Trademark Violations..or not?

What exactly is a trademark violation? The attached are examples of products being sold in SL currently. LL says that the AR reports have been cleared up and the situation resolved with the same rhetoric of checking the police blotter. If this isn't a trademark violation, that means that the person selling these shoes purchased a trademark license from the various teams represented. How much does a license to sell products displaying these emblems actually cost? Would anyone in SL have the resources to buy one and see a profit from such in a years time? Finally, IF someone bought the license to sell such products legally, would it have to be displayed?

I thought EA owned the rights to every sports team in every electronic game for the next 20 years...

I have seen plenty of examples of folks in SL selling wall art (posters, paintings, etc) that I am quite sure they don't have permission to use. Maybe they are just getting in under the radar...

Tess

I think those particular licenses would cost far more than is viable to sell some shoes in SL.

I was not completely kidding in my previous post...

"Big Deal: EA and NFL ink exclusive licensing agreement
Five-year contract gives EA sole rights to the NFL, including teams, players, and stadiums."

The heading of this article...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6114977.html

Tess

So does that mean, EA is the only one that is allowed to sell items displaying the teams emblems? What ramifications would there be if EA caught wind of this?

EA's deal includes Sim games but not online games plus just having the logos is not really having a football game.

The real concern would come from the individual teams that have sole right to license their logos for use on things.

These logos in SL is really pretty small potatoes. I doubt any team would spend the legal fees necessary to pursue this. Still, SL is hosted in San Francisco and I did see a 49er Logo in those pics so you never know.

Tess

I think the deal regarding trademarks is LL will remove them if the owner complains. There are pieces of Star Wars merchandise all over the place from lightsabers, avatars, and ships. LucasFilms hasn't complained yet.

But LL nonetheless advises us to avoid such infringements with ideas like "if you want to make a Mercedez Benz, go ahead copy the shape, but don't call it a Mercedes Benz and don't put the emblem." Hence we have vehicles like the Dominus Shadow, which is actually a 1960 or 1970s Mustang.

Technically, it's a trademark violation to sell these shoes, but not a violation to make them or own them.

Not quite true, LL employees will take down trademark violations if *anyone* complains, or if they simply see them (on display as well as on sale) inworld. Linden Lab has been seen to be strict on TM violations

Takedown based on owner compaint is for *copyright* violation which is a different matter, for which the process is described here

I see.

What I know is removing them when the owner complains is something they promise or guarantee to do. Having things removed on complaints from others would be a pretty good extra.

What with a number of rl companies becoming involved in SL in one way or another, I hope LL do some checking before they go acting on random busybodies ARs or they could land themselves in deep shit.

I also hope that if some random busybody ARs a 'trademark violation' that is found to be an entirely legitimate use, that they get severely punished for wasting time and false accusations.

To add a little detail here....

The pic shown in the original post are straight from the 'creator's shop up for sale. I've been there myself, and counted no less than 18 different logos all in use on for-sale items. When the 'creator' was questioned about his possessing the licensing for the logos, he became incredibly belligerant and immediately banned the questioner from the sim. I know of at least three different people who asked him and got the same reaction.

There were at least four different AR's filed in regards to this, and in every case the AR's sat for nearly three weeks, then closed without word. In no case were the original reporter(s) told that the logos were there with permission and weren't a violation.

If these logos are indeed violations, and the Lindens dont act, then this will be a concrete example of LL's allowing trademark violations to continue. This means not only will others be able to justify their own violations ("LL let *them* do it!", but it'll then give the eventual lawsuit the cause to yank LL in as liable.

Considering the sources of these trademarks (the NFL, the NBA, and likely EA), who are all companies that fiercely and aggressively protect their trademarks, if anything will bring in trademark lawsuits into SL, this one is a fine candidate to spark it.

Despite my own loud complaints about LL and their slack management practices, I no more want to see SL shut down from LL getting sued into nonexistence than anyone else. So if it takes a few 'busybodies' to try to prevent that from happening, would think I'll side with the 'busybodies' than those who would be too pathetic (sorry - apathetic) to lift a finger.


- Newfie

Here is a trademark violation.

If it is a team, band, artist, movie, product, or anyone that makes any money what so ever doing anything. And you use a logo, picture or anything representing these it is a trademark violation.

Small potatoes? I would like to refer everyone to the case of the napster situation where a teenager was sued and lost concerning multiple downloads of music.

