Interesting article on Second Life Rights, and Content Theft

That's exactly what I'm saying. From what I've read so far, Voom created the entire build, but the copy that was ported into the other grid does not have any connection to Voom shown on any part of it, instead listing the owner as the Creator. Unless Voom signed away all rights to any of this work, including the right to to control its use on another grid, then this is blatantly illegal. Even if it's legal it's still awfully bloody dirty to fix it so that he is no longer allowed to be identified as the creator.

The original analogy (taking a painter's work, scraping off the signature, and replacing it with one's own) is a good analogy, and the carpenter analogy is not.

As a carpenter, you're paid to build something according to plans, with the resulting object being wholly owned by the owner. Any copyrights would apply to the plans, not the building.

Voom, on the other hand, made his rendition of the French Quarter -- more or less, a 3D painting of a cityscape. He did not follow plans, he made his own design. It's this design that is at issue, not the bricks and mortar used to embody them.

Finally, copyrights apply to "works of an author". There is no need for the work to be considered "art" for it to apply. Copyrights apply to advertisement copy, textbooks, digital images, sound recordings, and all sorts of other things that many would not consider art.

No, it's not just a matter of perspective. It's also a matter of law and contracts. When you (as a carpenter) build something, it's either implicit or explicit in your contract that the owner can move it, modify it, or bulldoze it.

Allegeldly, it was explicit in Voom's contract that he retained copyrights.

There's no issue of perspective here. If the buyer didn't like clause in the contract, he should have refused the contract.

Furthermore, even without a contract, in SL we have the permissions system -- if you circumvent it, you're violating part of the Digital Millenium Copyrigh Act, and committing a crime. (I feel that this particular clause of DMCA goes to far and needs to be softened, but should still apply in cases like this.)

And if you take content out of SL without permission, you're violating the Terms of Service.

The thing is, what Voom did was not like what a carpenter does. He did not just provide the labor and experience required to follow plans and build a building. He *designed* something, and retains ownership of the *design*. Others can't copy his design without his permission.

I take your point about contracts. Nothing more to be said there.

Design is an interesting thing. Something I enjoy. In my work I go out and find an interesting piece of land, with or without existing buildings, and do stuff with it.

Its starts out as a idea in my head. I then draw up some sketches of what I think it should look like and then engage various people to help me realise this. Architects, conveyors, lawyers, electricians, plumbers, painters, masons, steelworkers, yada yada. So in this sense I'm no different to Voom, at least in the conception, the design.

It seems to me that builds in 3D worlds are assumed to fall under copyright simply because of the environment in which they are created. I.e. they are virtual, they are simulations. It is true that they are, but IMO they are also real in that we can and do interact with them.

As 3D worlds become pervasive and a normal part of our lives, virtual builds are going to become more complex, more involved. And with this, more and more I think, we are going to look at the practices and processes applied to real-world builds and begin to apply them to virtual builds.

Yes I can claim copyright on my sketches of my real-world builds. Architects can also claim on blueprints. Fabricators and trussmakers can also claim on their designs, their processes even in the parts they contribute. But for me to claim ownership of the concept, the "design" for the purpose of personal credit in perpetuity? Hmm! That I personally think is stretching it a bit, at least in the building industry. My sketches of my design, certainly I can claim. The concept though? The entire building itself as a whole? I can't see it really, not in real anyway.

Nor in virtual. Not unless I have explicitly written that into the contract, and not leave it out by assuming that I'm an artist and my work is covered by copyright. A real world judge may very well determine that I'm not an artist. I'm just a builder, a carpenter even.

As the virtual worlds evolve further, and SL in particular given its success as a UGC environment, I think that the issues of ownership of virtual builds will be decided more by the practices applied in the real world building industry than those applied by artists and authors to their works. And I think that we are beginning to see this now, not just in this instance but in others as well. Hence my perspective on this question as a building practitioner.

