A friend of mine has started making some amazing avies based on some like Hello Kitty characters. It has gotten her excited and more into playing Second Life again. She has sold very few but was contacted by a Linden to halt the sale of any avie with the distinct design and was told to modify them because they are copyright characters.
Is this weird? I think so mainly because they are relativly obsure characters based on the tons we see throughout Second Life. Everything from movies, music, cartoons and videogames have been represented. There are even dedicated stores that sell only certain copy righted merchandise.
I don't understand why a budding designer was told she couldn't have anything be "Hello Kitty" while there at least 50 different creators that have used that same character on various objects, clothes and avies. It just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Copyright single attack in SL? |
|
|
bingbangboom Bixby
Registered User
Join date: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 92
|
08-03-2005 21:30
|
|
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
|
08-03-2005 21:36
Ever gone fishing?
...Didja catch 'em all? _____________________
|
|
Lynn Lippmann
Toe Jammer
Join date: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 793
|
08-03-2005 21:50
Well, let's see... LL is sponsoring an Elvis look-alike contest of sorts; LL has sponsored and allowed The Wizard of Oz and Peter Pan -- all of thse have valid copyrights and licenses for use.
Pot, meet the kettle. Both are black. You can't enforce what you don't follow yourself. Then again, the new Napster ruling might have a huge effect on what you are permitted to see in SL and what you can't. _____________________
They give us new smilies
 but what about the TOES? Toe the line Linden's! Toes for the Toeless! |
|
Lianne Marten
Cheese Baron
Join date: 6 May 2004
Posts: 2,192
|
08-03-2005 22:02
Well I hope it doesn't end up that no one will be allowed to make reproductions of copyrighted things in SL. A lot of new people get into building by making reproductions of whatever they love in real life. If they do, and then get slapped on the wrist for doing so, it will leave a bad taste in their mouth regarding SL.
_____________________
|
|
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
|
08-03-2005 22:02
Things were so much more serene around here before Pandora's box was opened
 _____________________
------------------
The Shelter The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world. |
|
Catherine Omega
Geometry Ninja
Join date: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 2,053
|
08-03-2005 22:03
Unfortunately, relative obscurity doesn't negate copyright or trademark infringement. Neither does other people doing it.
You're not allowed to use materials that you aren't licensed to reproduce within SL. If other people are also breaking the law, that doesn't make it okay. They're also in violation of the TOS and intellectual property law, and the Lindens will remove their content if and when they become aware of it. This is a preventative measure to reduce the number of potential legal threats and DMCA takedown requests they would have to process and deal with from copyright and trademark holders. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written in 1900 and has entered the public domain. The 1939 movie, The Wizard of Oz, is still under copyright, and MGM will kick your butt if you try to do anything beyond parody. (It's been a while, but if I recall, the key difference between MGM's work and L. Frank Baum's is that in the novel, they're silver slippers, not ruby.) Peter Pan is in the public domain in several jurisdictions, (Canada, parts of Europe, if I recall -- I think it's still under copyright in the UK for another few years) and it had entered the public domain prior to copyright term extensions being passed in the US, meaning it will remain there. Were the Lindens to produce a Knight Rider attraction, they could expect some serious legal opposition to that, but works in the public domain are fair game. _____________________
|
|
Reitsuki Kojima
Witchhunter
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,328
|
08-03-2005 22:03
Then again, the new Napster ruling might have a huge effect on what you are permitted to see in SL and what you can't. Not unless it were to get *wildly* mis-interperated. Which, given the state of things *cough*eminentdomain*cough*, I guess you cant rule out. _____________________
I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
|
|
Minsk Oud
Registered User
Join date: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 85
|
08-03-2005 22:15
How about: Ever tried to avoid getting sued, where every time you ask someone to stop infringing Copyright for commercial purposes they whine about being unfairly penalized?
