Question about copyrights, etc.

Well yesterday finally appeared me the terms of license agreeiment of SL, and so many questions went to my mind.

I suppose i am not the onlyone that has questions about the copyrights in textures, so i want to make some questions to clarify this and maybe someone with more knowledge can help us, cos the line between virtual world and real world often is difusse..

First of all i want to know where is the limit in SL.

What i mean? I will put examples.

For example i have seen many shops that copies RL cloth designs, so, can u copy lets say a nike t-shirt to sell in SL? I suppose u cant sell under the trademark, but there is any problem make the shirt without put the logo?

Another questions is about photosource, many designers uses it, and of course this makes ur cloth more realistic, can u for example take a photo of dolce and gabana design and convert to SL to sell?

I have seen too a lot of manga and videogames designs for example sailormoon or tomb rider clothes, u can do this? I suppose there isnt diference than copy a RL designer as could be emporio armani.

Also i have seen the half life and max payne textures ripped and are used in lot of places since u can take it for free. This means u can copy any another videogame texture?

I would like to clarify all this cos for 1 side i see lot of copies but for another people likes a lot simulate another things in this game and can be RL or fantasy, and what is good of SL is that u can be a top model or ur favorite videogame character, but i don't know since wich point u are violaing the copyrights.

I would appreciate answers. Thanks.

Copyright law is copyright law. There are no special issues for SL, it is covered by the same copyright law that applies everywhere.

Basically, if you take someone's work without permission, and use it in some way they don't like, they can come after you.

SL and Linden Lab will do its best to stay out of the argument between you and the copyright holder.

There are always knock-offs--in RL and SL.

As long as the logo isn't there...it's not the same product, and there is no fear of legalities.

Personally, I use real world brands for a few of my electronics products. If ever I was confronted with a cease and desist, I already have logos ready to replace with. No biggie.

Call me crazy, but I just think there is something different about opening a store called GAP Clothing, and selling GAP stuff...to me that's different than having a design firm make Nikon and JVC cameras...*shrugs* I guess I think of clothing as more of an 'expression' than hardware, and expressions should be unique. I suppose there really is no difference.

Do what RL copycat manufacturers do ...

Instead of ROLEX they may put ROLCX ...

I like photosourcing my textures. I use the services provided by http://3d.sk/ For a subscription fee (I got the 6 months for $80 service), I can download any number of photographs from their extensive library and use them for any purpose including commercial. They have pictures of nude models, models wearing clothes, costumes, animals and so on.

Stuff like that is not usually the best idea. Brand names such as "Rolex" are protected by trademark law, which is different from copyright law. Trademarks exist to protect the public, in part by preserving the integrity of brand recognition. So you can't, for example, draw Mickey Mouse with a third ear, call him Mikey Mouse, and claim him as your own. If he's reasonably recognizable as Mickey, you're gonna be in trouble.

By the same token, it is entirely possible, however unlikely, that Rolex could argue "Rolcx" serves to dilute the recognition of their brand name in the marketplace, especialy if the only purpose of Rolcx is to make stuff that looks like it came from Rolex. This kind of thing has happened before with knockoffs in SL. I think the first example was when McDonalds went after "McDaniel's" a couple years back. As I understand it, the outcome was McDaniel's had to close up shop.

You can certainly make a watch that looks a lot like a Rolex, since the basic look of the watch cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, but you have to keep the resemblance somewhat loose. You probably wouldn't want to make an exact copy of the faceplate, as that is something that could be copyrighted. I have no idea if watchmakers actually do copyright their faceplates or not, but I'm certain they could if they wanted to. And of course, you wouldn't want to put the real brand name on it, nor any brand name that could be interpreted as an attempt to confuse the public about the real brand.


I wouldn't be too sure of that. As I said above, try knocking off a Disney character and see how long you last. The fact that it doesn't say "Disney" on it won't protect you.

The reason clothing can be knocked off is not because of branding, but because of the way fashion design tends to be defined under the traditional interpretation of US copyright law. It's considered to be functional rather than aesthetic, and copyright has nothing to do with functionality.

