation platform where the objects created can have their rights purchased. And, just like the real world if one person won't give you the rights, they'll be someone else who makes something similar who will.

This is not true at all. You can use the song, as long as you don't plan on selling, or making profit on whatever you made.

If an indie film uses a song...they don't have to get rights to it. I forget the exact name for it...but there is a legal description for music used on non-profit films. Film festival circuit movies take full advantage of this....

This may be the case in the USA or somewhere else. Here in Germany you cannot use a song without getting clearance and paying for it. Unfortunately Germany don't have the concept of "fair use" that the americans have.

So it's even more complicated if you distribute machinima worldwide, because every law may apply not only the US law.

Michael thanks for your input, but I'd really appreciate it if you read the entire thread carefully before telling me I'm wrong... because, if you had, you'd see I was specifically talking about films for broadcast and commercial exploitation. Which is why in my first response I wrote:
"if you're planning a commercial release"
and in the post you were contradicting I wrote:
"Any commercial exploitation of that object within the broadcast media is PROBABLY a violation of international copyright law."

I'd also have real doubts about the truth of your claim that "not for profit" films are exempt from international copyright law. Film festivals in the US ask film makers to sign a declaration that the film maker has clearances for all music in their submission. They do that to move legal responsibility for music clearance back onto the film maker. I'm also aware that Moby make available a section of his music for use by "not for profit" film maker... but you have to apply for a license. Both of these would lead me to believe that "not for profit" films still require licenses, but that payment may not be required for non commercial usages.

But, be honest "not for profit" film making in the US isn't my area of expertise.

All that we have when we leave virtual worlds, are memories, screenshots, and maybe a load of rushes. These are ours, For 30 bucks a month, that's what I choose to leave Second Life with. If... this is a virtual representation of the world, I can wave my camera wherever I like. Keep shooting, don't fear 'The man'. Land on your own moon.

Besides, LL must love machinima, they wouldn't have developed such great tools otherwise.
Shoot till you drop, Rabbit.

Hey guys, check out http://hosoi-ichiba.blogspot.com/2008/03/announcing-hosoi-ichiba-machinima.html

We are having a contest for the Machinima die hards.

Amiryu Hosoi,

Click here for Second Life Search

Click for matching products on SLX

Click here for Hosoi Ichiba. Blogspot

SLUrl Hosoi Ichiba, Japanese Gardens & Lifestyle

* Never Argue With An idiot. They'll Lower You To Their Level And Then Beat You With Experience!

Spam! on your own moon too.

Peace out.

"All that we have when we leave virtual worlds, are memories, screenshots, and maybe a load of rushes. These are ours, For 30 bucks a month, that's what I choose to leave Second Life with. If... this is a virtual representation of the world, I can wave my camera wherever I like. Keep shooting, don't fear 'The man'. Land on your own moon.

Besides, LL must love machinima, they wouldn't have developed such great tools otherwise.
Shoot till you drop, Rabbit."

This isn't about fear, it's about the realities of copyright law. The attitude of just shoot and don't worry is fine provided you don't see this as anything more than a hobby. The second anyone attempts to create a product for broadcast, they won't be able to sell the end product unless the copyright issues are sorted out.

When you sell a film or TV show you're expected to supply a set of things called "deliverables." Deliverables are partly about types of master tape... but mainly about having the right releases and contracts in place to prove your right to sell the end product. The contracts are 95% about establishing copyright law.

Without deliverables there is no product... so, you can shoot all you like... but you can't sell.

I guess I'd like to try to rephrase what Amiryu wrote and put it in the context of this thread....

There are places in SL that are there for people to enjoy - one example is the Hosoi Ichiba (that yes, is running a machinima competition right now, sorry about the rather blatant plug earlier)

I feel that places like that are going to (in general) be more than willing to be used as a setting for machinima, as long as there is credit given to the location, and permission sought to film something that big there. (In general, I assume that the makers would like to have some area made private so that they are not disturbed while making their magic.)

If you make money out of it, and it becomes popular, then it becomes a de facto mutual help to the location - like Lord of the Rings made everyone want to visit New Zealand, people will be finding out what the location is, so that they can visit it.

I guess I see that this is of mutual benefit and, as long as everyone is on the same page, shouldn't be an issue. Just ask first, is all - don't have to get a team of lawyers involved.

That's with the current state of SL, anyway.

