Betty Boop, Hello Kitty, and Celebrety Jeans

With all the threads about abuse reporting trademark and copyright infringement I want everyone to know I am going to remove my Betty Boop, Hello Kitty and Celebrety Jeans. As of right now I am having serious computer problems. I haven't even been able to download the latest version of SL. My computer crashes randomly, but seldom runs longer that 30 minutes. As soon as I get my computer running where I can get into SL again I will remove these items. I have drafted a letter to send to the owners of the Betty Boop trademark with the hopes of getting to keep selling, but, if I haven't heard anything by the time I get my computer running again, I will remove them.

Aww crap hun this sucks!



Personally I think its all bordering on insanity now

Then you see the need for a more rational intellectual property system? There's no real equivilent of fair use/fair dealing when trademarks are concerned, and I find it difficult to imagine that there ever really could be, but perhaps a more straightforward licensing model might allow trademark holders to license their marks more directly, and to smaller publishers and companies. ( I support standardized IP licensing: Creative Commons is very handy, but of course only applies to copyright.)

The problem with licensing trademarks is that trademark and service mark holders must vigilantly protect their marks, or they risk losing them. A trademark is only exclusive if its exclusivity is actively enforced.

It would be difficult to assert that anyone could confuse a "borrowed" design or mark in SL as having anything to do with the real-life company that owns it. Still, that's what the law says is the case; you can't use other companies' marks or copyrighted material without their permission, even if there's no way anyone could confuse your use for an authorized effort from that company.

Under US law, copyrighted material can be removed by the Lindens, when directed to do so by a copyright holder or their representative. There is no corresponding law for dealing with trademarks, so Linden Lab needs to remove all infringing materials, to protect itself. If you have a "Coca-Cola" sign on your land, Linden Lab could get sued if they refused to remove it.

Yes, I understand that and see your point, really I do. I just think its annoying that people are having to remove things because of it. I mean people use pictures every day on the internet etc, of Hello Kitty, The Simpsons, and a ton of other things, I can't see why that image cannot be used in SL too without this hooha...

Trust me I work in a University and we have a hell of a time explaining to students that we cannot simply let them copy big chunks out of films and use in their coursework movies, and also why they cannot rip mp3's and use them over the movies they made, why we can't view videos in the foyer incase somebody that isn't a part of the university wanders in and catches a glimpse, as all those go against laws.

All just seems a bit pants.

For those that blatantly don't try and come up with new ideas and infringe copyright, fair enough, take em down. It's all about imagination! Apparently >.>

I've had too much coffee and got involved in serious issues, I must get back to tea and trolling!

Oh no, you can infringe copyright all you want; it's just that there are potential consequences -- basically, you may get any infringing material removed.

It's trademark infringement that we have to be aware of and strongly urged not to commit. The problem with appropriating someone else's trademark in SL is that any potential consequences may apply to the Lindens as well, and since they're a more easily-defined target, with more money, it's possible they could be the only defendant in a lawsuit.

(By the way, I hope no one's getting the wrong idea about my own personal feelings on intellectual property law. I'm only listing the way things are, not the way they ought to be. )

Err, not exactly: trademarks are registered within precise geographic and market domains. I can make Apple cars and not get sued by Apple Computer*, for example.

The consequence is that the enforceability of any trademark within SL is debatable on this very point: is "Nissan SL cars" dealership the same as RL Nissan cars dealership* ? Is there unfair competition in such a case ?



*as long as the graphic design of the brand is significantly different, of course. Interpretation of "significantly" varies with judges, jurisdictions and how high your lawyer's hourly rate

Yes, this was the particular type of trademark I was referring to, and yes, visually dissimilar marks may be used to apply to products in non-competing markets, but replicas of products themselves are definitely infringing.

No, but there is "brand confusion". If I build a replica of a Nissan dealership, would a reasonable person have reason to believe that it was operated by Nissan? No, probably not. Could a court rule that it was? Oh, yes.

Sell the Judge a copy of an SL created Nissan and ask him to drive home in it... THEN ask him if there is any confusion between SL and an RL Nissan dealership.

Good point.

LMAO!

"So I get into it like...?"
"No, no, just run at the screen, your honour."
"Okay, here goes... OH GOD, THE PAIN."

