Playboyz Copyright Infringement

It's quite probably illegal. I just don't agree that it's wrong; as I said, my criteria for "wrong" are not the same as those for "illegal".

Sounds like a good set of moral values.

You betcha!

I didn't imagine the name was the whole of it for a second. =)



Actually, if you called it a Bic Mac, or a BicChicken Sandwhich Linden rules say you could open your McDonnies. Whether that'd hold up in court against McDonalds, I seriously doubt.

As for the word "Playmate", several companies have it trademarked. The thing about a trademark is that it's font or drawn style can be essencial to it.
"A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others."

There's a case I haven't looked into much that seems to be against an ex Playmate of the Year for using the term, might be an interesting read?

The Playboy Bunny logo is most definatly against the law to use (and likely a trademark), as are the Playmate images. However for Linden to take down the photographs (which are copyright I imagine, not trademarked) Playboy will have to file a DMCA according to Linden rules. We'll see.

The case was that of Terri Welles, 1981 Playboy Playmate of the Year, who accurately described herself in her porn website as such. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that such was a permissible use of the "Playboy" and "Playmate" trademarks, despite Playboy Enterprises Inc. allegations of trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin and unfair competition, all actionable under federal law in the U.S.

A story about the case appeared in Wired Magazine in February 2002, and can be read at: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50255,00.html

The following constitutes trademark infringement:

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

It's evident that Ms. Copyright/trademark police is not confused about the source of said 'goods' as she specifically speaks of 'Playboyz' in terms that already imply she thinks it to be 'infringement'.

Had she made a case for trademark dilution... this thread would make more sense. But I would like to note here that plaintiffs in a dilution action are limited to injunctive relief. Meaning, 'Playboyz' would have to terminate use of the names/symbols in question, that is all, no damages can be sought.

Clearly a personal vendetta is being carried out here. One could start attacking the Home Depoz of sl amongst others but what an incredible waste of time. It is the SOLE responsibility of the copyright/trademark holder to take action against anyone they deem infringing upon their ownership of said copyright/trademark. If Playboy doesn't appear to care about little ol' SL cartoons running around with bunny ears atop their head, why do you?

I can repeat why I care: people who appropriate RL trademark in an effort to leech off RL reputatation potentially gain an unfair advantage against others in SL. Even if Playboyz doesn't care about making money (although we've heard that before and found out that claim to not be entirely accurate), the precedent for allowing trademark violations inside the SL economy is problematic.

So forget the RW legal issues and just consider the SL market issues.



The sarcasm is needlessly rude and unnecessary.

I remember the Welles case (thanks for the link, btw). Any idea about the costume case? Probably in the 80's sometimes. Think she was dancing/performing in an old bunny outfit. Not a playmate though. More like a Chicago-based bunny (back when they had clubs).

I don't necessarily disagree. However, the issue at hand was that of whether or not it was in violation of the Playboy trademarks to begin with. And like it or not, until Playboy steps up to the plate and states it as such when pursuing litigation, it's all conjecture and a waste of everyone's time.





Precisely why I went into law. They welcome my kind there =p

*shrug*

The general tone I'm seeing, not just in this thread, is 'eh, it's not hurting anyone, it's a lot of effort to discourage it, so who cares?'. I think I'll adopt that attitude myself, since I'm just in SL to amuse myself (not trying to cash in in any way, nor do I intend to), and since that prevailing attitude will mean a lot of surprised people when Linden Labs is sued into extinction. And, Xavier, a litigant does not have to establish that all the factors you listed are in place. Just enough of them to establish violation of trademark. Trademark law is being violated, by dozens of people, on a daily basis, in SL. Period. Either the Lindens will put a stop to it, or the corporations being infringed upon will put a stop to the Lindens. Probably won't happen for some time... Second Life is very, very small potatoes right now... but if SL keeps growing, it will happen.

=| Welcome to Team Apathy!

It is, however, the last time I checked, in violation of Linden Lab's ToS (or at least the comments I've read in response to Hotline querie regarding the ToS). They've been quite specific on this matter. So rather than thinking of this being someone policing RL laws, think of this as reinforcing LL's policy of having resident's AR trademark violations.



Key word being "there".

Obviously, the perpetrator knows that what he is doing is wrong as well. Case closed.

I think you guys are taking SL way to seriously. Playboy made more money while I am typing this post than Playboyz would EVER have made in SL. I highly doubt Playboy would give a rats ass about it and may even consider it free advertising being people in SL might be more motivated to buy a real Playboy magazine or other item.

Content in SL is very limited to SL. As far as I know you cannot take an item out of SL other than a screen shot? So what good/bad does it really do in the real world?

Anyway I am not for copyright and trademark violations, and I use donated by the author adult content on my sim, but come on. SL is not likely to cause any monetary damage to a RL company and in my opinion would be just the oposite. I think people would be more likely to buy a RL item from the real company after seeing it in SL. In fact if SL becomes big enough you might even see RL companies setup shop in SL for advertizing sake.

If major corporations thought as you do, Jodina, I'd agree. Problem is, they don't. I stand by what I said... SL hasn't been slammed yet because it is very small. Let it grow, let the infringement continue, and they're going to be sued by corporate entities that can afford to use court costs alone to destroy Linden Labs.

