My design was copied

That's a partial answer, though not a complete answer.

Just like any problem, all the parties involved need to do their part in making the problem go away. Adaptation by SL business owners is necessary and will contribute to solving the problem, but that itself will not solve the problem.

And really, if it's up to the content creators alone, many will probably just make the adaptation that seems most logical to me: Don't waste time creating content for Second Life at all.

After all, anyone who has the skills to create content for SL has developed skills that they can market with much more financial success in the Real World.

Besides the SL business owners, there are at least two other parties who can contribute.

One party is Linden Lab, which can try to improve the IP protection in Second Life. Remember, it is Linden Lab that advertises the great features of the Second Life economy, and the great IP protection that content creators have in Second Life. If Second Life cannot do something to contribute to the protection of IP in Second Life, then the whole Second Life economy is really sham.

The other party is the honest SL residents. If our agreed atmosphere is "theft happens, then live with it," then that is tacit approval that theft is alright. If our agreed atmosphere is "theft is wrong," then maybe some people will never even consider theft in the first place.

I truly wonder how many people came to Second Life with no dishonest intentions at all- then saw how easy it was to make money stealing textures, how everyone was doing it, and how no one cared- and then just played along with what everyone else is doing. Otherwise honest people will do dishonest things, if given a wink and a nod as a signal that the dishonest thing really isn't so bad.

If IP protections aren't improved in Second Life, then eventually this economy built on small-time content creators will disappear.

Keep in mind that most of these businesses really aren't making something like living wage; it's mostly based on hobbyists who sell their creations for dirt cheap, but don't mind because they like what they are doing. Emotion, not finance, is the driving force behind content creation in Second Life. Frustrate the content creators enough, and they'll stop caring and stop creating, because it's no longer fun.

If Linden Lab can't bother to develop innovative ways to protect IP, and the residents at large don't care, then maybe the Second Life economy wasn't such a great innovation after all.

Given all the grief and frustration that goes with an SL business, compared to the rewards, I have trouble understanding why anyone really wants to do it, honestly.

The most compelling answer I've seen so far is the SaaS model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_Service

Which is what Second Life itself, currently is.



Where the rubber hits the road on "IP protection" comes in the form of the service provider being able to protect the rights of its patrons. This works with iTunes, it works with real-world stores (eg., Barnes and Noble), and it works to a degree in Second Life.



Where it *does not* work, and *should not* work, is with ISPs.

ISPs have no right policing our content. Ever. That is a fundamental requirement for keeping the internet available and free, while providing for private, service interests.

The sole exception to this rule would be obvious social ills, such as malware and extortion. And those, in the perfect world, should end with throwing the people responsible in jail.



If you're genuinely interested in the issue, I highly recommend downloading or purchasing a copy of Mr. Lessig's Free Culture.

It's an excellent definition of these terms, and covers exactly how copyright works in theory and in practice on the internet:
http://www.free-culture.cc/

IP Protection only happens to a very low degree in Second Life.

Here are at least two areas in which I think Second Life can improve with minimal work:

1. Provide SL content creators with actual information on what they can expect in terms of protection of their work in Second Life. Second Life makes a vague promise of IP protection, but then offers no information on what that protection looks like in practice.

2. Be transparent about the way in which it protects IP. That way, if it's working well, everyone can know and actually have confidence in SL. If its working poorly, then everyone can identify the problems.

Actually, I guess those two areas really are just one issue: More, and accurate, information for SL content creators. SL content creators (those who make SL businesses) can't adjust to anything without good information.

(I'm not dismissing the two links you have provided; I appreciate knowing where to look for interesting ideas. I'll have to save them for another time, though; I can see that they aren't going to be easy to digest in a few minutes of casual reading.)

No arguments here.

LL makes quite a few promises of protection that they don't currently have the manpower to enforce. Usually when prompted, their answer is, "we're working on it."



Robin should be back this week. Perhaps it's time to poke her about it?

No, what Ricardo airs is a disdain for copyright. Which is similar in some ways to patents, except that it does not protect ideas, just their expression. He has no respect for the work that someone may put into creating a design. How many stories are basically good v. evil? How many romantic trysts have there been, how many vampires, how many elves?

The ideas and concepts are not protected, but their expression is, for a limited period of time. This is how we can get things like Harry Potter, another good v. evil story full of allegorical references to other great mythological works, and still have it protected for some time before going into the public domain. J.K. Rowling put how much of her life into the expression of those concepts? She should be rewarded for it.

Why shouldn't someone who hand paints clothing based on an inspiration have protection for their work? Not the design itself, but the actual image? That was what happened to Zazas, because her stuff was in a BiaB.

This is not to say that the new person who saw Zazas' design couldn't make something like it of her own. But she didn't, she took Zazas' item and then made a marginal improvement that probably doesn't have enough originality to survive a DMCA.

