Rant: About respect of other people's effort and people that can't mind own business.

People who steal and profit from the design work of others are thieves.

Thieves do not deserve respect.

The solution to your problem is quite simple.

Recently GM won a trademark infringement suit against a Hong Kong company making toy Hummers.
A copy of the Associated Press newstory can be found here:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/breakingnews/posts/3269.html
...and a forum discussion from a GM enthusiast site:
http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16374
...and an op-ed piece from someone who works in the scale model airplane industry:
http://www.pcmodeler.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=357

Recently GM won a trademark infringement suit against a Hong Kong manufacturer of toy Hummers.
Associated Press story here:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/breakingnews/posts/3269.html
Forum discussion on a GM enthusiast site:
http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16374

Here's an op-ed piece written by someone working in plastic model industry, bemoaning the frustrations of obtaining licenses to produce scale replicas for a leading manufacterer of model airplanes:
http://www.pcmodeler.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=357

The WWFs were coexisting peacefully until they had to occupy the same space (the Internet) when they got into a tussle over wwf.com. Before then, they had a working agreement. But Shiryu's cars and the Toyota motors don't both exist in SL. The same analog doesn't apply.

There are all sorts of fan websites for Toyotas and Nissans, some of which derive revenue through selling products such as coffee mugs, t-shirts, stickers and other ad-space.

I am not sure that they have official sanctioning from their respective trademark owners, but clearly these groups can coexist. The Toyotas of the world might be happy to see people enjoying and promoting their creations.

They might be happy with what he's done. But then again they might not.

What he's doing may be completely legitimate. It might not.

But Shiryu is a nice guy, and until you know the answer to at least one of these questions, maybe you shouldn't give him a hard time about it.

Using the word "Toyota" or "Sharp" across different products/services seems rather different than using the registered trademark of representation for a product that is, in the public's mind, associated with the original. If someone were to create their own logo/brand mark with the name "Toyota" and put it on a product/service not associated with the Japanese corporation, I'm pretty sure there'd be no conflict.

Furthermore, Toyota has already extended it's brand into the virtual market. In some cases they allow licensing of their designs to videogame developers; in others (e.g. Scion) they do not allow it (last I read). But even for RW products that do not currently have virtual representations, I'd be willing to bet that should, for example, a game company use a new Cleveland Halo club (with its design and trademark clearly visible) as a weapon for the player to virtually bludgeon a bunch of nuns, the Cleveland Golf company would sue them in court... and win.

I've posted Slingo's policy and I'm not talking merely trademark issues, that's not the only problem in SL. It's Intellectual property issues. Slingo actually has a PATENT for the game itself. But, regardless, last I saw Slingo, which was when it first came out, I refuse to go anywhere near it now, it used the same logos and images as the real game. Changing from Slingo to SL-ingo does not get you out of this.

It's simply an inconsistency in LL's policy. It's certainly not the only example, jsut one of the most prevalent. Makes it hard to believe our IP is protected here when IP of third parties are not being protected.

Thanks for posting those articles. I was aware that GM had won another case against a knock-off SUV manufacturer, but this case was new. And interesting to note that it was a "trademarked design" that was being defended - not a logo or brandname. I'm unsure if the other case was on trademarked design or on violation of a design patent.

In LL's defense, I've seen other companies do the same since - most notably Google and their new video service. They're merely leaving the defense of the IP to the owner of the IP and not stepping in on their behalf citing an inability to police all the content. So legally they appear to have an out by following the DMCA. When an SL resident complains of an IP infringement for their own content, then LL will - or should - respond just the same as if a non-SL resident notified them of an IP infringement. So I'm unsure I see an inconsistency there.

Where I see an inconsistency right now is in the area of trademark enforcement. They stated what actions they would take and have apparently not acted in accordance with their own statements. I have to wonder why they refuse to put their policy in the ToS as I previously requested. Surely getting this issue out in the open and being consistent in it's enforcement is best for everyone.

In the link I posted here yesterday to a Trains.com forum discussion about a Union Pacific Railroad suit against Lionel, someone claiming to be a lawyer posted a similar conclusion.

Although the railroad provides a service and the toy company a product to different audiences in different venues, the toy company is using the railroad's trademark because of Union Pacific's efforts to make the mark well-known. As he put it, "Lionel would not use the UP mark if it stood for Union Pudding." Hence the suit.

The problem is that any unauthorized use of a copyrighted name or design dilutes the owners's rights to the copyright. That is why commonly used, now "generic" names for products, like "aspirin", "Q Tips", "Jello", "Kleenex", et c et c, were so savagely protected in the past, even though you'd think that the manufacturers would be overjoyed to have all such products identified with their own product name. I strongly doubt that any car manufacturer would mind the use of a trademark in a game - they work very hard to get product placement in films and games - so long as the usage was an honest homage to the marque. Still, doing so is their right. Linden Lab may be doing the right thing in their minds to ask you to cease and desist, but they really ought to apply this policy fairly - ie to everyone - or not at all.

