Lend me a hand

They actually also sued an American company (eMachines) that made a similar system. I actually bought one of them for my parents - it was a great computer for beginners, and was a better machine for less money than the iMac (which also figured into Apple's ire, I'm sure). They eventually discountinued it - I am not sure of the outcome of this particular case:

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,21352,00.html

Well, my point was it's not always cut and dry.

Ok. Just so we know where we stand. If a real life product exists (say...a Porsche) and you make a virtual model that consists of SL prims and textures that resembles the style and dress the Porsche car but isn't a copy of it and doesn't use Porsche logos... you are still in violation?

That's fair enough, however, would you abuse report me for using trademarks by some VERY well known (read: some of the biggest in the world) companies? I actually have permission to use these... yet in your current course of action, it seems like you would ASSUME I do not, and abuse report me. This is what worries me. I don't think anyone has elected Jarod Godel to be SL's trademark police officer. How do you know who does, and who does not have legitimate permission? And wouldn't SL's capable staff be better off not having to investigate each and every instance you are pointing out, without having done your homework on whether or not the creator has permission?

As for your past posts, Jarod, you must admit you seem to take some joy in creating contraversy. Then again, without lightning rods, the forums do get a bit bland. I think Aimee's suggestion of putting together a team to investigate the worst violators is the best idea if you really want to do something productive. Then you don't waste LL's time; you don't waste creators time; and you give people using trademarks legitimately a single point of contact. Right now, you're paving the way towards total chaos.

To see some of the trademarks I'm using with permission of the companies, feel free to attend the "RL in SL" event tomorrow (Thursday) at 10am SL time in Indigo. Some of us actually do have permission from some very well known brands to use their trademarks for demonstration and training purposes already.

Regards,

-Flip

What I'd like to know is, how does this statement fit in with the line in your sig:



and was it LL that took down (or forced takedown) of the page that is supposed to link to, or did you remove it of your own accord?

-Ghoti

That's a very gray area.

The logo is trademarked. However, in the cases stated above, you're talking about apples and apples. eMachines made a COMPUTER similar to the iMac, as did the Taiwanese company. Those are in competition with Apple, directly. However, if you created a virtual computer that had none of the "actual" functionality of an Apple Macintosh computer, that looked similar but didn't use the same logo? That's apples and oranges.

-Flip

This is a very well done post and I think is a more elegant solution than the "blasting every potential infringer that moves" idea the orignal poster is advocating.

I agree that the RW knockoffs are not as Inspiring and simply "Fun" as the original to SL ideas I see.

For a friend, a roman, and a countryman I'd lend my ears... but I can't lend a hand without a hefty down payment in advance.

That's tough. That's for a court to decide, really. I'm not aware of any relevant precedents. The sort of law and precedent that's going to shape the legal future of metaverse-style environments like Second Life has yet to be written, to the best of my knowledge. The technology is so new.

Then again, an enterprising attorney might be able to dig up a precedent that has nothing to do with SL-style creation in specific, but that applies to it nonetheless.

Can always go with the "Kawaii kitten-like creature of no particular origin." clause.

Thank god I'm just a white dog with a red collar.

For a minute there, I was actually afraid to express my opinions one way or another on this issue, for fear of someone taking their disagreement with my possible position out on my avatar identity.

Luckily, we don't live in a community like that, and everyone is encouraged to express their views on anything relevant to SL, providing its not a personal attack.

Whew!

I've just abused reported your forum icon and also alerted Rupert Murdoch.

Have a nice day.

-Flip

Thank you Colette. In fact, I don't think I am going to wait for anybody else to think this is a good idea. I think I am going to take this on as a project myself. And I have some additional ideas that I think will make this even more useful.

This will be a good way for me to bring some of my RL experience into SL and help the community. Details to follow ...

Persephone Milk

Drat! Oh, well

That link -- which I removed when I took my wiki down -- is supposed to make people, LSL coders or LL developers, think about (1) how simple LSL commands can be used to create something potentially irritating, (2) how "b0rked" the LSL language would be if you took out those features, but (3) the fact that dangers exist. Just because something is dangerous, it shouldn't be locked away and hidden.

It fits because you can use Second Life to violate Trademarks. However, just because someone can break the law by selling Disney stuff, that doesn't make Second Life bad or an illegal tool. It put the virus in my .sig because I wanted people to wake up and realize that nixing LSL commands wasn't the best way to deal with griefers. I'm doing this because I want people to wake up and realize that, like those who think my virus is punkish trolling, people who stumble on Second Life when they discover it by way of Trademark violation reports, will try to get rid of and dismantle Second Life because of the potential illegalities.

Here is my concern. In RL the process of designing an automobile takes years, and there is a considerable investment of time, money, and manpower. Naturally the payoff is also very large so it's worth it. Somewhere floating around the millions of dollars involved in making a new Porsche are the legal costs of researching and obtaining trademarks. A legal team is hired to hit the books, make the phone calls, write the letters, and do the footwork required. It's not cheap, but the costs are justified given the scope of the project.

