Real nice blatant design ripoff there.

I still think it's funny that all this conversation is ensuing and Jonquille had to take down her stuff when:

1) Nothing illegal likely happened

2) She is one of the "good" people that actually cares about copyright.

I have seen this several times now when copyright issues come up, in fact it happened to me.

The people that actually care about copyright and try to be fair about it get screwed in the forums by a lot of holier than thou types, and the major infringers hardly get a notice.

In fact the once or twice early on I tried to start threads about this by pointing out *major* infractions, I got shouted down for the most part. I also saw one of the places I complained about (a huge and popular store using Disney images and names for all their products) still in operation just last week more than five months after I brought it to everyones attention.

This statement couldn't be more untrue-- if you tried. The "pictures" on all of T-Shirt Hell's shirts are "artwork" and are protected by this neat thing called "copyright."

Anybody ever hear of "copyright"? While you may get away with borrowing design elements off the catwalk (unless the label happens to be Madonna's Maverick!), you are much less likely to get away with copyright infringement in the US... except in bold new mediums like SL!

But it is against TOS, and it is perfectly illegal. Coming soon to a courtroom near you!

(Maybe a virtual one...?)

If you are making things with other people's intellectual property plastered all over 'em... personal use might get you a strongly worded letter or a slap on the hand, but selling them for any amount of money... well, you might consider seeking the advice of a qualified attorney, rather than random posters on the forums (including me!), first.

PS-- Even the words on the shirts are possible to protect as a slogan, which is a trademark. T-Shirt Hell sued Ozzy Osbourne a few years back for ripping off one of their shirts (F*** my family, I'm moving in with the Osbournes!).

Oh for heaven's sake! How hard is it to ask for permission?

I wanted a SL version of a T-shirt, so I asked the orginal designer for permission. She said yes, as long as I told people where to get it in the real world. Now when I give people a copy of the shirt, I tell them about her blog and how they can order a RL version of the shirt.

I got the T-shirt. She gets a new reader, and maybe she sells another shirt.

And I don't have to worry about whether I'm doing anything wrong.

You'd have a tough time getting that to hold up in court. The copyright for the photo covers only the photo itself, not what the photo documents. As already covered, clothing can't hold a copyright. Logos, artwork, and textile patterns can. Clothing can be protected by a design patent, but they're narrow. It takes only fairly insignificant changes to avoid violating a design patent.

Back to the photos... If I take a photo of a painting I don't suddenly hold the copyright of the painting I photographed. A photosourced clothing item is no longer a photograph. No elements of the composition remain. All that's left is what the photo documented, not the photo itself and it is likely no longer identifiable as being sourced from a particular photo.

If a company were to take issue with an SL clothier they would issue a cease and desist before anything else happened. Is it wrong? Perhaps, but not in the black and white way many people assume. It's certainly not worthy of the righteous indignation it inspires. It would also be the sole liability of the creator, not LL's.

Of course they didn't.

I fear that the RIAA/MPAA has been a little too successful with their "copyright infringement is a crime" propoganda. Sigh.

I believe firmly in the protections intended by the patent and copyright systems but think they've been a tad over-extended of late. However, that is rant I shall spare you as I don't think I want to read it any more than any of you.

to add to this:

Photosourcing in itself isn't evil. The problem is what people are photosourcing.

I think taking a fabric swatch or a generic picture of a skirt or a pair of jeans isn't a problem. You can even take those photos yourself.

Someone can't come and say "the tan skirt and white blouse idea now belongs to me." But original art, corporate logos and original, unique texture patterns on the other hand are totally protected. Burberry's tries to protect their signature brown plaid, even though counterfeiters run circles around them. Hermes would consider their scarf designs protected. Hooters would definitely consider their logo protected, etc.

on the topic of IP, when it comes to business names, a simple letter change won't cover yer ass totally either... as the Lindows (now Linspire, I think) folks found out when microsoft went after them

If SL continues to grow, we'll definitely see some cease-and-desist activity by RL companies... just a matter of time

Well you didn't read my post very carefully. In fact you re-iterated part of it.

I was referring to the recreation of clothes in general and clothing styles. Everything I said about that and about copying "catwalk" designs was absolutely accurate to my knowledge. This is the part of the fashion industry that allows for all those Asian knockoffs to be made in RL.

The T-Shirt in question did not contain "artwork" but words in a common typeface. As you said (and as I also said previously), if the originators took the trouble to register the slogan as a trademark then it is illegal but hardly ever is this the case for slogans on T-Shirts. One would have to look it up of course but this is really really unlikely for a slogan on a TShirt in general.

Given that there is no trademark, the only recourse for the company would be to argue by virtue of repeated use of the same fonts and general arrangements that you were copying a "look and feel."

I have the feeling that any good judge would refuse to hear such a case, but if they did it would be a long protracted highly subjective argument and it's not clear at all which way it would go.

It would also make a big difference (in terms of that court case) that the person "ripping off" the T-Shirt had advertisements in her shop directing business to the originators. the fact that she made essentially no money doing it (or very very little) would also figure strongly in the arguments. If she gave them away for free there would be no case at all.

