Copyright Infringement

I have noticed a famous painting being advertised in the new product pages. I am fairly sure that this painting is copyrighted. It is obviously being sold and not just for the personal use enjoyment of the individual.

I am very careful about the works I purchase here, but I have noticed that this is a fairly common practice in SL. Is it worth it to AR these people for copyright infringement or should I just turn the other way and only worry about my personal morals?

We'd need some details - what is the painting for instance? As it may be so old that it no longer attracts copyright. (This ignores the cut and paste from e.g. museum sites, but even then it would be hard to track back and prove their copyright of their specific image had been broken - there are any number of old masters out there in the interwebz that one could grab and resell without anyone being able to point to a specific source)

Any modern painter though will almost certainly have some sort of copyright protection. Morals apart, is it up to the copyright holder to pursue any action. Morals included, I wouldn't buy.

And FWIW - I have extremely limited knowledge of copyright law, I just make sure I ask first.

Speaking as a creator of textures, those I source from the web I ALWAYS ensure that I have any copyright holders' permissions - and that they understand exactly what I am doing with their material - before putting anything up for sale based on their work. Something all too sadly lacking in SL.

Inc

All you could do is contact the copyright holder and notify them. It is up to them to continue at that point.

Well I may have jumped a bit early on this one. It might be in public domain. I should never rush to judgement. The painting is Jackson Pollocks No. 5, in this case.

What I could really use is easier ways to check copyright. I don't want to be any part of buying or passing on copyrighted art. Mostly I only will buy here from people who actually produce thier own art.

Also, I seem to remember that LL would have copyrighted material removed if it was reported. Is this still correct or has it ever been?

If it's what I'm thinking of, it was a Jackson Pollack. He was born 1912, and "Steamboat Willie" was released in 1928, so unless he painted it before he was about 16 it's unlikely to be public domain.

It is correct, however the reporting party must be the owner or legal representative of the owner of the work. It's handled through DMCA. If you do not own the rights to the work, or are not legally representing the entity who does, you have no grounds for complaint, and it will be dismissed.

Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. Just one of my own little pet peeves.

90% of the art I see in galleries is copyrighted or easily enough found on the internet with a few thought out keywords. pointless war imo but to each his own. *looks at tommy the shotgun gangster and sniffs the air* mmhmmm

On behalf of artists everywhere, thanks so much for being conscientious enough to ask about this.

Copyright interests for the Pollock-Krasner Foundation are handled in the US by the Artists Rights Society. If you want to do your civic duty, please forward the information to them, so they can handle it as they see fit. If the work is copyrighted, which it probably is, they'll most likely file a DMCA takedown notice with LL, to have the offending content removed.

Contact info for ARS is at http://www.arsny.com/contact.html. I'd suggest you E-mail one of their rights administrators.

Thanks again for being so respectful of creators' rights.

You mean thanks for butting in, no?

Most likely a lot higher percentage on all items sold in sl.


But don't tell them this you'll ruin their self induced fantasies. Might be too much of a shock to their brains to see this.

Most content sellers in sl believe everything they sell, everything is an absolute original. It's only been though up by them, designed by them, created solely by them.

Imagine this.


Only ones who are the originators of sl content is Linden. And you don't see them having pussy attacks over this. On the contrary they encourage others to build.

If that's what you prefer to call it, that's your prerogative. I'll have you know, though, that I "butt in" all the time when I stumble across copyright infringement. I've sent more than a few E-mails to copyright holders over the years, letting them know where I'd seen their works stolen. Sometimes they take action; sometimes they don't. The outcome is not really my concern, but either way, they're always grateful for the information, just as I would be if someone were to inform me that my own work had been stolen.

If you don't personally feel the need to get involved in this sort of thing, yourself, fine. But kindly don't make such a fool of yourself by implying that those who do are somehow in the wrong. Some of us do live by the simple principle that we all have a very real responsibility to look out for each other. I'm sorry if you can't see the value in that.




I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're implying that people who make original content are not actually being original. That doesn't seem to make any sense, though. Care to clarify?




Excuse me, what? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who originate content for SL every single day. Linden Lab only has a handful of employees. How could it be even remotely true that the only originators are Lindens?



I'm not sure what a "pussy attack" is, but you seem to be implying that LL doesn't seek to defend copyright. That couldn't be further from the truth. I can promise you they take the issue very seriously, and comply fully with all applicable laws. When they receive a DMCA takedown notice, they remove the infringing content, just as they are required to by law.



Of course they encourage others to build. That's what SL is all about. What does that have to do with the topic at hand, though?

being a representative for real artists, it doesn't pain me to see copyrighted contemporary modern art for sale in SL, I do think that the sellers should certainly credit the artist/s and the name of the work in full though. Maybe I should get in touch with all my contacts, get permission to act as a SL agent and start charging commission?

