How strict should people be about reporting trademark infringement?

Ok, Yumi's almost now daily open question

How harsh do you think people should be about trademark infringement? Should they let it slide or should they be e-mailing Disney/Lucas/Warner (or whoever it is) whenever they see a trademark avatar or similar thing used?

I know the argument that this is antisocial because, why mess with people's fun? But there's a counterargument. The counterargument is that well-known trademarks get attention, and unless they are removed quickly, it will be hard for anyone who does NOT infringe on trademarks to get noticed. (After all, "cartoon rabbit avatar" is much more variable and confusing than "bugs bunny avatar".

In other words, where a crime is good for business, it's necessary that it be strictly clamped down on otherwise the criminal businesses will be the ones to succeed.

So... is it a simple case of live and let live, or is it a civic duty in the opposite direction?

When Disney puts me on the payroll to police the grid for them (and they can afford it) I will report every Mickey Mouse or Little Mermaid I see. Until then, I won't worry about them and leave that up to the people they pay.

I don't see it as a civic duty whatsoever. If you have the time and are a big enough fan.. go for it.

And you does not mean Yumi.. I just mean the general use of you.

My first reaction to this Yumi, was that I generally believe that the owners of the mark or copyright are really the ones who have the stake in its infringement, so I'm not going to play enforcer for them, particularly when they own entire legal firms to do their legal business dealings.

That is until I read your counter-argument, which is something I'd never thought of before. I can definitely see how this could potentially put honest people at a competitive disadvantage. Given that, do I report it, or leave it up to those for whom it is a problem?

There's also the notion that many of these companies are already aware of the infringement, and because it is not causing any substantial harm to their product or brand, and in fact might be enhancing it with additional exposure at the infringer's effort, they just don't have anything to gain through enforcement.

Very interesting question.

Pretty Much, that.

Here is one possible incentive for collecting a list of infringements on Disney's trademarks, then reporting them to Disney.

If Disney laid down its mighty hammer on Second Life, Linden Lab would suddenly be motivated to develop better ways of dealing with IP infringements in Second Life.

Just to clarify my point as Zaphod described - you aren't doing it on behalf of Disney. You're doing it on behalf of every avatar maker who makes mermaid or mouse avatars WITHOUT using the trademarked names, and will otherwise lose out competitively to those who do. After all, in a parcel search it's a big bonus to be able to put "Mickey Mouse" as that'll be instantly recognised.

In some fields there are huge bids put on the ability to use even quite trivial trademarks, just because when customers are picking things out of a textual list, having a phrase in there that viewers will recognise is such a huge advantage (most commonly this is things like mobile phone ringtones and games, game downloads, etc).

If you're talking about really big businesses like the one's you mentioned, my attitude is to let it go and not be a tattle-tale. If you sell bunny avatars, getting a Bugs Bunny avatar removed from SL isn't going to increase your business and it's not going to affect Warner much (if at all) one way or the other.

One thing that annoys me is seeing knock-offs. Things like what you mentioned as a "cartoon rabbit avatar" might be. It's obviously supposed to be Bugs Bunny but changed just enough to skirt the rules. If I want a Bugs Bunny avatar, then I want a Bugs Bunny avatar - not something that's off just a little bit.

--Hugsy

I can't see the second part of your thought having to do with the first. If you are talking about copyright infringement then that is about Disney, etc. As for the maker of mouse avatars in Second Life the key is for them to make a better avatar then the other guy. Something more interesting. Disney is the only one actually harmed in this as it is their character/trademark.

So, is my motivation to be to help the SL avatar maker or to help Disney who really owns the product? If it is about copyright then only Disney can be motivation. If it is about the "honest" avatar maker/seller then I say make sure your stuff outshines the other and use the fact you can advertise it all over with pictures as your advantage. Something the other guy can't do without getting slapped eventually. That advice will go much further then me contacting LL or Disney.

I understand your point and it is a good one, but again, I am in step with Mac. I'm not in SL to be running around as a trademark cop, no matter who it is for. I don't have the time, nor the interest. But I don't begrudge someone that does.

:yeahthat:

Well, actually it's generally a civil matter and not a criminal matter, unless counterfeiting is involved.

In SL I don't think anyone is going to think that Mickey Mouse avatar was actually put here by the Disney company, it would however be counterfeiting if someone was selling Disney-looking avatars and claiming to be from the Disney company. If someone was selling Snow White avatars that didn't look like or claim to be a Disney character, they wouldn't be in violation as the tale of Snow White is older than the hills and Disney only owns trademark on its own images, not on the fairy tale itself, which is in the public domain.

If you want a Bugs Bunny avatar that's a "real" Bugs Bunny avatar, that would technically only be available if/when Warner Bros. sets up shop inside SL.

i think you are wrong.
i had a brief stint in making children's clothes and furniture in SL. You have no idea how much more a crappily made "bugs bunny shirt" can sell over a well made "my own character you've never heard of shirt".

Not that i'm the best clothing maker in SL (the creators of many adult avatar lines are far far superior to my skill). ... i've seen more "crappy" Disney's Little Mermaid unattractively textured beds for kids sell.. than some really great furniture featuring original designs and textures that the SL artist made up themself.

Again, i dunno about other markets, but, at least in the "child avatar" department, or marketing things to them, using Warner Brothers or Disney characters, even on otherwise poo products, seems to make'em sell.


(in fact, a friend of mine who also makes some products geared for kid avatars have discussed at length if we should give in and just sell trademarked poo to make more money... than to stick to our morals)

It's true. I know I could make more if I did 'em.

