My Meditation Chair Being Sold

You are wrong. Copyrights are automatic.

"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

Thanks so much for that info Chip. I read some of the info and found one part that seems to suggest registration is required to file a lawsuit to defend your rights. Again, I just scanned this info and am still reading. Thought I'd post it now though.

"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin."

There are other issues as to where the work was created. Each Country appears to have their own laws regarding copyrights.

Still reading ..

To further use an excerpt from the same URL source:



Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

1. To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
   
2. To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
   
3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
   
4. To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
   
5. To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
   
6. In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
   

What is stated above is not what rights are given to the owner of a copyrighted work, but specifically what constitutes a copyrighted work. With the exception that everything in SL is a cyber-digital-etc form, just because a person creates a chair or piece of work does not always mean it falls under copyright protections. And that's where as far as I'm concerned the problem lies.

The "If I create it, it's a copyrighted work" attitude is not always accurate. I know it's not been made clear in SL when it applies versus when it doesn't, but if creators are going to claim copyright ownership, then they need to make sure what they've created really is a copyrighted item.

In addition, nowhere in the passes does it restrict the reselling of a copyrighted item - only the selling of derivatives or copies of that item.

- Newfie

Here is a portion of the Terms of Service that may apply to this discussion.

"YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY SUBMITTING YOUR CONTENT TO ANY AREA OF THE SERVICE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GRANT (OR YOU WARRANT THAT THE OWNER OF SUCH CONTENT HAS EXPRESSLY GRANTED) TO LINDEN AND TO ALL OTHER SECOND LIFE PARTICIPANTS A NON-EXCLUSIVE, WORLDWIDE, FULLY PAID-UP, TRANSFERABLE, IRREVOCABLE, ROYALTY-FREE AND PERPETUAL LICENSE, UNDER ANY AND ALL PATENT RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE OR OBTAIN WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONTENT, TO USE YOUR CONTENT FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN THE SERVICE. YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST LINDEN OR AGAINST OTHER SECOND LIFE PARTICIPANTS BASED ON ANY ALLEGATIONS THAT ANY ACTIVITES BY EITHER OF THE FOREGOING WITHIN THE SERVICE INFRINGE YOUR (OR ANYONE ELSE'S) PATENT RIGHTS."


My understanding of this statement is if you set something out in world, you grant LL and all SL participants a licence TO USE YOUR CONTENT FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN THE SERVICE. That would include resale according to my understanding. Maybe I am misreading this, but it seems pretty straight forward.

It isn't required to be able to pursue a lawsuit for breach of copyright, but it makes it much easier to prove.

That's sort of correct, but it applies to patents, not to copyrights. I think that means that, for example, the makers of ROAM couldn't claim patent infringement if someone else makes something that does the same thing. However, if the makers of the competing product made it from stolen source code it would be a breach of copyright. Obviously there are many gray areas since this is a new medium and allowing participants to retain ownership of their IP has never been done before in a virtual world. I don't think the law has caught up and there aren't really any precedents to go by at this point. That being said, you don't need a degree in ethics to know the difference between right and wrong.

The section I found this statement was under "5.3 Participant Content".

..."YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY SUBMITTING YOUR CONTENT TO ANY AREA OF THE SERVICE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GRANT (OR YOU WARRANT THAT THE OWNER OF SUCH CONTENT HAS EXPRESSLY GRANTED) TO LINDEN AND TO ALL OTHER SECOND LIFE PARTICIPANTS A NON-EXCLUSIVE, WORLDWIDE, FULLY PAID-UP, TRANSFERABLE, IRREVOCABLE, ROYALTY-FREE AND PERPETUAL LICENSE, UNDER ANY AND ALL PATENT RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE OR OBTAIN WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONTENT, TO USE YOUR CONTENT FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN THE SERVICE. YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST LINDEN OR AGAINST OTHER SECOND LIFE PARTICIPANTS BASED ON ANY ALLEGATIONS THAT ANY ACTIVITES BY EITHER OF THE FOREGOING WITHIN THE SERVICE INFRINGE YOUR (OR ANYONE ELSE'S) PATENT RIGHTS."...

So the statement is concerning Participant Content, which means actual creations. If I make a chair that I set out for others to copy I have given those who copy it a licence to use it any way they so choose. Of course, if I break other rules but changing permission settings LL would be correct to remove that object and repremand me for it.

This statement is very clear to me now that I have read it several times.. ..."YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY SUBMITTING YOUR CONTENT TO ANY AREA OF THE SERVICE, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GRANT.....TO ALL OTHER SECOND LIFE PARTICIPANTS...LICENSE, UNDER ANY AND ALL PATENT RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE OR OBTAIN WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONTENT, TO USE YOUR CONTENT FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN THE SERVICE..."

The key here to understanding that we are talking about one's actual content as opposed to an idea. Your example of someone copying the ROAM idea isn't the same as "TO USE 'YOUR CONTENT' FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN THE SERVICE. It clearly says SL residents can use your actual content, not just your idea.

There's a difference between a patent and a copyright. What you're quoting addresses patents, not copyrights.

