copyright interpretation question

I recently purchase a piece of art in game with a note inside titled "**** please read this ****". I was somewhat confused by the contents of the note and was wondering if anyone could make more sense of it than I:So I'm puzzled about a few things:

1. Is this an assertion of copyright or an admission of copyright infringement?
   
2. How could my reselling it devalue it?
   
3. As this is a copy, should I treat it with respect due the original?
   
4. How much respect is it due?
   
5. As it was sold for L$10, is that a cost or a presumed cost?
   
6. Did the seller not make money from the sale?
   

Thanks for any insight you can provide on these questions.

I would say so, since nowhere in the note does it say the works were reproduced with the artists' permission. Unless they do have permission, the phrase, "It is not our intention to make money from the sale of these paintings or to take anything away from
the artists that painted them," is laughable at best. They may feel they are "paying homage" as they put it, but it's not for them to decide who gets to have acopy of the artists' creations unless they have permission to do so.


I could think of 2 ways. One would be if you sold copies at less than the established price. Two would be if one you bought was the original, intended as a one time sale, and then you went around selling or giving away copies.

Both examples seem pretty moot though, since the seller already devalued the paintings by selling them for Linden Dollars if they didn't have the permission of the artists.


Well, all works of art should be treated with respect, although I'm not sure exactly how one could disrespect a piece of art in SL. It's not like you could burn the thing, spit on it, spash it with a hammer, etc. It's virtual.


Not sure how to quantify respect.


It's only cost if they're selling the original uploaded texture. If they're selling multiple copies, then it's profit, no matter how fancy they decide to get with their notecard verbiage. I have no idea what they might mean by "presumed cost". Clearly the seller knows what he or she paid to aquire the thing and to upload it. He or she shouldn't have to "presume" anything.


If he or she is selling multiple copies, then yes. If not, then no. From a copyright standpoint, the answer doesn't matter though. Infringement is infringement, regardless of profit. Unless permission was granted by the artists, this is a no-no.


You're welcome.

Jesus won't be getting any money from this either way. Or, apparently, a haircut.

Hello.

This note is an early version of a disclaimer that was to be provided with the works in question.

The intent was to stop the kind of irresponsible selling and re-selling of art in SL that does not actually belong to the seller. The "devalue" statement is a way of saying "dont take this (esssentially) free picture and re-sell it for a 100 lindens in a yard sale you jerk," (but in a nice way). That is to say that it uses "devalue," in it's non-monetary sense, which unfortuntely that makes it vague to some people.

The 10 dollar cost (at that time) was an attempt to recoup some of the cost of providing the pictures to SL which were always intended to be free. At the time this particular note was written I was still deciding what to do in regards putting any price at all on them. Most everyone I mentioned the moral dilema to was of the opinion that I should just sell them for whatever I could get since "everyone else does it." I did not agree.

The basic point I was trying to make was that if you want a velvet painting for your wall, here are some really nice ones for free, but please dont try to resell it because some poor (usualy unknown) artist actually made this thing and they deserve your respect. For this "evil" act I am now being punished.

The note is also supposed to contain information onthe RL artist (if I can find it), but in the case of this image, it is more of a cultural icon than an original work. I could not find the artists name but it's doubtfull whether something as common as "weeping jesus" is actually a copyrightable image although we should assume it is until proven oherwise. the more recent version of the note also has informaiton so I can be contacted if someone can find reference to any of the works actually being copyrighted (it is not clear if they are or not).

For more information, please see the "possible copyright infringement" thread where I actually raised a very serious issue of copyright infringement. Said thread is now just a bunch of people ripping me up over the black velvet paintings (with the serious copyright issue now forgotten.)

It is a much more entertaining thread though, it has everything from the meanie that brought this up to a bunch of forum hypocrites jumping all over the corpse. Ulrika even commented (although she got bored once the topic switched from the Goreans)

Due to this whole fiasco, the paintings will likely never see the light of day, and everyone loses IMO. Including the orginal artists.