SexGen Take-Down order??

The content is all player generated and not owned by linden labs its owned by the player/subscriber. Many people no longer look at SL as a game it can be a game but it can also be a livelihood. This can of worms opened up the second linden labs said that the content you make it your own intellectual property. So obviously people are eventualy going to want to brand themselves and create trademarks. Its unavoidable and well just life Its also a choice for them if they want to enforce their trademark or not. IN the future I think LL will be taking on a different role and are moving towards being a "host" like any website host so that each individual is contacted and dealt with for their violations. For now people who feel that they have to protect their mark will do so. Second LIfe is supposed to belong to us and so they put on us the enforcement for the most part, from IP theft to outright scams we have seen and it wont be improving anytime soon. Second life is comprised of a bunch of 3d websites like the internet and as such the same problems exist as they do on the net and people will go after you if they feel they need to. Eventualy LL will have to change its roll or enforce. I would suspect with the open sim project coming along they will relegate themselves to hosting provider and structure themselves that way.

Argent, I am not even going to finish reading your post, and I know that will discredit my response to it.

Copyright infringement, is copyright infringement. TM infringement, is TM infrindgement. Period. Just because no one did anything about those "reebok" branded shoes in sl (etc) does not make it right. The person who made it has NO right to use the reebok logo. Period. Be it online, or on a product in RL.

I knew it was wrong the first day I went shopping in SL almost 2 years ago and saw "Phat Farm" shirts here. If the SL creator does not have written consent to do so, they should not be using that persons/companies brand on any of their products.


You`re basically saying "Hey, were all having fun here being illegal, leave us alone" you know it`s wrong, you pointed it all out... Now you`re scared its going to be taken away. It shouldn`t be being done in the first place.

Not entirely correct. You may have built that widget yourself, but where did the textures come from? If you didn't make them by hand, and upload them yourself, you may have inadvertently committed a copyright violation by d/ling them from the internet and u/ling them to SL.
Is that widget truly your own creation? Or is it a derivitave work from something you've seen in RL? Build a colonial viper from BSG? Whoops. Not yours, really...a clearly derivative work.
Have you worked for countless hours landscaping and building a sim that replicates one of your favorite movies or television shows? Ruh-roh...you've been naughty.

Intellectual Property law is an almost hopeless quagmire - and it's not an inexpensive situation to sort out.



When people start counting on this place to make a living...*shakes head*...they're taking an awfully big risk. SL isn't a world...it's a service, provided by LL...your "business" only exists at their pleasure. The fallout from the Bragg case has made LL seriously reexamine its TOS, and you can bet they'll do what's smart for THEM...and remove themselves as much as possible from the realm of any further legal action.

sounds like your trying to rationalize.

If i take a photo of a wall in real world the photo is my property and I can create a texture from it Or I can pay someone else for permissions to use their photo of a wall . I dont have to own the wall or the jacket or the jeans I just have to own the photo of the wall or jacket or jeans. I can't tout the jeans as levi's because that's a trademark but I can tout them as Wilhelms wonder jeans.

Yes people do make livings in SL and its their risk to take and they take it and such is life. I think you know what is right and wrong and are just resisting doing it. If you got a take down order for a sexgen bed or asked not to use that name in your ads would suggest you just comply. Its their trademark to enforce and they have chosen to enforce it so what's the problem. Just do what is asked and dont worry about what everyone else is doing as the issue that your dealing with concerns you and your future. But since you have an add up for sexgen it appears you are trying to sell content and make a living in a sense. Whether you decide to make it into a full time job or simply blow it all ingame is irrelevant you are doing what everyone else is doing. Again I dont know what the big deal is take the bed away or whatever he has posted his reasons and its more from a service point of view which makes sense.

If i buy a toyota and its not really a toyota and i bring it to a toyota dealer and ask them to honour a waranty to a toyota when its actually a ford they would smile at me and say no sorry this is not a toyota so we wont honour this warranty.

Change the name and be done with it.

Not at all.



That's correct. Even if they make no money, even if they're doing it as a "labor of love", even if they're not going to use it for anything more than their own personal amusement, they still have absolutely no right whatsoever. We agree on this completely.



Inasmuch as it bothers the crap out of me that I might not be able to build my replica spaceship without the fear of getting in trouble with the network who owns the IP rights to the show. Or for the movie posters on the wall of my private skybox that I scanned and uploaded...and never intended to sell or give away. Or through anything else I might inadvertently create or texture that might be some IP violation.

Lawyers make my skin crawl...for the simple reason that the law is an unforgiving mistress. You may look at the above examples I've given and scoff to yourself about the likelihood of anyone suing lil' old ME for an IP violation. But that's where the skakebite of "selective enforcement" comes into play. If a copyright holder allows violations to slide...regardless if they're done by scum, or a housewife from Ohio who simply didn't know any better...then that counts against them in court.