I think what troubles me most about this question, is the assumption, held by many, that because a virtual build in its entirety is digital, it is automatically covered by copyright. The assumption made on the premise that its a work of art. I'm not sure that this assumption will hold to be true in every case. And should the Voom case ever go to court and should it be determined that this work is a build and not art then the ramifications are going to be important to us all.

In the meantime though, I think it would be best do what we do in real-world builds, do what you put succinctly. Get the lawyers onto it and get them contracts drawn up water-tight before any prim gets moved.

It has nothing to do with "art" at all.
Actually, the law reads like this:

Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works.

The question is not whether Voom's work is protected, it's which of the many copy rights apply to his work. There may be other (not Copyright) rights as well.

You can download textures and do adjustments to them on your home computer, I expect they're in your mane when you upload them again. This seems to be acceptable to the texture makers as on full perms they usually mke a note with the pack saying to only use in your own builds and don/t resell or give away the textures themselves.

The other day one had a different note, not allowing them to be downloaded. I looked in my inventory in case I had any of these ones. I would have deleted them if I did rather than forget and break that copyright later.

I know I'm a little pony - but my mane has no foreign bodies!

I guess there is a database integrity problem which cannot be easily overcome - if the original creator does not exist on the target database as a user account, then the relationship cannot be made. On upload, effectively the object is an orphan which needs to be linked to a creator entity. It could be linked to a "dummy" - called "Unkown" - but this only solves the database integrity problem and not the one of correct attribution.

LL have propose a "Sticky Licence" solution, which could travel with an asset item. I like the sound of this as it opens the way for legal cross-platform commerce. I should like to be able to provide customers with a Licence to upload to other virtual worlds - most people want to stick within the law - as you indicated with your textures.

Without once acknowledging http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-701 which I proposed TWO YEARS AGO next month.

Ya i misunderstood when i first read it, but after my tea started to wake me up it made much more sense..sorry about that.
At the time it sounded like you were saying Voom wasn't the original creator because he had made a section of a town that already existed in RL..

It was early and my comprehension was still in bed while my zombie body roamed the earth

Yeh, some people do it a bit with some freebies, leaving a trail of LMs in the pack as a reference.

Yes. Broadly defined as art. And any refutation of a claim under this law is successful when based on prior art. IMO art is easily defined within a context. A context you've aptly given here.
As virtual builds approach the complexity of real-world builds I think the other rights, particularly those bound by contract law, will increase in importance, at least to the builders and the buyers. Something cleaner and simpler that the real-world building industry worked out a long time ago, when they recognised all of the complexities of copyright you have pointed out. Something too that many virtual builders and buyers of those builds are switching on to.

Its my view, that copyright laws on their own are simply inadequate to protect a virtual builder, artist, designer, creator, carpenter even. Specially in cases where its a commissioned work. And its a hell of easier to claim rights written into a contract.

More contentiously, if the contract doesn't explicitly state that the builder has my permission as the owner of a building I've commissioned, to erect a named plaque in the foyer of my building then I'm going to rip it down. After all, the foyer is premium advertising space and no one is getting that for free, simply because they claim some right to do so. If it isn't in the contract, it isn't happening, sue me.

I'm very sorry Argent - You deserve acknowledgement and Pie!

/me quickly goes to vote for this.

The law, which I quoted, makes no mention of "art", and the law has nothing to do with art -- it has to do with "original works of authorship" and involves certain tests. You seem to be very confused about the law by mentioning "prior art", which is a term that is related to Patents. Patents are a completely different body of law and are about something else. Prior Art does not have anything to do with Copyrights.

I don't know why you are obsessed with the idea that Gospel Voom does not have certain rights to his creations, when it is extremely plain and obvious from the law that I quoted to you that he does have rights.