Get it taken down, Zazas, and find the BiaB seller.

They don't have a legal leg to stand on. This is not a Linden Lab issue and looking to Linden Lab for answers is futile.

Robin, as lovely as she is, and as approachable as she is, cannot save content creators from the big bad world.

Content creators need to save themselves.

I agree with you to a point, but you're vastly oversimplifying the problem, Jeffrey. Moving to a more service based business is certainly a hedge, but doing so prices most consumers out of the market, severely limiting the potential pool of customers. A boxed product can take years to earn a decent sum for the time invested in its creation, but a custom one-off has to make whatever it's going to make up front. Do people want to pay $250usd to $500usd or more for an avatar skin (as an example), even if it's one of a kind, or would they rather pay $1500L off the shelf? That's a pretty easy question to answer for %99.99 of the SL population.

No matter how creative someone is with coming up with a unique business model, it won't change that basic equation - most of the money to be made in SL is what's spent on boxed goods, not services - it's just a lot harder to capture a significant share if you're trying to service that 99% rather than the 1% who could afford to hire a contractor. Scripting operates on a different dynamic since the demand for custom work comprises most of the market. Live performance obviously does also since it's always a one-off by nature.

One person.

What you're proposing needs to be a viable business model for all live musicians.



Sure, but these don't protect you against copyright theft - the custom building you make can be copied just as easily as a boxed one could have been. Once it's a rezzed object it can be copied. It might be a good business model but it isn't relevant to the theft issue (unless you're suggesting using something like the ransom method or other public commission methods for ALL goods)



But that's a classic dilemma - people who don't bother giving service can undercut you, and by the time the customers find out they don't give service, they already have the money.

Ah, but that's the rub.


In theory, Second Life acts as its own service, by facilitating the sale of those boxed goods within the Linden system. This works fairly effectively with existing content services like iTunes.

In practice, however, the protections afforded to "artists" in Second Life are much fewer than those written on the tin.


The upshot: form your own microcosm, adapt, or pray the protections LL claims to offer are made good on. Or that a competing virtual world [service] makes good on them.

This is so off the path and into troll territory (weasel words; conjecture), that I'm going to have to leave it mostly unanswered.

Sorry.


What I will say, is that the theft issue is for Linden Lab to control within their system, if that system is one that they wish for product-minded people to use.

Otherwise -- we're really just spinning our wheels here.

The YMCA?

Of course I have.

So, Ricardo...is it fun to stay at the YMCA?

I haven't had to file (lucky: scripter here), but I don't think a DMCA takedown notice is terribly difficult. And yet, under the circumstances, I don't think you should feel obligated to do it, as if the fate of all SL content creators rest on your shoulders. You have to do what's right for you (as if that were some kind of useful advice ), and just writing this one off may be the path of choice this time, perhaps resolving to just consider it flattering that someone so admired your work as to imitate it (albeit with the aid of a copybot).

But more generally, content creators have to stand up for our own IP rights, because there's just no way for our (or any) service provider to do it for us. The mechanisms are there, and LL *does* respond. But they can't make up laws, and (thank god) they can't impose technological "solutions" such as the magnificently ill-conceived HDCP.

I never quite understand this.. people say that a "troll" is a message that demands an answer.. so why would you refuse to post more information about adaptation, because I asked for it? I find this attitude everywhere even from people who claim to be teachers and it's incredibly frustrating

You misunderstand.

It is the use of statements such as "viable for all" and making broad assumptions about the market for "support" that makes this post very trollish and, thus, difficult to answer.

----

To offer a more moderate response, throwing out the issues I have with the post:



Vendors that do not offer necessary support for their products or copy the work of others very quickly garner a negative reputation.

This is so common that it's practically systemic, leading to less business for them.



Conversely, good business practices, such as cypress' live performances, can be easily implemented and used.

This is because the basis of this practice is catering to a niche, while keeping the customer happy and generating positive feedback. It's a proven business strategy that works within its market.




The broad, and incorrect assumption about SL, is that one can just float their work and it magically becomes a success overnight.

Using this assumption, *A LOT* of SL businesses appear and fold practically overnight, with the usual line of excuses: my business was copied, my market is being cheated, etc.



The facts closer to reality are, the real successes treat their customers well, put significant effort into tending their business, and create a de facto service for their customers, through their work.

----

This is of course only one way to look at how these things work.

I like to think of it as a framework for perceiving the problem and its possible solutions, in the scope of one's own business. Mileage varies.

OK, here it seems to me that the OP has just admitted that the texture was sourced from a free texture web site. If that is the case then why is it wrong of the BIAB to have also done the same? To follow on from that why is it then wrong for the accused to have use said outfit using the "freely available to use for everyone" texture?

