Real World Copyright

Im not gonna do anything about it.. Because its a waste of time to talk to all of them and say "Hey you dont have permission" even the Lindens dont do nothing about it
Why should i waste my time? I know its wrong... But if LL dont care.. im not gonna care and waste my rl time chatting over an issue that nobody is taking action in.

I know my attitude wont solve anything, because i dont care, Even if i cared about this subject and i wanted this product out of sl, i would have taken better steps instead of making this a dramatic scene.

That is how i feel about it

Tell me what your positive attitude is going to do to solve this issue?

My need to constantly restate my reasons for this are getting really tiresome. Please read. I've stated it multiple times.



I've said I'm not aware of the real life brands other people referred to in that thread. I don't go shopping much in SL, I don't buy much in SL, I don't move around much in SL. I don't know the real life companies or products. I wouldn't know of the origination of 99.9% of clothing in Second Life. I knew about this one.



You know, you are constantly coming back to this. Read their responses on that original thread - they don't care, they're going to continue doing it, so there's not really much to agree is there.



Give me a break! They didn't know that taking other people's designs wholesale was wrong? You really think that? I mean, honestly? I called exactly what I saw, and they knew exactly what they were doing but, as they said, they don't really care and justify it because "everybody else is".



It's pretty evident, despite your protestations earlier, that you don't care. I'd worked that out already. I took the steps I thought were valid:

1. I posted on the thread that they were rip-offs.
2. I posted at slexchange.com that they were rip-offs as they were listed there as well.
3. I contacted Threadless along with trying to contact the individual designers.
4. I contacted the Lindens to talk it over with them and seek clarification on what could and couldn't be done.

These people didn't care to talk to the designers or Threadless before appropriating their designs, did they. So what makes you think they deserve the same in return? No, they deserve outing for what they have done so that people who have some morals won't be taken for a ride by them and won't line their pockets.



If people caused a storm over products when they knew they were breaching copyright, you may find that it discourages others from doing it in the future. Baby steps, I know, but saying nothing just makes people think it's OK.

This is my last reply to you wuvme. I'm just going round in round in circles and you're flip-flopping between saying it's wrong, saying you don't care, saying I'm wrong and saying that because everybody does it it's ok.

This scenario is something I can *very* much see happening. Especially since SL appeals to artists. They are the ones most likely to join our world in the future. And I personally think a day will come when this very thing will happen. I'll repost my other thoughts here from the other thread.

I also remember when Bhodi was researching Non-Profit organizations for VERTU to support. Many of the well known charities would *not* let VERTU raise money on their behalf. Mainly due to PR reasons.

I can understand that. I can fully see there are people in the SL world that I would not like to see promoting my business. Not saying anyone in this thread of course. I also know there are some people that if I saw them wearing a particular outfit that was made from a RL design, I would get a bad taste in my mouth if I ever actually saw the design in RL. So I would not be likely to go and give money to the RL designer/creator because of that person. That means they have taken possible money away from the original designer.

I took down my art gallery about 9 or 10 months ago. The SL world was smaller then, and at the time you could not trade Linden dollars for US dollars. After that change, I realized I was walking a really thin line of copyright violations. So, I took the gallery down and now I'm taking a new approach. The only images you are going to find in my new gallery (once it is up), are ones that the original creators gave permission for me to display.

Yes. A lot of people are violating copyright laws and such in SL. It hasn't been a "major" deal for a long time. But I think as SL continues to grow and evolve, this issue is going to be brought up more and more. And I personally think it is a valid issue to discuss.

This is what I think the issues are:

1. Can LL be held responsible for what users create in SL?

invalid opinion

Here are the issues as I see them:

1. Can LL be held responsible for violations of trademarks/copyrights caused by SL residents?

My understanding is LL can't be held responsible, even if they see a violation. The law offers trademark/copyright holders options within the law to remedy this issue. In some cases the owner of the rights will turn a blind eye on purpose, as this is free advertising. If I were Coka-Cola and saw a vintage coke macine on a 1950's style build I would be pleased. After all, Coke is part of Americana. If they were selling these machines for $2us I wouldn't care. I surely wouldn't seek damages. The most I could get would be the total of sales. At $2us each the creator might have made $100us .. maybe.... Harldly worthy of a law suit. The worst case would be a take down, which I would doubt Coke would consider.


