Philip or other Lindens - Question about copyright issues within SL

I have seen people making and selling movie and game related models and textures, for example Star Wars Vehicles and Characters, Cartoon related characters etc…
From an ignorant point of view I would say that this is infringement of copyright/ownership to say the list… If you are selling this stuff then it is not just like a fan exposing themed and free to see graphics… no you are copying other people concept art and creations and selling your themed copies for real money.

(you as in generic you.. = people making copies)

Are you paying royalties to Movies, Games, Cartoons characters/vehicles’ rightful owners? Would this black market be enough to get SL closed down for supporting such illegal trade?

Just curios…

Creative people can make original material without the need to copy… this would also make SL a more original place to visit and buy new stuff from…or maybe by inspired by other people work…
but direct copy of characters, buildings, vehicles, textures of copyrighted material surely is not legal

Any thoughts…
Especially from Lindens!!

There was an issue of the game "City of Heroes" being sued by "Marvel Comics" but, in actuality these companies are getting free advertisement. Alot of players in "City of Heroes" did not take this lightly and stated that though they collected Comic Books, they would never buy another Marvel Comic again. So these companies should evaluate how this is actually helping them with promotion rather than looking at it from too greedy of a stand point and how it may detrementally effect perception of some of their customers.

However; I will not comment on the legalities of infringment because I am not a Lawyer.

The City of Heroes thing is different. No superheroes were being 100% copied. For SL, the issue is that it is very easy for me to create something that uses copyrighted material, then SELL it. If it were just game money, that's one thing, but I can easily go to GOM and generate real money from my proceeds in the game.

So if I created a Chewbacca avatar, for example, and charged for it, what's the difference between that and selling, say, a homemade Chewbacca action figure in RL? The bottom line is that I would be profiting in RL from someone else's intellectual property in either case.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the true legalities involved, but it seems dangerous to me now that real money is involved.

Here are the two relevant portions of the TOS that pertain to this:

6.2 Rights in Content. You acknowledge that Linden and other Content Providers have rights in their respective Content under copyright and other applicable laws and treaty provisions, that they retain all such rights and that you accept full responsibility and liability for your use of any Content in violation of any such rights. You agree that your creation of Content is not in any way based upon any expectation of compensation from Linden. You shall indemnify and hold Linden harmless from and against any claims by third parties that your Content infringes upon, violates or misappropriates any of their intellectual property or proprietary rights.


6.4 Second Life Currency. You acknowledge that the Second Life service presently includes a component of in-world fictional currency. You agree that Linden has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such currency as it sees fit in its sole discretion, and that Linden will have no liability to you based on its exercise of such right.

The first puts the responsibilty of the content on the creator.
The second states the currency is fictional. Is it really selling if the currency being used is fictional?

I think that is LL's position on this.

Short answer: Is it legal? No. Will LL try to stop you? Not unless they get a proper DMCA notification letter from the copyright holders. Will the copyright holders bother comming after you? ...this is a grey area and may vary depending on the company, the amount of money you're making, your noteriaty, etc, but it could happen.

well but the fact remains that LL is hosting illegal content on their server.
yes user created it.. but LL is hosting those cretions and enabling/supporting their trade..

I think ISPs woudl shut your account down if they find you using their service for illegal content... LL should look into this.

What do you think Lindens

Actually, the DMCA protects hosting providors in this situation. And ISP will only take down the content after they recieve a DMCA complaint notice.

-Adam

ISP protect their customers that use their service for illegal content. My ISP refused to give out IP adresses to the RIAA when they were doing their witch hunt of people who download music

So is it really copyright infringement if one can only use it in Second Life, and not anywhere else?

I don't know what the rules exactly to the point, there seems to be some sort of grey area.
I am also not entirely certain on the jargon used in the TOS to get a definate position on it. I just would like that explained black and white.

I agree. I have seen people selling replicas of copyrighted things in-world. I don't think it is kosher to ask money for a replica of something that a real-world company has spent millions (or billions) to promote, without their permission. (If it was a free object that wasn't being used to promote some SL resident, or their store, it MIGHT be different.) I also don't think that the SL community really needs to do this. We have already demonstrated that we are creative enough to come up with original designs, as that is what happens in the majority of cases.

