Question dealing with Full Perm Issues..

It doesn't need to be registered. Everything you create automatically is your 'intellectual property', giving you the copyright. This is basically the same all over the world. (If there was a country that had no copyright laws at all it would by now either be very rich, or at war with the rest of the world)

When I 'sell' (I give them away as freebies) my things full perms, I do so because I want people to be able to play with the items, maybe even learn a little about building things in SL. I don't mind if derivative works are made and sold, but just putting it up for sale (i.e. money) or just slapping on a different texture on the box, pretend you made it and selling it for a ridiculous price will make me come after you; not only is that a copyright infringement, you're also ripping off your customers who could have gotten the same item for free.

Because the permission settings in SL are very limited, the only way I can protect my stuff from falling into the hands of people who disrespect content creators by saying things like this:



is by adding a line on a notecard that tells you NOT to sell the item for money. That should be enough. Setting something full perms does not mean I give away copyright and intellectual property rights as well. Those are still mine, and if you violate them I can file a DMCA complaint.

And besides: yes, it is unethical, and your bad karma will haunt you, your alts, and your alt's alts the rest of your virtual life.

Exactly. Well, leaving aside the fact they aren't themselves hosting copies of anything, they were asked in that recent crazy "trial" to describe their organization and who had administrative responsibilities, and they answered honestly that nobody could really remember who was supposed to do what or had which authorities. The very model of a modern open Grid.

Probably going off topic, but it's actualy common knowledge that Peter Sunde (Brokep) is the appointed "maintainer" of TPB.


The Piratbyrån crews structure is actually similar to that of LL's, Everyone picks what they want to work on and gets it done themselves.

Did you create the item in question? Then why do you even sell them full perm? And how dare you call your legal customers "thiefs"???

Well, a person's true morals dictate what they would do if they were guaranteed to never get caught.

If there was a license agreement included in the purchase of the full perm items, you are obligated (though sometimes only ethically) to follow that license. Because of LLs TOS regarding content creation, at the very least you could be permanently banned if you do not follow it.

Any new license only applies to new items purchased - never ever to old and you are under no obligation to even negotiate with the creator about it.

And if there was never a license actually included with the purchase of full perm items, you are completely allowed to use them in any way you wish, including reselling them for any price, and even recreating them such that you are listed as the creator of all pieces.

darling, as far as i know, if unregistered in the US you have the remainder of that calendar year to claim it as your own, and then it becomes public domain. please correct me if i'm wrong. i'm trying to learn here.

and you may not like the attitude of someone who days they bought it and will do what they please with it - but please remember you are dealing with people who STEAL textures and sell them. how are you going to control someone who you just HAND it over to?

if you make something full perm, you are in essence saying that you no longer care to have rights to it.

i only make full perm textures when i make them custom, and i charge a lot of money, and no longer have a say-so as to how they are redistributed. if someone wants to now box them and sell them as their own, then i see no way to control that. nor would i waste my time.

is that ethical of them? no.
is it legal? i don't know.
can i do anything about it, realistically? no.

If there was a license agreement included in the purchase of the full perm items, you are obligated (though sometimes only ethically) to follow that license. Because of LLs TOS regarding content creation, at the very least you could be permanently banned if you do not follow it.

Any new license only applies to new items purchased - never ever to old and you are under no obligation to even negotiate with the creator about it.

And if there was never a license actually included with the purchase of full perm items, you are completely allowed to use them in any way you wish, including reselling them for any price, and even recreating them such that you are listed as the creator of all pieces.

In any country following the Berne convention there is no difference.

That has not been true for over 20 years, since the US adopted the Berne Convention.

In the US (which is the only place that counts, since when you are in SL you are doing business in California and Texas) the term of copyright has been extended at least one year for every year that passed ever since Mickey Mouse threatened to become public domain the first time.

To get an idea of how screwed up copyright law has become, see http://www.free-culture.cc/

That may be your interpretation, but it's not the legal interpretation.

