Bullying Bunnies threaten Legal Action over Ad

Fine with me, I would have just used "Eject and ban" and been done with it.


No, not a sexist. I am someone who lets other people make the choices they wish about how they want to live their lives. These women are not forced to work for Playboy and their working there does not harm anyone. So it is really none of my business.

I could show you proof that I am a man, but from your statements you wouldn't appreciate it.

We just disagree on a) the facts of economic coercion (do this or you don't have a job) and b) whether it's socially negative to make female employees who are working as *lawyers* (lawyers, ffs!) dress up as fluffy animals to please heterosexual men.

As a heterosexual man I would like to confirm that I am *NOT* pleased by lawyers dressed up as fluffy animals.

Pep (In fact I am not pleased by lawyers however they are dressed)

If "do this" is the job then it isn't coercion to work there.
If they don't like dressing up as fuzzy animals, then they are free to quit. No one is forcing them to stay. As for "socially negative" I personally reject the entire concept. The individual is much more important than "society".

I don't see any point in trying to talk sense to you.

ummmm....I'm a woman, by the way.....so sending me bunnies in skimpy outfits to do the dirty work.....doesn't take the edge off.

Because your argument that doing the job you are hired to do somehow equates coercion makes no sense.

Tut, tut, Chris. If you read Chav's posts the job = coercion line is just a minor digression, something she probably picked up in passing in a lamentably "progressive" environment of some sort. Instead, you get the definite sense that here is someone desperately resisting a barely suppressed desire to be a white-silk slave girl in Gor - and in RL. Hopefully, someone out there in RL will help her find her inner sex slave and her posts (and one hopes, her life) will become happier.

"The iron most hates the magnet that attracts but does not compel." - Friedrich Nietzsche

That sardonicism might be funnier if it was not something that might be posted with no trace of tongue in cheek by a REAL Gorean man.

Pep (Chav would need to go on a "Reduce your self-esteem" course first)

The choices people have to choose from are limited by a variety of things that might be either valid or not, including gender, skin color, accent, intelligence, education, and so on. Although some have a full range of possibilities most do not. Most people make choices based upon what is open to them. A few are brave enough to fight society.

Your argument about letting people make their own choices would be fine in a society with option limits like intelligence and motivation, not gender, and so on.

It's a bit like offering Joe a Twinkie or a Moon Pie, then concluding that because he chose the twinkie that's what he really wanted, and evaluating his choice equally with the choice made by others offered Twinkies, Moon Pies, jam tarts, cheescake, trifle, lamingtons, and macaroons. Some undoubtedly would choose a Twinkie, however that doesn't make the data any more valid.

This has nothing much to do with those rabbit women, though.

It wouldn't be as intelligiable if posted by a REAL Gorean man

You mean there are men amongst the Goreans? And not boys that are old enough to be men?


(And yes I've been to a few sims on my human alt...)

Hey! How did the Gor-bashing leak over into this thread?

Lack of proper Forum Moderation

It was those damn Playboy bunnies. Brings out the beast in all of us.

For the OP: While you're contacting Playboy, why not see if you can wangle a license to use their name for products they approve - like, maybe, an actual representation of "THE Playboy Mansion? They do want to promote their brand in SL, do they not?

Just a thought.

That's a creative thought, Har....my mind often works that way......but I do not want to create THE Playboy Mansion.....I've done very well with the set-ups I offer.....and don't need to ride the coattails of Playboy to increase the sales. Which is pretty much my whole point.

I would rather sell and use products from our Little Fish Designers, here.

They could use some tips on decorating that lounge of theirs, though

Whether or not the two people who approached on the potential trademark issue are actually representatives of Playboy doesn't really matter.

The big corporations often find out about small businesses infringing on their trademarks not from their own staff, but from fans of their brand who discover the small infringements and enjoy becoming tattletales.

And fangirls or fanboys who have licenses to practice law, or are law students, are the worst tattletales.

