Copyright Infringement

Well, unless he goes around museums studing paintings with his little Sherlock Holmes hat then ARing people. I believe its about sl.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, just assume that he's only reporting the cases he's reasonably sure about, and isn't guessing as to who did what first.

Good one, It's only decent to talk to the person first, a lot of it is probably innocent mistakes. An outright AR with any talk or chance or explanation is way to much.

Copyright infringement threads always catch my attention. And almost everyone of the threads involve someone seeing something in SL that they believe is such an infrinement..........a few (a very few) are posted by people who have had their personal copyrights infringed upon. Those I can read and not get that ugly knot in my stomach about people who think they are doing such a service to the artists of the work by spouting all those "holier than thou" statements about how much they care for all the artists in the world...........it's BS. If you want to serve those artists, notify them........a post in the SL forums is not going to help one bit. All I can see for the post to a chance to tell everyone just how great and noble you are........nothing more.

I don't steal music, software, nor graphical art.........and when I see it and it bothers me I attempt to find who to notify my concerns for. But, to be honest, that does not happen much. I won't purchase the items, I won't tell others not to purchase the items but I won't tell them where it is either. It's up to the individuals conscious as to how to handle it. The way I figure it is if the person is truly concerned then it's up them to safeguard their property...........not me or any other "do gooder".

And to the problem of artists and their art being put on the internet.....maybe they should talk to whoever put it there. If it's there, people will steal it..........and I won't worry about their problem.

These threads always get the same responses from the same experts on copyright infringement/property rights. And most, if not all, of those responders have "all the facts". They know it all..........yet, my personal bet is that many of those same people have an illegal copy of some song stored on their hard drive, iPod, or mp3 player. Or they have a pirated game they just love, or maybe in their wallpaper file they have some art image they just love. But when folks with egos as big as Texas speak...........others are supposed to listen.

I don't.

There's an old ethical principle that says you're not obligated to see something through to the end, but you're not allowed to ignore it, either.

To look at it another way, why should he have to concern himself with the outcome? If I see someone with a burned out brake light, I'll tell them. I don't follow them to repair shop to make sure they fix it, nor do I call the police to get them to issue a defective equipment warning.

But, if you are not willing to follow through then you are not as concerned as you want me to believe.

I think that's the point.

How you read this thread through? That's essentially what it's about - who should be notified. No one here is trying to earn brownie points for nobility. One person has talked about making it a practice to do something about violations, but not in a self-aggrandizing way.


I'm not following. You don't steal, but you think people who bother to tell others that only the copyright holder can complain to LL will steal? Why is someone who's taken the trouble to be informed about copyright law, and hence answer questions about it, be more likely to steal than you?


No one is trying to make you believe anything about their level of concern.

the question was answered within about 3 replies. Now it's about just how great we are and how smart we are.

And, my experience with people (I deal with peopel everyday in RL) is that the biggest shouters of how "good" they are are more often than not guilty of what they are telling others not to do.

Simple.............I've been reading these forums for years. I know the suspects. I can predict almost exactly what they will say.........and how they will say it. I don't put much faith in their words. I've had to deal with way too many people just like them.

Excellent. Nothing else needs to be said. The entire post was but I don't want to burden sl's heroes and do-gooders having them read the entire thing once again. So I just re-print a line or two. It should be sufficient.

See? I care too.

In other words, you take back your crack about butting in? Seeing as how Peggy said she would notify the content creators too, and all Chosen did was to provide the information about who to notify in this case.

Or is it the other way around, and you think Peggy is butting in, too, because she would do the exact same thing that Chosen was suggesting.

Your first sentence is absolutely correct, it was answered quite quickly.

The second is absolutely wrong. It's about rebutting an accusation of "butting in". You, yourself, said "If you want to serve those artists, notify them." You also said "when I see it and it bothers me I attempt to find who to notify my concerns for." Someone else described this as butting in. But rather than siding with people who agree with exactly what you said, you're attacking them for defending things which you do.


You're doing exactly what you're complaining about. Perhaps that means you've proved your point.

And how the Sydney Opera House was daft for paying all that money for "Blue Poles".

