Stagecoach Island defects to ActiveWorlds

Good question, Beau. With regards to non-Bedazzled content in AW, unless some textures were lifted and reproduced, I'm not sure I understand where the infringment is. Just recreating 3d objects to look like some found in SL does not constitute infringment of any sort.

It may not be infringement, its underhand..

Iron quoted the relevant language above. Only the original author has the right to create derivative works.



In this case, it's pretty obvious that we're not seeing original work on SIAW. We're seeing an exact duplication of Cubey's objects, textured with the textures he used. Smells derivative to me.

edit: Also, this isn't deviousness on the part of Wells Fargo or their agents. This is miscommunication and misunderstanding, more likely than not. Someone obviously thought they owned the rights to the 3rd party vendor contributions on SI. They were wrong. That's okay. But the problem needs to be corrected.

They may honestly feel they had the right to do it. And they probably do.

If WF/Swivel entered into a contract with LL/Bedazzled with the broad goal of "producing an interactive environment for people to learn about personal finance" (as I believe was the stated goal), then WF/Swivel may believe (and would have good reason to believe) that they have rights to the content produced as part of their project under the rules of "work for hire". This may not be the popular opinion, but it really falls on Bedazzled as the primary contractor to make it clear to those to whom they subcontracted the work (i.e. Cubey and the rest) that the entire Stagecoach Island package would become property of Wells Fargo to use as they wish. That's part of the whole "work for hire" deal.

I'm not entirely sure this is the case. While I doubt any of the objects have design patents, it's possible that the patent system doesn't even allow patenting the design of virtual objects (something worth checking). If true, then their protection might fall under copyright laws. However, the issue is international and in some countries, afaik, copyrights are used in place of design patents. So regardless of how this issue is handled by the USPTO, it might be possible that some content is protected via international agreements. I don't know.

This is all still very much a grey area, so I'd be hesitant to make any definitive statements. One thing I do suspect is that Wells Fargo is unaware of these potential issues and that merely raising the specter of bad PR might result in some positive reaction. I certainly hope so.

The problem with "Work for Hire" is that the works in question apparently weren't created for this project.

I don't think that matters. If I create a software project for a client using code I had written previously, I seriously doubt anyone would argue that my client does not have the right to use what I submit to them in whichever way they like simply because I had written portions of the project earlier. That fact is irrelevant to the client, as it should be.

The strongest impression I get from reading about how this was handled is that Wells Fargo doesn't take Second Life seriously. Whether they did when they started, I couldn't guess. It seems possible that Active Worlds was just seen as less trouble.

But what if your client opened the source code file in Notepad and hand typed their own copy of it, refusing to pay you for using your code on the basis that they had "written" what they are using?

This is what is happening with content such as Cubey's. We all know that SL objects cannot be directly, or even indirectly, imported in AW. So someone has sat down with TrueSpace (or similar) and recreated all those objects.

Cubey still holds the copyright to the design, virtual or not, and should be paid.

I disagree. We're not talking "portions of" used in creating a new product for a client, we're talking the entire pre-existing thing. Companies license pre-existing work.

Besides, the point is moot. As already stated by Cubey, there was no contract for his work. Work for hire or otherwise.

Well, that's nice and all, but I doubt you'll get much Linden Support, Cory doesn't think that level of ease and customizable interface is a "requirement" for virtual worlds:You are all morons.

That was me, coco, I was in AW with an online course comparing virtual worlds and I happened to say that SL is better (I forget my exact words). I was immediately banned for "offensive language." I tried to apologize and explain the situation, but didn't get a response. I tried a few times to get back in that day and the next, then never looked back - this was last April.

In addition to what most have said clarifying...

For some background, I founded and ran my own company for over two years, which eventually got bought by a client (where I now work) with whom I had an excellent contract written. I was involved in contract negotiation over several contracts worth into the millions of dollars. Its always an arduous process; during the courting period with a vendor-client relationship, its all smiles and sunshine. Then when you decide you want to enter into a formal business relationship, it changes to "scorched earth mode" while the contract is hammered out and you come to an agreement somewhere in the middle. Then you pop the champagne corks, get friendly, and get down to business. If you have a good attorney, there are clauses to cover most situations that may arise to avoid ever having to go to court.

Well written contracts with well thought out work scopes save a LOT of pain, trust me. My attorney, Frank Taney of Buchanan Ingersoll, has done several talks on this topic of project scoping in tech for the East Coast CIO Council. He's also written books on the topic and been on the cover / interviewed in InformationWeek. Google him, and you'll find some of his fascinating insight into IT contract law from a trial lawyers perspective. I've consulted him about Second Life in the past, specifically with SLBoutique.com's positioning as part of my LLC and our Terms and Conditions.

Here's some more info:

http://www.gpcc.com/speaker_details.asp?id=29

Back to the original topic, corporations of Wells-Fargo's size would much rather hand over a paltry sum ($17,000 is not even a drop in the bucket for their size) without a written contract for a development project like this. If you're Wells-Fargo, would you rather live in a sense of amiguous, default "work for hire" status, or in a contract world where a small guy can get on even ground with you? When there's no written contract, the big guy wins; who has more horses in a legal battle, Bedazzle or Wells-Fargo? Without a written contract, and many times, even with a well written legal contract, Bedazzle would have no shot in a legal battle, simply due to the cost and the legal resources. It sounds like Bedazzle was presented a boilerplate contract to get the money that gave Swivel just about all the rights to the content, if I were to wager. Swivel's ability to distinguish between what Bedazzle created and what others created is probably not up to snuff with an experienced SL citizen.