Don't expect LL to do the same.

Hokuto, bear in mind that illegal and infringing are two different ideas. I'm not aware of the existance of illegal intellectual property in the USA-- our 1st amendment protects the legality of our thoughts and ideas to some extent. Some ideas, for example, assassination threats against the US President *are* illegal, even under the 1st amendment, but most things do not violate Federal law. That said, there's also this idea of intellectual property rights, wherein somebody is given sole ownership and control of thought or speech. Using that property without permission can be infringement.

IANAL, however, as I understand it, Linden Lab is not liable for the infringement of their users under the DMCA if they respond to proper takedown notices. If an intellectual property owner considers some specific use within SecondLife to be infringing, they can notify Linden Lab, who will likely take down the material and notify the user of the action. This makes Linden Lab's responsibility for the speech of its users similar to that of an ISP or hosting company.

Is it possible some users are using IP in an infringing manner. Yes. Is LL hosting illegal content? Probably not, at least as far as the US federal government, State of California, and City of San Francisco are concerned.

I smell a troll.... Quit trying to stir the pot Hokuto. If you're this concerned about LL's policy, send them an email expressing your concerns. Anything else is just trying to incite people on the forums.

-The Hoopster

he hee ... first of all I'm not a troll....
second I don't like people making money out of other people creativity and hard work...

just wanted to know what the general opinion was and if LL would show up in here to state their view on it...

The Lindens have already stated their view on it. That's why the TOS exists, and that's why the Lindens have a well-defined DMCA complaint process. You've not raised any new or interesting questions on the matter, so why do you think the Lindens should waste their time reiterating information which has already been released?

I have produced a number of recreations, so I will offer my opinion on the matter. Yes, creators of replica objects risk legal action if they distribute their recreations, regardless of whether they sell the items or merely give them away. However, the financial impact of the infringement is so minor that I think most firms will ignore copyright infringement. Not to mention the fact that people who reproduce first world content do not deprive the owners of that content from any monetary gains, as there are, as of yet, no real-world companies producing copies of their content in SL. For example, you can not purchase an official Kirby av from a licensed Nintendo firm. This is not a legal defense, merely an ethical justification. Sadly, we live in an overly-litigious society where consumers/individuals have almost no commercial rights. Even fair-use has become heavily eroded by propagandizing corporations.

However, trademark infringement is much more serious. Trademark holders are obligated to defend their trademarks from dilution, as they risk losing protection if they don't vigorously defend their trademarks.

I don't see this as a troll question as it is a legit issue in SL.

I posted a question about this a while ago when someone was announcing their SpongeBob Squarepants avatar. The guy did a great job on the av, and I wasn't gonna preach about the copyright thing. The issue that concerned me was that his items were listed on SLexchange.com, which is on the open internet.

IP holders routinely crawl the web looking for exactly this type of infringement. Granted, the people in SL infringing are making peanuts compared to the people selling knockoff products in malls and flea markets in RL. The chances of a DMCA action being filed are miniscule, but the added exposure is increasing that chance.

LL has covered themselves legally and until we start seeing DMCA takedowns on a regular basis here, nothing will change.

If you really feel strongly about it, don't buy infringing items.

There's no such legal definition as 'Intellectual Property'. I despise that phrase. Images, thoughts, and ideas are not property, although in our current corporate climate, they're desperately trying to make it so.

Also, you can't copyright a character, or symbol, or whatever; only individual creative works are subject to copyrights, and copyright is granted automatically to any such creative work. While copyright is supposed to expire 70 years after the death of the creator, thanks to Disney (among others), copyright is effectively time-unlimited.

Trademark is what applies to things such characters (eg. Mickey Mouse, Chewbacca, etc), symbols, etc. Trademarks are not granted, they must be applied for, and they cost. Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely, but must be defended, otherwise they can be ruled invalidated.

Sorry, just being grouchy and pedantic. ^^ This, of course, is my understanding of how US trademark/copyright law 'works' (and I use the term loosely), more-or-less.