Currently I am rather suprised we are able to stream music via our land. But I imagine that is a grey area...

ack i got all serious there, someone stop me before i do that again

and would like to add, frig em...

They will no more crack down on this than they do Flea Market sellers who make/sell bootleg product right at the stalls (where you can actually watch sometimes I might add).

The reason Star Wars and other companies won't prosecute for SL based stuff like this is simply thus: It would take them more time and money to have one of their professional "design teams" build a product line for SL than they would ever make in returns from sales. Lucasarts has often stated it allows its trademark to be violated in many a venue (i.e. mods for games) due to it often not conflicting with their interests, and hell, its free advertising.

Lets face it, most folks running small clothing shops AREN'T cashing out big dividends.

Going around ARing people for this makes you a loud mouthed rabble rouser. Find something useful to do with your time.

I do believe that you are expecting to much out of LL. They are not a multi billion fortune 500 company and I doubt if they will be any time soon. For them to adequately police everythign you ppl are demanding they do they would go bandrupt quickly. Can you imagine the amount of people they would have to hire to do this? From start to finish? It would be like expecting a forum poster not to be an ass and to be resonable all of the time.. It is just beyond their reasonable abilities...

Exactly, and, if I was a designer of any sort. Sorry guys I would be rifling through all of your little nifty designs to see what I could get "inspiration" from.

Why, yes, I agree

...to their reasonable abilities.


So what would one define as 'reasonable'? Filing of AR's to let them know when it's found? Contacting Lindens directly to notify them? Having multiple people file the AR's? Email the abuse@... address to let them know?

Done, done, done, done and done.

I for one do not expect LL to have a perfect track record in being able to completely find and remove all violating material in SL. However, I *do* expect them to respond to those they have been made aware of, and to take reasonable steps when they can. LL cannot claim they've not been made aware of this particular incident, so at this point there only remains the question: Are these violations or not? The TOS and the layman's interpretation says yes, but LL's lack of action say no. Neither answer is clear enough, so....it's time to get a clear-cut answer from LL on it.


- Newfie

Why, thank you! You just confirmed what I said.

The flea market crackdowns I've personally seen happen multiple times. I've also seen flea market vendors being arrested for their activities when they make bootlegs of trademarked materials. I live near one of the US major cities, and the local football team is known for regularly chasing down/prosecuting flea market vendors and the street-corner t-shirt sellers.

Oh and btw...the team I'm referring to also was one of the 18 logos I saw up on sale. I have little doubt that if I were to forward the shots to their legal team, at the very least they'd be looking into the issue and seeing how far and wide the violations were in SL.

All it is going to take is one lawsuit-happy company to break open the floodgates and bring a lawsuit into SL. Once that happens, it's going to be downhill from there as other companies get curious and start checking in too.

- Newfie

Well if in real life they can not keep up with counterfeiters than how do you expect them to do so in SL?

They won't, this person is just a cage rattler expecting a good community "Pat on the old back"

Don't care. Next.

I used to run a website for a ticket broker, I had to deal with many teams when using logos. I had recieved letters from lawyers more than once.

The teams are not all that strict though. Some ticket brokers would get away with displaying all logos on their websites for years. Others would ask to get them removed, the bigest case I knew of was a company that refused to remove a NY Giants logo, eventualy NY Giants took them to court and got their ticket reselling licenes taken away. Also they had to pay a 1.3 million dollar fine.

Do you actually read the responses, or just decide you wanna take a counterpoint for the heck of it?

I *said already* I do not expect perfection from LL. However, I do expect from them to make a reasonable attempt. I *said already* they've been made amply aware of the issue, and they did not act.

Now, is there anything else I need to repeat for you, or shall I presume you wont be reading this post either?


- Newfie

Well of course I read it
But what I am trying to point out is that possibly your deinfition of reasonable is not reasonable at all.. -.-
But heaven forbid you put any thought into something besides your reply...

If you really want to point out a different definition of reasonable, then by all means....say it. Then again, that might mean you'd actually have to provide a constructive statement rather than just jeering from the sidelines - sure you're ready for that change of pace?


- Nefie

My my aren't you a clever one.. No, I thought you had the intelligence to see it for yourself.. Obviously I was wrong, I apologize for the assumption.
But please continue I think you can come up with better quasi intelligent digs..