Fabric prints and weave patterns, however, are copyrighted. So, while you can legally knock off the basic design of a dress, you wouldn't be able to copy the exact look of the fabric.

There's a pretty good article on the subject at http://www.american.com/archive/2007/september-0907/thou-shalt-not-knock-off/


Yeah, as you know, you're definitely on thin ice when you use other people's brand names. If they're made aware of it, they very well could come after you. In fact, they may have to, lest they risk losing their trademarks. Failure to defend a trademark can be considered abandonment.

It's funny this came up now, actually. One of the projects I happen to be working on right now involves replicating the set of a TV show, and among the many things regularly seen on the show are lots of pieces of equipment with well known brand names on them. It looks a little funny leaving the brand labels off the replicas, almost like we forgot a detail or something, but the question of whether or not we have permission to use the trademarks is not something I want to get into. If I'm told to put the labels on later, I always can, but for now, I'm playing it safe.

But the problem I see is that people often want to buy for example a versace dress that can't buy in RL but reproduce this is not easy and is a lot of work, I personally could reproduce some dresses with a very realistic look, but i don't know if to put to sell for all this, and it's a pitty cos some people would enjoy.

Also what happen with all superman avatars? could marvel quit all of SL? and not to name another shows like simpsons, south park, star trek, etc, etc.

1st life fashion is a little unusual in that the designs can be copied. However when photo sourcing, the photos themselves are protected by copyright. So the license you have to use the photo is more relevant than the creator of the clothes design. The points about trademarks and removing labels do apply to clothes though otherwise you would be creating counterfeits, which is illegal. I'm not a lawyer though so this is just my opinion and should be checked with a lawyer in your country if you seriously want to pursue that path.

Further reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2007/09/24/070924ta_talk_surowiecki

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/541

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

The really interested might want to follow this case:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/07/19/does-gwen-deserve-copyright-protection-for-her-duds/

I believe it's about trademark infringement rather than copyright, but might be interesting to watch the arguments from both sides.

The Superman etc thing is like copying movies from bit torrent. Just because some are doing it doesn't mean it is legal.

Creating things without the rights to release them can end up being expensive:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200506/ai_n14758752

Robert Clark who came up with the concept for his movie Moonrunners only sold the TV rights which became The Dukes of Hazzard. Warner Brothers didn't do their due diligence by making sure they had the movie rights before making the later film. A USD 17.5 million mistake.

So if in doubt, approach the company who owns the rights and ask to use it. They might even say yes:

http://www.vintfalken.com/coca-cola-releases-trademark-to-second-life-merchants/

Chosen is absolutely correct.

On the other hand, trademark violation, and in most cases copyright violation, is a civil matter and not criminal. What that means is that if you do violate them, it's up to the owner of the intellectual property ("IP", meaning copyright or trademark) to "police" their rights, by sending you a "cease and desist" letter and/or taking you to court.

To stay totally above board, just don't do it.

Alternatively, you can play games with risk: what's the risk that the company will actually come after you, and if they do, what's your financial risk?

If you take their digital images, sounds, etc., and copy them willy nilly, then it's a DCMA violation, which IS criminal -- this is to protect against pirating. (This is true even if you alter the images or sounds, unless you alter them beyond recognition or they're not central to your derivitive work. A Nike logo in the background of a candid street photo is NOT a violation.)

Creating content using your rendition of the Nike logo is *not* a DCMA violation -- ergo, civil not criminal. It is still a copyright violation, and Nike could come after you.

In any case, is what you're doing competing with Nike or diluting their brand's image? And how likely are they to notice you? IMHO, putting a Nike logo on a well-designed SL T-shirt isn't likely to attract any attention from Nike, Inc. Well, at least, not at present. But someday they might take a serious interest in using SL for marketing purposes, and if your Nike-branded garments have sold very well, it's quite possible that they would want to go after you, and could even claim all your profits plus "treble damages" as punishment since you KNEW you were using their logo without permission.