Under US law, any works from before 1923 are in the public domain, and may be freely reproduced, sold, or used as the basis of derivative works. From 1923 through 1963, copyrighted works had to have their copyrights renewed, and many did not. However, to determine what was renewed and what was not requires research on a case by case basis.

The painting you are talking about (Jackson Pollock's "No. 5" dates from 1948 and is most likely covered by copyright.

ARing is probably futile as LL depends on the legally-mandated DMCA process, and that requires a DMCA take-down notice from the copyright holder or authorized agent.

Under US law, for an image to be copyrightable, it must contain an element of originality. Exact photographic reproductions of two dimensional public domain artworks lack that element and are not copyrightable. (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp

Ah yes, 1923, not 1928. Jackson Pollack's work might look like he did it all at the age of 8, but 'taint so.

EDIT: I slightly misread Carl's post, so my response wasn't quite warranted. I'm leaving the post intact, though, just in case anyone might find its expanded explanation of the Bridgeman ruling useful.




Careful with your implications. You make it sound as if the copying of copies is always OK. That's simply not the case.

The fact that exact reproductions are not independently copyrightable from the originals does not mean that reproductions are not copyrighted at all. It simply means that for copyright purposes, there is no legal distinction between an authorized reproduction and the original work from which it was sourced. In other words, the reproduction is subject to the exact same copyright protections as the original.

For reproduction of copyrighted originals, the Bridgeman ruling changed nothing. If you reproduce a copyrighted Jackson Pollock, your reproduction belongs to the Pollock-Krasner foundation, just like the original does, and you can only make that single copy if you have their permission. After that, no one, not even you, can produce another copy without their continued express permission.

What the Bridgeman ruling did and does have real consequences for is the reproduction of public domain works. It established that such reproductions are themselves public domain, just like the originals. If you copy the Mona Lisa, your copy can in turn be copied by anyone and everyone else. That's got nothing whatsoever to do with the reproduction of copyrighted works that are not in the public domain. Please don't imply otherwise, intentionally or not.

Thank you all for your very intelligent answers. This has long been an issue that has bothered me that I have needed more information on. I feel better just becoming more informed.

Thank you Chosen for letting me know the proper place to drop an email.

It's futile in the sense that Linden Lab will probably not take action.

However, if you care about the copyright infringement, it is worth doing anyway. When you submit the AR, you take away Linden Lab's defense that they did not know the infringement was happening on their server. That gives the copyright holder at least something potentially to pursue against Linden Lab.

And if Linden Lab were smart, if they get enough ARs about the copyright infringement, they will realize that they need to re-examine how well they monitor their services.

I now have a nice email saved for the occasions where I can find the proper copyright holder or agent. the email informs them that I have seen thier product being used in SL and was dubious about its legitimate use. It gives a link where I have seen the product, how to reach me for any information I can provide, and a link to Second Life's DMCA page.

It may be futile and I am not going to spend my time going from gallary to gallary looking for missused art. I do feel better for having some facts and for formulating a plan that feels right to me.

On the more positive side, I am happy to support and buy art from artists here in SL that I know are sharing thier own works.

I think you misread my post. What I said was "Exact photographic reproductions of two dimensional PUBLIC DOMAIN artworks lack that element and are not copyrightable." (emphasis added)

Come by my gallery of public domain art and maps in Deimos--you won't find any there. All of the "digital prints" there are pre-1923 or works of the US Government. (Except for the top floor which is exhibit space for SL resident artists, who retain ownership of their works.)

Oh I have been there, but it has been a long time. I even think you used to have a sign explaining your stuff was public domain. I have a couple maps from you.

Oh, I don't think you had the top floor then. It may have been a year or so since I stopped bye. It is time I stopped in again.

If the outcome is not really your concern then why get involved in the first place? Aren't you kind of contradicting your own statements then?


You say you report copies all the time. But how do you know which person has the copy and which one has the original? Unless you were there when it was made there's no way to tell. And even if you were you don't know if someone else made it before. So to go around snopping or reporting- to AR as some of you guys love so dearly to quote- is just ridiculous and unwarranted.

Now if you have an idex of every single item ever made in sl along with names, dates, times and places then maybe I would, I could understand your logic. If not then what you're doing is merely being a snitch.

You're trying to act like such a smartass and you're not making the grade. Remember, you can't save the world no matter how hard you try.


And yes, I'm aware everyones work is original. Don't know what got into me to think otherwise.

We are talking about copies of RL art works imported into SL. Not copies of SL skins, clothing, or other prim creations. In some cases of art it is very clear that it is an unathorized copy.