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

Lexxi...

It's not at all weird to think my camera might be endorsed by Nikon. I totally understand how that could be easily misinterpreted.

No worries. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise, or made you feel bad.

I've never 'relied on products' from the real world. I created the Nikon for the love of the company, because it was a well known brand other photographers might enjoy, and to have fun.

With all due respect--GBD has been grown up...long before Second Life. I do what I do because I love to do it...not to screw people with dirty pool or make a raging profit.

I'm not nearly as crooked as some of you play me to be...

And lastly, I challenge myself everyday. As we all should.

Happy Holidays!

Of course you'd blow off the fact that you constantly display the biggest histrionics whenever someone disagrees with you or introduces a slight nuance to the argument. Far too many threads become about you because you make it about you. In just about every other thread where there is discussion and disagreement, no one else has made themselves into a lightning rod. We can agree to disagree without feeling like we're targeted. Granted, this particular subject was turned toward you by someone else who clearly didn't like what you're doing, but it's easier to focus on me than to take in the fact that there are other people who are disagreeing with you on principle. Imagine that.

On your second point, you are the one that said not a single person on the grid had a problem with it. Your statement was pure hyperbole - just because you haven't met anyone who voiced a problem with it doesn't mean that there isn't. Clearly there are a few of us who object to the practice on a principle that you do not share. But you'll be intentionally obtuse to that fact, so you can keep focusing on mean, nasty ol' me...

Resorting to invective rather than merit. That was weak, and also hypocritical of you since you're the one who approves of what amounts to petty theft.

Being obtuse again, eh. The complete phrase is "put up or shut up" - I did not tell you to shut up outright. But let me use one a little less incendiary: put your money where your mouth is. As for cameras - I do not care. If I am in the market for one, I do my research. I made no comment about the actual quality of what you make, since I don't know. I don't know how well they sell. But you are the one who said that they would sell just as well if they weren't "Nikon" cameras. I and others are extolling you to do it, put your money where your mouth is.

Except that you're doing it entirely without Nikon's permission.

Even if you could prove that your cameras somehow make people more likely to go out and buy real-ones, Nikon would still just slap you with a cease-and-desist or seek a court action to get the money you're making ILLEGALLY from their brand-name (plus "appropriate" compensation for the trouble of course). And then look at doing it themselves instead.

It doesn't matter if your camera is high-quality or utter-crap, you're stealing the image of another company, and effectively pretending to be them, or a representative of them selling their products. You're making your camera out to be a Nikon when it was neither conceived, designed or produced by Nikon. It is intentionally misleading to get a more favourable reaction from potential customers. YOUR customers, not Nikon's.

Your side of the coin is the one covered in stolen property.

by accident I came across this, it's very interesting and informative in a way that may be helpful to this discussion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/06/guardianweeklytechnologysection.insideit

for example

"This is where the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act comes in. "The DMCA creates certain 'safe harbours' for the intermediary (say, an internet service provider or Linden Labs) in a copyright context." Under ordinary law, unwitting infringement is still infringement - so, without the DMCA, Linden Labs would be liable for copyright infringement caused by users of Second Life. But policing their own users would rapidly make internet businesses of this kind unprofitable.

The introduction of the DMCA means that Linden Labs is protected from these sort of claims so long as the company sticks to certain guidelines and promptly blocks access to content if notified of an infringement by a copyright holder."

Well...you got me there. I think we're all pretty clear on the 'law.' And I think we're pretty clear I'm a scumbag with little morals and no business sense at all.

So, let's take this thread out to space, and toss it in a blackhole...thanks.

Unbelieveable.

Question: are you making money off of sales of these items?

If so, then you are a rip-off artist and a thief if you don't have permission from Nikon to use their name.
No amount of semantics or stating your opinion as fact will change that.

I have worked hard to build my SL brand, my partner has worked harder building hers.

If someone started building "props" with the Bushbaby Productions or Lost Furest Creatures brand stuck on it? That's messed up. That's wrong.

What you are doing is riding off the hard work of other people, living or dead (yeah... still not sure how that factors into it), without paying for it and without permission... and that is wrong.

