possible copyright violation

Maybe they will freeze Phillip in carbonite >:D

Anyhow, besides a cease and desist, what can one really do about all the "illegal content"... without taking the giant, devistating step of blocking user uploads of images and sounds.

I'm not encouraging this, I'm just wondering how one would go about doing something, and what would it be, if one found their RL property (paintings, books, comics, songs, ect.) for sale in SL without their consent? (i.e. Authors, artists, George Lucases.. or "Luci"... whichever the plural is)

It likely wouldn't be possible within any reasonable means to go and remove all instances and reprpoductions sold.

This is why I took down my porn and erotic art gallery. At least once we started being able to trade L$ for US$. Because I know I did not have permission from the artists to display(read copy) and/or sell those pieces of art. Despite the fact that some would argue they were not art. I just don't want to take the chance of being in copywrite violation. Especially considering the fact that SL is a huge draw to artists. It is just a matter of time (I give it a few years), and we are going to see a lot more content having to be removed due to it not being an original work of the person displaying or selling it.

And that is why, when I finally get the time again, I'm going to reopen my Erotic Arts Gallery, but I'm only going to put in artwork that is created by SL artists and they will be displayed with permission.

This is my opinion on this issue. And I try not to buy copywritten work (but of course I can't know when everything is or is not). But I'm not going to dislike you for acting differently than myself in this situation. Mainly I just don't want to see people get in trouble a few years from now when this is going to be *much* more of an issue.

I suppose it's personal when people are talking about your behavior, but I'm sure the people who worked hours creating books for SL use for $10L would feel you unfairly singled them out.

My original point was, and still is, rather than defending one's own clear violations, admit you broke the same law and move on with your point that using copyrighted material without permission is wrong. If you want to make your arguement by ending your current violations, that will strengthen your moral grounds for making such a stand.

This is not intended as a personal attack. I am just sharing my opinion.

Pen you are right. As seondlife grow and the more public we get. It will be just a matter of time . I would think the time period would be much shorter.

I am saying I never sold a single one.

Someone has just informed me that a single item did sell however, so I was mistaken about that.

As I said lots of times already, they were never really intended for sale. That is why they are not advertised for sale and are stuck in the attic. The person that bought one can have a refund if they wish, they essentially bought something out of a work area in my store (the attic or loft), not from the "sales floor"

In any case, the paintings have now all been removed and everyone loses (IMO).

Yay!

To funny lol

In all fairness it always seems like a personal attack when it's you being attacked I suppose. It's entirely possible that the times I have made arguments against others that they were percieved in the exact same way as I percieve this "attack" on me this morning.

Even a complete idiot can see that this thread and the other one have a quality of "reaping the whirwind" about them in that the persons most vociferously attacking me over the issue are the same people that I have perhaps hurt in the past. (not that anyone would admit in a million years that this is their motivation of course ) I have "sowed the wind" by winning a few arguments against some people and they are retaliating today, (and doing a fairly good job of it.)

However, I think I have said this ten times already, but the folks doing those books are doing an entirely different thing.

I am not trying to defend what I have done by damning them, but I feel if one was to categorise it, that my "violation" (if it is one) is right on the knife edge of the copyright law. The mitigating circumstances for even the possible technical violation is that I wanted to make high quality versions of these works available for free and circumvent the typical SL "thieves" and re-sellers. As far as I am aware, the vast majority of the black velvet paintings I have uploaded are not actually copyrightable given their obscure "mexican factory" origins.

The books on the other hand are a "crystal-clear," "black and white" violations of copyright law. Printing "Books" in second life that you don't have the rights to is clearly theft. Plain and simple. There just are no arguments against that.

Whether you believe my arguments or not, at least I *have* an argument, and at least I am being straightforward and honest about everything I have done or said, and to me that is a fairly unique occurance around here.

Dianne, I don't think anyone who thought your velvet art paintings were copyright violations, would disagree with you that the reprinted books are also copyright violations. That would not make sense to me?

At any rate, the statement *I* made above, is similar to the one I make just about every time this copyright issue comes up in the forums. This is at least the 8th thread on this topic over the past year or so that I've participated in. So I would not take it personal. You could always do a search in the forums on the issue. There is a huge debate on this issue and it is an ever ongoing one. I doubt you will be the last one to bring the topic up.

I have a question for you Dianne, Are you with the RIAA???????

Thanks.

learning klingon is a pretty silly hobby since learning a real language could be so much more enriching. however i wouldn't go so far as accuse people of mental illness for it. that's pretty extreme, einsman.

P'tak!

Your copyright infringement is on the knife's edge of nothing and hasn't been since at least the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1952 revision) which grants automatic, instant copyright to all artistic creations by virtually the enitre population of the world. The WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 expands upon the Berne Convention and is likely more applicable.