The only way you can say that you no longer care to have the rights you have as a copyright owner is to say "I hereby put this into the public domain" or "I hereby give/sell the copyright to so-and-so." Giving someone the means to copy something is not the same as giving them the right to copy something.


You're certainly free to sell your own intellectual property any way you decide. And you're certainly free to draw your own conclusions about the practicality or value of enforcing any copyrights you may own. Just don't confuse conclusions about pragmatism with conclusions about law.

I think you will find that this is effectively what it does do in point of fact.

As soon as one individual is able to copy your work without answering to copyright restrictions, you cannot enforce copyright on the item and neither can he or she because of course you (in theory) should have evidence that you were the original creator and that you intended to retain your copyright, which would be difficult to prove without presenting yourself as being cavalier about your rights in the first place. Otherwise anyone may then copy the item so long as they do not likewise attempt to enforce copyright. The item can be said to be public domain in that event.

There is the ethical question of whether or not you intended that the item should be copied freely or not but that is not the copier's problem: it is a matter you would of necessity be required to press in court if you wished to put a stop to further copying of the work. Any sensible lawyer would advise that you would be hard pressed to prove your sincere intention to protect copyright in this instance.

The only way for the second party to claim copyright on the work for his or herself would be to make at least some minor alteration so that he or she may claim it as original work. Comeback in such an event would be limited to public ridicule for anyone attempting such a shabby claim to originality but there is no opening for legal redress from that individual.

No, that's not correct. That's why the US joining the Berne convention in the '80s was such a big deal. If someone is using your work without your permission, you can get an injunction against them. It doesn't matter whether you applied any kind of technical measure to prevent them copying it, or whether you attached a copyright notice, or anything.

I think you may be mixing up copyrights and trademarks.

I'm especially fond of this graphical depiction of this effect (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) :

Of course you can enforce copyright. Whether it's worth the effort is a different question, and whether you can prove ownership is also a different question. But the item is certainly not in the public domain based solely on allowing one person the technical ability to copy it.

When it comes to copyrights, the only burden of proof on the copyright owner is proving that they actually own a valid copyright. But once that's proved, the burden shifts to the user, who must prove that their use was granted either by license or fair use. As far as I know, there is no requirement that the copyright owner prove they intended to retain the copyright; the other party must prove that the copyright owner intended to give up their rights.

This is unlike trademark law, where the trademark owner must actively protect their trademark. I don't know of any similar requirement for copyright owners.


Again, there's no requirement that the copyright owner prove that intention.


A minor alteration, by definition, is a derived work, not an original work. I can't parse your last statement because the pronouns are ambiguous.

But the United States insisted on making damages and legal fees only compulsory for registered works when they ratified the Berne Convention. My argument is that unless you explicitly register copyright or "assert your moral right" or, in the case of SL, set permissions to prevent copying of the work, then your right to compensation is scuppered under US observation of the law.

It's why so many publications from the US of A carry that boilerplate "So-and-so has asserted his/her rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work." Murka basically cut the balls off the Berne Convention before signing it.

I think folk ought to keep it simple and take care how they distribute their work in SL by insuring that the permissions are correctly set. If an individual rips one or more of your no copy textures and resells/redistributes it you definitely have a case. If you gave it him with full perms then I sincerely hope he/she is trustworthy because there is diddley squat to be done about it otherwise.

Even the TOS suggests it will be down to a barney between residents because the Lindens plainly will not wish to get involved in such a dispute.

Apologies folks. I really enjoy a good barney but this bottleneck is making it impossible for me to even edit my own posts let alone follow what others are saying.

I guess I'll just have to say my prayers you don't belabour me too much as I lay me down to sleep: I'm going to have to read over this with my coffee in the morning - along with a hangover, very probably.

That's a completely different thing from claiming that they are in the public domain. In most cases simply asserting your rights is enough to prevent further distribution.
Impossible. The SL permissions system is completely inadequate for this purpose. You HAVE to grant more rights under the permissions system in too many cases for this to be meaningful.
The only way they can "not get involved" is to simply pull the accused party's content on receiving a valid DMCA letter.