2. Is it morally right to steal other's ideas?

Stealing is wrong always. However, we are getting into a shady area. I have heard songs on the radio that sound very similar to songs from long ago. People draw on the creativity of others. As long as it's not the same song word for word. So if you make a dress from inspiration you got from the J.C. Penny's catalog that's fine in my book. Also, is it stealing when the rights owner does nothing after being notified? Not in my book. There has to be a victim. No victim, no crime in my book.


3. What (if anything) should LL or other residents do when they find such violations?

My personal opinion is the owners of the rights should be the ones to file complaints.. as stated earlier, the owner may choose to turn a blind eye, so removing the item might not be what the owner of the rights want. I would think the most a resident should do is notify the rights owners of the violations. I don't think we should take the law into out own hands, seeking to limit sales of these items, or seek boycotts etc. If anything I would think LL would limit your right to attack a seller of goods within SL.

Summary:

I don't think LL has any worries as to responsiblity, and a lawsuit would only offer LL free advertising, bringing many new users to see what the fuss is all about.
Stealing is wrong but this might not be stealing if the owners of the rights aren't compaining, even after receiving notice.
LL and residents whould enjoy the world and not fret over the actions of those they consider criminals. Notify the rights owners and go about your fun. Otherwise it becomes a crusade.

Anyhow, that is just my humble option. If I upset anyone with my post... TOUGH!!! lol

no.. really.. sorry if my opinion rubs you wrong.

/120/d8/49972/1.html
/120/3f/50002/1.html
/120/cf/48610/1.html
/120/4e/44931/1.html
/120/81/44960/1.html
/120/48/44761/1.html
/120/e2/40566/1.html
/120/8b/38085/1.html
/120/44/34768/1.html
/120/a4/34218/1.html
/120/2b/32158/1.html


Its entirely possible that the issue of copyright infringment has been brought up before.

I suppose I could be wrong.

Not to dismiss anyone's concerns, but a lot of the topics in General Discussion are starting to sound like a broken record.

Like a broken record? ...record? ....record? ................record?

It IS a little frustrating to work hard on original designs and try to do them well (not that I necessarily do, but hey), and then stumble upon some shop raking in the $L by selling StarWars, RL-branded clothing, anime, etc. gear. I'm not interested in pointing fingers, really, but it is a little disheartening to see folks do this sort of thing. Yep, folks always have and always will rip off legitimate brands, but that doesn't exempt them from wanker status in my book. Maybe it sounds a little snobby, but I just think we can do better/ be original.

This thread got me wondering about what might happen the first time an infringement lawsuit is levied against LL / the infringer. For some reason I imagined an awful copyright/trademark snooping witch hunt, as users who care about the longevity & viability of SL demonize and really attack (beyond words, i.e., prim-bombing) inworld the users who have been ripping off trademarks. Hopefully we never get anywhere near that, and I don't think we will. But then, the probability of seeing some kind of lawsuit eventually approaches one with time, right?

If a discussion reappears, it mostly likely means a conclusion was not reached the first time, and/or there are new insights into the issue, and/or there are new people with ideas that were not around during the previous discussions.

Many thanks for bringing those threads up, I notice most go back several months, so I've probably missed them and will read them with interest. I notice several of them really aren't about the issue of copyright in total, and more just touch on it in parts (certainly for the top two this appears to be the case) and others are not about real life work being copied, but of people copying items of other merchants in Second Life.

I'm sorry if this being brought up again is boring you, I try not to start many threads, so sorry if I have contributed to the repetition you sense.

Actually the later ones go back a few months the first few were very recent. And No not that it boring, I will explain.



This is the point.

Its not that conclusions werent reached, It that the Lindens even alerted to these concerns didnt do anything about it except restate their policy.

