I'm a CopyBot'er?!?!?

You have no clue what you're talking about. I'm saying that if I see something someone built, then I teleport home, and make my own object by creating my own prims, and sizing and shaping and texturing it myself with my own tools, as long as I do not use any form of theft (like copybot programs) to steal the object or their textures, then it's totally legit. It goes on in SL and RL all the time and no one with a brain complains about it. If people are not allowed to make something someone else has already made, then pretty much nothing would be allowed to be created. I stole nothing from no one to make my version of something else I saw, that's it, and it's not theft. I took an idea and redid it for myself, with my own hand. If I did, the creator of the original object could have AR'd me or reported me or whatever, but didn't. All she did was bitch that I made a clock that looked like hers, which I did, and have always admitted to. Aside from complaining (and threatening to bash me in the forums on SLX, which I don't know if she did or not, I never go there), that's all she did or could have done.

LOL, actually, they are, but they're going to loose....

http://www.pcworld.com/article/184474/apple_sues_nokia_whos_next.html

note to self, never underestimate the stupidity of real world companies, or I might seem to be psychic in reverse.

That's a *patent* violation lawsuit, and it's in response to Nokia suing Apple over *Nokia's* patents. This kind of thing goes on all the time, and usually ends up with the companies cross-licensing their patents. It's how AMD is still* able to sell Intel-compatible processors, for example, because Intel's using AMD's patents and AMD is using Intel's patents. If it wasn't for that, the only 64-bit home computers would be Itanium and Power PC.

So unless Palm sues Apple over something, I think they're safe.

* AMD originally had a cross-licensing agreement with Intel over the 486 because Intel was trying to stave off anti-trust action, but later tried to stop AMD from selling products compatible with later Intel CPUs.

I think it's pretty stupid of a designer to make a SL item, house, plane, submarine, what ever, based on RL design, then come crying that someone copied my work.

What did you do first? You saw a picture of some buildings in RL that you loved and rebuilt it in SL based upon that structure, design and all. And where did you get the textures hmmmm?? Made them from scratch using PS tools, or found a clear picture, copied and fixed it so it suited your needs? (General you, I have no idea if these creators discussed here make textures, buy it, use full perm free stock)
Then comes another designer and see your work and makes his/her own version. No direct copy, no stealing of prims or textures.

Pot calls kettle black, IMHO. It's almost impossible to not be influenced by something that's done before. Especially when you build old houses.

If you copy prim for prim someone else's creation, it's IP theft - you've copied SOMEONE ELSE'S intellectual property.

My comment was in response to this widely held misconception:
Originally Posted by Johan Laurasia
copyING is not copyBOTTING.

CopyING is IP theft. Inspiration is something else -- copyING is theft.

Intellectual property is a fraud. Or do you claim to own the image in my brain as well?

I think Johan would have to have an awful good memory if he just looked at something someone did, teleported home, and reconstructed it prim-for-prim from memory.

As I previously stated, I snapped a few images, and used those as a reference. I've never set them next to one another side by side, but I'm sure if the prim size/locations relative to one another were compared, they're not anywhere near exact. As for the textures, I used a clock face I found on the web that I modified in photoshop, and the wood grain texture is the stock Brazilian rosewood found in the library. The gold trim I used was done in photoshop from scratch. The clock hands were also done in photoshop, modified from images I found on the web. The original has a glass face that opens which mine does not, and I believe it also has a key for winding the clock which mine does not as well. As far as the scripts go, they were written entirely by me. At the time, I had never even seen a clock script nor had I ever written one before. I spent 2 hours writing my original clock script and used my brain to figure out how to calculate the hour and minute hand rotations based on time read from the server. After that, I added a dialog menu for setting the time and ticking sound and Westminster chimes as well as the hourly dongs were all royalty free sounds I pulled from the web and edited with Windows sound recorder. Quite a bit went into making the clock aside from the build, and I did the build manually using the images I snapped as a reference. If I'm guilty of anything, it's taking the style. Aside from that, I did everything else.

I misidentified the source in my post, and it stands....

you are relying on a different definition of copying than the context provides... you are talking about a literal copy, as in taking a picture, running it through a scanner, and then printing the same picture yourself. Johan was talking about the equivalent of seeing the picture, and drawing one like it.... they are two different things. and the second amounts to a derivative work in legal context, and is considered fair competition.

as an example, the first thing I sold in SL was a set of spiked arm cuffs, designed at a friends request to replace some overpriced unmodifiable ones she liked. I looked at them, I built my own, used my own textures, and sold them for far cheaper. Style of a thing is not IP, nor is function. now if I'd then advertised them using a similar distinct trademarked name, or claimed they were in fact the original, THEN I might be in trouble. but I could just as easily say "similar to xyz" and be perfectly safe.

@Argent
speaking of which, I think it was Apple's counter suit that he was referencing, and I agree that the apple patent for multi touch will most likely prove to be to vague as a basis for infringement, but it's a nice legal tactic to make Nokia waste time and cash, which they might not want to spend, forcing a more monetarily suitable settlement out of court.

I might have believed that before Xerox managed to get their Unistroke patent upheld despite Jef Hawkins' college paper on what became Graffiti being published a decade before Xerox got it. The patent system is completely corrupted.

I don't know anything abou that but it does sound like Jef Hawkins didn't take out a patent on whatever it was - and that does matter. If you invent something but don't patent it, someone else can see it, patent it, and win.