And the only reason that's being said is because people feel financially harmed by it.

I've been amused by the number of implications being made about me not being in the content creation business. Technically, that's true...I'm not in business. But after spending the last 25 years of my life in the media production business in RL, I took one look at this place and said...no thanks, the risks are too great and the hassles too many. I've been VERY careful to never even come close to a copyright/trademark or other IP violation...probably more careful than most of the people in SL.

But I have close friends who've built entire sims, or large parts of them, focusing on certain cinematic or literary themes in SL that are copyright protected. They don't "make money"...most of them just clear enough to take care of their tier...and some of them not even that. But they make that tier by renting stalls to other merchants and vendors who cater to the folks attracted to those sims...and many of those vendors are selling material that is likely an IP violation of some sort.

By your reasoning...all those folks need to contact the copyright holders and file for licenses to use that material in derivative work, and pay the appropriate fees for such a license, and any fines the copyright holders might feel justified to levy.

And yeah...I know Stroker's case is one of trademark violation...but my point has merely been that attracting more IP law attention to SL ain't necessarily the wonderful panacea that most people feel it is.

Again, nope. That photo is yours to use only if you took it in a public place, of a wall that was only visible to the naked eye. Nitpicking? Yeah. But, guess what...so is the law. I make my RL living in media production and post-production. Trust me...the average person in SL has no idea of the scope of IP law...or what it means for them when they get into the content creation business. The simple rule of thumb is...if YOU didn't make it...don't use it.

Which brings up another interesting point. US copyright law doesn't allow for you to make "backup" recordings of your cd's/DVD's...but some places in Europe DO. Does that mean, in Europe, a resident can legally use a copybot tweak, or some other scripted exploit to make a "backup" of some no-copy object? The TOS seems to imply that LL is the owner of all the data stored in its servers...but if some Euroresi "buys" a product with Lindens they purchased with Euros...would they be justified in calling that object "theirs"...and backing it up in their inventory?

No. Even if I made something and didn`t sell it, and someone took it and gave it away for free, i`d still want them to stop. It`s not just about money, it`s about protecting the many other aspects that come with owning a company.

I never said that, I think I stopped reading before you go tto that part

I`m not entirely knowledged about how copyright and replicas of something go hand in hand, personally, I think seeing a replica of something in SL is very neat and educational. A building is a building, you can`t copyright shapes.

There`s a "case" right now regarding a furniture maker here who makes replicas of popular RL modern furniture, and he`s very good at it, in the description he notes who the real world creator (all deceased as far as I recall) is. I never saw anything wrong with that, but i`m not the law, infact, I thought it was very cool especially that he noted who had made it in RL. Anyway, some Rl company is now inworld and they are campaigning against him..... They can not do anything from a legal standpoint because like I said, you can not copyright a shape... But theyre still doing what they can to try and discourage people from buying from his shop and buying a "Real, not knock off, peice of furniture".... I find that funny, considering the initial creators are dead, how can they be offering "Real" pieces of furniture? They arent, infact, they themselves are making replicas. The irony.

And businesses only exist for the sole purpose of making money.



Please...read the next part.



Wrong. Architecture is copyright protected. You can't copyright a cube...but if you make something unique by assembling them together...then that gestalt can be copryright protected.



Copyright law extends, for the lifetime of the individual and for 75 years after death. That's so your children can continue to benefit from your work. For corporations, the copyright terms have a longer, but fixed, time.
If that company has a valid claim to the copyright...then they can sue. They either don't have one...or they've decided hiring a copyright attorney and filing suit would be a waste of their time and money.

I dont get what your after

I needed a photo of siding once and a fence and some flowers.. so i went into my backyard and took a photo of my fence and a photo of the siding on the back of my house and since i have a very green thumb I took a photo of the flowers

I can't think of any building off the top of my head that would not let me take a photo of their bricks

so i guess I dont understand what your after.

I see a fence when I walk down the street its a chainlink fence and I want a chainlink fence texture for a strange reason so I snap some photos. Its not theft the fence is just a fence a shape nothing is done wrong.

I can take a photo of my wall and use it ingame for the textures and apply it to other things to create a new wall but use the original photo as a starting point

again I dont see what your after. When people put photos of their clothing online the photos are copyrighted by the photographer not the company that owns the clothes. If i take that photo and use it there is an issue, but if I go into my closet and take my own photo then there is no issue.

again I dont know what your after other then trying to make something more difficult as it is..

