Interesting article on Second Life Rights, and Content Theft

This link was forwarded to me, It's interesting to see this issue getting some attention from outside the Second Life Community. It's also sad to see Openlife is again showing their unwillingness to stop content theft.

http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=785&doc_id=180504

A short exceprt:

yeah well he was stupid to think that he could say to the Openlife community of whom most will be content creators, it's ok for Openlife to rip off everyone's work, idiot he's not really thought that out too well.

Interesting article. This jumped out:



They sound fairly assured. Is product placement coming? Ads upon log-in? I have been expecting it for a while.

Really it's kind of amazing the world's existed up until now purely on subscription basis.

OpenLife is more vulnerable to a copyright suit than the the thieves, unless they take the DMCA seriously.

Wow, I hope that doesn't happen. The day that happens is the day I say goodbye forever.

I don't think I understand this. Why would it look bad for him to file a DMCA notice?

.

that's an oft used response in hopes of creating fear or incorrect second thoughts.

(sometimes a precursor to fighting dirty and dishonestly)

I am left with more questions than answers after reading that article, which isn't surprising, being a distant 3rd party to the dispute.

If he was hired to do a sim build, and was paid for it, then likely it was a work-for-hire, and the client owns all the rights to it, so she was well within her rights to delete and/or sell it.

If she moved it to OpenLife because it wasn't making enough money to pay for itself in SL, that's still well within her rights as the actual owner of the content.

I think that there may be some missing information here, like maybe the creator wasn't paid, or it wasn't a work-for-hire situation. Either way, I hope the truth comes out, and those who are in the wrong get their tails kicked in court.

Hasn't Linden Lab recently made this clear that people don't have rights to move content from Second Life to any other Open Sim unless that's agreed on within a contract with the creator?

The ported version of the sim NO LONGER carries Voom as original creator. This would be like me buying a Rembrand, scraping off the signature, while implying (but not specifically saying) that it's a personal work of mine.
The moment the thing was ported from SL to OpenLife, they lost the original creators' name, and as a result commited both fraud and plagiarism.

Actually your analogy is close but you overlooked one point. You would actually be specifically claiming that it was in fact your own original creation, because the person in question is listed as the creator on said items.

It sounds as if the contract was detailed and spelled out that they did not have permanent rights. I don't know about graphics rights, but in text situations you can grant first publishing rights but that does not give away all rights in perpetuity.

Also making one build for a sim is not the same as granting license to sell it to anyone/everyone, although I've just repeated myself a bit there.

I'm thinking that although the somewhat sketchy (maybe sketchy for legal reasons) article does not say so explicitly, it's clear that the employer in this case outstepped their rights.

I don't see what the OpenSim person has to lose by backing up the creator either.

The reporter doesn't seem to be particularly familiar with SL, and seems to be repeating something from previous reports on SL back when these companies were setting up islands in SL.

I may be misunderstanding you..If i am i am sorry hehehe
Are you saying the person listed as the creator is not the original creator?

I believe so. As I understand it - it is possible to make a copy in SL, ignoring the original creator's name and then upload again - thus setting the creator's name = to the one doing the uploading (or to any other one specified to the copy tool.)

Yeah, they just reiterated what was already in the Terms of Service, and it's not a position that LL can change for existing content because those are the terms under which LL is granted license to have any user-generated content on their servers at all.

The article certainly implies that Voom protected his copyright in all contracts. If he had not, Talarus's point would be valid: if a contract specifies work-for-hire, in absence of any further stipulation, *all* rights to the work even including attribution are part of the sale. (Perhaps a bit like Rembrandt being able to sign paintings to which apprentices contributed.)

One wonders if "it would look badly for Voom" might hint at some legal legerdemain in which he was tricked into signing away his rights.

I really worded that wrong lol

I was was referring to the one that created it in SL in the first place..

But i understand what RockAndRoll was saying now..

I thought he was referring to the original creator at first..Don't mind me i am still just waking up and the tea is starting to kick in now lol

There are enough problems in the SL system for indicating the creator that this treatment is unreasonable. In this case, a creator could contractually give the purchaser the right to use a build in OpenLife, and simply forget to deal with this issue. Or suppose they planned to address it, and then discovered that an innocent third party had already taken the creator's SL name within the OpenLife grid? It wouldn't even be possible.

Also, see the recent thread on changing the creator: /327/ec/334833/1.html . In particular, if you have a modifiable object created by someone else, you could link in something else of your own, and depending on how you do it, your name could show up as the object creator (though the original creator's name would still show up on a prim by prim basis under Inspect).

Bottom line for me: The mere fact that the creator's name isn't right does not necessarily imply fraud.

A proper journalist would have contacted both the original buyer and Sakai Openlife directly for their sides of the story, even if the result was "I tried contacting so-and-so, but they refused to respond."

But then, blogs aren't journalism, and neither are these forums.

Neither are a lot of "proper journalists". Been there, done that, been horribly misquoted by someone who "went through the forms".