On an amusing and related note, Bill Gates apparently feels that the people calling for patent/copyright reforms in the United States are all Communists. oO

I agree with you Cross. Take a look at the examples just in SL alone. Well, lets see, has anyone bothered to say their idea was first for dance clubs for example? A certain service? Product type? I don't think so. Theres hundreds upon hundreds of copied ideas just within Second Life, however, it should be granted if you show something off that looks similar to something that would pertain in the real world, credit for the idea should be given to creator, such as Mickey Mouse - Walt Disney. That kind of knowledge is generally known. So the person who may had created the avatar, I'm not sure is technically at risk as long as they give credit to the idea who was behind it in the first place, but for selling purposes, it would more than likely be a morality issue. In fact I think its the direct opposite affect helping promote products.

There's lots of grey areas in this subject from the very start.
Again, there needs to be some sort of clear example, defined in black and white what's infrindgement and whats not.

I think the real Issue is people not Keeping up with the times..
For instance, The MP3 battles..
The MP3 format is how old again?
Yet why cant i walk into wallmart and buy a singal mp3 rather than a worthless, scratchable behind the times, physical object. And I hafto buy all of the songs at once for a lump sum. I just want one of them.
Yes there are websites. But this format should be as commen as a cd.

Neway, Same goes in sl,,, If ParkerBros Would Log in and make a fully scripted Monopoly board,, or even sim. "thinks hmm" Then users wouldnt have a reason to "Make it" in here.
We would just buy it from them.
But we hafto make it, cause they just dont provide it.
And then friend X, y, and N want to buy it from us.
So Eather i can sell it to them or they can go make it themselves.
Im providing a service. not an item. Anyone could go make there own "insert thing here"
People are just paying not to have the hassle of learning lsl and whatnot.

(Edit) And people are not paying, they are Pretending to pay, with fictional currency.

As a fairly prolific creator of replica material in SL, this question has certainly been on my mind since I began the practice. Perhaps I can offer some thoughts on the subject.

Before I begin, let me first state that I have tremendous respect for the concept of copyright and intelectual property. For example, I actively and quite vocally oppose downloading pirated music. I've never photocopied a library book. I don't bring a camera to the art museum. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I was given a bootleg DVD of The Incredibles, which I promptly shredded without watching before I wnet to the theater and bought a ticket. In short, I 100% believe in the right of artists, authors, creators, etc. to be compensated for their work.

That having been said, I am also a strong supporter of fan art. I believe that if one enjoys a particular genre, character, title, etc. and can draw creative inspiration from it, that is a wonderful thing, and it should be encouraged. As the saying goes, it is a very sincere form of flattery, and it should be appreciated for what it is.

I consider the replicas I make and sell in SL to be fan art, nothing more, nothing less. As a fan of the characters and other things I recreate, I enjoy bringing them into SL. Besides the fact that I find them pleasing to look at, I really love the challenge of striving for acuracy in the replication process itself. It is fun, and actually quite theraputic.

Now, do my actions constitute copyright or trademark infringement? Well, I'll leave that up to the original creators of the material. If Todd McFarlane one day finds the need to tell me he disapproves of my Spawn avatar, I will stop selling it that instant. Spawn is his, not mine, afterall. I'd prefer to think he'd be flattered and appreciative of my devotion as a fan in taking all the time to create it, but were he to choose not to, that's his perogative. If he were to want royalties, well then he'd be welcome to whatever portion of the L$ he'd feels is appropriate, but somehow I suspect he wouldn't have much use for them.

Do my actions make me uncreative? I hardly think so. I'm not aware of a single composer who doesn't play music written by others when he's not writing his own. I have yet to meet an author who doesn't read other writers' books. I've never heard of an actor who doesn't perform works written by others. Most serious artists study the works of masters like Michelangelo and DaVinci, and routinely practice creating similar works. In fact, speaking of Davinci, the master himself spent years watching crowds to find suitable faces for the characters in his "Last Supper" painting. One could hardly accuse Leonardo of having been uncreative, but even he looked to things outside himself to replicate as a necessary part of the creative process.

Immitation is hardly a sign of a lack of creativity. My strong suspician is that most of the people who say it is are those who never create anything anyway, and therefore haven't the foggiest clue what it "creativity" means in the first place.