Regards,

-Flip

But as far as WF/Swivel are concerned, we *are* talking about portions. We're talking about portions of their "Stagecoach Island project" -- a virtual island, complete with attractions and merchandise people can spend virtual money on in order to learn about personal finance. I seriously doubt they contracted Bedazzle to create them an island with nicely textured buildings, and nothing for users to spend money on. The contract was probably for the whole package. It then, as I said previously, falls upon Bedazzle to make sure those from whom they acquire for-sale merchandise understand the terms.

Cubey's designs didn't just appear on Stagecoach Island -- they were placed there by *somebody* with Cubey's permission. If there was no contract protecting his rights, then that's his mistake for not covering himself, and Bedazzle's mistake for not making things more explicit in their communications with WF/Swivel and their subcontractors.

You cannot assign the rights to something to which you have no assignable rights.

I am not a lawyer, but...

I suggest Cubey files a DMCA takedown request with activeworlds, asking them to remove infringing copies of his content (I'm assuming the active worlds versions of these items contain texture grabs of cubey's original content?).

Just think of the fun that could follow!

(Though bedazzle might want to check the fine-print on their contract first, just in case the litigation trail *does* end with them... could end up being expensive for somebody.)

The IP rights are secondary as they likely aren't worth the effort and cost to recover.

To my eye Linden Lab lost a contract through their incompetence and didn't feel the need to notify anyone who had an interest in it. The problem here isn't fine points of IP law that no one knows the answer to, it is simply that LL has acted with their typical "let's make every player do stuff for us and not treat them with any sort of respect when we botch it".

And people worry about them doing a single action that might be considered a limitation on free expression? How about being absolute jerks to their largest supporters. Why am I getting indignant on other people's behalf? Sorry, if everyone is cool with this, so should I be.

AW doesn't work the same way as SL. An AW server can be run from your bedroom, it only handles chat, avatar position and the world database (a data file that records where things are, not the actual objects). All the object data for models and textures and everything else (in SL stored in a common asset server) is stored in public access web storage.

If you buy a private island direct from Activeworlds.Inc the only thing they actually provide is access to their login server. If you buy a universe (a lot more money) then you even get your own login server so Activeworlds Inc has zero control over anything you do with the system.

The contract was not a whole package. Bedazzle was only hired to design and build the layout of the island. It was nowhere in our contract to hire vendors. All vendors and game creators where to be handle by Linden Lab. Our contract only gave them rights to the building and layout of what we created along with Scripting. The CD's we sent by mail had all the textures of Bedazzle work along with source codes for scripting that Eggy created. Anything that you now see in Active Worlds was recreated without our knowledge until yesterday. None of vendors who help out in SCI had any of their creations or textures on the cd's we sent to Swivel.

Okay then. Thanks for clearing that up! Although I obviously have no vested interest, I (and others, I'm sure) was quite curious.

That does, however, change things somewhat for Cubey et al. The TOS allows Linden to use your creations, and allow others to use your creations for whatever purposes they like. They could easily have told WF that they would provide them with content for their project, and the users who provided said content would have no recourse against LL.

I wonder if that's part of the reason it was allowed to die quietly with no notice to the users who had provided the content...

You're right, Ricky. When you do work for hire the client will end up with all the rights to the work produced unless it's specifically spelled out otherwise in a written contract. That includes the copyright. Most contracts contain language that specifically states the usage and IP rights for both parties. If it's not spelled out it will default to the client. I could get in trouble just for using work I produced for someone as demo material or in a demo reel unless I cover that in the original contract. I learned it all the hard way because when I started doing freelance work I wanted to be everyone's "animation buddy." It only took a couple of times of getting trampled on to realize how vital it is to have a written contract. No more mister nice guy. The contract is the real life equivelant of SL's permission system. Without one you're handing your client content that has full permissions. I'm glad to hear that Wells Fargo at least paid pretty well.

Are you implying that LL will embrace and support the opinion of one of it's employees? That would require persistant planning and consistent production. Remember that people got "sick and tired" of us discussing a client API and revised group code like those were somehow important to the future development of Second Life. Who are we "blowhards" to tell LL how to run their business?

Losing the Wells Fargo account was obviously part of the plan. All us users are just too uninformed to see the big picture which is as it should be since it's none of our business.

bitter much?

Sounds like LL dropped the ball by not fully explaining things to Wells Fargo, or that Wells Fargo is acting like a typical predatory corporation and they didn't explain things adequately to whoever they hired to redo SI in AW. Pretty lame either way.

Used to be, until it dawned on me that the productive people, including Lindens, in SL don't actually give a rat's ass about The World All Hail The Central World. We're just honing skills for future endeavors that have nothing to do with the continued success of Linden Lab or any of its projects.

This is all a lot less frustrating than it used to be when I was posting to these forums thinking that anyone cared to perpetuate this world into something metaversal. Now it's more amusing I suppose.

But you can't blame a guy, whose tune hasn't changed over the past three years, for trumpeting some vindication when his dogged proposals are suddenly everybody's newly revealed solutions.