To be precise, what I believe LL said was that the "copy ok", "transfer ok", permissions only indicate such permission exists within Second Life.

However, if a verbal contract was made between individuals then LL have nothing to do with it, so in some cases where content has been (for example) delivered with full permissions and an agreement that the customer was allowed to re-use the content as they wished - and didn't restrict this to Second Life itself - it could well be determined that this includes migrating it to OpenSim. I don't think LL's statement impinges on that.

It doesn't. LL's statement and the ToS specify "default rights", which are only in force where there is no other agreement between parties. They do not override more specific rights agreed to in a contract or similar legal agreement.

I think the Rembrandt reference is a little over the top.

Is a bit like the house-painter who paints my window frames insisting on signing them and demanding that his sig be publicly displayed on them forever. If he was Rembrandt then I might see some value in that as the person who commissioned the work.

Otherwise tho, house-painters are like carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc etc. Do the job, get paid, move on to the next job. Good crafts and trades people always get steady employment and thats enough for them. IME its those who fancy themselves as artists who tend to get knicker-twisted about this kind of thing.

Art stands on its on. Michelango for example. Most of his stuff was commissioned work and yet its recognisable as his work. No labels required.

This is a bad analogy.

I suppose it's possible, even common, for some people to create sims as a trade. Lay out a bunch of prefabs, put some stock landscaping in rows, carve out parcels, and you're done. But in this case, based on the article, the build is a unique artistic creation, not house painting. And Gospel Voom isn't someone who fancies himself an artist, he is an artist by profession. So that comparison is wrong.

On the other hand, the way you're using Michelangelo also isn't fair. Few artists achieve that level of fame, but they all deserve their recognition. Saying that they 'get knicker-twisted' is a cruel put-down of all artists. To suggest that artists are unreasonable about wanting credit is like suggesting that authors don't need to have their names on their books. Getting proper credit is not just about egos, it's also the way the business end of creative labor operates.

In the earlier note, the use of Rembrandt was just a convenient reference. It didn't really matter who the artist was, famous or not. What mattered is that the actual creator deserves the credit.

If you hire an artist to paint your window frames, the contract could quite definitely specify that you must continue to display his signature on them. If you don't like that, just hire someone else? (However, whether they could be copyrighted in the first place depends on certain factors. White paint alone is not creative enough.) By the way, a "work for hire" is NOT a work done by a contractor. If you hire an independent contractor to produce something like this for you, the contractor owns the copyrights, not you. If you want to own them, you have to spell that out in a written (yes, in this case it actually has to be written) contract.

Your Michelangelo example fails for two general reasons. First, real-world objects are not the same as virtual world objects, in many important ways. Second, the authentic objects are labeled -- it's called a signature. Works without his signature on them (or with fake signatures) are not considered to be of comparable value to the originals. Also, of course, he had clear contracts with his patrons.

There are many areas of law that have not been figured out for virtual worlds. For example, which rights apply to these creations. Then there is all the law of contracts (eg. what you have to put in a contract, what expectations are reasonable, etc.) and how it interacts with that. How will such things shake out? It's not something you can just read about and reason to a logical conclusion. That's why there are courts and judges. It's a question about which rights are applicable and how far the rights go, no question that they exist.

Maybe Gospel Voom has been ripped off, and maybe he can convince a court that this was improper. But a couple things are for sure: Voom created a bunch of original works that are somehow legally protectable, and he is also morally entitled to some credit. This is all true regardless of your opinion of those who call themselves "artists" or whether you like his sculptures more or less than Michelangelo.

I understand your point about the analogy. Its as good (or bad) as our perspectives allow.

Amongst other things I'm a carpenter in real. In addition to new buildings and developments, I also do restorations on old buildings as work permits, something I really love doing. All my work is spec. I've moved on from working as a tradesman. I put my own money in, do it, and sell it for whatever its worth on the open market.

As I said I'm a simple carpenter and from this perspective I view my work. Fundamentally I just make homes and workspaces that people want. Even if I'm inordinately proud at times of what I, and all those who worked on a build with me, have achieved. Hiowever, what the buyers do with them after I've been paid is of little (well none actually) concern to me.

Its theirs, they paid for it, and can do what ever they like, including repainting, rebuilding, or bulldozering it even wiping every trace of my input. And if they pick it up and move the building someplace else then oh well, so what really. Its not a monument to me, or the others who helped make it. Its a build, thats all.

Its a matter of perspectives I think how we view this question. I have mine, others have theirs. My perspective is that digital builds are the same as builds in real. While we do pour our heart and souls into them in the making sometimes, it can be a little overly-precious when we assign a greater value (a premium for the pouring) to them, than they perhaps deserve.

I think that the analogy that compares builds to art or books is wrong. But thats just my perspective from being a humble carpenter.

P.S. I've made 156 builds on spec in real now and I've sold them all, except for the one I'm doing now. 5 weeks I've just spent scraping 90 years worth of layers of paint off of, rimu timber window frames. I hope the buyer pays me a premium for that