|
Johan Laurasia
Fully Rezzed
Join date: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1,394
|
09-06-2007 19:52
No.. it's plagiarism.
|
|
Chaffro Schoonmaker
Funny Bunny
Join date: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 137
|
09-06-2007 22:17
LL's answer to creation ownership:
"Linden Lab's Terms of Service agreement recognizes Residents' right to retain full intellectual property protection for the digital content they create in Second Life, including avatar characters, clothing, scripts, textures, objects and designs. This right is enforceable and applicable both in-world and offline, both for non-profit and commercial ventures. You create it, you own it – and it's yours to do with as you please."
I'd like to see this dive-board thief show his weaselly little face on this thread, lets see his side of the story...then lets get 'im!
|
|
Grissy Galiazzo
Registered User
Join date: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 23
|
09-07-2007 03:04
From: Jesse Barnett I personally think you are going to have to put this up to a learning expirience. First you gave someone who is definitely not a freind modify rights on your items. Alt's get modify rights, no one else does. Then you gave this same supposed freind an item when they had these same rights, you gave them the textures, the prims and the scripts. Quit trying to see what all they are trying to recreate of yours and sale. Quit worrying about getting into thier store. I wouldn't waste your precious creative time on filing the DMCA paperwork on what amounts to a handful of RL dollars. Under these circumstances I don't think you have a legitimate complaint.
Channel your anger and frustration and create, create, create wonderfull new products that the public want and blow the competition away. It's not a case of "a handful of RL dollars"  (Pounds for me  ) It's the principle. Let one get away with it, and anyone else so inclined will know they can do the same. Let this one person get away with it, and he won't stop. He already had trouble with a well known big-wig in SL, but well known big-wigs carry more clout, and just the threat was enough for him to back down. I should think anyone who creates their own stuff, and tries to sell it to help pay tiers etc. (I personally don't make enough from my sales, but every little bit helps), and who is helping make SL what it is, would agree with me. Apart from the betrayal of a "good friend", the upset and anger that *anyone* could do this, etc. It's WRONG! Not only on a moral plain, but also against rules set in place to protect us. Well... I'm going away for the weekend, and the paperwork will all be done on Tuesday. If anyone is interested in how it all goes, contact me inworld any time. Especially any other creators/sellers, who might be worried about having the same thing happen to them. Thanks GG xx |
|
Kidd Krasner
Registered User
Join date: 1 Jan 2007
Posts: 1,938
|
09-07-2007 07:39
Plagiarism refers specifcally to passing someone else's work as your own. Ethically, it's a type of fraud, but in most cases it's also theft. (It wouldn't be theft if, for example, a friend gave you permission to plagiarize his term paper, but it's still wrong.)
What you're dealing with is copyright infringement (potentially). Ethically, this is a type of theft, but legally it's a different beast. It's more complicated to determine whether copyright infringement has actually taken place. More often than not, it's treated as a civil matter (i.e. you have to sue), whereas other forms of theft are usually treated as criminal matters (i.e., the police and DA bring the culprit to court).
I say potentially, because there are a lot of details that could alter the legal situation. In this case, it sounds like you have enough of a case that it's worth pursuing.
|
|
Qie Niangao
Coin-operated
Join date: 24 May 2006
Posts: 7,138
|
09-07-2007 08:06
From: Jesse Barnett I personally think you are going to have to put this up to a learning expirience. First you gave someone who is definitely not a freind modify rights on your items. Yeah, and I'm afraid that's probably good enough to sink a claim of copyright violation: effectively, the "friend" was actively granted license to do whatever that permission is able to do. Doesn't make it any less sleazy of him to have done it, but pretty much makes it a dead issue in court, I would suspect. |