So the question is, how risky are you willing to be? To the extent this is just a game, I'm willing to take risks. But as soon as profit is involved, it stops being just a game, so I would't use any knock-offs or brands in anything I sell for profit. I don't have any trouble freely distributing, for example, an Ampeg bass amp stack or Martin guitar. I doubt Ampeg or Martin would care, and the damages are pretty clearly nil. They wouldn't be likely to bother going after me, and I'd honor a "cease and desist" letter.

Just because people want something doesn't mean they're entitled to have it. Sure, lots of people want a Versace dress, and the fact that they could much more easily afford one in SL than in RL can be very appealing. That doesn't mean it's automatically allowed though. Unless Versace wants to say it's ok, people in SL will need to do exactly what they do in RL, which is to buy a cheaper knockoff. The knockoff can include whatever is not copyrighted or trademarked, and cannot include whatever is. If that's not good enough, then they'll just have to save up for the real thing.

When someone wants a thing but feels they can't afford it, it may sound unfair to them to hear "wanting it doesn't mean you get to have it". However, if you're someone who owns a thing, and someone tries to take it just because they want it, you'd certainly feel that the taking is unfair too. Property is property. If someone takes yours, they should compensate you for it. If they can't meet your price, they won't get to take it.

All that said, there are some gray areas. I think my own business in SL, Sci Fi Supplies, is an example. It is obviously based on replicating other people's IP (Star Trek, Batttlestar Galactica, etc.). I try to stick with franchises that have historically been supportive of fanart. My logic is if it's ok, and even encouraged, for people to show up at conventions wearing home-made Cylon centurian costumes, or to sell things like fan-made Starfleet uniforms and character portraits, it's got to be ok for me to do the same in SL. I'm of course willing to comply with any takedown notice though, should I ever receive any.


Hostorically, DC Comics has been supportive of fanart. I'd be surprised if they were to make a stink about Superman costumes in SL, but if they wated to, they certainly could.


First, Marvel has nothing to do with Superman. Superman is a DC property, not a Marvel property.

In any case, I'm not sure what you mean by "quit all of SL". They couldn't shut SL down just because its users have infringed on Marvel's IP, if that's what you mean. They tried that with City of Heroes, and the case was thrown out. Service providers are protected from the actions of their services' users under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, as long as they comply with takedown notices, which LL certainly does.

What Marvel can do is issue takedown notices to LL for every piece of Marvel IP that they find in SL. If history's any idicator, they probably would. Like Disney, Marvel is not one to mess with.

I've probably been asking for trouble with my Firestar avatar, but since Marvel really no longer does anything with that character (I'm probably one of about 10 Firestar fans on the planet), she's probably relatively safe. However, were I asked to remove her, I certainly would.


Simpsons is definitely a no-no. They once sued a little kid for selling his own Bart Simpson T-shirts in RL. Matt Groening said he felt horrible about it, but he had no choice. He had to defend his trademark or else there would be a precedent set that anyone can make Simpson's shirts.


I'm not sure what Soutth Park's attitude toward fanart is, but in the absense of evidence that they support it, it's best not to mess with it.


Star Trek has always ben VERY supportive of fanart, fan fiction, knockoff uniforms, etc., even fan-made episodes. They're within their rights to ask anyone to stop, of course, but I have yet to hear of a case where they have.



For what it's worth I suspect that attitudes toward IP control will be changing over the next few years, particularly when it comes to things from TV shows and movies. Networks and studios are just now starting to figure out that loosening the reigns a bit to allow fans to run with their characters and other properities in environments like SL is not such a bad thing. They're realizing that fostering communities is far more valuable (and a lot more enjoyable) than keeping every last image under lock and key. Once there has been a long enough and loud enough demonstration of success based on that model, I'm sure other industries will follow.

In the here and now though, the law is the law, and it should be respected.

mm sorry for the DC mistake I am not a comic fan

Well I understand all although I disagree with 1st paragraph and maybe the law should change.