Check up on the recently settled litigation between Marvel Comics and NCSoft, if you don't believe me. Making up a big green guy wearing purple pants named 'Teh HuLK' wasn't costing Marvel anything, either. Yet they sued. And it wasn't even a particularly bloodthirsty court battle... Marvel wasn't out to eliminate NCSoft, they were just protecting a trademark. That's the key word, there... 'protecting'. It isn't just about 'oh, they're making money off our trademark, we want our cut'. Trademarks have to be protected, or the holder can lose their trademark.

This is not a matter of 'hey, the corporate giants may or may not get pissed off and do something about the minor trademark violations going on in SL'. This is a matter of 'they absolutely must do something about it, and the only reason they haven't yet is because SL is so tiny they haven't really noticed yet.'

Judging from the fact that this is your FIRST post and that you are defending Playboyz, it's not too hard to decipher and read between the lines. Bottom line is that it's not up to you or me to setup shop in SL for Playboy Enterprises, Inc. and decide how their advertising should be managed and how their logo should be used and what their Playmates should be paid to do. It's up to them. It's black and white, right and wrong. No grey.

I agree with you Elspeth, however I wonder how that would be handled in the future. Since SL is "user created content", do you think that the sole responsibility should ultimately rest on the creator of the content? I believe that if Linden Labs receives a court order or a cease and desist order to remove trademarked or copyrighted content, they should release the creators contact information to the court and make it a part of the License Agreement. So whoever uses SL knows and agrees to the terms.

So if you want to use Trademarked material, you will be held liable for it should the company press charges against SL. That's the only way Linden Labs could protect themselves. I have not noticed this in the Terms of Use Agreement myself so perhaps it is already there??? But this seems like a fair way to handle it. If you want to play with the big dogs, you can face the big dogs in court.

LOL

Read the "Trademark" thread in General. Comments like "they don't care" have already been refuted. It happens routinely within the gaming "mod" community. Anymore when someone posts on a forum "Let's make an 'Aliens' mod, doodz", most serious modders will cite a long list of C&D cases. Those companies care. And it's only a matter of time (and population number) before they get to SL.

Humm you are pretty closed minded I guess. You take my post apart into pieces and try to make an argument that doesn't exist to try and back up your own position.

1) My post count should have nothing to do with anything.
2) I am not backing up Playboyz as I have not even heard of the place until I read this thread and I certainly am not backing them up in any way now that I know they once existed.
3) I clearly stated I am not for trademark and copyright violations which in fact makes me NOT side with Playboyz.
4)Of course it isn't up to us to represent Playboy. Why would you even bring that up? If they thought they could make significant profit in SL they would do it. If they thought they were loosing significant profits from someone copying them in SL they would take action. As far as I can see none of the above has happened.
5) You mention it is not up to us to set up shop in SL for Playboy so why should it be up to us to complain about someone else using Playboys theme? Why should we even worry about copyright unless it directly involves us? Why are you going off on copyright violations that do not have anything to do with you? IMO you are no better than the Playboyz owners and just stirring the pot for something to do and screwing the people that actually enjoyed the Playboyz club if there were any for no real reason except self gratification.

If you really are interested in protecting everyone elses copyright and tradmarks then contanct the OWNER of the copyright and tradmark as they are the only one's that can really do anything about it.

My last post on the subject.

1) Perhaps it has been done already.


2) Woot!

I think all outside of SL content should be banned all together. No pictures, no movies, no music, no sounds, ect... IMO they should have drawing tools to make our own textures, skins. ect and work with what is given. ALL SL content should be made in SL. With the tools available to not copy or modify it would be easier to prevent piracy and other issues in this thread. I would like to see a way to make movies in SL (if there isn't one I don't already know about) like the picture snapshot deal but making movies to.

I think importing RL content into SL depreciates the originality and the over all quality in SL.

Dang. We haven't even got html on a prim yet, and you want them to add Photoshop (and I guess Poser or Blender) to the interface?! Don't hold your breath, will ya?

Regardless of what you do to the SL client or server I will still be able to make an 100% exact copy of all your textures, and any other game or software's textures

I posted a hot-line message to Linden, about harassment of another SL member. If you think about SL and places you have been, Playboyz is NOT the only one in potential violation of the copyright laws. So this person has picked Cal Alexander, not Playboyz.

To this person I have to say the following: It is very obvious what you are doing, and I have sold Playboyz. I have also discussed all of this with my attorney. As I said in my reply, there are not enough Lindens, nor members in SL, to catch all the little bunnies in SL.

I am no longer in the club business, so leave me alone Linden is free to look at my records and see that this whole thing was for the enjoyment of SL members, for which I am sure you don't care about.

Hiding behind an alt name does not get it

And, why don't you fess up? Little bunnies is NOT the only infringement in SL. So why Cal Alexander, hmmmm ????

Why not? They are bank rolling on this game. They should have little problems making their own version of photoshop that works in game. Adding real life made content into SL just defeats the whole idea of SL IMO. A set of tools should be given to work with IN SL and that is what we should have work with. As long as RL content can be added the game with just continue to degrade into a slum of RL on the computer. Is that what you guys want?