If you didn't make the photo of the wall its not yours to use unless someone who owns the photo says you can and grants you rights to it
If i did take the photo of the wall then i can do whatever the heck I want with it.. its my photo and in this case my wall even..

lol

Argent, the "case" im referring to, if the company could go after him legally I bet they would have already. But they can`t, the most they can do is ask him to stop and encourage ppl to buy from them.

I would think that an artsy unique couch could be copyrightten.. But perhaps that isn`t the case. I don`t know.


But really, I don`t get why you are dragging this on. If people shouldn`t be using something, then that`s the end of it. And if LL sits back and lets it happen, people are going to be forced to get them to stop via another means and that is what happened in Stroker`s case.

sounds like he is using public domain stuff and making replica's which is something i was considering doing with old cameras and other things. A huge pile of public domain kodak stuff exists and I wanted to make an old fashioned camera shop.

No. You. Don't.

When I shoot video or photos IRL, I have a TON of clearance paperwork to process. I need an appearance/performance release for my models/actors, I need to double check the set/background and make sure my copyright clearances are in order for any products or trademarks that might appear in my work. If I don't get permission to use something...I don't use it.

When you make a copy of your favorite CD...is the MUSIC on it "yours". No. Regardless of the fact that you made a copy on a different CD. What's inside the CD still belongs to someone else.

You bought your clothing with the implied permission from the manufacturer to wear it. Not to photo it, create a texture, and slap it on a pair of digital pants, and then sell them. Using that clothing texture, especially if it's got a trademark tag on it...isn't legal.

At the risk of repeating a dumb question that may already have been discussed...i'd like to comment. So please be gentle....smile. In my corporate experience, IP is something you can take with you, it belongs to you, goes with you, etc. Isnt it a problem to consider something your own IP if you created it and it only exists in the form of someone else's creation? I mean, if SL were to go poof at midnight, wouldnt the whole sexgen issue go with it? If LL stopped providing SL as a service that we use, or if they change it significantly, doesnt the whole sexgen concept go poof also? At least as it exists in SL? I guess i do not understand how anyone on SL can actually consider anything "theirs" since it is really all LL's...technically....and we are "users" rather than owners of any tangible or intangible product. I agree with the discussions of the need to keep legal influence and litigation out of SL. Im still struggling with why it is now forbidden for teo consenting adults to have fake sex with a cartoon child when we can still fake murder another cartoon av, rape, pillage and plunder at will. I guess it just depends on who screams the loudest and with the right inflammatory tone. Personally I dont have an issue with understanding that ALL of this is not real, is not mine, and could disappear at any moment. And i guess that means we should ban SL because isnt thinking it is in an way REAL actually a form of gambling with our real money??? Hmm...i thought that was banned too. Just my two cents...DISCLAIMER...yes i make things, yes ive lost things, yes i do get the main point...please dont beat me...smile.

The only point I've ever tried to make is that dragging SL IP issues into court, while it may be inevitable, is most likely going to have a chilling effect on content creation for "the little guy". And if some other future litigant decides that someone's compliace with a "cease and desist" order isn't enough...then the little guy is going to find out just how blisteringly expensive it can be to get drug into court. I'd rather not see that happen.

I have a copyright attorney on retainer in RL to protect my interests in RL. I'd rather not have that expense foisted off on folks in SL...especially for some of the wildly talented people who are currently involved in making all sorts of derivative works that I find fascinating, enjoyable...and as you mentioned earlier, educational.

But, you're right, Jesse...and I'll let this thread die. The arrival of SLitigation was inevitable...just like the arrival of the white man in the americas. And for the injuns, here, well...good luck. I hear life on the reservation is just peachy...except here, you won't even be able to build a casino.

*grin*

p.s. Any use of the term SLitigation, while used by me in this post, was certainly not meant to encroach upon any trademark which exists. I think I might have coined it, but I'm not sure.

p.p.s. Please. Don't sue me.

Okay...I'm breaking my promise to Jesse, here...and hopefully, she'll forgive me for not letting the thread die.

But good god, I want to hug Jojogirl, right now.

Okay? I'm done. Sowwy, Jesse. *grin*

The little guy has nothing to fear if he uses his own stuff or stuff that he has a license to use. It's not that hard.

By buying textures at TRU, for example, I am free to build and sell items using the textures, but not the textures themselves. I am not in violation of their copyright so long as I use it as intended. I have nothing to fear from Lillybeth, Ceera, or the other artists.

But if I made "Nike shoes" with the swoosh and tried to sell them inworld, I would have a problem with Nike if they found out. And I would be wrong. I didn't have to make Nike shoes, I didn't have to use the swoosh. I could have made any shoe I wanted with an original design.

If we want to see real creativity, we should not be discouraged that people are trying to stop the knockoffs.

