Copyright single attack in SL?

George Bush

*runs*

Yepper - LL has to excise due diligence to protect trademarks by asking residents to stop.


_/_/

Does this mean I have to take off my Hello Kitty thong?

Yes. Rawr

It is getting insane. Check out what Apple's doing...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/apple.html

Suing your biggest fans isn't normally what I'd call protecting your brand; its egotism taken to the level of insanity.

-Flip

*shrugs* Which is why I am not a fanatic to any single thing enough to try to recreate it. Especially if it's owned by the words Marvel or Paramount, both of whom are zealous in the protection of their copyrights.

Even Disney hasn't been /that/ zealous in the enforcement of their copyrights, because they want their fans to be able to have that desire to keep buying/watch/using their merchandise.

After being slapped down in CoH, many players quit using Marvel stuff, even though they were almost fanatical about say X-men. (hides from the lawsuit for just mentioning the damned name)

It's a balancing act on the part of the Copyright holders, that's for sure. But ultimately, it's up to them to enforce their own copyrights. To quote one of my art profs, "If you aren't willing to enforce your copyright, then no one else will. Not the law, not the government, no one. It's not in their best interest that copyright laws exist."

I'd be (somewhat) surprised if LL was acting on a copyright infringement. I suspect this is a trademark violation (and assume that an earlier post is correct in this regard). Can you confirm which?

I was once told to remove merchandise that had real sports teams logos on them. You're friend is not alone. I happens from time to time.

You know, now that I think about it, those RHPS lips Philip proudly adorned his chest with for like years on end are probably copyrighted. Granted, he probably didn't buy or sell that shirt (considering I could make that myself, and why would a dude who can mint his own money sell anything?), but it's still kind of amusing.

Think people are missing a crucial point -




The Linden's already said stop.

So she should.

The rest is academic conjecture about laws and fairness, etc.

If she could prove that it was not copyrighted material then shed have a case.

The fact that other people have copyrighted content is beside the point.

For all we know a representative of the Hello Kitty brand contacted LL. Isnt really any of our concern, including the content provider's. They asked her to stop with that Av, so she should.

Maybe I'm just a naughty person (I break speed limits where and when I judge it to be truly safe to do so), but I think all these threads about IP abuse are a mistake.

There is no doubt in my mind it is only a matter of time until there is a big clamp-down, rigorous enforcement of the law, inspections, hostile reporting, the lot. Not if, but when.

And worse, the differences between different jurisdictions will eventually risk putting borders and dividing lines into the grid and indeed the internet, unless our governments can reach international agreements which would be very difficult.

This is childrens playtime, the golden age of freedom (and yes, abuse) to which we will look back in wistful nostalgia. In my opinion the best thing is to keep quiet, stir nothing up. No need to hurry things along, it'll come soon enough. More and more discussion in forum, explanatory questions to LL - all these things could be quoted in a court of law, and make it more difficult for LL to delay some sort of overarching action.

Just enjoy this temporary freedom, obey the sporadic removal commands, and keep your head down.

But big NEW investment in infringing products would be foolish, I think.

I'm with the copyright holders in this case simply because if I owned a trademark or copyright, I wouldn't want others to use it without my permission. The without my permission being the crux of the matter.

Why bother to create something if it becomes fair game. I am NOT in favor of the way copyrights are being extended into infinity by revisions to U.S. law. (not sure about Europe or the rest of the world). The idea of a copyright was that the creator had the right to benefit exclusively from the results of their work for a set period of time. That time generally included their immediate heirs. That makes sense for the individual. After that time, the product became public domain, thus benefiting the society. This balanced individual rights with public good in a way that I think made sense.

Trademarks were perpetual because it was recognized that it was another way of naming the business. And because they are more limited in scope. Even so, if your trademarked name becomes a common term for the item, you risk losing it. An example doesn't spring to mind atm, but I know Xerox came close to losing their trademark status because people called making copies "xeroxing".

My problem with Disney, and their ilk is that they are lobbying law makers (successfully) to extend the cultural copyrights they own into the forseeable future. I do believe these should be treated differently than physical property, such as a building. Within a reasonable time, I believe intellectual property should enter the public domain... otherwise derivitive culture dies. And frankly, most culture is derivitive.. We build on the foundations laid by others.

Anyway... LL does need to do what it considers to be reasonable to cover it's own legal behind. It may not be "fair" but considering what they have stated in the TOS, forums, etc.... it is to be expected.

Ok, that is seriously creepy.

Wrong.
Commercial use and profits are the issue, not vanity characters or tributes.

Yes and such a fuckin' shame that the european copyright is held by a children's hospital who takes in donations to help pay the expenses for extremely sick children who have no insurance. While LL put on their tribute and parody (as you call it, others saw and continue to see if differently), wouldn't it have been nice if a check had been sent to that very same hospital for the children saying... "We had fun, please use this as our way of saying thanks."

But then again, it was a parody. And a parody requires no donation boxes. In fact, a parody is a way of trying to escape any form of legal responsibility.

/endsarcasm

This post should just end with this Miss McDonald image and quote. Leave with a laugh

Erm. We have state health care here. The donations are for equipment and research. There should be no presonal expenses for any patient.

So what exactly is the 'retail value' of a Hello Kitty avatar? Where can I buy one (outside SL)?

Just a thought!

I think, because SL is a grey area when in comes to reproduction of copyrighted material they (LL) are just trying to cover their ass, and they are probably better off doing so. Who knows how a 80-year old judge who has never used a computer before would decide if someone brought such a case in front of him/her.

Create, don't copy/imitate!

Right here! (clicky-linky-thingy)

Technicly you can't buy a Hello Kitty avatar there to my knowledge, but the entire world is a commercial endevor branded with the Hello Kitty trademark, so...

Fair game or no - public domain IP is still not "free" to distribute without explicit permissions to do so from the rights holder.

The rights holder with Public Domain *is* the public. That's why it's called Public Domain. Once a copyrighted item falls into the public domain, it can be used in any way, shape or form as the public (meaning pretty much anyone) wants.

If an individual owned the rights to it, it'd be then called Private Domain.


- Newfie

Errr, no. Something which is public domain, as opposed to simply public, does not require anyones permission to do things with. What your saying is a contridiction in terms - Public domain does not have a rights holder in the sense you are thinking of. Rights have either expired or were waived.

Lindens though could be responding from previous experience. Maybe the company HAS been in communication with LL before and therefore they already have knowledge that the company WILL persue if discovered. LL though being responsible and wanting not to have anyone going to court is telling the player ahead of time before the player gets slapped with a lawsuit.

The old idea of touching the hot pan applies here. LL watched a customer touch the hot pan and they got burnt...they aren't gonna let another customer get the same.

Bizarre! MacDonald's cosplay or something! LOL

-Ghoti