Sorry, that was overly blunt. US law makes infringment of trademarks and copyrights very serious offences. In addition to the possibility of the designer and LL being sued in civil court, there are nifty felonies attached to infringement for commercial purposes in the states. If you have not found the means to avoid infringement, don't complain when you get shut down (at least you are not getting sued by the RIAA under exactly the same laws). Write the company, ask for permission, negotiate for royalties if necessary... just like in the real world. Let's try to keep our alleged facts somewhat factual please. Both The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Peter Pan are available in the public domain. <edit>That's what I get for over-rewriting. Sorry about the bump.</edit> |
|
Catherine Omega
Geometry Ninja
Join date: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 2,053
|
08-03-2005 22:24
Well I hope it doesn't end up that no one will be allowed to make reproductions of copyrighted things in SL. A lot of new people get into building by making reproductions of whatever they love in real life. If they do, and then get slapped on the wrist for doing so, it will leave a bad taste in their mouth regarding SL. Just so we're on the same page here, trademark and copyright infringement aren't the same thing. In the case of Hello Kitty, the character design constitutes a trademarked logo, in the same way that Mickey Mouse is. Unlike copyright or patents, trademarks don't expire after a fixed period of time, as long as they're protected by their holder. The only way for them to expire is through trademark dilution, when other identical or confusingly similar marks are used, or when the term enters common speech as a generic term: "aspirin" and "heroin" are two common examples cited. Today, other examples of trademarks that risk becoming generic names for the product, not the brand include "Xerox" and "band-aid". Our culture's tendancy towards "verbification" leads to terms like "photoshopped" and "googled", as well. This makes trademark holders anxious. That said, copyright infringement is much more likely to be ignored by the Lindens, though they will remove it when notified. _____________________
|
|
Chie Salome
~( * w * )~
Join date: 19 May 2005
Posts: 221
|
08-03-2005 22:36
Sanrio, the copyright holder of Hello Kitty is like Disney's conterpart in Japan and is known to be very fierce in protecting their characters. I don't know about their business in US but we can't just make lists of "safe" and "unsafe" copyright/trademark holders. (Now come to think of it, I've never seen Micky or Donald in SL yet...)
I'm sorry about your friend but I think it was necessary. Some slacking lawyer who is bored to death may come wandering in looking for untapped source of money any day, which will pose the proverbial knife at LL's and OUR throat. I agree that those copyright mongers suck but that doesn't justify me for infringing copyrights at everyone's risk. And it's not like we have an army of copyright patrol Lindens. I don't think they are prejudiced or anything. They'll do the same to others as they stumble across the darned mouse-murdering mouthless creature. Maybe your friend put her product up on SL Exchange or something that is "searchable", or the avie was so cool that someone has Snapzilladed it? BTW, Sanrio put a Hello Kitty jewelry pendant priced at 5,770,000 yen (52K US$) on sale last month and someone actually bought it for his daughter  Crazy... |
|
Jesrad Seraph
Nonsense
Join date: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,463
|
08-03-2005 22:57
Unless the copyright holder him/herself (or a legal representative) tells LL to tell your friend to stop making these avies, there is no reason to not continue. You can't sue or threaten of suing on someone else's behalf. Which is why I'm raising an eyebrow at Lindens starting to enforce third parties' copyrights on their own initiative... But of course it'd be safer to ask permission, obviously.
_____________________
Either Man can enjoy universal freedom, or Man cannot. If it is possible then everyone can act freely if they don't stop anyone else from doing same. If it is not possible, then conflict will arise anyway so punch those that try to stop you. In conclusion the only strategy that wins in all cases is that of doing what you want against all adversity, as long as you respect that right in others.
|
|
Aretis Pollack
Pirate Kitty
Join date: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 22
|
08-03-2005 23:16
"Maybe your friend put her product up on SL Exchange or something that is "searchable", or the avie was so cool that someone has Snapzilladed it?"