Linden is selling u a product that says u can have a second life, but u can't posses it? wtf? Still i think i difusse the line of what SL is, a game? a business? a chat? a internet in 3D?

I think the fun of SL is what name is: a second life, so if people want be a top model, a hero, a pirate, a worm or whatever they want, why they cant? for a copyright?

If a woman after working 10 hours in a bar when arrives home want to evade reality and become a top model dressing the last fashion cloth, why she can't?
If a invalid man by an accident want wear his nikes shoes that he used years ago runing free again through beaches, why he can't?
In the end is all fantasy and thats the idea of Second Life no?

Also i see more issues when u use photource, 1st how knows the company u used that photo? and what happen if u use 5 different photos? when u transform in SL the things change a lot, the dress is not the same due the SL shape and u should redraw lot of things to fit in SL

For me the contradictions i see is that SL is a simulative world but is diferent form, u can copy real things but the result is diferent (are pixels afterall), people tends to do the things as real life possible but they often forget that there is fantasy too, and SL and RL are separated things.

For me the copyrights and trademarks should be only in SL as is a diferent world, but well i suppose the law is the law and we can't do nothing...

No problem.


What do you disagree with in particular? Please tell me it's not the part that said "just because people want something doesn't mean they're entitled to have it". I really hope you don't think people should just be able to take whatever they want from other people without permission.

Me, I'd really like to have the $10,000 72" LCD TV in the electronics store down the street, but I'm not just gonna walk in and take it. It doesn't belong to me unless I'm willing to pay for it. And since I'm not willing to spend that much on a TV, I will have to live without the thing, no matter how much I might want it.

Copyright works exactly the same way. Ownership is ownership. Whether we're talking physical property or intellectual property, it makes no difference. You can't just take something that doesn't belong to you.


I don't know what you mean by this. Please explain. How are you defining "possess" in this context, and what is it you feel you should be able to possess but can't?


It's all of the above (and more). There is no line.

You could ask all the same questions about real life, by the way. What is life? Is life a game? Is life a business? Is life a chat room? Etc., etc., etc. The answer, obviously, is a resounding yes to all. Real life is whatever you make of it, and Second Life is no different.


You can most certainly be whatever you want to be (again, both in RL and in SL), but there have to be limits to behavior in any civilized society. You can't infringe on the rights of others and then expect anyone to accept "but I was just being what I wanted to be" as a viable defense. Life doesn't work that way, regardless of whether it has an S or an R in front of it.


Of course she can. Where on Earth did you get the idea that she can't?

What she needs to do though is operate within the law and within the confines of basic morality. Not even a RL "top model" can just take that Versace dress without permission. If she wants to wear it, she's got to do what it takes to get it. That might mean buying it, or starring in an ad campaign for Versace, or whatever, but she certainly doesn't just get to have it simply because she wants it.


If he wants to wear shoes, he certainly can. If he wants them to be Nike's in particular, then he has to acquire them legally from Nike, just like in RL.


While SL certainly has fantastical elements to it, it is very much a world of real people. Real people are governed by real laws, always.


Just because you can get away with it doesn't make it right. If I take a loaf of bread off the supermarket shelf and walk out with it under my coat, the fact that they didn't catch me doesn't mean I didn't steal it.

That having been said, such heavy manipluation of pre-existing images is a VERY gray area. At what point does something become changed enough to be considered an original work in its own right? That's a question that lawmakers, lawyers, and judges talk about all the time. Obviously, there can be no all-inclusive single answer. Each work needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.


Sure, pixels are pixels, just like ink dots are ink dots. When you arrange a bunch of ink dots in such a way that an image becomes recognizable as someone else's copyrighted or trademarked work, you've got a problem. You wouldn't be able to make your own version of the latest Harry Potter book, for example, and then say "but all I did was put ink on paper and the result just happens to look like the text of Harry Potter". If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

The same is true with pixels. Just because the logo on your Nike shoe in SL is made out of little points of light and the one on your RL Nike shoe is made of leather doesn't mean they're not the same thing. A trademark is a trademark.