Hurting anyone? Prolly not. But does that matter?

And who knows? You might be. I'm no lawyer, but I know that trademark infractions are supposed to be dealt with as quickly as possible, as there's something about the possibility of losing it if you let it slide, if someone else uses it and you know about it and DON'T slam them.
Wasn't there some huge company like Kleenex or Coke or something that almost lost their trademark because they didn't spank a small company using their trademark on the products.

I'm going to assume your defense of this is simply coming from a place of ignorance of the laws, rules and regulations.
I'm not sure where the lashing out and ad hominem attacks and projection is coming from, though.

Listen. I didn't answer your first point because I simply don't want to talk to you. I don't like you. You're mean, hypocritical, and I simply want nothing to do with you.

If you just HAVE to reply to something I say...keep your personal feelings out of it.

Some of you on here act like I'm the bad guy...I'm the one doing this our saying that...and these same people are the ones who ONLY treat me with hatred and disgust. I have no tolerance that kind of person.

Leave me alone already. Find something productive to do.

I've grown weary of some people's drama. It's a simple item in one little shop...and I've done it merely because I love the brand.

Get over it. Leave it alone. Move on with your lives. Stop being a broken records.

And for you to finish up by saying my defense of the subject is due to ignorance...is ignorant in itself. Have you not read a single post here? I've never NOT understood. I'm a professional graphic designer...we sorta have to know these things.

Anyway. Let's give it a rest.

Lexxi, Elikapeka Tiramisu of ETD develops hair for Aveda. She sells Aveda branded hair in her shop. It is not entirely unimaginable that normal residents would develop products for RL companies.

re my earlier post the same report says"

"As a result, Linden Labs has chosen to take an aggressive stance, removing all unauthorised trademarks from Second Life whenever they are discovered, even before a trademark holder contacts them."

And yet you continue to do something that is in clear breach of the law? How would you react if someone were to take your images and produce cheap photocopies of them and sell them for money? Would you be pleased?
What if I went around selling my own images using your name instead of my own?

QFT! (Big time)

The commercial aspect to Fridays & Applebees simply means that there's someone to sue.

Are you aware that RIAA actually filed suit against a girl's camp, expecting them to pay royalties for songs sung around a compfire? They got so much bad publicity they backed off and made excuses (saying it was a camp for rich kids -- really!)

Rock show covers performed in public without royalties? Sure, it happens. Successful lawsuits can result.

When a band plays in a bar, they can play covers. Why? Because the bar pays an annual fee based on the number of seats in the house and industry averages for how often given tunes are played (based on ratings). The "Performing Arts" copyright holders get paid. No payment is made to the holders of the "Sound Recording" copyright holders in this case. For example, if a band plays their rendition of Judy Collins's "Both Sides Now", Judy Collins doesn't get money; Joni Mitchell does because she wrote the song and continues to hold the PA copyright.

When a radio station plays Judy Collins's "Both Sides Now" on the radio, both Judy Collins (or her publisher) and Joni Mitchell get paid by the radio station, because two copyrights are involved: the PA copyright for the song composition, and the SR (Sound Recording) copyright for Judy Collins's recording of the song. (Again, the payments are based on statistics rather than per-play accounting, I believe.)

Without even getting the copyright owners' permission, you can pay to do your own recording of someone's song. These are called "mechanical rights" and the price is set by the US Government. (I believe mechanical rights can apply to both cases: you recording someone else's song, or you including their recording in your compilation, but I've only done the former so I can't speak with authority about the latter.)

To find out more about audo copyrights and how they're policed, visit the site of any artists' representative organization, such as BMI and ASCAP. To find out more about how copyrights work in the US (and the rights, if not procedures, are consistent among most countries with the exception of a few 3rd world and/or communist countries that do not honor IP rights in general), go to "http://copyright.gov".

Or ask. It does less damage to your credibility.

Yah...Go team!

This forum isn't for general discussion; there are many Resident Sites where this discussion is appropriate — Resident Answers is for Resident-to-Resident help. I'll close this thread...