I am not trying to throw a cat amongst the pigeons here because if something really has been underhandedly obtained then I am all for calling it out. However it seems to me that there is a good chance that the OP and the BIAB persons both got their texture legally and through the same means. Which does not leave a lot for the OP to claim she owns exclusively.

Excellent point.

"I'm not trying to throw the cat amongst the pigeons here.."

No, go right ahead. Throw the smelly beast.

OMG I did not say for sure I got it from a free texture site it was along time ago. I said there is alot of free texture sites and could have been one of them because I have used them. I have been designing along time but I did not "admit" that is where it was sourced from.

That design she had up in her store for sale was MY ORIGINAL DESIGN. I have explained that many times. I also went to the place she said she got it at and it is not there (BIAB) so what is next copybot? She then took MY ORIGINAL and did minor changes. If it was just the texture they had and they made a design out of it then ok but that is not the case.

It was if I just gave her one of my vendors of that design for her to sell for herself. The texture could be used by anyone but to take MY Original design and put up for sale was wrong. The thing that was the worst was when she made the supposed changes and put it back up again in more colors.

Is it me and the way I am explaining it or just a few want to twist or change what I said? Again... My Original Design made from a texture I'm not sure where I got it was so long ago.

I think the OP needs to clarify what she means when she says she probably got the texture online.

"The Texture' could be one of two things. It could be the texture which is used to create the 'fabric' of the outfit, or it could be the drawing of the outfit itself. If the 'fabric' texture was outsourced, fine and dandy, lots of people (including me) outsource fabric textures from time to time. Someone could make something from the same 'fabric' texture anytime, and it wouldn't mean that content was stolen (except from the original source maybe lol).

But if she outsourced the drawing of the outfit itself then she would have no case, because it did not belong to her to begin with.

I tend to think from what has been posted that it was the 'fabric' texture that was outsourced, not the drawing of the outfit. And if the OP did the drawing, then it is her property, plain and simple.

And (assuming that the drawing itself was done by the OP and not outsourced) the point of the whole thing is that this designer removed the identical item from her shelves when asked, then made a few small changes and put it back up, which was just sad IMO.

And Ricardo, you spend a lot of time talking about how designers should have no rights to their creations...too much time. What is at stake in this for you?

*posted at the same time as the above post*

Look its your own words, go back and read what you put carefully. If you cannot remember for sure whether you made it or sourced it from a free site then you cannot be sure the BIAB didn't also get them from the free texture website. How can you claim the design to be yours under those circumstances?

I am not trying to twist anything, if you have been wronged then you deserve to feel the way you feel, but you are not being very clear about what happened. You are giving contradictory information and as someone else has already pointed out there is only one side of the story being presented here.

Thank You Ralektra you are right the fabric was outsourced and the drawing was done by me. And I dont remember where I got the fabric from but I made the design from the fabric.

You have a point and it should be easy enough to check if the resulting work is identical or just simillar. As for the behaviour of the vendor, I think they were quite reasonable, they took down the work (who reasonably wouldn't) but might have been under the impression that some minor changes makes the design uniquely hers now. I think that is a common perception, it might be right, it might be wrong - I suspect it is subject to opinions only and no hard facts as there is not only the legal but the moral aspects to consider.

Thank you for clarifying this, it help us a lot to know the proper circumstances.

I have been following this thread since it started and I have to say...I am so over the fact that it seems people are so busy trying to "read between the lines", when all along Zazas Oz is explaining it P-L-A-I-N and S-I-M-P-L-E! I will do the people that seem not to get "it" a favor and explain it alittle easier!


1. Zazas Oz's OUTFIT was found being sold by a STRANGER!

2. Zazas Oz questioned the STRANGER and the OUTFIT was taken down and Zazas was given a brief explaination on why they were selling the OUTFIT.

3. Next....Zazas Oz found that her OUTFIT was not only being sold AGAIN by the same STRANGER, but in many different colors and with a few minor alterations!

..................................................................................

If same texture was used.......that equals.....acceptable!

If same outfit was used.......that equals......(yes, I hope you guessed it right!)............ NOT acceptable!

I hope this helps with everyone!

P.S. I want you to know, I am not trying to be rude...sometimes I even need things spelled out as if i'm a 6 year old! lol

Another thing to consider if that with programs like AVPainter, it is very easy to take a material texture and paint on the actual AV using it. It is entirely possible to make a fairly outfit using a texture that resembles other outfits of that type made using the same texture.
However it is likely the resulting "design texture" will have minute differences that can be checked against.

The reason i say this is that if one person takes a look at a material texture and thinks, "Hmmm that would make a great strapless top with mini skirt" then makes one, it is entirely possible another person would think the same about the texture and make a simillar outfit.

However even if they both used the same tools, it is doubtful the resulting imported "design" texture would be exactly the same except as casual inspection.

The key point in all this is, was the BIAB texture exact or just fairly close?