It seems LL views creations within SL as creations rather than works/writtings/art etc.

LL specifically says all SL residents can use your content if you set it out. LL furthers the explaination stating you grant a licence to all SL residents when you rez your objects. Perhaps LL has misused to the terms. Either way, LL clearified it by saying "TO USE YOUR CONTENT FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN THE SERVICE"

Edit: Another point I'd like to bring up for consideration. I'm wondering... Who holds the rights to a primary prim, or a 4mx10m flat wood prim? Those are examples of creations within SL. Does the first person to create the object become the rights holder?

Again, I am tellin' ya, the TOS would not hold water in a Court of Law. I can pick it apart and I'm just an informed businessman, not an attorney. If I could manage to have the TOS challenged in court, imagine what a competent attorney could do.

I have examined the TOS several times and I'll state matter-of-factly-- just like so much of Second Life, it fails to address very obvious and common-sense matters. In court, I'm sure the attorneys would get a chuckle out of stomping the TOS flat into the ground before morning coffee break.

I can tell you one issue that would be attacked right now: generalized, blanket attempt to restrict personal ownership of creative property. Again I will point out: the TOS cannot override Federal Law.

For example, imagine that Micro$oft put an article in their software license that read as follows:

"In using this software, the client agrees that anything written using Micro$oft Word becomes the sole copyright and property of Micro$oft."

Seems like a pretty clear statement, doesn't it? I gurantee it wouldn't last 60 seconds in a court of law. If you can see this, then you understand some of the basic flaws in the TOS. If you can't see this... well, I hope you're never sued, 'cause you're gonna have some nasty surprises. ;D

Even if it's not specifically covered by the TOS and the laws are unclear, does that make it right to profit off someone else's back without their permission? You're doing a lot of work to justify the ability to do just that. There are plenty of valid reason that someone might need to make their product transferable or copyable or both in order to fit a particular business plan or maximize usefulness to the buyer. Should they be forced to give up all rights to their work for it? It truly blows my mind the lengths people will go to try and justify what, by any rudimentary standard of ethics, is theft.

A quick follow-up...

As pointed out, there is a difference between Patent and Copyright law. For one thing, Copyright is inherent and automatic, ie, you own the copyright on a creative work the moment it's created. Not so with a patent. Copyrights are easy and relatively inexpensive to acquire. Patents take a long time and cost real bucks.

As far as the concept of items created on SL not being patentable or copyrightable, I'm sure a court of law would have a heyday with that one. The first question that I think would be presented is: "Your honor, which has greater influence in this court of law, the TOS agreement of Second Life, or several decades of established Patent and Copyright Case History?"

Since it is already established that patents can exist on virtual property, Second Life would first of all have to prove they don't fall under multitudinous tons of established case history, any one of which could send their TOS tumbling to the ground.

So really folks, bottom line, any time you say, "Oh, this is a shut case"... someone is going to find a better prybar...

Well said, Chip. Because that's the real issue, and folks who are trying to rationalize such theft are IMHO, unconscionable. I'm just waiting for the first case to hit in which someone is majorly sued over theft of SL property and they tell the judge, "But your honor, the TOS..."

They'll be reading that TOS behind bars or during their bankruptcy hearing, they will.

The points I make are for the sake of discussion, and the fact I believe the creator gave up his/her rights to control their creation in SL the moment they marked it transferable/resellable. I see no moral obligation to use it in a way the creator deams correct. If you sell me a car for $1L or give it away and make it copiable and resellable there is no reason to think you intended it to be free to all future owners. And even if you want it to be free to all, you can't expect people to abide by your will or your morals. I wouldn't demand anyone follow my morals unless they are spelled out in the law of the land. This is LL land and they make the laws.


Another point I'd like to bring up for consideration. I'm wondering... Who holds the rights to a primary prim, or a 4mx10m flat wood prim? Those are examples of creations within SL. Does the first person to create the object become the rights holder?

Because they have no other choice? We work with the tools we're given. You CANNOT set an object to 'transferrable for FREE', or set a limit on its resale value. Let me tell you, if we did, many, many, many people would use it, and hell, hopefully people like Siggy might even be coerced into creating for the community again. It would sure solve a lot of 'moral' dilemmas at any rate since the creator could explicitly specify once and for all it's intended use.

They didn't 'give up their rights' willingly. They just had no way to license it or specify its conditions of use.

Your lack of morals is your problem, not mine. If you invented a device that was capable of making endless copies of a real world car and started selling Fords out of your driveway, Ford would sue you out of existence. In SL the medium might be different, but the ethics are exactly the same.

I see. So, if someone catchs you selling, say, an open-source GNU utility for a certain price - and you get cought.. and sued by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you would say it was your right to charge money for the copies of the software you were distributing because "the creator obviously gave up their rights the moment they uploaded the plain-text file on to the internet"?

Something tells me their lawyers wouldnt exactly agree with this concept.

As Judge Judy is often wont to say: "Did he put a gun to your head and make you do it?"

