Betty Boop, Hello Kitty, and Celebrety Jeans

Ok? No. Likely to get you sued? Probably not. The primary distinction lies between copyright (for which fair use is fairly generous) and trademarks (for which fair use is pretty-much limited to nominative use). With regards to trademarks, pretty much the only fair use is to use the trademark to identify the trademarked good. Any other use, such as painting the trademarked logo on your garage door, is a violation which the trademark holder is obligated to defend against.

You mean I'll be able to drive my virtual Nissan in real life? Bizzam! Sign me up!

I have to agree with Ardith on this one. When I see Star-Trek type replicators become a reality then we can talk about the virtual -> RL problem. Until then, virtual life is SEPERATE than real life. Even if people get caught up in SL, make money, etc, there is still a line that cannot be crossed.


Brendan Ludd

And magazine photos of cars are just virtualization of cars, but try to print GM's trademark on your magazine photo and be prepared for some hot-and-heavy legal action.

Your intuition about trademarks is just plain wrong. Most peoples' intuition about how things ought to be compared to how the law works usually is. Ask anyone who has been through an acrimonious divorce.

why do people have such a hard time grasping this? Nissan (to pick a name) has spent time, money and energy building up a brand for Nissan cars. WHATEVER they are trying to message with their brand - that they are fast, or high quality, etc

Then someone piggybacks on that branding in Second Life and says "I'm going to make and sell Nissan cars in SL." Well, Nissan spent the time, money and energy to create and build their brand, and they have a right to control how it is used when it comes to making and selling "Nissan cars".

It doesn't matter if you don't think SL is real. It is an unauthorized representation of that brand. Why else would a car racing Xbox game need to get permission? Why else would a model car replica manufacturer need to get permission?



My guess is that personal use will probably be fine but I don't have legal precedent to point to. This noise may seem out of proportion right now, but I think it is useful to get people to think about these issues.

I have no desire to see an SL-wide witch hunt for IP violations, and hate the thought of a tattle tale culture. However, I DO think it is rather stand-up of ursula to take this step.

Complicating matters is that online virtual spaces don't really fall into the same legal definition of a real-world space. You may be using it for personal use, but it can also be argued that you're broadcasting or publishing it, even if nobody else can actually see or do anything with the virtual car.

Read his comment: "This is a virtual world, like someone said, at no point will anyone be able to use their virtual Nissan in real life."

"at no point" is a rather bold declaration.

I mean that there will come a time when you will be able to do exactly this. SL is increasingly looking like the PLM software used by major corporations. I use PTC's Pro/ENGINEER which is now becoming a kind of subset of their Windchill PLM software. They are one of several major players in the PLM software market. If you're familiar with the very recent announcements from these companies (and BusinessWeek online has been doing a pretty good job of watching them lately) - especially the one by Dassault - then you're aware that they're rapidly creating their own miniature corporate virtual worlds applications to assist companies in global product development.

At some point, there will be no significant difference between the 3D data in a virtual world, and the 3D data used to manufacture these products.

In this thread , one resident has apparently already "grown" a prim in RL (i.e. has sent the file out to an RP for fabrication).

[Edit: and while I'm hesitant to link to it yet again, here's something you'll probably find even more unbelievable - intercepting the 3D information that's sent to your videocard and turning that into a manufacturable object > link ]

Me, I wanna sign up to drive my Hammerhead hover vehicle or my Shrike.

-Ghoti

In truth I am not so sure it is clear that a virtual representation is in the same market for purposes of infringement. It has never really been tested. If I am going to make GT and depict real cars, and make millions on the deal, thenI am going to get permission for every car I use, or change its name (like they did with porsche). The reason being that I seriously do not want to riks my revenue stream on the possiblity that some judge might find they are competing uses. Any attorney who advised his clients otherwise should check his malpractice carrier. There are very few brightline distinctions in this law.

As far as the comment about putting GMS logo in a magazine. Thats not likely to get you sued unless you are trying to pass of the magazing as a GM in house magazine.

In many cases properly identifying the trademark holder and inidcated that your use presents no challenge to the rights assert by the right holder is suffiecient to cure any infringement. The problem we have is how to do this on virtual goods. Sl prese4nt a very unique situation, outside the scope of current legal experience. these issues are critical, without a doubt. But anyone who draws a very bright line and says "It means this, or that" is not doing a service.

It might make sense to adopt a community practice of including a note card with purchased items stating that permission has ben obtianed, or that the image is used without permission, but no challenge is intended by the use.