Wasn't there a Linden post somewhere hinting but not quite saying "if we ask you to stop, please just do it. It isn't us picking on you - it means we have actually had a communication from the rightsholder, but don't want to stir up too much discussion on the topic."

I may be totally misremembering..........

I am not being disrespectful, Francis. At least, I am not trying to. It all comes down to a simple question, for me at least. Whether or not Shiryu is within legal rights, morally, ethically, if he is using a logo or name that someone else created/designed, should he not have first asked that person's or that business's permission?

If it is someone else's work: ask permission first. That is all that I am saying. And if "no" is the answer, respect that. Respect.

Francis, did someone else in SL or did they not take your hard work without asking your permission first? Did they not take Cubey's without asking first? And this upsets you, but if it's only a logo, only a name, it doesn't? I wonder how many hours of brainstorming it took, how many "back to the drawing board" moments passed when Toyota or Nissan were coming up with a memorable logo. To me, this is the same as spending hours coding, testing, rewriting code.

These people; these businesses, from an ethical standpoint, deserve, in my opinion, the right to be asked for permission first. They deserve the right to either allow or disallow. BEFORE their logos are used. Just as YOU had a right to be asked for permission first, Francis. A right that saddens me to know was completely disregarded and trampled upon.

Anyone who creates something deserves that much respect. Anyone.

I have spoken with many of my friends about how deeply I feel that you, Cubey and others were wronged recently. I could not in good conscience say that I feel that each of you had the right to be asked for permission before your work was used by anyone else or made available by anyone else, and then sit here and say that companies such as Toyota or Nissan don't deserve the same.

This is not to say that Shiryu is a bad guy. I certainly do not think he is. I have not had an opportunity to get to know him, and I am sure that is a loss to me. I am sure he's a fine person, and I mean him no disrespect at all. I am only pointing out how I personally feel about the situation. That is the feeling that I was left with after spending a great deal of time pondering my own actions and/or mistakes.

Shiryu: if I have in any way been disrespectful to you, that was never my intention and you have my sincere apologies.

They're not overjoyed because a severely diluted product eventually risks not being identified as their own product name.
"Aspirin" is a good example: Originally a trademark of Bayer, it was eventually ruled a generic name in the US, so that today you will find Kmart Aspirin, Walmart Aspirin, etc. We no longer equate the name exclusively as a product of Bayer.

My readings show the reverse to be true. As previously mentioned Toyota's Scion brand is, last I read, not allowed in videogames (which, considering the target market, makes little sense to me). There have been other brands as well. I believe Porsche and Lamborghini were for some time not permitted. Additionally, while I don't play GTA, I've read that there are no branded vehicle's in the game. It's one thing for a car company to want a positive association and quite another to have gamers running people over with your vehicle.

In the end, it doesn't matter. It's not our reputation with which to play, and that is what a trade mark represents.

On tangent to that, what I find interesting is that as I read this and other similar threads, I find myself wondering with whom I would do business based on their comments. Imagine two people you don't know and both have a skill or service you need (assume they're competitors). Each takes the opposite position: one rabidly defends creator's rights and the other doesn't. Who is more likely to protect the partner's interests under all circumstances? All things being equal, with whom should I form a partnership? With whom would you?

I recently read an interesting set of posts on another thread touching on how money changes how people behave. That what were previously "gifts" became "loans" when RW value was associated with the gift. Now who is more likely to be swayed to disregarding my rights in the event profit becomes a factor? The person who has moral and ethical issues with IP infringement, or the person who thinks that a company should be happy that people are using their property?

Now I can understand that if someone voices an objection to the use of a trademark they own, you stop. That's simple and respectful. But there are lots of us out here who enjoy and revere these 'owned' ideas. There are thousands of examples of such replicas all over SL. To say you have to contact the Coca-Cola company every time you rez a Coke case prim in your house, or call up Universal every time you put on your Frankenstien avi, or send Seth McFarlane an email every time you want to play Family Guy sound bite....is simply moronic, IMHO.

I have very little belief that the CEOs of Toyota are logging onto Second Life scanning for somebody or something wearing a Scion symbol. I sincerely believe these 'abuse reports' are simply the newest form of griefing. Concerned citizen, my foot. Once again, we're making drahmatic mountians out of harmless molehills for the sheer joy of the soap opera.

