DMCA Question

In order to file a DMCA on someone, doesnt the original copied item have to be copyrighted? The way I read it, answer is yes. And if someone makes an item that is similar to another, is it a DMCA issue? By that I mean diff textures, diff items attached to it, just lots of little differances. Specifically if you make a shelf, and it holds say bottles, and another makes a simple shelf and puts bags of cotton balls on it...and uses diff textures...is that an offense? The simple shelf being a prim box shelf, nothing special to it.
Thanks for you answers in advance!

as far as i know, your works are automatically copyrighted by virtue of being created and existing on the grid. that shelf cannot be dmca'd. if it could, every furniture maker on the grid would be violating someones copyright.

i think anything that is uploaded like textures and sculpt maps and animations that you brought in can be..i don't think the prims themselves no matter what shape can be..
i'm not expert on this though..

A shelf? Seriously?

you can make an item and someone can make something exactly like it, I would not consider a DMCA on something like that. I can make a dress and someone can look at it and say 'I could make that or something like that' and I would not consider that worth filing a DMCA. If someone abuses a bug or uses software or some other method to reproduce my work, then I would file a DMCA.

When you talk about a 'shelf', I'm pretty sure anyone can make a shelf and have it accidentally look like a shelf someone has made before. But I have often seen people make a dress much like something I have made, that while it looks a lot like mine, is NOT a copy. I might have found a gown online and they found the same gown, and our gowns look similar because we both used that gown for inspiration.

I guess the point I am trying to make, is don't be in too big a hurry to point fingers. Make sure an item has actually been copybotted before raising the alarm

To answer the question a little more literally:
You can file a DMCA takedown notice pretty much as you please. The provider (LL) must then take down the material, and it is up to the accused to counter the claim, and possibly seek redress.
The DMCA takedown itself does not concern any actual copyright status. Whether there *was* an actual offense is to be determined later.

In order to file a valid DMCA notice with LL concerning SL, you must state under penalties of perjury that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act by the copyright owner. While it's true that LL's action doesn't determine whether or not there was any copyright violation, it's dangerous to suggest that you can file a DMCA notice "pretty much as you please."

You're getting into an area where judges and juries spend time analyzing whether or not something really is a copy, and judges at least spend time analyzing whether or not something really is copyrightable.

It would be difficult to argue that a simple shelf by itself could be the subject of a copyright, even if no one in SL has ever made one with those exact dimensions. It simply lacks the necessary originality. The texture might be - but that doesn't seem an issue here.

However, if what you're talking about is an entire interior design, most of which has been copied, you couldn't assert that it's not a real copy simply because the shelves are different. In other words, copyright analysis is going to look at the big picture, the individual parts, and the way they all fit together.

True. You cannot file takedowns against random 3rd parties.
But you just have to state that you're the copyright holder of *something*, and that you believe (in good faith) that something else is violating that copyright. It is not part of the DMCA takedown to judge the validity of the actual infringement claim.

So, as I said, in the literal sense, you can file it, and LL has to react upon it, and the accused has to file a counter-claim. There is no built-in screening where LL must (or even can) disregard outrageous claims. (Like owning the copyright to a shelf).

Whether you later get bitchslapped around the court for wasting everybody's time is a different issue.

ETA: One problem with the DMCA takedowns is the asymmetrical nature. If somebody files a claim, and LL takes down the content, it becomes a case between the rights holder and the accused (whether there actually is an infringement or not), and any damages are between those two.
If LL *does not* take down the content after a claim, they become liable for it if it *is* a violation, and gain nothing if it isn't. (Except perhaps a pat on the back from the wrongfully accused).

Is that jurisprudence jargon meaning "being forced to pay thousands of dollars in court costs, defendant's legal fees, and punitive damages for filing a false claim"? I must get a modern update of Black's Law Dictionary so that I may learn such colorful legal expressions.

In theory, yes. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea to do it. Just that *if* somebody does, the takedown will hit you, no matter how outrageous it is.
Practically, whether it comes to such severe damages is questionable, though. The most likely outcome is probably filing a counterclaim, waiting the 14 days until the provider must reinstate the content, and letting it all drop, since going to court across borders over a handful of L$ is rarely worth it. (With some notable exceptions).

Others, especially Kidd, have provided the right information here, but just to be thorough, let me restate it as direct answers to the OP's direct questions.



Shortest answer: Yes, the original item must be copyrighted in order for DMCA to apply.

More complete answer: Every original work is copyrighted as soon as it's created, so DMCA protections, as well as other protections, automatically apply. A work does not need to be registered with the Copyright Office in order to be copyrighted, if that's what you were trying to ask. Registration is simply an acknowledgment that the government is aware of the work, which ultimately makes ownership easier to prove, should it ever be necessary. Registration does not in any way constitute copyright in and of itself. Copyright is an inherent property of every original work, under the law as it currently exists.

Totally literal answer: As Tali pointed out, anyone can accuse anyone else of anything at any time. If one wanted to lie through one's teeth, one could file random takedown notices all day long. Sooner or later that person would likely end up facing criminal charges for perjury, but assuming he or she doesn't care about that, anything CAN be done.




That's too broad of a question for any single answer to apply. As others have stated, these are matters for courts to decide, on a case by case basis.

If you make an item that is similar to something I've made, I could certainly file a DMCA takedown notice, and then LL would, in compliance with the law, remove your item. If you felt the takedown were unfair, you could then file a counter notice, and they would, again in compliance with the law, restore your item. The next step for me, if I legitimately feel your item is an infringement, would be to sue you, and let a judge settle it. The judge would hear both our arguments, examine our two works, and make a ruling.




Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're asking. You're granting that the "Cotton Balls On Shelf" composition is not a copy of the "Bottles On Shelf" composition, and isolating just the two shelves, nothing else, correct? And by further exampling that the two shelves are textured differently, what you're really asking is whether or not a single cube is a copyrightable item, right?

The short answer is no, a simple geometric shape is not a copyrightable item, in and of itself. There's nothing original about it.

However, a work containing that same geometric shape could certainly be copyrightable. One could, in theory, take a plain cube, park it in the center of a sim, title the composition "Cube On Grassland", and claim it as an original work. Said originality might or might not prove defensible in court, but one could certainly give it the old college try, if one really really wanted to. After all, modern art paintings of a single geometric shape on an otherwise blank canvas have been copyrighted works, and could serve as precedent examples. Whether or not a judge would buy that argument would be interesting to find out.

But whether the answer on that turned out to be yes or no, it wouldn't change the fact that the cube itself is still just a cube, not original, so not copyrightable.

The important thing to keep in mind is that there are no absolutes in these matters. Originality does not and cannot fit into categorical packaging. Its presence, or lack thereof, is determined case by case.

I know this is just a typo, but damn the mental picture made me laugh out loud.

Hahaha!!! Wow, yeah, damn, that would be something, wouldn't it? The ways in which one might criminally purge could be entertaining, to say the least.

I guess I better correct that.