As I am taking this, some people want Copyright rules enforced some certain way for whatever reason, see Linden Lab as lax in not doing so and thus spend a lot of time discussing the issue ad naseum.

The whole Squeeky wheel gets the grease I suppose.

The object I take it, is an attempt to influence LL's policies by customer pressure. But a lot of your fellow customers begin to see these as beating a Dead Horse and no one really changes their minds.

Maybe the moderator should make a sticky for each of the often raised issues like this one.

This is just my understanding of it. I could be way off (and I'm sure a few people would think so), but here goes.


There's four general groups/individuals that are related to intellectual property:

- The IP copyright holder (frequently the 'creator')
- The IP user (with permission or without)
- The hosting organization (in this case, LL)
- Third parties not in one of the other groups.

In a general perspective, what are the rights/obligations of each group?

Copyright Holder
Owns the rights to the IP. Has the right to collect the benefits or their work, and decide who else can use/copy it. If they find that their IP has been stolen/copied, they can

1. File a DMCA notice with the hosting organization to remove the material
   
2. Sue the IP user for infringement
   
3. Negotiate a deal with IP user for compensation/etc
   
4. Do nothing and allow IP use to continue

IP User
Is a person/group that makes use of the IP material. This includes both those that have and do not have permission from the IP owner.

1. Should be contacting IP owner prior to use to ensure they can use the IP material.
   
2. Use IP material under definitions of 'fair use', or otherwise with permission of IP owner.
   
3. Cannot claim or imply that IP material is their creation, or otherwise profit from IP material without permission from IP owner.

Hosting Organization
For electonic IP material, the organization that may be supplying the facilities/means to store the material. They may or may not be aware of the material residing in their systems.

1. Acts as a 'host' only - does not assume responsibility for the (mis)deeds of its membership.
   
2. Must comply with DMCA takedown order when notified by the IP owner that there is infringing material on their site.

Third Parties
This would generally be everyone else. Can range from complete strangers to associates, etc. If a third part spots an infringing item, they:

1. Can do nothing;
   
2. Can notify the IP owner of the infringement (not required, but ethically is 'the right thing to do')

Applying the above rights/etc to this case, I agree that while it may be likely this person is using someone else's IP in an unauthorized way (and profiting from it), I do not agree that Moopf (or anyone else) has the right to bring it into a public forum and make accusations of theft.

The most that should be done by a third party is to contact the IP owner and let them know there may be unauthorized material in SL of theirs. After that point, the ball is in the IP owner's court to follow up and/or act upon. They may decide to contact LL (the hosting company) to demand its removal, or they may sue, or even shout their outrage from the nearest rooftop. Then again, they may be ok with their IP being used in such a way, or may even want to endorse it. It's their IP, they can decide how to respond as they see fit.

On that same note, though...it's not the right of an unrelated third party to make that decision. And that includes making public accusations of theft. Nor is it the obligation of the IP user to explain/justify/prove to a third party what permission they have on the item. It is a private matter between the IP owner and the IP user. The third party person has no role in the matter.

One of the implications of copyright is that the IP owner is the only person that can decide if a use is infringing, outside of normal fair use interpretations. Part of that right is the responsibility on the IP owner to take action to protect one's own property. What any third party may think on the matter is completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the matter.


Just my $0.02
- Newfie

i agree that it is saddening to see this kind of activity. I was shocked to see star wars stuff the other day being sold... it's not that the work wasn't great, but it's exactly the kind of thing that's begging for trouble.

As a platform provider, LL should be reasonably protected, just as an ISP is not responsible for the content that flows through their network (if they were, there would be no ISPs).

Just because copyright infringement is rampant in china, or across SL, does not make it acceptable, however many justifications people try to throw on top of it.

I once grabbed a fabric texture from a RL designer site because it was so beautiful. Even tweaked it some to make it seamless. Then I stopped and thought about it -- I knew in my heart that the designer considered that fabric to be their intellectual property, so as sad as it was (it was bee-oo-tiful), I deleted it from my inventory and took down the product using it.


but i don't expect this issue or this topic to go away. Everyone has to come to terms with their own moral compass (and how ready they are to get a cease and desist letter or worse lol)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I know that the above reason is not *my* reason for continuing discussion on this topic.