It is possible that Voom may *also* have protections beyond Copyright - such as Patent protection. I rather hope that he does not have Patent protection, because it would set very bad precedents. Please note that "art" in the legal terminology "prior art" is not the normal English word meaning of "art". This is a term of art! But this would be about giving him much more powerful rights in addition to the rights that Copyright law already grants him.

You are spouting nonsense.

This is an interesting and highly debatable topic, in theory. In practical law, however, it's already decided, in the US and EU and most countries. It's not an "assumption", it simply falls under the legally defined terms. Admittedly, it probably wasn't a specific case considered by those who wrote the laws and possibly not even those who amended (and IMHO, over-strengthened them) when DMCA was passed (mostly unread by those voting on it).

Just keep in mind that there is a status quo that's legally well-defined. Your arguments that it should be different are worthy of consideration, but they're arguments to change how things are.

Airt, IMHO the biggest difference between RL and SL here is that you can't just click a button and copy a building. If you could, the same IP aspects that apply to SL would apply to RL.

Let's take an RL example where you can click a button and copy it: a CD.

Note that the CD doesn't have to be what's normally considered "art". It could be a textbook, or a list of words.

You need permission of the copyright holder to copy that CD. (With lots of caveats. There's the "fair use" clause, which allows exceptions for discussing the subject matter. There are also exceptions for personal copies, but note that this is based on jurisprudence, and NOT codified in any US laws.)

In Voom's case, he actually owned the "CD", and for a fee, loaned it to someone. That someone copied it without permission and "played it" elsewhere. Even without a contract, that would be against the law (for CDs).

I'll admit that trying to extend that metaphor to an RL building fails. But it fails because you *can't duplicate a building by pushing a button*.

Now let's look at a better RL analogy, using buildings. I design a building and build it, and *retaine ownership*, but allow (for a fee) Joe Shmo to use the building (and it's on property he owns). This building is portable. Joe returns it after making plans from it, and makes an exact duplicate down to the smallest detail, on some other land.

Is that legit? It's really what happened here, if the facts in the articles are accurate.

Voom isn't concerned about the bricks and mortar. It's the design that count, and that's what was taken without permission.

I'll also admit there's a gray area. It's not a DMCA violation to look at an object and based on what you see, make one verymuch like it, but doing all the work yourself and using textures you have permission to use. At worst, that's traditional copyright violation, but it happens all the time and even Mr. Serpentine can't effectively fight it, despite very avidly protecting his IP rights.

It won't take very much longer before the whole "intelectual property" concept crumble on itself.

You can't own ideas, they aren't something you can put a bike chain on.
Once it's out, it's out.

I predict you're wrong about that.

True, you can't own an idea, but you 100% can own the expression of an idea. Something I appreciate as a novelist in RL, and as a sculpty maker in SL. Just filed another DMCA today, and will file them all day long to protect my business. I'm looking forward to the new on-line DMCA filing system. DMCAs are a pain, but LL acts on them _very_ quickly and it is much appreciated.

Actually it is codified in US law, 17 USC 1008 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html). One reason it needs to be explicit is that it's arguable whether making a backup copy really is fair use. After all, for years people expected that if they lost a book for whatever reason, they'd be expected to pay for a new copy. "Fair use" is actually a misnomer, kept over from when that's all the law said. Currently, the portion of US copyright law that deals with fair use is more restrictive than simply saying "fair".


Um, yes it is, sorta.

It's not a violation of the portion of the DMCA that makes it illegal to circumvent digital rights management.

However, part of the DMCA created a safe-harbor provision for service providers, such as LL, which is what prompted them to set up their DMCA process. Without that process, there's a risk that LL could itself be held liable for copyright infringement caused by its users. As far as I know, there's nothing in this part of the DMCA that talk about the way the copy was made. If a service provider has a DMCA process, and you own the copyright in something, and someone else uses that service provider to violate the copyright - no matter how they created the violation - then you have the right to file a DMCA complaint with the service provider.

At least, that's my understanding, but I haven't studied this part of the DMCA in detail, and IANAL.