As I see it. If somone has problem example lucasarts.. then they can call tech or w/e and threaten... I know 99.99% will send atlest 3 warnings before they take action as I see it this diffrent... This game is not marketed as look we got starwars ships come buy it now like city of heros idea...

Well, I don't want to change this thread into a personal debate etc... but I just think that some of your points are merely excuses or flawd anyway...
for example:

"I'm not aware of a single composer who doesn't play music written by others when he's not writing his own. "
Yes... but that composer is not selling what he didn't write... he may be playing other people music but he is not gettting paid for it

" I have yet to meet an author who doesn't read other writers' books."
Yes... but those Authors are not photocopying those writers' books and selling them cheaper without a license are they


"I've never heard of an actor who doesn't perform works written by others. !"
What's your point here... Actors are not writers (usually) and they play work written by others and that work has been licensed by the movie production company and it is all legal. A movie house pays for the script etc..

"Most serious artists study the works of masters like Michelangelo and DaVinci, and routinely practice creating similar works. In fact, speaking of Davinci, the master himself spent years watching crowds to find suitable faces for the characters in his "Last Supper" painting. !"
Yes this is how many people learn... learn from other that have more experience or are better than you... and most people do build familiar characters in 3D for example when creating a portfolio... but to sell fakes it not legal it i? Unless those are licensed copies... so really what is your point here again?


"My strong suspician is that most of the people who say it is are those who never create anything anyway, and therefore haven't the foggiest clue what it "creativity" means in the first place"
Most people who say it are creative people who know what it takes to be original and to create and innovate and that know other people whose work is being stolen... most poeple who say it are the ones that care about their creations and do not like being ripped off

The creativity or lack of.. and the skills of copy makers is not in discussion here... the topic of discussion was: Is it legal? Will this cause troubles to LL? etc...
Nothing personal.

Immitation is hardly a sign of a lack of creativity. My strong suspician is that most of the people who say it is are those who never create anything anyway, and therefore haven't the foggiest clue what it "creativity" means in the first place.

Chosen Few, you said exactly what I was thinking.

You're taking two seperate points and trying to combine them into one. There were 2 distinct questions/issues raised by the original poster in this thread. The first was a question of legality, and the second was a charge that makers of replica material are not demonstrating creativity. I would suggest you read the first post over again so you can understand better.

You chose to ignore the creativity question entirely, claiming it was never raised. Then you ignored my answer to the legality question and repeatedly questioned how my answers to the creativity issue made any sense in response to the legality topic. The obvious answer is they don't and they were nver intended to. The first sentence of the paragraph you chose to quote every other line from clearly states that those examples had to do with the question of creativity, NOT leagality. Please read more carefully in the future before you reply.

If you have any further questions, let me know.

Creators of replicas simply supply something that exists in the first life or in other environments (movies, videogames etc) but does NOT exist in second life, so they don't violate anyone's rights. Discussing about legal frills seems quite a moot point to me. I did two replicas myself, one of a videogame character dress (Lulu from Final Fantasy X, and i plan on making more from the same game). And a nikon Digital Camera.
The first is simply because i totally love the character and the game, and i don't feel guilty at all in having made it. I am a fierce supporter of Squaresoft in my first life, and i would shoot myself in the crotch area before even touching a pirated copy of their games (and currently pay my monthly fee to them playing Final Fantasy XI), but by making a costume of one of their characters not only i don't give Squaresoft any disadvantages but i actually give them a (minimal of course) advertisement.
And if you think it lacks creativity, i really wonder if an uncreative person could do such a complex costume. I REALLY doubt it (and in any case i'll let my range of totally original clothes speak about my creativity).
About the nikon camera, still standing the point of the lack of any damage for Nikon, it's simply a matter of simulation, exactly like making a replica of an existing car or plane. If you don't like it, go look in the flight simulators' environment and tell the flight sim enthusiasts that they should not fly on exact replicas of real planes because they infringe the rights of manufacturers and airlines... It would be fun to see.
And again i would love to see an uncreative person trying to make it. Maybe he'd come out with a black box with a shiny circle in the middle as a lens.
Anyway, if you don't want them don't buy them. That is all, in any case i would think twice before accusing people that in many cases show high levels of skill and creativity in their replicas (and put lots of hours of hard work into them) of making excuses.