Is it possible that we could actually use something resembling common sense when reporting trademark abuse...or shall we start raiding shops for movie avis, clearing inventories of Starfleet outfits, deleting weapons that look like lightsabers, and banning players for playing quotes form "The Chapelle Show"?

Okay, maybe we should ban players for playing quotes form "The Chapelle Show"....but just on principle.

Obviously those opposed to restricting trademark/patent/intellectual property theft obviously dont' have or pan to have original content in SL. one of the strongest ideas behind SL is the ability of retaining intellectual property of anything you create here. How can orginal content creators be assured of that if the policy isn't upheld in the other direction? Oh, and why do these threads get so long and drawn out without Linden comment?

What comment would they make? Using trademarks is already against the rules.

You don't have to contact anybody every time you use their trademark, you should do it *before* you use their trademark *if* they let you use it.



Of course they don't. They pay other people to do that, as much as you find it hard to believe. These companies hire law firms, who hire people to shop around either online or in regular brick and mortar shops, looking for trademark violations. They don't even need a tip. They just have people regularly scan the market for them. I went on many Chanel shopping sprees for the firm I worked at, looking for counterfeit Chanel in high end shops. We had guys shop for sports gear, and we looked online too. So it's not moronic or far fetched. These companies have a reputation and a name to protect.



The only common sense that can be used here is *if it's not yours, don't use it* If you do not own the Coca Cola trademark, then refrain from creating Coke cases with their logo and colors, design your own and name it something else.



I wholeheartedly agree

- this isn't about 1 designer or one class of products
- it doesn't matter that other people are infringing trademarks -- their wrongs don't excuse your own infractions (lots of people cheat on their spouses -- does that mean i think it is acceptable?)
- it doesn't matter how good a product is or how much work was involved -- that is admirable, but beside the point
- it doesn't matter if you are providing free advertising -- it is not your decision to make when it comes to someone else's trademarks

At the end of the day...
- every designer has to come to their own moral decision about how to handle pre-existing trademarks... personally, i would want people to respect my brand identity, and I do the same for others.


In this case, i don't see the difference between plastic model car makers who have to get approval from car makers before they can sell their products, and what shiryu and other SL car manufacturers are doing. And please don't take this personally shiryu, because i like your work and would say the same thing about infringing products in any sector. You chose to sell your work -- they are not simply fan replicas.

P.S.
and yeah, cris, those star wars products bum me out too...
(panda, i understand your "just chill" approach, but there IS an ethical dilemma here that is worth facing head-on)

What I don`t understand is there are so many other issues going on and worse copy write volations. Why is it this one stands out?! I have seen more worse issues then this and it get less attention.Why?! Copy write is a "Fine Line" between personal creations and other people`s creations.
Anyone that understands design in princal knows anytime one uses a image its called brain storming to create a creation that is a work of art of the that person. DIRECT STEALING is when you take image piece by piece and is 100% taking without and personal creativeness by that set person doing the art piece.
What is happening is the misunderstanding being the what is stealing and what is COPYWRITE abuse. I for one who has worked in the creative field knows the correct laws they needs to heal to. Others are just either confused or misinformated.
Stealing is not right and should be stopped, but making false reports. Along with misdirecing the lindens in the reports that should either be put aside or ignore so they can do a better job doing other important issues with second life should be important.
Just my 100,000 yen thought
thank you for reading

Usagi

This one stands out not because it has any particular importance or extra significance when compared to other examples of copyright infringement in SL. What causes this one to stand out is that the culprit, after being caught red-handed, raised its visibility by bringing it to thse forums and then launching a rant about it. Had he not raised the visibility of his actions so high and invited it to public scrutiny, it may very well have been someone else that this thread would've centered around.




I understand design in principal very well. I also design copyrights and trademarks quite well too. No matter what the motivation may have been behind using the work, it never justifies using other creator's copyrighted/trademarked/etc material without having requested permission first.



False reports? Are you making a claim that the person who filed the Abuse Report made a false claim? That sure sounds like a pretty serious allegation there. I sure hope you have some type of evidence to back up that type of allegation.


- Newfie

Reading through this, I ponder if SL Exchange might eventually lead to bad stuff due to their selling SL Object's for US$, thus possible copyright/trademark infringement for hard solid currency instead of virtual "play money"...

{emphasis in the above quote is mine}

Usagi, the issue here is not copyright. It's trademark. Perhaps you're confused and misinformed.

I googled some product couple weeks back and was amazed to see one of the SL services pop up as selling a RW-branded item. What struck me was that I occasionally go online to see where products I've designed are being sold and to read consumer comments. So when that site popped up I was thinking basically the same thing; those sites basically take all of SL's infractions and put them out there on the net for anyone to see.

You forgot this one panda..

http://www.tmyers.com/book/howtowin.gif