Or, maybe a Linden bought several avatars and decided to show them off to his other Linden friends?  I'd like to know why I was singled out when I see copyrighted materials all over SL....and for sale as well. I understand that LL can't condone this practice, but they should have some sort of policing system in place to prevent it, not just a random peck and hunt. If its not ok for me to do it, then let's make it fair and ban ALL copyrighted images, sounds, movies, etc. I can start a list if you'd like I for one have a very bitter taste in my mouth..  btw, when I was informed I was in violation, I decided to go take a look at LL's policy on copyright. Have you ever tried to find it? The TOS should be a big red button at the top of the page or easily found in game. We should be informed of LL's policy at every turn if we are expected to know when its ok to use copyrighted (or trademarked..or whatever) materials... and when its not. |
|
Enabran Templar
Capitalist Pig
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,506
|
08-03-2005 23:18
Unless the copyright holder him/herself (or a legal representative) tells LL to tell your friend to stop making these avies, there is no reason to not continue. You can't sue or threaten of suing on someone else's behalf. Which is why I'm raising an eyebrow at Lindens starting to enforce third parties' copyrights on their own initiative... But of course it'd be safer to ask permission, obviously. Linden Lab can't bring suit against a resident for infringing on someone else's copyright -- they have no standing in such a case. They can, however, remove infringing resident-created content on their own servers. It's simple self-defense -- no one wants to be a party to copyright infringement. _____________________
Furthermore, as Second Life goes to the Metaverse, and this becomes an open platform, Linden Lab risks lawsuit in court and [attachment culling] will, I repeat WILL be reverse in court. Second Life Forums: Who needs Reason when you can use bold tags? |
|
Enabran Templar
Capitalist Pig
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,506
|
08-03-2005 23:22
btw, when I was informed I was in violation, I decided to go take a look at LL's policy on copyright. Have you ever tried to find it? The TOS should be a big red button at the top of the page or easily found in game. We should be informed of LL's policy at every turn if we are expected to know when its ok to use copyrighted (or trademarked..or whatever) materials... and when its not. I've read Linden Lab's DMCA disclosures a few times, as well as the terms of use. The DMCA policy is enumerated here: http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php The Terms of Service also talk at decent length about copyright and IP, but it's scattered around. The long and the sort of it is, you're responsible for understanding the law as it relates to your content. _____________________
Furthermore, as Second Life goes to the Metaverse, and this becomes an open platform, Linden Lab risks lawsuit in court and [attachment culling] will, I repeat WILL be reverse in court. Second Life Forums: Who needs Reason when you can use bold tags? |
|
Roberta Dalek
Probably trouble
Join date: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 1,174
|
08-04-2005 00:03
Peter Pan is in the public domain in several jurisdictions, (Canada, parts of Europe, if I recall -- I think it's still under copyright in the UK for another few years) and it had entered the public domain prior to copyright term extensions being passed in the US, meaning it will remain there. The copyright status of Peter Pan is interesting. I believed that it was under perpetual copyright but apparently this isn't the case. Wikipedia says until 2007 in the EU. Great Ormand Street children's hospital gets royalties for any perforance or publication - it's in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988: 301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play 'Peter Pan' by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31 December 1987. However the Second Life interpretation was heavily based on (I think) the film with the soundtrack streaming etc. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan) _____________________
See my stuff on SL Boutique!
|
|
Cristiano Midnight
Evil Snapshot Baron
Join date: 17 May 2003
Posts: 8,616
|
08-04-2005 00:27
Unless the copyright holder him/herself (or a legal representative) tells LL to tell your friend to stop making these avies, there is no reason to not continue. You can't sue or threaten of suing on someone else's behalf. Which is why I'm raising an eyebrow at Lindens starting to enforce third parties' copyrights on their own initiative... But of course it'd be safer to ask permission, obviously. Yes, you're right, there is no reason to not continue - except that it is stealing the protected work of another company - but don't let a pesky little thing like that get in the way. As Sanrio has both an online world of their own and a pretty litigious reputation - I personally would be saying Adios Kitty if LL had warned me about it. _____________________
Cristiano
ANOmations - huge selection of high quality, low priced animations all $100L or less. ~SLUniverse.com~ SL's oldest and largest community site, featuring Snapzilla image sharing, forums, and much more.  |
|
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
|
08-04-2005 00:27