Ah, I did miss that, Carl. Sorry about that.

I've edited the post to point out my mistake.

The outcome is not my concern because I'm not the copyright holder. Only the owner of a piece gets to determine how and whether it should be used. It's not for me to dictate what they should do. I'm doing my part simply by informing them of what I saw. How they choose to handle it from there is their business, not mine.

If an owner were to ask me to get more deeply involved, I'd be happy to do whatever I could. But that's never happened, a I don't expect that it ever will. There wouldn't be any point in it. Once they've gotten the information from me about what I saw, where, and when, that's really all they need.




I don't go around snooping. I wouldn't have time to do such a ridiculous thing, even if I wanted to. I'm talking about copies that are quite obviously copies, such as the Jackson Pollock we've been discussing in this thread. It's rather obvious that a famous painting wasn't created by the person selling it in SL, isn't it?

Want a quick example? About a year ago, a builder I know showed me some space ships he had made, loosely interpreted replicas from a popular sci fi TV show. The models weren't bad, but I noticed that the textures he'd been using didn't quite fit the geometry. Out of simple curiosity, I asked who had done the texture work, since I knew for a fact that this builder doesn't make textures at all. He explained that he had ripped them from models he had downloaded, and gave me the link to the site, so I could see how cool it was that these models were available.

A quick glance at the site's licensing agreement made it clear that the models were only to be used for specific purposes, and most unsurprisingly, that the textures were not to be extracted for use on other models. I mentioned this to the builder. He seemed a little taken aback at first, as he hadn't bothered to read the agreement. Ignorance is bliss, right? Apparently he figured if he didn't read the word no, he was free to make up a yes in his own mind. After some further discussion, he told me he simply didn't care that he wasn't allowed to rip apart other people's work. He was just going to do it anyway.

So, I contacted the owner of the site, and I let them know what I'd witnessed. The owner thanked me for the heads up, and that was that. Whether the owner chose to pursue the matter, I have no idea. All I know is I did my civic duty as a witness, and that's enough. Again, it's not for me to tell another copyright holder what to or not to do with their own property.

In that particular case, I didn't go looking to find unauthorized copies. It didn't even occur to me that that was where the conversation was going to lead. The builder approached me, freely admitted his infringement, expecting a pat on the back for his cleverness as a "finder". That he was actually an IP thief hadn't yet crossed his mind. Once he was made aware, and he subsequently decided to keep what he had stolen, I informed the rightful owner. That's all.

I also see ripped textures from video games all the time, which are extremely obvious. When I encounter those, I inform the game companies.




I don't need an index of anything to recognize obvious copies when I stumble across them. If I see a texture in SL that I also saw in Half Life, I think I can be reasonably sure that the SL user is not the owner.




If you want to call me names for doing the right thing, that's up to you.




I'm not sure how "smartass" factors into the equation, but if I'm not making the grade as one, I guess that's probably a good thing.



Every single one of us can save the world or not, in our own way, by our own choices and actions. I choose not to steal. I choose to let others know when I've witnessed someone stealing from them. It's not a difficult concept. I'm sorry if it's lost on you.




OK.

Well said, Kidd. I was going to respond to that same post in pretty much the same way, but now I don't need to. Good stuff.

if I counted the number of illegitimate art on SL (and the web) for sale....

I've seen people that swore up and down that they painted a John Collier they were displaying (his ever popular lilith complete with cracks in the dark areas and signature). various Vallejo's, numerous Michael Whelans, NeNe Thomas', I even caught a few Elisa Mitchel's, Amy Browns, some of the Foglio's work. along with about a hundred other easily recognizable artists. if they don't charge more than upload fee for full permission, I ignore them more often then not. otherwise I IM them telling them exactly what I think of their blatant profiteering of another's work, and generally e-Mail the artist too if I can find an easy access point.

While it is certainly is sleezy to take credit for someone else's work, much of John Collier's art--including Lilith (1892) is in the public domain. He died in 1934, so some of his work is still under copyright, too.

While that wouldn't violate copyright law, it would be civil fraud and would violate just about every U.S. state's consumer protection laws.