Nobody is saying that there aren't deals to be made... all I'm saying is make those deals legally watertight BEFORE the project makes money.

Until you've had experience in just how dirty the film and TV industry is, you've no idea how important it is to keep your back covered legally. Barely any film or TV production makes it to the screen without at least the threat of legal action... and nobody makes more money in LA than the lawyers.

It's actually very simple... nobody minds what you do, until they think they you're earning money they could have a part of... then they're onto their lawyers at something approaching warp speed! LOL

Anyone working in SL is particularly vulnerable because of the weird copyright set up... basically there isn't anything in SL that isn't held in copyright by someone... even if they gave it away free for use in SL.

Unless you make everything you use, you're always going to be vulnerable from a copyright point of view.

Protagonist, this has been discussed here before, and no definitive answer has been established. Machinima is an emerging art form, and a new film language, legalities need to be ironed out and I'm as interested in a Linden response as much as you are. I'd suggest speaking to someone like Catherine Linden (I think she has office hours) or another Linden associated with Inellectual Property rights.

Fact is, precedent has already been set, SL machinima has been featured on CSI:NY, and I've seen another documentary in the UK featuring SL machinima footage, I'm sure there's more. These are all broadcast (money making) shows, you can be sure the producers cleared the footage before they were aired, but I've no idea how or who they did this with.

My initial comments were aimed at people who maybe completely put off making machinima after reading a long legal thread, machinima (to me) is 'Of the people', storytelling for the masses. I'm slightly biased, but I wish Lawyers had nothing to do with storytelling, unfortunately I know the reality of this. The 'Make a buck' Syndrome so common with the metaverse always seems to get in the way of pure creativity.

*sighs*

Thanks for the heads up on Catherine Linden, when I get from under my current project I'll set up an appointment.

I understand where you're coming from... it's the same in RL indie film making. There are two separate worlds: the indie film makers who produce thousands of films every year with little need to worry about the legal issues; and, the professional film makers who have no choice but to pay close attention to the legalities.

For most people the copyright issues will never be a worry, because they'll make films that never warrant legal action.

I've been doing some thinking about the copyright issue and I think I'm found a solution.

Basically, we need objects sold in SL to be Royalty Free... the same way stock footage and stock music is in RL.

That way... if a person is building objects or avatars they wish to exploit in RL, then they can chose to not release the objects as Royalty Free.

What I'd like to see is all objects created in SL defaulted as Royalty Free, but with an opt out option.

All this would mean, would be an additional tick box in the "Edit" so it was mod/copy/transfer/royalty free

As machinimas we could then purchase on a sound legal footing...but at the same time, the copyright protection people needed for their creations in SL would still stand exactly the same.

Sorry I misinterpreted your questions about definite commercial use.

IF you think I'm wrong about other things I said..OK, research it elsewhere. I'm an actor, who works on many RL indie films...those that get distribution, nationally or internationally that may receive a profit, need full rights. Those that are only for festival circuit have *never* had to get rights to songs or any product placement--nationally, or internationally. I'm guessing the production companies I'm working with know what they are doing...they've never had legal issues.

Example: Youtube videos: do you see anyone getting into legal issues over product placement or songs? No you don't. You can use any soundtrack you want as you drink your can of Coke and run in your Pumas past the neighborhood K-mart. This is the same thing that applies to indie films that desire no distribution or profit (and as far as I know, from personal experience, this is international as well).

But if you guys think you know differently...don't listen to me.

Michael, I appreciate your experience in these matters... but just to put some perspective on that, in RL I'm a professional film producer and director who has fifteen years experience writing/directing and producing films for commercial cinema and TV release.

I completely understand what you're saying... but it's based on a faulty premise. Just because people aren't being prosecuted, doesn't mean to say they're not breaking the law.

Everyone who broadcasts material created from material held in copyright IS breaking the law. In fact, if you buy a song for from the iTunes store, rip it onto a CD and then transfer that to your MP3 player you've technically violated the Digital Copyright laws.

As I'm based in Europe what I understand are the implications of copyright law on film production as applied internationally for commercial production. I'm not a lawyer... just a producer who has to deal with the day to day business of staying on the right side of the law. What I'm trying to do here is have a serious debate about issues that will effect the future, if any of film making in SL.

I'm not trying to belittle your contribution; just trying to put it perspective within this debate.