However the Second Life interpretation was heavily based on (I think) the film with the soundtrack streaming etc. ... and was not for profit, as I recall. AV copyright is sort of a fuzzy area. While selling the AVs for profit is pretty clearly an infringement, I would find any corporation hard-pressed to sue the owners of the AVs. After all - that'd be like suing someone for dressing up like Ronald McDonald. Now, if they wore the AV for commercial purposes, we're back in the original infringement. _____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------ http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com |
|
Zonax Delorean
Registered User
Join date: 5 Jun 2004
Posts: 767
|
08-04-2005 00:28
A friend of mine has started making some amazing avies based on some like Hello Kitty characters.[...] This is not the first case when someone's BREAKING THE LAW and then whining about it (though he/she should be lucky to have gotten away without having to go to courts.) Did you know that you can get more years in jail for copyright infrigement, than (in some cases) murder? Is the law broken? Yes, I think so. Is the right way to fight the law just ignoring it? No, I don't think that will accomplish anything. Other than getting yourself into jail. I don't have too big ideas, but maybe contact/ask/support the EFF (http://www.eff.org/) or any organization that might help make the law better. |
|
Cristiano Midnight
Evil Snapshot Baron
Join date: 17 May 2003
Posts: 8,616
|
08-04-2005 00:33
... and was not for profit, as I recall. AV copyright is sort of a fuzzy area. While selling the AVs for profit is pretty clearly an infringement, I would find any corporation hard-pressed to sue the owners of the AVs. After all - that'd be like suing someone for dressing up like Ronald McDonald. Now, if they wore the AV for commercial purposes, we're back in the original infringement. It is a fuzzy area. More and more, you see companies sending out cease and desist lets to fan web sites for using pictures, logos, etc, even for non-commercial purposes. I personally think this goes way too far and can have the effect of alienating the very customers who support you enough to want to have a fan site. The avatar thing is an interesting grey area - if it is not for sale, I am not sure if it would fall under fair use or not. _____________________
Cristiano
ANOmations - huge selection of high quality, low priced animations all $100L or less. ~SLUniverse.com~ SL's oldest and largest community site, featuring Snapzilla image sharing, forums, and much more. |
|
Zonax Delorean
Registered User
Join date: 5 Jun 2004
Posts: 767
|
08-04-2005 00:38
I am not a lawyer (by far not, lol
 but Googling gave me this (I hope the LAW doesn't have copyright protection on it http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000506----000-.html § 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either— (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. § 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright Release date: 2004-08-06 (a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law. (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17— (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case. (c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code— (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000. So there you have it, you can get up to 1, 3, 5 or 10 years of jail for infrigement, depending on case, the 1 year starting at around $1000 retail value. |
|
Lordfly Digeridoo
Prim Orchestrator
Join date: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 3,628
|
08-04-2005 05:12
edit: nm, catherine beat me to it
_____________________
----
http://www.lordfly.com/ http://www.twitter.com/lordfly http://www.plurk.com/lordfly |
|
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
|
08-04-2005 05:48
I know it's somewhat old news - but thought this might be relevant for those who have Avatars similar to a copyrighted item, but not for sale:
Federal Judge Dismisses Claims and Strikes Allegations in Marvel Lawsuit Against NCsoft _____________________
------------------
The Shelter The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world. |
|
Blayze Raine
Renegade
Join date: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 407
|
08-04-2005 05:57
Ever gone fishing? ...Didja catch 'em all? yes but the thing is, do they really try to catch them all? The onesie-twosie of telling people to stop selling is not the way to catch them. In blunt terms, shit or get off the pot. Either tell EVERYONE that there will be no copyright/trademark infringements or turn the blind eye. Yes, its in the TOS but as with the forum rules, there needs to be reminders of these things. They cannot use the excuse of we catch them when they are reported. C'mon, thats a CYA if I ever saw it. They support a New Products forum. Right now, there is infractions going on in there from shoes to vehicles. Its not a choice to enforce rules, either you do it or you don't. |
|
Reitsuki Kojima
Witchhunter
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,328
|
08-04-2005 06:01
They cannot use the excuse of we catch them when they are reported. C'mon, thats a CYA if I ever saw it. Yes, more or less: Linden labs lacks the manpower to police SL totaly, they are too small of a company by far. What they will do is take care of things they find out about; his is indeed CYA, but it's a good thing... It protects LL from being seued for allowing copyright infringment. _____________________
I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us.
|
|
Merwan Marker
Booring...
Join date: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 4,706
|
08-04-2005 06:02
Things were so much more serene around here before Pandora's box was opened Who opened it? _____________________
Don't Worry, Be Happy - Meher Baba
|