It doesn't matter whether these tattletales are agents of Playboy or not. What matters is what happens if they decide to tattle. And whether or not one of them is a real life lawyer, what they have been telling you does sound to be, in fact, consistent with trademark law.

Your time would be better served worrying less about whether they are who they say they are in real life, and thinking more about whether you are in fact infringing on any trademarks.

If you don't want to be negotiating with these particular tattletales, that might be a reasonable decision. But if you don't, you'd be well-advised to find out your own independent answer quickly.

QUOTE=Amity Slade]

It doesn't matter whether these tattletales are agents of Playboy or not. What matters is what happens if they decide to tattle. And whether or not one of them is a real life lawyer, what they have been telling you does sound to be, in fact, consistent with trademark law.

Your time would be better served worrying less about whether they are who they say they are in real life, and thinking more about whether you are in fact infringing on any trademarks.

If you don't want to be negotiating with these particular tattletales, that might be a reasonable decision. But if you don't, you'd be well-advised to find out your own independent answer quickly.[/QUOTE]

hmmm...I thought that I've repeated over and over again, that I changed the wording. I said that in the 4th paragraph of the first post.....and in almost every response since then.

As far as how my time is spent....I'll be the judge of that.....every situation is a learning situation....you pull something away from it......I'm not "worrying".....I deal with much bigger issues in RL.....I shared it because I was curious about how someone responds to threats in SL....from people who claim to have a license in RL.....not to mention quite a few other interesting tid bits. In a round about way.....whatever I learn on this episode....applies to my RL business....so it's not a waste for me to play it out.

I'll Repeat: I changed the wording of the ad. I'm not careless enough to bring on a trademark infringement problem....whether it is legit or not. I am solid in what my intent was.....so to me....the issue is debatable. However....changing it is not going to effect me.....so it's been taken care of......

.......according to the suggestion of a bunny posing as an attorney....(which I still believe to be absolutely insane).



I think it matters a lot. I think representing yourself as an attorney for a major corporation as an anonymous avatar that will make a threat.....then not give up information.....is a Problem. Even if she is one.

That's true, but it makes it harder for the company trying to do the enforcement. Not that it is any comfort to the original poster; if it gets into lawyers and courts, she's already lost as the money involved isn't worth bothering with.

Trademark and copyright are two different things. Hopefully they are handled by the same department.



Keep in mind that trademarks don't cover all uses of a term. Only uses in specific areas they have trademarked them in. For example, I would be clearly violating their trademark if I opened a strip club in Second Life and called it "The Bunny Club". But if I sold tiny AVs that were bunnies, and I had a store called "The Bunny Store", Playboy wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Like the CEO?

So you would be expecting a rl attorney in a cartoon world, who may or may not really be one, to be carrying a prop briefcase, and wearing a painted on business suit ? Maybe make an appointment to see you at a cartoon office with textured books and a prop computer and look at you through eyeglasses the cartoon doesn't need ? Could be a walking slab of cheese and it will hardly matter when you get nailed with DMCA.

Hm, Big Phil Linden doesn't look like he figuratively owns the place, don't think it makes much difference if he tells you your megaprim is covering his hot tub. Sorry Phil, the technicolor codpiece did not convey your import when I orbited you.

How do you respond to threats ? Well, I suppose depends on the threat, validity and recourse. In this case, was evidently presented for a valid issue, which you recognized. If you don't like it, complain to Playboy, or hire a lawyer and duke it out. I don't think you are going to rally a horde of people to complain to Playboy that they are misrepresenting themselves by sending out chicks in bunny outfits, if they really are.

I mean if a rl attorney, enforcing a rl legal concern, is dressed like a walking postage stamp it sort of doesn't mean much to the point of them enforcing an rl legal concern. If they were really bunny lawyers, it was prolly a thing to lessen the sting, and if you got them mad enough, well, they were not being playful anymore about being 53 year old prestigious attorneys running around cheerily in bunny outfits while receiving 6 figure retainers. Likely, the firm then had to put up with a couple sour partners munching antacids on the day so I'm sure you had effect.

