Copyright Violation - Threat to SL existence

I have been struggling in my two months here to make original content and wondering how everyone else does it, only to recently realise that a lot of it is actually stolen! When I commented to someone making illegal items for sale that they were violating copyright and they freaked out on me, with a diatribe about how "everyone does it," so I backed off and invesitgated.

Apparently they are right, rampant copyright violations everywhere. Even one of SL's favorite games is stolen form the real world!

The reason I am posting this is that it seems to me this state of affairs might threaten our very existence!

Linden Labs is a small company.
What happens if Disney Corp files a suit against them?

LL will claim that it is not "them" but their users (us) who is at fault of course, but the legal costs alone could easily bankrupt LL.
Also, Disney might find it cheaper to simply BUY SL.

- How would you feel if there were copyright "police" from outside walking aoround in SL?
- Who would want to live in a "Disney" SL?

Is there not somethign we could do as a community *before* everything breaks loose?

It seems to me that this is a serious threat to the very continuation of our community yet no one seems to care at all.

And to clarify... I dont mean the occaisional ripped off texture from the internet
I mean ENTIRE STORES selling Disney branded merchandise *without* a license.

There are several I have seen without even looking too hard.

I've never seen what you describe. Sure there are a few cases where some people are careless with copyrighted material from TV, movies, etc., but I wouldn't say that it's rampant in SL. You make it seem like all of SL is ripped off from something else, which isn't the case AT ALL.

One of SL's favourite games is ripped off from RL? Which one is that? I think you need to back that claim up with details.

There will never be "police" walking around in SL, because even if there's an issue with copyright, it's not handled by inserting undercover cops in a game.

If you're referring to Tringo... Tetris has a questionable copyright anyways, because it was developed in the Soviet Union, where there wasn't really strong copyright law. The original creator of Tetris hasn't seen a dime from all that work, but then again, neither have a lot of folks. It's weird.




LLabs counters that Disney should file a DMCA takedown notice on the offending content. Then, the content is removed. The end.



See ToonTown.



No. The folks that agree to not break copyright aren't doing it anyway. The folks that WILL break copyright will continue to do so with impunity.





If Disney knew about it, they would file a DMCA takedown notice, and that would be that.

LF

I think in large part the idea that nothing is being sold for real money and the environment is enclosed (aside from screenshots) gives us a lot of room.

Sure, I know that $L can be sold for RL$, but that does not mean that $L is real money.

I don't believe it could stand up in court if it came to that, but I do believe the enclosed virtual nature of it drops it below most peoples radar. Sure, if Disney got a bug up their ass that so-and-so is reproducing virtual copies of Mickey's picture and distributing them, they could make a case of it. On the other hand, if they did that they'd have to show that so-and-so's distribution had hurt them in some way or else they'd be expeted to police the entire world wide web for every single instance of a Disney chracter being reproduced without authorization. As in, why so-and-so and not thiese other 20 guys posting on alt.binaries.disney?

On the negative side = copywrited material.

On the plus side = no profiteering (I seriously don't believe it matters that $L can be converted since the reproduction ITSELF wasn't be sold for REAL money) and an enclosed environment.

At least this is what I pulled out of my ass

I think it all comes down to if the time/money ratio is worth it... would it be worth spending 5 jillion in legal, fees to force LL to censor content that, in effect, is not costing (using the example here) Disney anything at all? If anything, maybe Disney considers it free advertising...

I don't think that anything would happen... heck, I'd be less shocked to see the RIAA try to come in here and bust up everyone streaming stolen MP3s

I think she means Slingo.

As for Disney - PHEAR Disney. Teachers all know they can't use Disney characters on their bulletin boards. Disney WILL getcha. But it will just amount, I believe, to making you take it down.

I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it though. Disney is practically generic. Of course, Disney hates being as generic as kleenex. So much so that they lobbied and managed to have the years before something comes into public domain changed. I know cause I waited a long time for Gone With the Wind to come into public domain, and around about the year it did, I was ready to pounce with writing a (good) sequel. That's when I discovered that Disney had a few years earlier caused the law to be changed and this to be extended. It meant another 27 years or so before I could write GWTW, the Good Sequel. That led me to contacting the estate to see if they had already assigned someone to another sequel, and lo and behold they had.

