Second Life Forums Archive - Derivatives are Copyright Infringement

blaze Spinnaker

1/2 Serious

Join date: 12 Aug 2004

Posts: 5,898

05-04-2005 08:55

I don't see it Chip.

But, for fun, let me argue your point of view.

What you're doing with Photographs should be labeled as Fair Use because:

1. You often are showing other people how to make clothes in SL, so there is a certain degree of educational use.

2. you could say that these images are slavishly copied reproductions. Very little effort is gone into reproducing them.

3. You are using very tiny perportions in relation to the work as a whole

4. And there is very little effect on the potential marker or value of the copyrighted work.

These are following the fair use guidelines as proposed on

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

ection 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

_____________________

Taken from The last paragraph on pg. 16 of Cory Ondrejka's paper "Changing Realities: User Creation, Communication, and Innovation in Digital Worlds :

"User-created content takes the idea of leveraging player opinions a step further by allowing them to effectively prototype new ideas and features. Developers can then measure which new concepts most improve the products and incorporate them into the game in future patches."

Chip Midnight

ate my baby!

Join date: 1 May 2003

Posts: 10,231

05-04-2005 10:01

From: blaze Spinnaker

I don't see it Chip.

Obviously.

From: someone

But, for fun, let me argue your point of view.

What you're doing with Photographs should be labeled as Fair Use because:

1. You often are showing other people how to make clothes in SL, so there is a certain degree of educational use.

2. you could say that these images are slavishly copied reproductions. Very little effort is gone into reproducing them.

3. You are using very tiny perportions in relation to the work as a whole

4. And there is very little effect on the potential marker or value of the copyrighted work.

You mean "for fun, let me put words in your mouth." Go reread everything I've written on this subject already Blaze. I've covered all of this at length already. If you disagree with me, that's your prerogative. This horse is dead.

_____________________

My other hobby:
www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight

Arcadia Codesmith

Not a guest

Join date: 8 Dec 2004

Posts: 766

05-04-2005 10:52

The "Fair Use" angle is interesting, but the DMCA really clamped down on it, and in any case it doesn't apply to commercial use. You could argue that selling for Lindens rather than Dollars isn't really commercial use, but I think that's like arguing that playing poker for chips rather than currency isn't really gambling... as long as you can cash the chips in, it's for real.

Photographers have 100% control over the right to produce ANY derivative work from their photos -- that's one of the key purposes of copyright. There's an exception for "mechanical reproduction" (as of public domain 2D artwork, which has no copyright protection), but that exception has been very narrowly defined by the courts to works that indisputably lack any creative input, and has been specifically rejected in at least one case for catalog images.

I don't think there's any firm basis to believe that using other people's photos as a texture source is allowable under copyright law, and even in the narrow cases where it is, it's still subject to interpretation. When in doubt, don't do it.

Disclaimer: not a lawyer. Do your homework.

Jeska Linden

Administrator

Join date: 26 Jul 2004

Posts: 2,388

05-04-2005 14:09

I know this is a very heated issue, but please refrain from personally attacking those who you disagree with on the SL Forums.

Roberta Dalek

Probably trouble

Join date: 21 Oct 2004

Posts: 1,174

05-04-2005 21:38

Done some work on this.

There is something in UK and EU law called a "design right".

In the UK an "unregistered design right" attached automatically to designs created after 1st August 1989. This gives the owner the right to stop anyone else in the UK copying the design without authorisation. It lasts for 15 years.

There is a EU one, but only lasts for 3 years.

---
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2671/lambretta-v-next.htm

If you really care this a high court judgement in which Lambretta sued Next and Teddy Smith for copying the colours of a tracksuit. It was decided that colours didn't count.

Derivatives are Copyright Infringement
blaze Spinnaker 1/2 Serious Join date: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 5,898	05-04-2005 08:55 I don't see it Chip. But, for fun, let me argue your point of view. What you're doing with Photographs should be labeled as Fair Use because: 1. You often are showing other people how to make clothes in SL, so there is a certain degree of educational use. 2. you could say that these images are slavishly copied reproductions. Very little effort is gone into reproducing them. 3. You are using very tiny perportions in relation to the work as a whole 4. And there is very little effect on the potential marker or value of the copyrighted work. These are following the fair use guidelines as proposed on http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html ection 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. _____________________ Taken from The last paragraph on pg. 16 of Cory Ondrejka's paper "Changing Realities: User Creation, Communication, and Innovation in Digital Worlds : "User-created content takes the idea of leveraging player opinions a step further by allowing them to effectively prototype new ideas and features. Developers can then measure which new concepts most improve the products and incorporate them into the game in future patches."
Chip Midnight ate my baby! Join date: 1 May 2003 Posts: 10,231	05-04-2005 10:01 From: blaze Spinnaker I don't see it Chip. Obviously. From: someone But, for fun, let me argue your point of view. What you're doing with Photographs should be labeled as Fair Use because: 1. You often are showing other people how to make clothes in SL, so there is a certain degree of educational use. 2. you could say that these images are slavishly copied reproductions. Very little effort is gone into reproducing them. 3. You are using very tiny perportions in relation to the work as a whole 4. And there is very little effect on the potential marker or value of the copyrighted work. You mean "for fun, let me put words in your mouth." Go reread everything I've written on this subject already Blaze. I've covered all of this at length already. If you disagree with me, that's your prerogative. This horse is dead. _____________________ My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
Arcadia Codesmith Not a guest Join date: 8 Dec 2004 Posts: 766	05-04-2005 10:52 The "Fair Use" angle is interesting, but the DMCA really clamped down on it, and in any case it doesn't apply to commercial use. You could argue that selling for Lindens rather than Dollars isn't really commercial use, but I think that's like arguing that playing poker for chips rather than currency isn't really gambling... as long as you can cash the chips in, it's for real. Photographers have 100% control over the right to produce ANY derivative work from their photos -- that's one of the key purposes of copyright. There's an exception for "mechanical reproduction" (as of public domain 2D artwork, which has no copyright protection), but that exception has been very narrowly defined by the courts to works that indisputably lack any creative input, and has been specifically rejected in at least one case for catalog images. I don't think there's any firm basis to believe that using other people's photos as a texture source is allowable under copyright law, and even in the narrow cases where it is, it's still subject to interpretation. When in doubt, don't do it. Disclaimer: not a lawyer. Do your homework.
Jeska Linden Administrator Join date: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 2,388	05-04-2005 14:09 I know this is a very heated issue, but please refrain from personally attacking those who you disagree with on the SL Forums.
Roberta Dalek Probably trouble Join date: 21 Oct 2004 Posts: 1,174	05-04-2005 21:38 Done some work on this. There is something in UK and EU law called a "design right". In the UK an "unregistered design right" attached automatically to designs created after 1st August 1989. This gives the owner the right to stop anyone else in the UK copying the design without authorisation. It lasts for 15 years. There is a EU one, but only lasts for 3 years. --- http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2671/lambretta-v-next.htm If you really care this a high court judgement in which Lambretta sued Next and Teddy Smith for copying the colours of a tracksuit. It was decided that colours didn't count.

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

Derivatives are Copyright Infringement