In Second Life the process of making a new car takes tens of Linden dollars and a bunch of hours (some people take more time, some people take less, but we are averaging it out to hours). I'm not one to dismiss SL as "just a game" but we need some perspective here. There isn't a mini, game-version of the legal process needed to protect ourselves if our in-game car designs end up resembling the "style and dress" of a Porsche.

If SL content creation continues to be a penny-ante business but still requires the legal capital of big time corporations... I'm not seeing much future for SL businesses.

I completely agree. I for one think we should publish the instructions on how to create the bubonic plague from scratch in your kitchen. Keeping that hidden would be just plain silly!

Little things like this will NEVER get in the way of a good crusade

The answer is Yes if the object has a trademarked shape (e.g. the Coke bottle shape). It's not necessarily about function and it's not limited to graphics. It's about attempting to gain market advantage by emulating some element of a brand that is identifiable and carries the weight of that company's reputation in order to facilitate sales of the imitation. Trademarks and brands are reputation identifiers. That's why it can be diluted (unlike a copyright) and why it has no expiration (unlike a copyright). So long as a company protects its brand and is in business, those things that represent it are protected by law (with obvious exceptions such as parody).

Shapes can also be patented. I'm not sure if the DMCA covers patents tbh (an interesting question). Many [edit: design patents are relatively new] vehicle shapes are patented and if you look through the uspto.gov site, you'll even find patents for the shapes of headlights, taillights, wheels, etc etc etc.

Now... is it likely that a 30-prim object is going to violate the protections on a vehicle shape? Depends on the shape (and the judge). A Porsche probably has protection but would be difficult to mimic in prims so it probably wouldn't be an issue. On the other hand, a VW Beetle is very geometric and very distinctive. I could see a judge ruling that one of those in SL could violate a trademark on shape alone.

People need to be reported?

ATTN SECOND LIFE MEMBERS: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

Neighbor spy on your neighbor...mother turn in your son...brother report your brother.

Absent legal ownership, you lack legal standing to challenge the use of any trademark or copyrighted material. That means you are really only a self appointed arbiter of SL ethics and morality. What ego.

Isn't this the same logic hackers use when publicly defending themselves about writing damaging viruses?



Second Life's potential illegalities are no more than the potential illegalities of the Web itself. Also, it should be noted once again that officially, Linden Labs considers SL money to have *no value*. So I highly doubt any court is going to buy into the fact that you trading pictures of company logos for play money is 'profiting'.

Second Life is not in imminent danger of being closed by copyright lawyers, IMHO. It's also my opinion (and the opinion of many here, from what I see) that your reasoning for Abuse Reporting everyone is a little too weak to be your true reasoning.

I.E. I think you're griefing...and trolling the forum with this thread. Pity there's nothing more interesting going on, or I'd otherwise ignore this plea for attention.

I would assume that you would put up proper "TM" or "circle-C" copyright notices. The places I went to didn't have these, and did not seem to offer any evidence to the original creators. Given, though, the knowledge that people in SL actually do have licenses, I would revise my tactics and try harder in the future to contact the people. However, given my history of buying DC Comics and Disney merchandise -- both digital and real -- I'm pretty confident that the lack of Trademark, Copyright, Disney, or DC notices idicates these places did not have proper authorization.

I agree here, and yet I disagree. I agree in regards to future hunting, because I will try harder to contact the people. As I said above, I did look for disclaimers, but that may not be enough. I disagree because people lie and because I am not, in any capacity, "SL's trademark police officer." I have no authority to shut anyone down, nor do I have any means by which to investigate a person's honesty beyond their given word.

SL are their own trademark police, I'm just a concerned citizen reporting people. I'm not going to be perfect, but at least I'm not going to be the one telling people to stop what they're doing. It's up to Linden Lab to police people, to investigate whether or not something is legitimate... And you know, just like the police can tell people to stop calling them so much, Linden Lab is welcomed to ask/tell me to stop. If they feel like they've got enough manpower to patrol the grid for Trademark violations, I'll stop.

I'm not trying to be a cop, just neighbourhood watch.

A team is a good idea. I'll have to go back through and more thoroughly digest the idea.

I will make every possible effort to be there.

I think of it this way. Using the "right to bear arms" arguement

Group A) I should be able to carry a full auto machine gun with lazer sights, grenade launcher, and mint gum dispenser with me every where I go.

Group B) Guns should all be destoryed including the ones the military uses.

Group C) Somewhere inbetween group A and B

I'm hearing alot of A + B but not C. I will go after As and Bs cause they are blind in my eye (Before you ask...yes I am blind as well in some things). Everyone wants it "thier way" and noone is willing to go middle of the road. Instead they blow it out and up and scream and yell.

Maybe instead of playing soup nazi we people should sit down and try to compromise...oh wait forgot people terat their second life like first life...that won't happen.

People with permission to use RW trademarks should just submit this information with some form of verification to LL. I suggested this a while back. Makes the most sense to me in that it would help prevent reporting valid uses and also make LL's job easier in dealing with the reports they do get.

Thanks for a dose of common sense, Katykiwi. I'm not an attorney... but if I remember correctly... you are? This is exactly what I've been saying. If you're that concerned, contact the trademark owner... I just didn't have the right wording to say "you lack legal standing to challenge the use of any trademark or copyrighted material". Thanks for providing the legalese!

-Flip