I have two pragmatic suggestions for you (which you may consider persecution if it makes you feel better). First, don't start a thread throwing stones at others for a subject that you are manifestly ignorant of. Second, you may wish to replace the 1100+ signatures that you have throughout these forums with the attached. And please, whatever you do, don't have a kitten about my signature replacement suggestion until such a time as you have read and understood 17 U.S.C. § 107; thanks.

This will not end well now that Malachi has Photoshop.

Sorry but its already gone to this level from the very beginning.

copyright violation are realy getting out of hand it seemed every store I went into today had some type of infringment. That's ok tho it's against my personal belief system to rip off another artists work so I just go to the next store instead of making a fuss. Hey if that's the way the wanna run their business who am I to tell them no.

You know why they do don't ya? Greed and lack of creativitiy.

playboy, hello kitty, zales, to name a few of the biggest offenders I noticed today.

Mar

i have no idea what that means. more importantly, is that he-man's sword and shield for your forum avatar?

F34r my 733t pshop skillz.

Oh, and regardless of what the original poster may think, I was not suggesting that she either remove the work or that I had any intenction of "narcing" her out. Indeed, in this case I quite simply couldn't even if I wanted to. I was simply trying to show "let she who is without sin cast the first stone", not that I believe there is "sin" or that anyone should cast stones (gathering them together is alright though, I think). I'm sure if someone were to check all my in-game creations you could possibly find some infringement although I try hard to avoid such.

To show how murky these things can be, if I take a photograph - with permission - of a famous work in a musem, it is terribly unclear to me if this constitutes infringement should I bring it in-game. In fact, to the best of my understanding of all applicable law the answer is "it depends...".

So there will be no stoning? This thread has been a complete bust. Poor Dianne can't show the velvet paintings of Jesus crying, Ulrika was too tired to rage against the Goreans, and now, no stoning. I am very disappointed.

She could have got the size better, it kind of goes off the page. Details count.

Well your points are well made, ...
but I just dont believe that copyright concern is the whole story in regards your replies on this thread.

Your posts are just too vehement to apply to an subject which by your own admission is sometimes unclear (the application of copyright law). You seem to be saying out of one side of your mouth that this is a "black and white issue" with no room for interpretation, yet with the other, agreeing that copyright law is sometimes vague and dependent on particular circumstances.

In that context, I just don't understand where the intensity of anger you seem to have over this issue is coming from, especially since your described position on copyright effectively mirrors my own excluding this one incident. This is why I am assuming that there is a personal component to this disagreement we are having.

I am mystified however in that I dont remember having any really nasty discussions with you in the past. Did I unknowingly critcise you as an Alt, or spurn your advances in game or something?

How much money would it take for you to sweep this thing under the carpet?

Copywright infringement will ALWAYS be an issue when comes to a game like second life. I'm a freelance gesture maker, i download stuff online or in games i enjoy which i legally own and pull parts of sounds and add them to second life. These sounds are covered by law since i bought the games and own them that i can use its images, music, voices, and even game ideas anywhere i want AS LONG as i am not making a real life profit. If anyone has seen me, they know i never ever make a gesture for a profit, i give everything i do/make freely with no restrictions...

Now as with gorean things, This person wants to make it free for all residents to freely enjoy as pleases. Dont be a hater of gor books just cause you dont agree with what people do. Plus the art should be allowed cause it brings more culture and mannerisms into SL. If hes illegally doing things that are going to impact rest of society, then why not just ask permission from the rights of the person thru e-mail or some krap like that. We could use more ppl interested in getting business adverts in sl.

Nope. And by the way, you can't win arguments against Forum Trolls.

Is it wrong that I know Tolkien's Elvish better than Spanish?

Considereing i got my elvish from a book, and I took spanish for 3 years ^.^

Namarie.

ps. I recognized that as Klingon before I read the quote above it ^.^
I shall smite you with my bat'leth! Speak with honor!

I don't need money; your ignorant. dogmatic, presumptuous, fatuous statements have been more than enough to make me ignore your blatherings from here on.

But, I'll happily take L$20,000 as punitive damages for attempted bribery and the greater affront of insuating that I'd make "advances" upon anyone, let alone you.

Maybe you should forget about the money then and consider yourself lucky that I dont generaly report such (thinly disguised) abuse as this.

Also (sadly) my net worth is currently about $300 Lindens and that's actually a bit of a high peak for me.

I guess I must have squandered the fortune I made on the whole black velvet paintings scam where I tried to avoid the copyright law and ripp-off you and all your friends??

Oh wait a minute... that didn't happen did it?