I think the Lindens have pretty much done all they can or will on this issue. They are protected due to their statements in their TOS. So I honestly don't see any reason to appeal to the Lindens any further.

However, I do think it is good to discuss this issue and make us residents of SL think about the consequences that our actions could have on *us*. On our world. On our friends. It is going to take someone having a DMCA notice issued to them before a lot of people are going to take this issue seriously. But in the meantime, I sure would feel like crap if a friend of mine got in trouble for something they didn't understand but I did.

I think what we have here is a case of community on community pressure. Or peer pressure if you could call it that. And also trying to bring to light this activity that *is* wrong, and that could affect *many* people in the SL community.

Again, this is my opinion, and also the reason that I continue to participate in discussions about Copyright issues.

the Linden statements i've read have been rather vague imo, hence my current ongoing requests for clarification at least I understand. if someone has already sought and received the same level of clarification as i'm currently requesting, please provide links to those answers as it would save me the effort. thank you.

and for your reference, in case you haven't seen them, these are my posts requesting clarification:

1st attempt: /invalid_link.html
2nd attempt: /invalid_link.html
3rd attempt: /invalid_link.html
4th attempt: /invalid_link.html



i hope i'm not included in "some people" as my reasons are not in "some certain way for whatever reason". in fact i consider my reasons pretty clear and they are as follows: this activity has an impact on the SL economy, and this impact directly affects content creators, which then leads to an apparent disconnect between LL's handling of this issue with their continued emphasis on content creation as a means to attract more people to SL. there is no logic at work here that i can understand; especially in light of the additional concern i have that SL could perhaps be shut down if/when a deep-pocketed IP owner (like Disney) takes aim. a heavyweight IP owner wouldn't necessarily have to win a court case to shut down SL - a temporary injunction could create irreparable damage to what is still a very fragile virtual world.



my objective fwiw is first to figure out or understand their current policies! and hopefully succeeding at that, to then decide if i want to invest further time, money and effort in SL or move on.

This was the reason for my suggesting the issue have a sticky. All personal attacks deleted off course.

Personally I dont think it will influence people much. People looking to make money in SL are far less likely to be detracted unless they are already inclined towards this issue. It will more likely detract someone who is only posting a neat picture they got off Yahoo on the wall of their house.

It seems fairly clear to me what their policy is reading your statements and the others, and other threads. From how I understand it that are saying.

1) they will remove all trademark items they become aware of
2) For other instances they will comply with the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)


Since they are a service they will not actively police for things that could be in conflict with #2 but instead comply with any DMCA actions brought. The same thing, I beelive Yahoo would do with Geocities, AOL would do on home pages, and any other internet service that provides you the ability to upload images.

from what I gather the real question is --- Why does Second Life need different rules from the rest of the internet?

It's unlikely that threads like this will convince anyone to change their views regarding the unauthorized copying of someone else's intellectual property. I have one point concerning the 'everybody does it' rationalization. No, not everybody does it. Those who are truely creative don't copy other people's work (I don't mean 'inspired by'; I mean direct unauthorized reproduction of somebody else's RL branded item, for example). Copiers might make some $L, but they won't learn much, and won't enjoy their success to the same degree an original SL creator does.

It's analogous to cheating on exams. If somebody is tolerant of cheating I feel there isn't much chance of changing their attitude by use of ethical arguments. It's easier to say, 'I like to ENJOY my good marks', and leave it at that.