Thanks for all the great feedback and discussion. Without it....I probably would not have taken this seriously....and let it go.



YES....You can play this as a game....or you can treat it as being Real. If this issue were more complicated.....and not as black and white.....and if I were receiving a threat, that should clearly be challenged....YES....someone who holds a license to practice law....and is about to cost me real life money....should be dressed professionally.....because it became Real Life. They made it Real. So I expect them to conduct themselves just as they do in a real life professional setting. In the least....they can show up in their preferred costume....and suggest a real life conference call, later with the details.



I wasn't asking for a Rally at all.....I was just curious, if their approach would irritate someone else. Evidently, it would, to some. Also curious if you would treat the approach as legitimate.

Let's say the issue for you was not as black and white as it was for me....and you actually wanted to fight it.....in that case...it would matter if it were legit or not.

As far as approach goes....they can Hop Off. I don't act that way doing business in RL...and I don't in SL. A supposed business professional can get away with it in SL....because they are anonymous, and there are no ramifications.

As far as the issue of the wording.....I acknowledged the problem there, and changed it. I doubt that I will hear from them, again.

I read ads every day.....a good portion of them are flagrant violations on trademarks....with intent.....no question.... So it sounds like if any of you have a problem with your competitor doing this.....and they are profiting from it, and bugging you.......just run over there, right now....and pretend to be an attorney.....issue your demand.....and sounds like half of them will roll over and play dead, with no questions.....and fix it for you.



Hilarious....exactly what I had running through my mind.

So....will the Fair Housing attorneys be coming next week? Because my ads certainly won't pass their test. I wonder how they will dress.

This is what I meant mainly- Just said a lot nicer.

You should avoid using the name Playboy in a product, especially when Playboy has products for sale in its boutique.

But yeah its likely those annoying you weren't official. If it was official LL would have just removed your items. Since Corporate Trademark Infringement (as opposed to copyright) is enforced by immediate take-down or rename .. when LL gets around to it.

I will agree with you that if the person(s) to whom you spoke were attorneys, the way in which they spoke to you is unwise (but not because of what they were wearing).

Well, I think it's probably a bad idea for real life attorneys who are playing in Second Life to admit that they are attorneys in real life.

The main reason is that an attorney has to be careful about anything that sounds like legal advice to a layperson. Giving legal advice to someone establishes an attorney-client relationship, whether it was given formally or informally.

Establishing the attorney-client relationship gives way to at least three problems. One is potential malpractice liability. Whether the person to whom advice was given was a paying client or not, if the advice is bad, and the person acts on the advice and is damaged by it, then the attorney can be on the hook for malpractice.

The second problem is conflicts. One an attorney has an attorney-client relationship with someone over a particular issue, then the attorney is going to be forbidden from establishing an attorney-client relationship with someone else who has adverse interests to another client. Since Second Life relationships are essentially anonymous, it's impossible to keep track of potential conflicts one is creating online.

The third problem unauthorized practice of law. An attorney may only give advice in the context of the jurisdictions in which she is licensed to practice. Again, since Second Life is anonymous, it's impossible to tell in which jurisdiction a resident lives. An attorney who gives advice to a resident living in a state in which the attorney isn't licensed has a potential unathorized-practice-of-law problem.

The easiest way to avoid these problems is for the real life attorney in Second Life to simply not tell anyone that she is an attorney.

If an attorney would operate in Second Life on behalf of a client, it would be a bad idea for that attorney to keep her loyalties vague. When an attorney is speaking with a layperson on behalf of a client, it is important to remind the layperson early and often that the attorney is representing the interests of the client, and not the layperson's interests. A layperson who does not understand those loyalties may assume that the attorney is giving the layperson legal advice, and that leads to problems.

Of course, a non-attorney claiming to be one, and giving you legal advice, could be violating their home state's, and/or your home state's, laws against unauthorized practice of law.