Mari

Which is where the increase in advertising comes in. And being able to use your original design in pics is a big help where they can't for long before LL is alerted.

My main point was though that I don't see the two as a together situation. If you are going to take the protect the copyright route then that is to help Disney. Doing so to help a fellow designer is a bit disingenuous to the rationale of protecting copyrights to me. It is saying "I don't really care about Disney's rights but I want my friend to be able to sell avatars".

So the question should be "Is it wrong to turn in someone for copyright infringement to help a creator out?" Coupling it with a possible civic duty doesn't gel. Civic duty to help Disney or help your friend out?

At the end of the day I still refer to my original post about that though.

But that's saying that you're counting on someone _else_ to do what you're deciding not to do. That's a kind of dangerous route.



The law on copyright is rather disingenous on this too though. There is no crime of third-party copyright infringement, so if your competitor is violating someone's copyright and earning fame or money by doing so, then even if they are caught, all the damages will go to the copyright holder - even if you, also, lost sales - and the law will not attempt to reverse their fame. That's really I think a problem with the law.

How so dangerous? This is not the same as if I notice my neighbor storing AK-47s in his garage and dynamite, etc and do I turn him in. There is no danger in a Mickey Mouse avatar. It is copyright infringement. Disney is WELL aware of Second Life and if it were concerned would be crawling the grid where avatars are made and filing DMCA notices to LL. Me deciding not to handle the grid policing for them is not dangerous, nor is it not doing my "civic duty". It comes down to it is not my job and definitely not something I find as alarming. There is proactive stuff going on with MP3 sharing but I do not feel it is my duty to notify a record label if I see an artist's MP3 shared on say, Limewire. Do you?



So your thought is that not only Disney get damages but that joe avatarmaker does too?

If so, I can't agree. Joe Avatarmaker has the responsibiltiy to get his name out there and plenty of tools to do so. But his competition making a Pooh avatar only directly takes money from Disney as it is their character. Joe Avatarmaker does not own stake in Disney or Pooh. He simply lost some sells.

Copyright is intended to protect the one that owns the subject. Not anyone that may be effected somehow.

Now, back to square one. Joe Avatarmaker can contact LL or Disney. Then it is up to Disney to file the DMCA if they like. That is between Joe Avatarmaker and Disney.. I have nothing to do with the process at all. I am not responsible for or inclined to spend my time emailing Disney on behalf of Joe Avatarmaker.

Joe Avatarmaker is running a business. It is his responsibility, to develop, market and protect his products, not mine. As a consumer my job is to spend my money where I see fit. Is Joe Avatrmaker going to give me some of the profits from his business thriving because a competotor using illegal trademarks was squashed. I don't think so. Let Joe take the guy to Disney. I'm still with ya Mac.

/me presses non-existent "thanks" button.

Man, I wish these forums would upgrade to half the standard that Cristiano has at SLU.

Who protects the maker of the Little Mermaid from Disney?

Trademark infringement is pretty serious, because, in trademark law, either you VIGOROUSLY pursue infringers, or you can LOSE your trademark.

That said, as others have pointed out, there are entire legal divisions of people who are paid big bucks to go after trademark infringement. Feel free to call it to their attention if you want, but I surely wouldn't go out of my way to do their job for them.

Still, the amount of trademark infringement in SL is pretty small, and not really anything near the limit of what they allow for "fan" use. So, I don't think anyone has a whole lot to worry about. They may come in someday and wholesale hit everyone they find with C&Ds, but it becomes a cost/benefit issue, and they certainly aren't going to expend the cost if there is no real benefit in doing so.

Though, with Disney, sometimes they do.

Is why I am glad their brand is in decline. About time they stopped interfering with copyright law and made something new.

For the record, I'm with Mac and Brenda on this. As much as I hate the phrase "it's not my job", it's not my job. Nor is it my duty.

I do think it's an interesting discussion however.

I do not sell anything that infringes any real-world trademarks/copyrights, nor do I purchase infringing items, because I prefer original SL items over facsimiles of real-world stuff. Despite this position, I REALLY don't want real-world content owners snooping around the grid for people to sue. SL would get about a hundred times more annoying if that were to happen.

Why the hell would you go around the grid taking it upon yourself to report copyright & trademark infringement? Are you that bored? You have nothing better to do except come to where it is "Your World, Your Imagination" where you are thinking about wanting to report people for copyright/trademark, and that is a shame.

Sometimes, and i stress ~sometimes~ because i really love what SL has become, but ~sometimes~ i really miss there being only <100 people on the grid and none of who were worrying about reporting one another for copyright and trademark infringements. Was that even a worry in 2005???

Ugh.

Yes, but the whole reason for copyright damages in the first place is lost sales.



Right. So Joe Avatarmaker can't spend all his time making avatars because he has to keep snooping on potential trademark infringements by his competitors instead - ouch!

But ONLY to the owner of the creation. I.E. Pooh is owned by Disney.. not Joe Avatarmaker. You are kinda reaching here, Yumi and I am banking that it is in the interest of the discussion.



If it is biting into Joe Avatarmaker's money that much then it would be more productive for him to report those infringements then to make avatars "all the time". If he has to spend his time snooping them out then how does he know for a fact he is losing money from them? Can he monitor the sells they make vs. what he does and accurately forecast better sells if they were not around? Or is he assuming his lack of sells is resting on the fact they use Pooh and he makes "honey munching bear" instead? Either way if it is taking a big bite out of business the proactive thing to do is for him to report it. Otherwise, he needs to step up his game and adapt.