But Disney doesn't go into people's houses and take their kids' drawings of Mickey, and I doubt that their coming into SL or TSO to make sure nobody has a Mickey Mouse rooftop is very likely either. Still, we'll see.

coco

Hi Cubey,
Okay maybe i was a bit more adamant than I intended.
Apologies.

I am talking about Disney branded stuff, like (fake names here) "The Fozzy Bear teleporter" with a big pic of him on the side. Or whole stores themed that way.

I find it hard to believe that Disney has given out licenses for that.
I could be wrong.

I am also talking about situations like (also fake example) ...

I make a "Gazoo" t-shirt (cause of cousre who would not want one), and I wear it. As far as i know, that is legal. But if I make a hundred and sell them, then I am using the popularity of the character to make sales. Seems like a clear cut violation to me.

The quote about the game is baseed on a thread i read this morning about how "slingo" is a copy of RL game called "slingo" and that again no attempt has been made to get rights to it. This is heresay and again i apologise if that is wrong.

I was mostly upset when i saw the GIANT store with all the GIANT disney brand pics on the outside, (many metres high) containing a bunch of products with cute Disney character names. In retrospect I do not now for a fact that these people don't have a license, but it seems very unlikely to me.

If I am wrong about this I apologise to any I offended.
If I am right though one screenshot of that store would make Disney's lawyers salivate.

There have been many portents of doom made by many residents when it comes to SL and copyright violations in all its vicissitudes. But yet nothing has ever happened.

Residents have been copying content off the web and selling it SL with little to no modifications since before I came to SL in September 2003, and yet no one has ever had a DMCA thingamabob filed against them.

Now when people decry copyright infringement happening in SL its kinda like Chicken Little running around saying 'the sky is falling'.

Also, there is no spoon.

Briana Dawson

The motivation is not directly financial -- it has to do with securing and maintaining IP rights. A company which can be demonstrated to be lax in enforcing its IP rights faces the danger of losing those enforcement rights altogether. Were a rampant, wholesale Disney brand dillution campaign underway as described by the original poster, this might be a concern. I have yet to encounter such in my travels, however.

Dianne Mechanique,

My personal thoery is. If they scream so be it. Yes I violate trademarks, yes I may do some knowingly, will I take them down..depends.

if joe blow comes to me and tells me to take it down. No. Why? He might turn around and sell it instead (yes I've seen it happen elsewhere). If I make a Disney copyrighted item and DISNEY asks me to take it down will I? YES, after I have been given contact information to contact them that can be verified as being them.

Personally I think imitation is the greatest form of flattery but here it does turn shady with the whole convert L$ to real$.

PS Didn't Disnet lose thier Mickey Mouse rights? Heard there was an issue at the renewal board a few years back.

Apologies again for the Chicken Little routine, but ...
Just cause it hasnt happened yet, does not mean it wont.
Disney is a big (IMO nasty) corporation.

They could buy and sell a dozen Linden Labs before breakfast.

Ripping off a texture from some web site that is possibly trying to cheat you anyway, is a different thing entirely from making a "Fozie Bear Transporter" (fake name).

I am also a little bit offended by these people.
I mean its easy to make sales if you aren't concerned about being even slightly original.
If I make a teleporter, and then someone else makes one essentially the same, but with a cute cartoon character on the side and a Disney name, why should I potentially lose sales over it if it is illegal? (again assuming the person has no contract with Disney)

Should the rest of us get an honesty bonus from LL to make up for the loss?



PS _ I have the tick and the tick has the spoon

I believe there is no complaint unless it comes directly from the content originator. If you are mad they out sell you because they use copyrighted pictures then I suggest being creative, make your's even more appealing in some way. Maybe make your's a plain wood box priced well lower and post a made in china sign on it.. maybe a Walmart price sticker, works for Warmart and I don't think Walmart holds a copyright on their stickers...
just kidding.. but my point is to beat his idea with something original, complaining of copyright infringment won't work unless you hold the copyright.

As a side note, I vaguely remember a town hall where one of the Lindens said there have been a few DMCA takedowns that have been honored over the course of SL's existence. Making a Star Wars or Disney themed store is just dangerous personally, and for all of SL, as Disney and Lucas are two extremely litigious companies when it comes to protecting their brands.

I was going to say that Fozzy didn't belong to Disney, but he does.. Through Muppets Holding Company LLC. But that aside...