If you really feel that real world copyright and trademark should have no place in SL, then by definition you're saying that you don't think the rights of other real people should matter. Copyrights and trademarks are absolutely owned by real people with very real reasons for protecting their property. So to dismiss copyright or trademark as just a thing is to dismiss people. That's just all kinds of wrong. I think we've been having a pleasant intellectual conversation up until now, so it pains me to have to say this, but frankly that attitude is downright disgusting.

If you truly believe that the rights of other people besides yourself do not matter, then I'll say thanks for the warning, and I'll add you to the ban list from all the lands in which I'm empowered to do so. I'm pretty sure I can speak for everyone in our community when I say we only want people around who will respect our rights and the rights of all our other visitors.

I'd like to think it wouldn't need to come to that. Please tell me that I'm just reading you wrong, that you do respect the rights of others, and that you understand that simply wanting something is not a justification for taking it without permission.

The idea behind coprights, trademarks, and patents is that you're entitled to the fruits of your own creativeness. If you create something, it's up to you to decide how it's used -- distributed freely, sold, or hidden in a barrel. There's another aspect to it too. Protecting intellectual property stimulates creation: people and companies are willing to invest more time, effort, and money into creating things when they know that as a result they'll be able to benefit from their efforts. So we have both a good principle and a good practical reason for these kins of laws.

Meanwhile, I'll keep distributing the Martin HD-28 guitar I made (for free, or $1L), complete with Martin logo. If they ask me to stop, I will do so. BTW, this is not a DCMA violation because I took the picture of my own Martin. If they ask me to photoshop out the logo, well, that's their perogative, and I'll comply. And I won't lose a wink of sleep over it. (Ditto for Rhodes, Ampeg, Marshall, Fender, JBL, and Jubal, the Guild and National don't happen to have logos on them. This is my own stuff that I took photos of.)

I hope Chosen doesn't ban me, but that's his or her perogative.

Lear, I'd say there's a difference between what you're doing and the blanket statement I was responding to above, that there should be no such thing as copyright or trademark in SL. So no, I certainly wouldn't consider your Martin guitar to be offensive any more than I'd consider my own Star Trek uniforms to be offensive. It may be a fine line, but I do believe there's a difference between a fan paying respectful tribute to the things he or she loves and someone saying "I want this and I deserve to have it just because I want it and that's that. Me, me, me, me, me!"

However, with RL star musicians making ever more frequent appearances in SL, it probably won't be long before their RL sponsors want to follow them. If and when that happens, things might start to get sticky for what you do. Hopefully, those companies would follow the entertainment industry example I mentioned earlier, and recognize that building communities is more lucrative than protecting logos, but there's no guarantee that they would, obviously. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

In any case, I would recommend being careful with Marshall, just so you know. I seem to recall hearing that they've been rather aggressive about defending their trademarks in the past.



If you don't mind a quick side note, by the way, as a musician myself, I can certainly understand the tremendous brand loyalty that exists in the music world, so I definitely see the appeal of having your rig say Marshall or Boogie or whatever brand happens to represent awesomeness to you on it. To musicians, equipment branding is practically a badge of honor, a status symbol.

That said, I personally think your products would be more valuable if you put your own branding on them instead of using other people's logos. There's plenty of room in SL to build your own virtual brand that could be even cooler within the confines of the digital world than any RL brand could ever be.

This is the strategy that many of SL's top clothing designers have taken, and it's paid off tremendously for them. Some have even been approached by RL manufacturers to have their SL clothes replicated in RL as a real world brand.

If like you, I were interested in making musical equipment for SL on a regular basis, that's how I'd do it. One of my RL hobbies happens to be luthiery, so you see, what you do in SL is near and dear to my heart. When I first started making RL guitars (at age 16), I of course would have loved to have become the next Paul Reed Smith or Les Paul, but I've never had the desire to do what it takes to start a guitar company; it's never been anything more than a hobby to me. Were I to start a virtual guitar company in SL though, it would be much easier to do and you better believe my own brand name would be all over the place.

