From: Strife Onizuka
It could be argued that LL holds the copyright to the renderings made by it's engine. Best to read the TOS and copyright notice.
There is no part of copyright law i know about that provides pervert or paparazzi protection, nor should there be (Imagine being a reported doing an undercover investigative report and having to get permission to film). Other laws do protect, anti stalking laws and wire tapping laws.
I don't really thing you should be doing something if you are worried about public reprisals.
First of all, it can NOT be argued that LL would hold copyright to renderings made by its engine. A snapshot is simply a form of content created in SL, and acording to the TOS, the user, not LL, holds copyright to all SL content created by said user. Here is the applicable section of the TOS:
From: someone
5.3 Participant Content. Participants can create Content on Linden's servers in various forms. Linden acknowledges and agrees that, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including without limitation the limited licenses granted by you to Linden herein, you will retain any and all applicable copyright and/or other intellectual property rights with respect to any Content you create using the Service.
Trying to claim that a snapshot belongs to LL because it was created with SL software would be like trying to claim Microsoft owns a novel because the author wrote it using MS Word or that Bic owns your shopping list because you wrote it with their pen. It's simply absurd.
Second, it easily could be argued that posting snapshots of avatars (and/or any other content) created by users is indeed a copyright violation since the user holds the copyright to the content displayed in the snapshot. It's a very gray area.
Third, in regard to what you said about copyright laws not providing protection against perverts or paparazzi, that is simply not true. LL has made it very clear that the laws of the State of California are to govern all activities within SL. In California, an individual has the right to prevent his or her likeness from being published without permission. The following is exerpted from
http://www.superstock.com/copyright.asp:
From: someone
Right of Publicity
The right of publicity enables a person to prevent others from exploiting his or her name, likeness, voice, etc., without permission or authorization. There is no Federal statute or uniform state law that governs the right of publicity, so every state is different. For example, in Utah, only a person's likeness is protected and only while they are alive, while in California the likeness and photographs are protected for 50 years after death. In all states the likeness of a newsworthy person for non-commercial purposes, such as a news feature or a history book, is unrestricted.
Right of Privacy
Like the right of publicity, the right of privacy also differs from state to state. Essentially, it is the right that individuals have to prevent unwanted exposure of their private life. This is why model releases and in some cases even property releases are needed when using an image for commercial purposes.
However, what constitutes permission is another gray area. The following was exerpted from
http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/states/california.html:
From: someone
Private facts: The publication of a photo of revelers at a public "Exotic Erotic Ball" was protected because the activities were observable by thousands of strangers. Martin v. Penthouse, 12 Med. L. Rptr. 2058 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
So, it would seem that when someone is in full view of the puplic, his or her likeness at the time is public domain. Photographs taken of people in public situations are free to be published. It could be argued that when we are in SL, we are in an inherently public setting.
In regard to what you said about undercover reporters being free to operate without the permission of their subjects, that is not necessarily the case. Here is another exerpt from
http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/states/california.html:
From: someone
Intrusion: An undercover reporter who obtained a job as a "telepsychic" and secretly videotaped conversations with her coworkers might have intruded upon a coworkers seclusion because the coworkers expectation that his conversations might be overheard in the office did not prevent an expectation that the conversations were not being recorded by a reporter. Sanders v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999).
It would appear that reporters do NOT have the right to invade privacy. If the subject has reason to expect that his or her conversations would not be recorded by a reporter, then he or she has the right of privacy.
Anyway, back to the photographing avs question. It seems that whether or not it's legal to do so is largely dependent on how an avatar can be defined. Is it you or is it your creation?
If it is you, then you have no right to stop its being photographed. SL is a public environment. When you are in view of the public you absolutely can be photographed and the resulting pictures are publishable.
However, if it is your creation then you do have the right to prevent its being photographed. You hold the copyright to all content you create in SL. As the copyright holder you have the right to stop photographs of your work from being published.
As I said earlier, this is a very interesting topic for debate, one with considerabvle ramifications.