Actually there are several legal precidences being established in the favor of virtual worlds that protect the companies that created them from the misuse of the user. I know for a fact that PlayNC and Cryptic Soft are undergoing a lawsuit from Marvel for the fact that the players can recreate their favorite Marvel characters in the game. (So, if you like playing Hulk here, I'd suggest you watch that lawsuit. ) A lot of the claims were dismissed, but not all of them.

LL used to ask people to pull down stuff like that - but I guess the world is now too big for them to personally police..

As for it being a threat to SL in general - I think it may be more of a threat for those using licenced trademarks without permission.. I'll happily point it out to people when I see it, but there's an old saying about a horse and water

Siggy.

It's the duty of the trademark/copyright holder to protect their property. Therefore, if you have concerns, it does little good to voice them on this forum, nor even to LL officials. You need to voice your concerns to the rights holders.

Here's the last known number to The Walt Disney Company Legal Department: (407) 828-1750

Who knows, maybe they'll give you a free trip to Epcot for reporting possible property theft. As for the Marvel lawsuit, it's still alive. Basically, the judge tossed a portion that involved Marvel suing folks who were found to be Marvel employees and contractors (Marvel unknowingly sued itself.) As for the rest, Marvel included just about every claim it could muster, in hopes of having a few claims survive. And that's what happened, the judge dismissed several claims, but let a few remain to stand trial.

Nope, Disney still holds the copyright for Mickey Mouse and will do so for a while, thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. Pretty much, Copyrights used to remain in effect for 50 years after the death of the creator. However, under this act, for property created prior to 1998, 20 years was added onto the release date into the public domain, and for creations made after 1998, the copyright period itself was increased to creator's life +70 years in the case of individual copyright holders, and creators life + 75 to 95 years in the case of corporate copyright holders.

I dug up a Wikipedia article if you want a more indepth read: Wikipedia: SBCTEA

--BL

Ways that copyrights are being broken in LL:
MUSIC (Do I really need to speak about this?)
MUSIC VIDEOS (yes these are copyrighted and you can't use them, falls under reason for above as well. The music is in the video.)
ANY PICTURE,TEXTURE,SKIN (unless you made it yourself most likly it is copyrighted. Unless it states it is free for commercial use. Those are rare in percentage.)
MOVIES (believe it or not "for rent" like Blockbuster pay at least 10 times the cost we buy them at just for the right to rent them out. This includes previews.)
ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME THAT COMES FROM A BOOK, MOVIE, OR WEBSITE (Creative right and possible name/trademark violation)
THE USE OF CERTAIN WORDING IN RPGS (Yes some words, races, etc are trademarked. TSR the former owners of Dungeons and Dragons went psycho with this before going bust and being bought by Wizards of the Coast)

now think with all that.....how much content do you think would be out there? How much would simply be renamed to get around the violations? Kinda scarey to think about that.

This has been discussed time and again, and it all comes down to one little word:

Enforcement.

It's not happening. It's not going to happen until there are better metrics for it. LL has honestly tried to shirk liability for this, and I don't blame them - they're providing a tool and a service, and the userbase is using it for many of the wrong reasons.



That said, two arguments can be made:

- LL is not liable, because they simply do not have the manpower or systemic solutions available to police content.
- LL is liable for negligence, vis a vis Napster and other P2P service providers.

Of the two, I fall more into the first camp - I think they're providing a service, and it's simply not feasible to play content nazi.



If you have any honest solutions to the problem, I'd love to hear them. In truth, it's a huge technical problem, and the best recourse is to take it to the DMCA link. It's not a perfect solution, but it does provide minimal enforcement.

If we're gonna talk about this here, can we please at least talk about the right things? Mickey Mouse is not copyrighted; he's trademarked. There's a big difference. You can't copyright a character, a piece of clothing, etc. Such things are trademarked. Copyright is for things you can hold in your hands - a book, a picture, a screenplay, etc.

Anyway, this topic comes up from time to time, and you're not wrong to be conerned about it, although the degree of your concern may be a little bit overboard. As one of SL's most prolific producers of fan art, let me offer my 2 cents on the subject.