I think you've got a real opportunity here, Lear. I haven't seen your stuff, but if it's good, you could develop something really great and unique with your own brand.

well i think u didnt understand me, should be for my english, sorry

What i was refering is in the idea that Linden Lab sells, is selling u a second life, be what u want they are saying, but when u enter the reality is other and its more like ur first life, so if u are poor u are poor in SL too, if u are rich u are rich in SL too

About the copyrights and trademarks i mean that i think limits the game experience, and of course I am not saying SL should be an anarchy, but as a separated world of the reality i see is, the RL things should be separated, u should be allowed to reproduce RL things as u are a part of other world, but now can come a company and say u to quit the items, that would be ok if the company put themselves, but the company can option to never put the items on SL, so this only fucks the players and the growing of SL in general.

U say: Me, I'd really like to have the $10,000 72" LCD TV in the electronics store down the street, but I'm not just gonna walk in and take it.

But in SL if the company havent plans to put it u neither have the option to buy it, it simply doesnt exist, in RL at least u have the option, u can buy it and mortage ur life, but u can.

And of course should be copyrights and trademarks but IN SL, independent of RL, in the end u owns a virtual object not a real, in SL u can have a 72" plasma tv but for sure is not the same thing as a real world, and i am sure u will enjoy more in RL, and u cant simply trasnfer to RL, the same for dresses, u can have in SL a versace dress and for sure wont be the same experience as having it in RL.

Of course could be a normative that if a real company plans to put their items in SL have the priority, i mean for example tha tu are selling a bart simpsons t-shirts and fox comes to SL, so fox would have the right to quit all ur items and sell theirs

What i think is bad is at least not have the option, and by this i mean the players

Desidelia, I'm very sorry that you thought that SL was part of a separate universe, and had no ties to real life.

The truth, as you have discovered, is that it is not, and it cannot be; because all kinds of laws have been written to include "electronic media," and "the internet", and SL is part of the internet. (If you think it's not, ask yourself how you get here without a connection.)

That's why, for instance, wagering is no longer allowed in SL. There are laws against using computers for that kind of thing in the US, where the servers are. They, and by extension we, are governed by those laws, like it or not, and will have to pay the penalty if those laws are broken.

Copyright law is the same way. It covers nearly all of us, in our own countries, and it certainly covers the US, and the machines that Second Life exists on.

I just read this post, and saw people saying "If they come after me, I'll stop, but I don't see any reason to do that until they do, because I'm not selling the items."

Umm.. you should all know that whether or not you have profited in any way from copyright infringement makes no difference, and that the law doesn't require anyone to start with a cease and desist.

People can, and have, start right off with suing for the maximum allowable amount for copyright infringement; which is $150,000 US for each willful violation. Which means, for instance, if you are using a picture of The Mouse on a t-shirt, on a rug, and on a bedspread, you could find yourself facing a $450,000 fine, even if you gave all those things away for free.

The least you can face, for non-willful infringement, is $750 per thing, if the court is feeling kindly towards you. (Or if not, non-willful infringement can go as high as $30,000 per piece.)

Is that a sum that you're willing to risk? If so, feel free to go ahead and "play the odds," and hope that whoever owns the copyright or trademark is as wonderful about it all as Coke.

But I wouldn't count on it, and I'm certainly not willing to risk it.

I haven't yet intentionally sold my creations but I usually try to draw every texture I make but sometimes truthfully I am not feeling well and I am lazy.
Sometimes I borrow bits and peices of grass, a tree. even a shape but I try to look for items I can use that are public domain images, or coyp right free images but sometimes if I do find specific thing I want I use it but I try never to make it look like orginal.
I enjoy doing images that are half collage, lot of mouse painting, mixed well with texture effects.
But sometimes I can reproduce Cezzane's that I did all by mouse and some effects.
when I was new I sold a few but I actually spent hours to reproduce the image and its almost the same except the orginal is more beige then yellow.
I do see lot of people who just upload public domain art, textures I seen on my search and they don't even change or do something unique with it.
I copy, trace as way to learn how to reproduce my own images only. Being perfectionist I wouldn't feel good about selling anything that wasn't uniquely created by me.
Yet there lot of people who sell knock off images or outright steal.
The issue is majority here wouldn't or couldn't afford to sue someone to enforce the DMCA. I know I be upset if someone stole images I spent 12 hours on or days perfecting that aren't being sold but I couldn't afford to take them to court. I assume with DCMA filing you have to prove that you're the creator of image or the person is violating a copyright with court hearing. Filing is just a step. You still have to document and prove that it was stolen. The have LL be told by the courts to remove the item.
Am I correct?