(Italics added to clarify my position that authorized reproduction of someone's intellectual property is beneficial to the creator, because the creator's ideas are getting propagated.)

i'm happy it's so clear to you. and it's now becoming more clear to me as well; but only as a result of my ongoing questions in the Hotline section - not from reading threads in which no Linden even posts. again, if you have links to threads with LL answers provided in detailed layman's terms so that all residents can more clearly understand LL policies regarding intellectual property rights infringement, please provide those as i'd very much like to read them.



i disagree that this is the question. i don't think we require different rules. just a clear explanation of how the rules are enforced in SL - both by LL and by the residents who are impacted by these issues. ToS section 5.1 seems to me to cover all intellectual property violations, but as far as i can tell LL provides no instruction to residents on how to address violations in that section. now go to section 12 with the very specific "COPYRIGHT INFORMATION" label and a ton of instructions. that's great (if you own or represent the content in question). but now where's the section for Trademark infringement that provides equally detailed instruction to residents on how to properly report that violation? i can't find it.

it's bad enough imo that content creators have their hands mostly tied with regard to competing copyrighted content illegally uploaded and put up for sale by their competition, but to not clearly point out their options regarding something like trademark violations and to not provide clear, documented instruction for how to address those violations seems disingenuous to me.

for ref: the SL ToS

I think you contact the owner of the trademark/copyright. If you see Disney stuff and want to report it, make a land mark and contact Disney on their website, look for a "contact us" link. You might find a phone number or email address to which you can send your concerns.

In that last Link Csven posted, I read it to mean that Robin Linden said --

For images of Tradmarked stuff you can contact the Lindins

For copyrights that arent trademarked then you can contact the copyright holder and they should complain.


Think Basically in such a free system as SL where users can upload any image they want - this is really the only workable system.

Its basically Like any web hosting service. Theres simply to many possibilities to put everythign under the magnifying glass.

LL is in a tough position. But they give us alot of freedom to do as we please and that makes SL unique in many ways. At the same time they place the policing of this in terms of copyright issues in our hands as well. No one wants to be in legal battle. And LL wouldnt survive if we all rushed out filing complaints.

And where do you draw the line? Lets say I built a biker bar and put some Harleys out front and some neon beer signs on the wall. Am I breaking copyright laws? These items add to the 'experience' of my customers even though Im not selling any of them but they help me keep customers around which in turn earns me dwell or if they buy something from me (non-copyright issue products). Do you really expect me to call Harley Davidson and Budweiser to get permission to spice up my virtual biker bar?

While my example isnt over abuse of copyright laws, it could be a target by anyone should LL make copyright violation reporting 'streamlined'. But it doesnt matter, no one is going to want the case unless you can prove that someones virtual sales in SL is adversely affecting RL sales, only then will the infringed upon companies care.

Hi Moopf,

I've been waiting and watching for this sort of thing to come to a head in SL since I joined. As a noobie walking around and looking at shops and I was astounded at the amount of RL copyright stuff there was around:

Nike
Adidas
Baby Phat
Disney

to name a few. There were also very detailed copies (scanned?) of various comic book characters/superheroes and so forth.

I also saw and continue to see clothes scanned from various clothing websited and scaled to fit on the SL templates and sold every day here in SL. I'm not sure where this particular thing stands in all of this. I mean if you scan a London Fog coat but don't sell is being a London Fog item, just a coat you made......? I really don't know.

There are LOT of issues here, and I guess it will boil down and come to a further head when Nike or Disney finally steps in and starts slapping lawsuits and whatevers at LL. Or residents. Or starts making a big stink in the media.

Of course that might never happen. And so people feel reasonably "safe" in going around doing as they have been doing.

I don't know the legal stuff on who will be ultimately responsible, but I give you props for calling attention to another example of this stuff going on. As SL's profile gets larger its going to get riskier and riskier for folks to continue along as they have been.

Maybe not. But only time will tell.

There is also the supply/demand thing going on in here. For some reason the more like "real life" your clothes look, the "better" it is and the more sales you'll get. I already have clothes that look like that. They are hanging up in my closet, and I'm wearing them right now as I type this.

You'd think that in a world where you can create anything, wear anything, be anything - the "culture" and subsequently the demand, would be towards the more fantasy, avant garde, futuristic, totally unreal sorts of clothing.

But it isnt. Like I said, there are a lot of issues tied up in this, and the "everyone's doing it" mentality is going to have consequences at some point. I'm saving a special supply of popcorn to see who just ends up holding the bag.

But think on this: IF all this so-called "harmless" ripping off ends up being the demise of SL won't yall feel silly?