I`m a male *points at avatar photo*

Jesse = Masculine

Jessie = Feminine

lol


I understand what you`re saying. But "little" or "big" does not change whether using copyrighted/TM`d logos is right or wrong. =\

Whoopsie. *laughs*



It's a freaky issue. But it's one fraught with complications most people don't think about. In an analogy I know you'll apreciate...let's say Wilhelm takes a photo of a piece of tattoo flash in RL. He thinks he owns the photo he took. He photoshops it, and then decides to upload it in SL. He thinks he's done nothing wrong. But he has, hasn't he? Because while he may "own" that photo...the flash itself belongs to the tattoo artist...and the use of that flash should be at the artist's discretion.

Let's go a little futher. Say an avi enters an SL tattoo shop, and snaps lots of photos of the tattoo displays. They then photoshop them and download them and start selling them as their own creations. A clear violation, right.

Not until you prove it to a court of law. Not until you spend the time and energy tracking down the RL name of the avi who did the foul deed. Not until you win the argument they'll advance about how they simply coincidentally created that texture on their own (while being a lie, might also be very cleverly defended and advanced by a good attorney).
That's a LOT of expense. Copyright attorneys are NOT cheap.

The impact of copyright is mind-boggling to most who haven't had to really deal with it before. The same people who cry "yippeee!" over Stroker's decision to go to court are often the same people who cry "foul!" when their favorite streaming radio station disappears from their parcel because the station can no longer afford to pay the draconian fees imposed by licensing agencies.

And since copyright also touches on areas of work that are merely "derivative", then the people who have spent TONS of their time working to painstakingly construct a model of the battlestar Galactica - are now going to have to worry they've violated the copyright of the CGI modellers who created the ship for the television show, or, the owners of the copyright on the TV show itself. The person who spent time in photoshop making a spiderman costume is going to have to worry.

In another post on this forum, someone was very interested in finding an avi of "The Crow". Who's going to be indignant and tell them that they can't buy one, because they're facilitating the work of a copyright violator who made the avi in the first place? Any volunteers?

It's easy to sit back and thnk how wonderful strict IP enforcement will stop people from copying your work. If it were only so. Stroker's TM case merely protects the use of his trademark, it does nothing to protect you from someone copying your work. It may merely stop them from using your trademark to sell it, though.

Stroker's case benefits Stroker's business empire. It is not the altruistic championing of IP rights for all of us, as some are wont to trumpet. It's a move by a business that feels a pinch to its cash flow, and a drain on its resources. Resources that are vast enough to hire attorneys to push forward this litigation. Corporate resources. Resources that are still beyond the reach of most folks here. So...the benefit to us? Very little, other than the visceral thrill you'll get when the wicked, fat, addled kid that's the target of Stroker's suit gets reamed in court. IF that happens, that is.

The OP of this thread has already felt the chill impact of a suit that hasn't even been settled yet. They've been delivered a "cease and desist" order that may very well have no force of law behind it. But...it had to be delivered as a necessary step in the process. If Stroker's suit fails...then IP in SL becomes pretty meaningless. If he wins...the only people who benefit are those wealthy enough to take someone to court.

Um is it just on my screen but your current avatar is just an ear and a little bit of cheek?

Kinda hard to determine anything with just that.

Just sayin..

Where I come from females don`t have sideburns and stubble.

Just sayin`

lol np

Right.

I disagree. But that`s just me.

But it's not just you, Jesse. In the matter of things legal...nothing is one way or the other until a judge or a jury decide it's so. And those decisions have to happen on a case-by-case basis.

While morally, we all "know" that the hypothetical avi in the above example is clearly in the wrong...it isn't really so until the court says it is. And as a plaintiff, it's up to you to make your case in court. And since copyright law is such a quagmire, you'll need an expensive attorney to argue for you. And since the amount of RL damages aren't very readily apparent, and would most likely be laughably small in most instances...the chances that your attorney will take his fees out of your damage/punitive award...are even more laughably small.

So. Again...unless you're one of the wealthy folks who can afford to drag someone to court...your SL life isn't being made one iota better. The only people who stand to profit here are attorneys...and maybe not even the folks who can afford them, if their awards aren't enough to cover someone who bills at three figures an hour.

The ONLY benefit Stroker's case might bring to SL is precedent for you to spend money on a lawyer to sue someone over an IP case in SL.

And to me...having a bunch of slapnuts litigation whirling around in SL is NOT a good thing.

Alright I understand what you`re saying now.

But it also all goes back to the whole DMCA issue. If LL would do what they advertise they would do, no one would of had to bring more RL law here. But when people are filing the DMCA, LL has not been honoring them like they should be. If anyone is to blame, it`s Linden Lab.

I'm gonna hug you, now, too, Jesse. *laughs*

And you do awesome work, btw.