All this assumes T-shirts of the type that started the thread, i.e. - no artwork, slogans only, no trademark, etc.

I've removed the inflammatory personal attack from this thread- please refrain from personally attacking those you don't agree with in the SL Forums.

I think charging people with breaking the law might be considered both a personal attack and a deliberately inflammatory post.

Also it's a private matter, not at all appropriate for the General forum, and should have moved to a more appropriate forum or closed on that basis.

I'm not bothered, I think their must have been a hole in the threadstarter's publication.

The quote is from the Linden Lab DMCA document, explaining that they only act on DMCA violations that are reported by the copyright holder or their authorized agent.

They have no obligation or need to act on information about possible copyright violations received from people who aren't the copyright holder or authorized agent thereof, according to them.

Oooh, it's probably because I mis-spent my youth watching Crown Court on TV, but I like this idea! Much better than the Cornfield or the Alcatraz idea, a real court...who's going to be the judge? Defending counsel? Prosecutor?

And who would be the first defendant?

Count me in for jury service!
Cali

Just to clarify, the design of a t-shirt, meaning the cut and shape of the patter is not copyrightable, but any image, printing or other design superimposed on the t-shirt is very likely copyrighted, and is certainly copywriteable. Reprodcuing that in SL may indeed be an infringing use.

The safest way to handle this I would think is to get a license from the company. Otherwise it might be enoght to put a disclaimer on the description like that no challenge to the original copyright is intended.

Ahhh, yes, I love me a good copyright infringement thread.

Unfortunately, I can't see the offending t-shirts anymore, but unless Jonquille used copyrighted photographs in her design, reproduced some sort of copyrighted artwork, or reproduced any trademarks, she has not infringed anyone's rights.

I am the first to defend a person's or company's copyright, but one of the problems I have with these threads are those who have a vague or incomplete understanding of copyright law pointing fingers at others. I'm not sure it constitutes libel, but it certainly could be damaging to those on the receiving end of such accusations, and that's unacceptable.

I also must question the motivations of said threadstarters. I suspect they are not wholey driven by altruism, but more a love of grandstanding. Maybe they're just bored at work and just want to stir the pot a little. Whatever the case may be, if you feel you have found some blatant copyright infringement, why not contact the parties involved and let them handle it instead of being some sort of copyright bounty hunter.

See you all in the next copyright infringement thread!
Cheers,
Nic

Well I am into beating dead horses tonight, so I have to say I think you are wrong here.

By this definition, merely writing a word like "stupid" on a t-shirt is copyrighted? I dont think so. Certain logos, images and phrases *may* be trademarked but in most cases said trademark has not been applied for.

Especially in the case of a simple written phrase in a common typeface like times roman (which is basically the topic of the thread), its highly unlikely that there is anything illegal about copying it unless the makers have specifically trademarked the phrase or "look" of it.

If the phrase was "Desperate Housewives" for instance, done up like the TV shows titles, then they have probably applied for the trademark. Most of the time people dont do this for the kind of thing we were originally talking about though.

Hey Jonq, since IMs are broken *sarcasm for the clueless*, can I get a copy of the I Beta Tested your Girlfriend" tshirt? Since that's covered under fair use. Trade you a Hello Kitty thong for it.

I'll see your Hello Kitty and raise you a lightsaber!

This thread has been indexed in the thread linking to the perennial emergence of discussions about Intellectual Property. The indexing thread is in the Group Forum for the Law Society, at: /246/a4/81260/1.html

In the Law Society's forum thread, you'll find some basic information attempting to clarify the difference between copyright and trademark, and some links to how to search the United States Patent and Trademark Office website (http://www.USPTO.gov) to find if a particular word, phrase or drawing is registered as a trademark.

I don't think that merely a word can be copyright , but the combination of the word, color and font might be.

Might be prudent to mention that at the store there was in fact a link to the very website where the RL merchandise was sold - a small point, but I beleive an important one.
Even if it has no legal significance - it certainly does say a lot about the designer.

Just as an aside, while specific designs of a lightsaber may be trademarked/copywritten, the concept of a "laser sword" or "energy blade" is free and open for anyone to play with.

"Darth Vader's Lightsaber, Now with Animations!!!!", however, might be problematic.

\Rei's pointless aside of the day

I own about 1/2 of Jonquille's T-Shirt Hell t-shirts and found the real T Shirt Hell because of the sign, I even bought a couple so I can't really see how T shirt Hell would complain too much about getting new customers, and the aprox. 1/3 of a cent she gets from each sale someone would have to buy a hell of a lot of t shirts before it would even make it to small claims court. My earilier post was edited by Jeska, but my opinion of the thread still stands.

The very first piece of clothing I made was an "illegal" tshirt. I dont sell it, but I do give it away to friends sometimes. Maybe we should start and "illegal" object trading society? Or does the barter make it commerce again?
.

Count me in with some evil dead and happy bunny shirts.