Wasn't there a law that said hello kitty is too cute & should be distributed freely to all of man kind?

I really, really must stop trying to read the forums while drinking... <mops up keyboard and monitor>

It is a good idea to try and contact the owner of the license, so you can show the judge that if nothing else, you did make the honest effort to contact and get permission from them. It is not your fault that they did not get back to you, which is often going to be the case.

Apparently judges have had some success driving home in a wide variety of virtual cars. There is/was a "Jeep™" radio for sale which used the brand identifying marks of the car. I knew someone who bought that radio. I never saw him drive home in it.

The issue is brand association; not functional (or even "real" product.

I agree that IP laws, lawyers, and marketroids have gotten a bit nuts over the last decade or so. I've seen chain restaurants with things like "tastee fryes®" on the menu and can just imagine the up-and-comming marketing guy getting a promotion for preventing any other chain from selling "tastee fryes" (however the guy always looks like Christian Bale in American Psycho).

However, I think the history of trademark law actually makes sense. When merchants were trying to establish their product as distinct from similar products, marks were important and copying someone else's mark on your product was fraudulent, bad for the mark holder and bad for the consumer. If I wanted Pappy O'Daniel flour I wanted flour from that mill, not a knock-off.

The excesses of "everything I (or the firm) ever thought of is Intellectual Property and is valuable, and *mine*" is nuts, and the recent erosion of fair use is stifling. Worse still are the MP/RIAA campaigns to "criminalize" their customers. But an established, protected mark is good for all involved.

reason people do it is because when they join they were told that you can create anything tell me how manny actualed look at the licening agreement before saying yes really.

but getting rid of infringers wont destroy sl seeing how sl is just a giant sex pot with tringo and casinos thrown in heck you could cut out the middle man at this point and create a web site that was based on gambling porn and tringo and allow the people to bet through pay pal.

but get off your high horse building realife items is just pratice for somelook at how manny actually sell their stuff.

Just a thought Urusula, but what is the difference between going to a RL tattoo shop and buying a Betty Boop or Hello Kitty tattoo and having it drawn on your SL Jeans? Or for that matter, having the face of a Celebrity tattooed on your fanny or wearing it on the back of your jeans?

If you paint the picture of the image (as opposed to taking the art from an existing copyrighted photo), is it still copyright infringement?

BTW - I love your jeans and now I wish I'd bought the Betty Boop pair along with all the others.

THAT, Rose, is why I'm thinking that we could make a case that we are WEARING DRAWINGS.

And as long as we only give them away and wear them, and not sell them, we are o.k. (Or maybe give away but not sell Campbell's Soup or Mazda cars also. But especially the wearable things.)

I wish some lawyer would chime in with the answer to this.

coco

I'm glad somebody clearly pointed this out, with more evidence to back it up - again.

McDonald's, Inc., acting against the McDonald clan in Scotland for unauthorized use is BA gone wild; Nissan asking a virtual Nissan modeler to stop using/presenting its image to thousands or millions online may be a valid BA case, depending on circumstances and the legal breaks.

You're not strategizing for ironclad protection with such arguments, you're strategizing to minimize risk. If you think the risk is worth it, no problem.

Isn't Betty Boop just about 75 years old now, and thus in the public domain?

Cumming Soon!

THE RON JEREMY!

Depends if a renewal was requested. Otherwise Mickey Mouse would be and he was just up for renewal or was it the steam boat version.

I know I am a newb, but I think this is silly. This is a virtual world, like someone said, at no point will anyone be able to use their virtual Nissan in real life. No one will be making money off direct use of the trademark. How can trademark laws pass into a virtual realm? Thats like applying trademark laws to my imagination!!! Am I not allowed to dream about Pepsi or Coke if I want to? Are the lawyers going to stop me?

If I bought a Pepsi in SL from a non-Pepsi dealer ingame and that somehow got me a Pepsi in real life, then yes that would be a trademark issue. However it can't therefore its a moot point.


Brendan Ludd

I thought personal use was considered okay. For example I could paint a harley logo on my garage door in real life but I coudn't sell garage doors with the harley logo on it?
In other words as long as your not making money from it.

Anyone would care to clear this up please?


Rox

I believe you're badly mistaken on this point.