When it comes to this topic, contents creators always have a choice. If the current permissions system is inadequate to the task of expressing one's wishes with an item, then the alternate choice is to not release the creation to the public at all. Agreed, it's a pretty rotten alternative, but it's still an alternative. No creator of content in SL is forced to release their material. You might not like the terms under which you released your object, but you voluntarily agreed to it (via the act of releasing the object), and so are bound to everything that implies.

The permissions system is not the only way of making one's wishes known on an object. The classic method used by nearly all open-source writers is the inclusion of a 'README' file that states the terms and conditions under which the source code can be used. It may not physically stop the abuse of the code, but it protects ther creators wishes and intentions when it comes to AR time. The same can be accomplished by including a 'Terms of Use' notecard inside the object, or accompanied with it.

The other method is to post a sign (or build a confirmation into the vendor) at the point of sale that identifies the creator's wishes. These types of things are not guaranteed to force the buyer to actually read it, but from a legal standpoint that's irrelevant. If a sign was posted, the buyer should have taken the time to read it. IE, ignorance is no excuse.

While we wait for the long-needed permission system improvements, there are ways and approaches to ensure that one's works are appropriately protected. To claim 'I had no choice' is neither accurate nor constructive. It's a quick-and-easy excuse not to be proactive in protecting one's work.


- Newfie

Please, let's keep this discussion on a non-personal level.

My morals isn't a lack of morals. No more than your demanding I follow your morals a lack of morals, even tho I find it morally incorrect to insist others do what you deam morally correct. We disagree on a valid point. To me you are just plain wrong. But I don't deny you the right to be wrong. I don't demean you for you moral demands on me.

As to the Ford example... If you can recreate a car that looks like a Ford, that's fine, the law only says you can't use the Ford name on your creation. Car makers copy each other's models all the time. Sometimes the cars look so much alike one has a hard time telling them apart.

Ah ok. So Siggy was right. The community says 'fuck you we'll do as we please you have no say' so we just say 'well fuck you then, no content'. I get it.

Well as long as we're all clear where we all stand

I didn't realize that stealing being amoral was such a gray issue to people

Well Newfie.. i'd love to agree with you.. but I cant.

As a member who have been releasing multiple free items for awhile, with restrictions attached on visible code remarks on notecards, I can tell you flat and straight out: These ways and approachs are being trashed, ignored, or maliciously removed.

I've recently came apon the source code of a popular television object that ended up being actually a copy of FreeView 1.0 - with all of its comments removed.

Comments such as "NOT FOR SALE IN ANY WAY OR FORM", the fact that I am the creator, etc'.

Zip, nada. Nothing.

So, yea. We can do alot of things... but non of them are going to help us when most of the community seems to just calmly ignore all of these methods, and sometimes even activly work to hide or remove them prior to selling.

You make some valid points, but there are other things to consider.

First, let's take your question about the prim:

Our language is made up of words. When we form those words into expression, then we own the right to those words as presented.

The moment I create a prim and alter it, that prim becomes my intellectual property. Basically, I am using pre-existing words to express my creativity.

As for distribution of items, one thing to be realized is that when we give an item to someone, we are FORCED by SL to make that item either Copyable or Transferrable. We cannot mark both of them to off. This in itself removed some choice of distribution from us. We either give the client right to copy that item (which we may not want), or the right to give/sell to someone else (which the author may not want, as he basically has licensed use of that item to one person). So it's not like LL has granted users 100% decision making control over their work. Does this make LL legally responsible? Dunno. But I do know that it's a chink in the armor that could be exploited by an angry user.

If the ethics are the same, then what are the ethics of photosourcing items, selling them for Lindens and converting the Lindens to RL cash? There are murky ethics all over SL. When it comes to scripts, they are sacred cow and all is holy, and stealing scripts is wrong (which I agree with) but man if you are stealing clothing images from the internet and selling them in SL, the morals and ethics tend to slide a little bit. I'm not judging, I'm just curious how some things are unethical, while other just fine.

I can't wait for the day Kimora Lee Simmons logins SL. LOL

What you've mentioned above doesn't contradict anything I've said. In fact, I agree with you - there are jackasses and idiots out there that will ignore the terms and conditions, remove the warnings, etc. The best any creator can do at this point is express their terms and go with it. If someone doesn't stick to the honor system, then it's not the fault of the creator, it's the fault of the person doing it.

But as the saying goes, two wrongs dont make a right. A creator who does not take the steps that they can do to protect their interests is no more right than the person that went against their wishes. In legal terms (and IANAL, I'm just married to one) it's called 'dirty hands'.

So as unfortunate as it is, that reduces a creator to limited choices - either make the best of a bad situation, or not release new content to the public. But just pointing at the consumer population and yelling 'it's all your fault!' does little to rectify the issue, nor protect one's interests. It merely creates an adversarial environment where creators distrust their customers, and the customers think the creators are out to fleece them.

That's not exactly a healthy business environment in my view. I'd much rather see my items used in ways I dislike (as long as it's not infringing) than to have to treat my customers as a potential adversary. At least I'll have the satisfaction in knowing I created it, and can take pride in knowing it was an original for myself.


- Newfie