Fortunately, no. Anyone can file a DMCA Takedown, and court is usually not part of it. (Personally, I've never had to go to court, and I've had to file quite a few DMCAs over the years.)

If you find that something you created is being used by someone else in SL without your permission, and you don't want them to do it, you should go ahead and file.

The steps required can be found at http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php

It is important that you follow the directions exactly, and that you include both the statements that are in quotes, exactly as written.

Once you've done that, Linden Labs is required to remove the material. No court is necessary to force them to do that; the law already does, and if they don't remove things after they receive a properly filled out DMCA, they are in violation of the law themselves, and would face penalties that they aren't going to risk.

If someone files a DMCA Takedown against you on things that you created yourself, you have recourse. You need to file a DMCA Counter-Notification, which, once again, Linden Labs will take very seriously.

This is the part that gets taken to court; but if you can prove that you created the work, for instance, you have the layered photoshop files, then you're not the one who is going to be paying the court fees. The person who wrongly filed the DMCA against you will be doing that, as well as paying substantial fines and damages.

Personally, I tend to assume that people who are violating my copyright have no idea the penalties that they are facing, or the fact that I could potentially lose my copyright if i don't "take action." So I usually start by asking them to voluntarily remove my images from their work.

I do that because if the Lindens get too many repeat DMCAs on someone (or too many bogus take-down notices) they might perma-ban that person.

They almost invariably respond by becoming furious with me, calling me all kinds of names, and protesting that they aren't doing anything wrong; that SL somehow isn't covered by copyright law, or that I didn't create the work, and they have as much right to use things they got from the web as I do. I've even been told that downloading it first doesn't make it mine. I'm also usually told that my request for them to stop using my copyright material was not polite enough, and so is going to be ignored. (Even though I invariably say "please" and never point out that they are a thief.)

My favorite response was from someone who had lifted one of my free tutorials from the web, put it in a THiNC book, and was selling it for L$600 without changing one bit of it. (It was one of the video tuts, and she just had screen shots of it in the book.)

She informed me that she didn't care what I said, because she hadn't made the original movie. I told her I had, and I did care about the copyright.

So, yeah. If you are braced for some abuse, go ahead and ask the person to take it down. If you don't feel like dealing with it, just file the DMCA.

But, by all means, DO protect your copyright.

Hope this helps!

Yeah I am bit concerned about this. It seems like people are constantly like that often I worry if I can't create every bit of image by hand its not worth selling might be cheating.
I have friend who is really good with business and is really pushing me to start selling my items and she said she do all the business end of it so all I have to do is focus on creating, learning and having fun, taking care of my health.
Sometimes I do need a base image or template for the texture but I alway try to make unique. Even with the tiny windows or avatar clothes I often use base image shape but I would never sell my tiny avatars. But often texture mapping their faces takes long time for me because I am just learning. Ideally I try to draw things by hand but its not always something I can do every day.
Could even if I use tiny 10 percent of non-public domain shape or image be a copyright violation even if its not easily recognized?
Also I have been thinking also what happens like if I allow this person to sell, promote my work and things don't work out and she is profitting from mouse drawn images that I spent sometimes literally days on to get it right?
Contracts here I heard have no way if they are enforceable and I can't hire attorney so its
going to be matter of trust on my part if I decide to do this.
I don't care at this point if I make money it would be nice to have others see my work and be appreciated, yeah money would be nice because my computer is falling apart and half of time in adobe I am freezing and crashing, losing lot of work this way but it not like why I create things.
I am making pretty realistic 3d plant and textured images that I am pretty proud of including several other things.
I worked pretty hard sometimes 10 hours a day to get to this point in last year though.