I won't argue that the patent process as it stands is a joke, on a great many levels (and not even a funny joke). as a legal tactic it's only as effective as the money you can throw behind it.

I don't think you understand the patent system. You can't patent prior art, you can only patent the parts of your invention that are unique. Jef Hawkins graduate thesis was prior art, and the Unistroke patent should have been invalidated.

I don't particularly understand the patent system and I've no idea what art has to do with this conversation. As I said, I don't know anything about that particular case. I said what it sounded like. What I do know is that, if I invent something but don't patent it, someone else can see its potential and take a patent out on it (as long as it doesn't infringe prior patents, of course), and I wouldn't have any rights. I'd have lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings, or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.

If you publish an invention, that invention can not be patented, by you or anyone else, because it has become part of the "state of the art". Hawkins published his graduate thesis in the '80s, and was selling Graffiti for the Apple Newton well before the Unistroke patent was granted.

Now I understand the "art" reference

Your post reminds me of DNA. Most scientists believe that DNA information should be public knowledge but one or two companies in the U.S. are quite happy to patent it. I don't know exactly what they patent concerning DNA - perhaps uses of the specific knowledge - but not long ago a British lab uncovered some hitherto unknown information about a section of DNA (maybe it was part of the uncovering of the genome). They had a problem. In their opinions, such information should be public knowledge and free to be used for the benefit of all, but they knew that at least one U.S. company would take patents out because that's what they did. The Brits were true to their principles and published the information and, sure enough, a U.S. company took the information and took out a patent on it.

It sounds like it fits what you wrote - prior public knowledge - and yet the company got the patent. There's probably more to it than that but, if I understood correctly, it does mean that other companies are not allowed to use that particular part of the DNA in a free way.

Like I said, the system is corrupt. The US patent office knows they're screwing up, too. Too many applications, not enough examiners. They're tightening up the rules now but it's too late for a lot of people and companies.

http://www.crowdsourcing.com/cs/2008/11/crowdsourcing-the-patent-review-system.html

Well in this case I DID NOT copy prim by prim or use a copy bot. I never even knew this persons sub existed before they contacted me slinging accusations.

Come to my store Brave New Worlds and you will see that I am fond of replicating either real life things or scifi. If I see something I like I usually end up building it. Someone asked for a sub and I built them one. YES our builds look similar.... but that is purely coincedence. There are other cylon centurions on the market.... I dont scream RAT and run to linden labs to have them removed. I dont own cylons... I dont own submarine designs.

But let's not lose focus on the fact that this little person (who has yet to return my IM) took this private matter and posted it online to further slander my name. Should I start a blog about them? Maybe call it "Paranoid Dilusional Cry Babies of Second Life"...... hmmm... I smell a blog coming on....... hehe

Kidding... I wont waste my time. Linden Labs knows me, my customers know me.... I'm not a thief. I just wanted to post fair warning to other builders out there about this ignorant person.

Thanks everyone... I'm glad I'm not alone in my thinking on this.

All of this is useful information that would help a court decide whether or not infringement took place. Certain aspects certainly aren't infringing. However, the list alone is not compelling proof that there's no infringement at all.

The basic test is how similar is your version to those aspects of the original that deserve copyright protection. The steps you took might help prove that certain aspects lack the originality needed for copyright protection, but the mere fact that you created everything yourself doesn't mean that the result isn't an infringing copy. On the other hand, the fact that clocks have round faces, are often in wood cabinets, and that there common proportions could all indicate that there are many aspects of the original clock that aren't entitled to copyright protection.

If it came as far as trial, a court would look at all the information and make a decision, somewhat subjective, as to whether there was infringement. Usually people won't let it get that far, because neither side could be 100% confident, while the court decision would be all or nothing.

The usual IANAL disclaimer applies.

Johan, this subject interests me very much. I was DMCA'd for doing exactly what you describe above. Creating a house in a similar style to someone else's, it was not even a replica, just a similar style. She DMCA'd my built and bad mouthed me all over the community. I have actually been quite unsure whether or not what I did was wrong.

@Kidd:
Yeah, you make some good points, but you're making quite a few assumptions, one, that the original clock was copyrighted (which I doubt), and secondly, how much damage was actually incurred. If I dug threw the last 3 years worth of emails and added up the number of sales of that particular clock, (which I do have), I doubt I made more than $10 USD overall off of that particular clock. So, I doubt it would be much worth it for legal action to be taken. Even so, if I paid every cent that I made from the clock in a judgment, I pretty sure it won't break me.

@Elle:

Well, she threatened to bad mouth me if I didn't take it down, which I never did, and I'm still in business, and have yet to run into someone who's told me that they heard her speaking out against me. I'm surprised that you were DCMA'd over it. Houses, like clocks, have certain things in common, roofs, walls, doors, etc. What came of the DCMA action taken against you? Did you fight it? I think for the most part, in many of the cases, the monetary damage is so low that it's hardly worth pursuing. Only in certain cases, like the Sex Gen case where true copybotting was happening, and the amount of money lost due to it make it worth picking up the phone and calling the lawyers.

She made a lot of threats and her friends were IM'g me, they got pretty nasty. I took it down, mainly because I didn't want her getting my RL info and also because she's a lot bigger than me and I allowed her to intimate me. It would never have gone to court, she never would have got anywhere with it, I just didn't really understand the process well enough.