First of all LL is not legally responsible for any content we as users bring into SL. LL is an online service provider, and by the letter of the DMCA they can cannot be held liable for anything their clients put on their servers. So there's no danger there. If they were sued, the case would be thrown out within minutes. The suit would be unlawful.

Secondly, most companies have pretty liberal policies when it comes to fan art (Disney and Marvel being noteable exceptions). Most of them are smart enough to realize that the fans pay the bills, and that allowing fans to express themselves through imitating the things they love can only be a good thing. Howerver, if any of these companies did want to press the matter they'd of course have every right to ask that the offending material be removed. My philosophy (and I've said this before) is that if Todd McFarlain wants to come into SL and tell me he doesn't approve of my Spawn avatar, I'll gladly take it down. Until then, I'm gonna continue to pay homage as a fan of his by imitating his work. I'd like to think he'd be flattered by that.

Now, do I sell these things inworld? Absolutely I do. I didn't start out with that intention, but so many people wanted the stuff I was making, about 4 or 5 months inot my SL existence I opened up a store. Would the fact that I sell stuff matter if I were challenged on trademark infringement? Absolutely not. Let me tell you why.

First, infringement is infringement, regardless of whether the offending party has made any money from the act. If I were to be challenged on trademark infringement, it wouldn't matter whether I had sold anything or not. If the holder of the trademark wants to stop me from using their stuff for any reason, they have the right to do so.

Okay, so isn't it worse if I've sold stuff than if I haven't? Well, in the real world, the answer would be yes. The trademark holder would be entitled to some or all of the profits I would have made from the use of his material, as well as further reparations if he were able to prove I had cost him any business. However, we're not in the real world here. The Linden dollar has no value. Technically speaking, therefore, nothing has been sold.

So now you might ask, well since people buy & sell L$ for real money every day how can they have no value? Well, I could give you hundred bucks for your used Kleenex, but that doesn't mean your dirty snot rags are now currency. Just because people are willing to trade money for something doesn't mean that that thing automatically becomes valuable. Linden dollars are just a commodity that a relatively few people in the world happen to have enough desire for that they will buy them or barter for them.

Think of it like this. Let's say I drew a picture of Spiderman and gave it to you in exchange for 10 pieces of your used Kleenex. Then I run across a guy who's just dying to have your used Kleenex & he gives me $10 for each sheet. Now Marvel finds out I'm drawing Spiderman pictures, they don't like it, and they order me to cease and desist. I would have to stop drawing Spiderman obviously, but would they really be entitled to a share of the used Kleenex? Not likely. Those things have no value. Would it matter that some lunatic actually bought them off me later? Not in the slightest. I never actually made a dime off Spiderman.

What it boils down to is that to be entitled to compensation a trademark holder has to be able to prove that the infringer made money of the material, cost the holder business, or both. For SL that would require the holder to claim he had market presence in SL, which he doesn't, and that the linden dollar has a real world value, which it doesn't. There's no financial inrterest at stake here at all. All they can do is order that the infringer stop using the tradmarked or copyrighted material. That's it.

BEFORE reporting to the DMCA ask them.

I know for a fact a person I have had personal contact with had her picture being used here on a popular location. I also knew she strictly enforced her copyright as her husband took the pictures. I notified the person and soon thereafter the content was removed from his location.

For the A-holes report them. For the ones that would rather have offical wording then either report them or have the company contact them directly.

You're right and sorry for the miswording. I just get into to many of these things to care outside of work on exact terming. Gets confusing after having to deal with it since I was in high school.

Because this is an enclosed world, a private club, a kind of dollhouse, you could mount a defense citing various court decisions in the US about "right-clickers' rights" that bsaically say you have the right to right-click a thumbnail image (everything in SL is tiny) and put it on a website as a "reference" to the work itself elsewhere (SL is like a website).

Auction sites, museum sites, photo sites, etc. have all been protected under this interpretation which works something like the "fair use" doctrine with books and quoting 250 words of text.

The question is whether someone will complain about multiple copies of an image all over the world.

You cannot file a DMCA takedown notice unless you have legal standing to do so. Doing so requires that you avow that you know the content to be infringing. If you make such an assertion and it turns out that the item is not infringing, the victim of your takedown notice may then seek compensation in civil court for damages incurred from any action taken due to the DMCA notice.

OMG, im going blind. I AGREE WITH YOU!

*shoots self*

Briana Dawson