Sorry for not answer soon

I know law is law and u always will fall over his height but this doesn't mean u can't disagree with it.

One of the problems is that technology advances lot of faster than the law. Anybody can control internet? SL isn't so far, one of my first impressions when i entered was, oh dam this is like internet in 3D

SL is a nice idea and more complex than it seems. In contrast should deal with lot of issues, one of the diference i see is that when u are in a country u should follow the country laws but in SL u can acces from many countries, and this countries often has different laws (dam there are countries that cuts ur hand for steal), is really interesting and I wish i would know about it, i suppose people licensed in law will know a lot of more.

Also there is the factor of anonymous, can u for example travel to some country conect in a cybercafe and start ripping texture and then distrubute for free to all residents of SL?

Anyway I think SL invites u in lot of utopias, so is normal think that maybe this time u have found a free world, u know u can create anything and "do" anything and something not controled by goverments but maybe as always is another utopia, can goverments control internet? Well, time will say although in the end is there the money and without money u hardly can live, and often is the money who does the law, direct or indirect.

copyright law for those with short attention spans: (like me)

Basics
1) if you didn't make it, don't use it unless the owner says you can
(and especially don't SELL it, because then you're toast)

2) just because you can see it doesn't mean you can take it:
(the internet is NOT Public Domain, just because you can copy it doesn't mean you are allowed to)

Fair - Use
3) making your own based on the "idea" behind the original is OK, so is using part of something in your own original work
(This is called "derivitive works" and can get complex fast, there must be a large amount of difference between the original and yours to be ok, best to avoid)

4) documenting something for journalistic purposes:
(this means it's ok to snap a few pics of others work, to illustrate what you are trying to show, but never the entire work, and never for the purpose of seliing those works. note copying a whole article is theft, quoting some of it (with credit) is not)

that's the short version

Void, don't forget the "substantial" part. The copied work has to be substantial or significant in the context to be a violation.

For example, if I take a picture on a street corner, it could have all sorts of stuff in the background that I didn't create, like the CocaCola logo on a vending machine. Yet using that photo is NOT copyright violation.

Sticking that logo on my product WOULD be a violation, though (of both copyright and trademark law).

Thanks Void for respond.
I have some hand drawn spooky plant life I have drawn.
I don't always have energy or mental know how to texture the images to appear 3d yet so often I need to go texture grabbing for the 3d effect layer or color base.
That means for the flower eating a tiny car or frog I need to find realistic images to pull it off because I just don't know yet how to do certain things but I am incredibly resourceful and creative with what skills I have.
Biggest challenge for me is finding enough public domain tiny peices to do collage work.
They always are unique from orginal and often when asked none of the friends I share the link to orginal and current image said they couldn't see the orginal image from the I borrowed bits and peices from.
Yet sometimes I feel I am not good enough artist because I borrow and can't produce orginal everything yet.

Note that tracing someone else's image, or copying it by hand, is still a copyright violation. (Not in the case of a Cezanne, which is now public domain, though someone's photo of it can still be subject to copyright protection, just as your mouse-painted copy is.)

It might not be a DCMA violation, though, since (if I understand it correctly), DCMA is about digital copies. We'd probably need a lawyer's opinion on that one!

But ... if it's a "copy", then it's a "copy". Copyrights protect against copies, regardless how they're made.

This probably gets you off the hook due to the "substantial or significant" part. At least, I asked my father, a patent attorney, about this kind of issue and that's what he said.

However, collage art and DCMA can be a sticky widget. For example, with DCMA they can go after a "sampler musician" (or whatever they call themselves) who uses snippets of other people's songs. Those are a lot like collages, when you think about it. And yet these artists do get sued for infringement. But of course, in these cases the original artist's work is clearly audible in the result. The fact that this isn't so in your collages gives you a defense.