Are RL trademarks used in-world intended to be ironic?

A T-shirt, I would not have a problem with, well unless it was Fruit of the Loom. But when the person is selling the same product as the RL corporation, that is fraud.

Since I am not doing it for personal gain, it falls under the fair use doctrine. But I prefer to sing my own made up versions to people I know.

it is only fraud if you are dumb enough to believe you are actually buying some product by a corporation in a compter game in a little shop called 'jaymz's elektronix'

It is disingenuous to pass stuff off on an established brand, SL or otherwise.

As I have said before, this is what licensing is for.

Not a perfect analogy, but the way ETD markets for Aveda in SL is a prime example. Granted, they wanted a presence and came to her, I believe. But let's say some other wannabe hair queen opens up an Aveda salon in SL, making hair under the Aveda brand without their permission. Is that okay? I do not think so.

I understand dream fulfillment - make your own personal copy of X brand item. But when you start to trade off someone else's name, you are wrong, and that doesn't change whether it's Joe Noob or Stroker or Nikon.

yeah? $1 aint $100 anymore hey.

Only if you recorded it and sold copies.

Like I said before Nina, I don't leave my principles behind when I log in, you do.

Fraud is still fraud no matter how stupid the victim is. Same thing with theft.

public performance.

i would just feel so silly calling this sort of thing 'fraud'.

Public performance is okay I believe under fair use. Recording and selling are not.

No, you have to pay me...I'm the one designing it. The model's title owner get's a role of toilet paper. Two ply...no skimping here.

People are aware Matel issued a trademark complaint against "The Barbie Club" and LL changed their name?

Technically...I'm not selling the same product. The model is unique, the texturing is custom, and the name 'SL100' is mine.

I'm only using the logo and brand...ya...only.

Nina, I have a John Deere T-Shirt in world. It is not a representation of a John Deere tractor. I would not buy a John Deere Tractor in world from anyone but the John Deere Corporation, if they chose to have a presence in SL.

Nope, thats why Fridays Applebees etc don't sing happy birthday, instead some annoying song they made up

http://www.wisegeek.com/who-owns-the-song-happy-birthday.htm


The song "Happy Birthday", with its ill-fitting lyrics and numbingly simple tune, is actually owned by a subsidiary of the media conglomeration known as AOL Time Warner. How a song as common as "Happy Birthday" ended up in the hands of a multi-national media group is nearly as interesting as the origins of the song itself.

The tune of the song "Happy Birthday" is believed to have been written by a woman from Kentucky named Mildred J. Hill sometime around 1893. Her sister, Patty Smith Hill, had already composed a simple greeting song called "Good Morning to You" for her students. Mildred and Patty Hill were both influential in the world of early childhood education, and their greeting song was eventually published in a collection of kindergarten songs. At that time, however, there was no lyrics which actually contained the words "Happy Birthday".

By the mid-1920s, several songbooks contained "Happy Birthday" as a second verse of the Hill sister's "Good Morning to You". Several motion pictures used "Happy Birthday" without crediting the songwriters, which prompted a third sister named Jessica Hill to demand legal compensation. Jessica Hill also established her sisters as the legal copyright owners of "Happy Birthday".

This is where ownership rights of "Happy Birthday" become a movable feast. Jessica Hill worked with the Clayton F. Summy musical publishing company to first publish "Happy Birthday" as a copyrighted work in 1935, crediting the lyrics to Preston Ware Orem, an employee of Summy. Originally, the copyright owned by the Hill sisters would have lasted for two consecutive 28 year terms. However, modern changes to copyright law have added several more decades of protection, making "Happy Birthday" a privately-owned work until at least the year 2030.

The chain of ownership for "Happy Birthday" begins with Jessica Hill and the Clayton F. Summy Company. A New York-based businessman acquired the company and renamed it Birch Tree Ltd. A subsidiary of Warner Communications, Warner Chappell, eventually bought Birch Tree Ltd. in the late 1990s, renaming it Summy-Birchard Music. Time-Warner merged with Internet giant AOL to form Time Warner AOL, a powerful media group.

Although any commercial production which uses "Happy Birthday" must pay royalties or obtain a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox agency, individuals can still sing it in the privacy of their own homes. Technically, bars and restaurants with ASCAP licenses cannot allow employees to perform "Happy Birthday" for customers, which is why many of these places create their own birthday songs as substitutes.

Yes, that does apply to paid employees singing as part of their job. If a family sat down to dinner and sang the song, nothing could be done.

Singing it at a birthday party in your home is not the same as singing in a restaurant that earns money in part by this service offered. Just because other people happen to hear it doesn't make it "public performance" per se.

However, at Rock Shows covers are often done without any royalties paid.

There is a commercial aspect in the Fridays, Applebees, etc.

That's it. I'm starting a Builders Union and striking. No more content for you!

I bet there would be a large number of fledgling designers who would LOVE an established content creation strike ..

Mike, that would fly if you were selling Nikon Mouthwash or Nikon Heavy Engine Lifts. Nikon is famous for selling cameras.

Doesn't bother me to cross a picket line.

Thats all well and good, but you are throwing theft and "wrong" around like you're on some sort of throne judging people. Just because something is written in law doesn't mean its 'right' or 'wrong' maybe legal and illegal, and in any case, and if Nikon feels its wrong, let them deal with Bigwig themselves.