What i mean is that anybody can copy an idea, a painting, a song, or any other piece of intelectual property, you cant know they did, you aren't deprived of your own, and nothing prevent them to keep it.
You can't put a bike chain on an idea, if you show it to me, i can take it while leaving your copy untact.

I think as communication technologies continue to evolve, as copies get faster and spread even faster across the planet, it's just going to have to change, it's where technological evolution is going, the WHOLE internet network is nothing but a giant copying machine, every single router your data cross is copying it and routing it to it's destination.

In the end it's nonsense to believe that you own ideas, ideas aren't made in vacuum, you leeched ideas from other peoples, all your life experiences and your inspirations, they do not belong to you, so why a derivative work from them should?

This whoring of creativity and art will have to stop someday, you can't just slap a price tag on something anybody can clone and expect every single person that want to access to it to accept to buy it.

There is no wonder that today the movie and music industry are some of the highest income makers, it's the only industry where reproduction costs are now close to zero.
But then what grant them the right to sell endless copies of a work they paid for once?

What a great way to multiply returns on investments would say an economist, once the master copy is done, we are essentially making money out of thin air.

Yet we market it like cars wich required pounds of steel, plastic, paint, heavy machining, things that will have to be redone again, from scratch for the next car we sell. A car has value because of what it is, it can't be duplicated like an idea or a song can be.

At some point, fighting copyright violations will become so prohibitively expensive that we might aswell give up on it entirely of xcourse the dinausaurs of the entertainment industry will fight tooth and claws for what they consider their rights, but the result of the fight is always the same no matter how you roll the dices, it just takes more or less time.

The copyist monk days came to an end, and so will the days of the digital scamming industry.

That IS the generally accepted standard.

However I recently dropped about $L 5000 on textures only to find out afterward, there is a note in each pack saying they will prosecute to the full extent of the law, if you download them.

Which means I cannot use at least half, (they are alphas which must be combined with other textures in order to be useful) and the rest, not in the way I'd intended (I cannot mod them at all to add paneling or whatever I had in mind.)

Nice!

Copyrights in architectural works is a relatively new provision in US law. Before 1990, buildings weren't subject to copyright. This may have influenced the way your feelings about your work evolved. Furthermore, the nature of your work is that the "doctrine of first sale" - the principle that if I buy a copy of someone's copyrighted material, I can do almost anything I want with that copy - will always apply to your work. Finally, copyright law gives additional protection to creators of "visual art" to control attribution. It's not clear whether those protections would apply to an SL build (I think not), but it's clear they wouldn't apply to yours.


I'm curious as to why you feel that way? To me, the similarity is purely metaphorical. Someone who creates a build of a RL city in SL seems to me to be more similar to an artist painting a cityscape. Of course, if someone literally worked off a map and pictures of a RL city, then it becomes debatable as to whether there's any originality in it.

Sorry to hear that, that'd be an upset and a half all right. So maybe it is becoming more common, if it is, it'll be a real pain in the ar*se.. This sticky method Deina and Argent spoke of would hopefully solve it somewhat

I know this will sound selfish as peoples copy right is entirely their right to hold... but the idea that you have to watch what you do in a building frenzy and having so many textures that I don't remember where I got them or that were freebies etc... is a real dampener.

I really hope this sticky thing goes ahead.

Just curious, but did you try contacting the creator and seeing if you could get written permission to do what you are intending with them? Chances are, that's a "blanket license", and the creator may be amenable to someone doing what you are wanting to do, with permission.

Can't hurt to ask, anyway.

I did exactly that when I realised the texture pack I'd bought had -- for no reason I could understand -- an alpha channel on what were supposed to be solid walls with no windows or anything. When I explained to the creator that I wanted to download them, take the alpha channel out and re-upload them, it transpired he'd no idea either that there was an alpha channel in the damn things in the first place or that its presence might cause all sorts of glitching problems.