Content Creation for out-of-world

I was just reading over the terms of service again, originally when I read them I thought that content creaters could maintain intellectual rights to content that they created. I thought that this applied both in-world and out.

It does not seem to be so, the terms and conditions seem to specify that it is in-world intellectual rights. Nothing is mentioned out of world.

Seems to me that if a content creater comes up with an idea, concept or persona, that is profitible in the outside world Linden Labs can either shut it down, or Take the concept, idea, persona, etc for their own outside use.

This is confusing, because I see so many websites on the outside that people have put a lot of time and hard work into, that obviously they intend to make an outside-world profit on.

What about photo's and machinima? What if an artist shoots a series of short films that becomes succsessful in mainstream media? I'd expect that Linden Labs would get a cut, but can/will they take all? Or even just flat out shut it down?

Thanks, Andy

the little blue button with L$ is a good example of SL adding a feature that was once only done out of world by outside companies. I remember scouting out several sites to buy the L$ I needed.

Never researched this but I think you must be wrong. At least one example I can think of is the guy who created Tringo. He took the game out of SL and sold it to a mobile phone company so he must have patented the game and copyrighted/TM the name etc in order to sell it. I may well be wrong but assuming he did, LL would not legally now be able to use the Tringo conecpt either in SL or in the real world.

O.k., that sounds feasible, but lets say what you are doing is using the enviroment to create some sort of art like photos or machinima to use on the outside. Can you do that legally? Or will it be fine until you start making US dollars on it?

The default rule is that you own what you create.

Your participation in Second Life is (theoretically) one of contract. Linden Labs could, for example, put in its terms of service, to which you have to agree to participate, that anything you use in Second Life becomes their property, or at least that you grant them license to use anything that you create in Second Life.

A lot of potential content creators may not like those rules, though, and therefore either not create any content for Second Life, or not play at all. Thus Linden Labs created a set of intellectual property rules to encourage content creation, and those rules include promises to protect intellectual property rights.

Another issue that might mitigate the default rule that you own what you create is the extent to whether what you create in Second Life, for Second Life, might be considered a derivative work of Linden Labs. Again to encourage content creation, Linden Labs has waived claims it might have to derivative rights of content that you create for Second Life.

Don't think of it as Linden Labs granting you special rights. Think of it as Linden Labs declining to ask you to give up your default rights to your intellectual property. If you think of it that way, it's easier to think through these questions.

The default rule is that you own what you create. So, absent a contract with Linden Labs giving up some of those rights, you have your rights to your creation both in Second Life and out of Second Life.

On the other hand, if you have no right to use someone else's creation out of Second Life, the mere fact that you are the first to use it in Second Life does not grant you the right to do so, without the original creator's prior consent. Boris Vallejo may have painted his works outside of Second Life, and he may not have a Second Life account, but all those copies of his work for sale in Second Life are highly illegal. (I'm going to make the wild assumption that Vallejo has not granted a bunch of people in Second Life the right to sell poor-quality copies of his paintings for about 20 cents each.)

I don't think you have any problems with your movies or snapshots from Second Life, at least as it comes to Linden Labs. The environment isn't really Linden Labs'; it's created by other users. Unless you're copying textures or getting pictures/video from areas that have tried to lock you out, anything you get in your movies or snapshots should be fair use of others' creations.

I don't think it needs to, as there is no way Linden Labs would have any rights to your IP out-of-world regardless.

GOM isn't a fair example, as they didn't copy any of GOM's intellectual property, just the general principle of a L$ currency exchange which isn't IP (or it might possibly be patentable, but that's not clear)

Yes, that makes sense about the painter's works being sold inside with out his permission. Absolutely wrong.

I'm mostly concerned with using the enviroment itself to create art. Such as movies, photos and possibly short stories/comics illustrated with photos taken in the environment.

It sounds to me like what you are saying is if I take a picture in world I can use it outside and I own the rights to it.

That depends on what's included in the picture - if it includes things built by other people, their IP rights may apply.

This is an interesting point, because there is such a large gray area. For a RL example, anyone is allowed to photograph architectural works, but a close-up image of a copyrighted painting would be a violation. By habit I apply the same principles in SL, but in a way virtual architecture is as much art as a RL painting... especially if the builder creating all their own custom textures for it. And yet I still don't feel wrong taking sightseeing pictures and posting them on the web. Why? Not sure. Just going with the gut feeling, but that doesn't always prove correct.

There is one specific instance where this causes me potential trouble. I have a supermodel alt whose sole purpose is to buy clothes and poses and so on, take pictures displaying them, and post the pictures on her online portfolio website. I bought a yoga outfit specifically for pictures demonstrating poses, and it is the only suitable outfit I have found for this purpose (it hides mangled joints really well).

The strange part is that the outfit included a license detailing the specific permissions granted with the purchase... but a license that I could only view AFTER making a non-returnable purchase. In other words, I had to make the purchase without being allowed to know of any special restrictions on said purchase. The special restriction? In some profoundly wordy legalese, it seems to imply that I may not post pictures of my av wearing the outfit on the web!

Now this is an unusual and unexpected restriction on SL clothes, and the inability to read the license before purchase makes the legality of it questionable. But that only matters if the default -- being allowed to post pix of your av wearing someone's outfit -- is itself legal.

As I'm not sure this was the designer's intent, I sent them a notecard telling them what I was doing and that I would remove the pictures immediately if asked. Legal or not, I wish to respect the designer's wishes, if I can figure out what they are!

Sadly, this particular designer is famous for not responding to customers. Until I hear from her, I still use the outfit for modeling poses, but I can't allow myself to buy any other products from her.

---

I would definitely be interested in hearing from some content creators on this, particularly clothes makers. Do you consider a picture of an av wearing your clothes to be a violation of your copyright when posted on the web? Same question for creators of skins, hair, poses, jewelry, houses, furniture, and just everything!

The basic contract of sale for most consumer goods is based on offer and acceptance. K-Mart offers to sell jeans to anyone in the general public for $15. That is an offer. You walk in, pick up the jeans, and give the check-out clerk $15. That's an acceptance of the offer. You have a completed contract of sale.

Theoretically, K-Mart could prohibit you from wearing its jeans in certain places- let's say, K-Mart does not want you to wear its jeans in McDonalds. If that's a condition of sale, K-Mart needs to make that condition a part of it's offer for sale. K-Mart will sell you jeans, that you are not allowed to wear in McDonald's, for $15. Now, if you pay K-Mart $15 for those jeans, then you have accepted K-Mart's offer, with all its conditions. You have a completed contract, and jeans you can't wear in McDonalds.

If you don't like the restriction as to not wearing the jeans in McDonalds, then you are free to reject K-Mart's offer.

In the offer-and-acceptance scenario, it's very important that all the terms and conditions of the offer be made before the offer is accepted. Otherwise, the consumer has no option to reject an offer it does not like. The thing that makes a contract a contract is that both parties agree on the terms by which they will be bound before they bind themselves to the contract.

A license delivered after a sale, especially when there is no option to return the item bought, does not create a contract. At best, that "license" is an uneforceable request.

This isn't necessarily off-topic. If you want to protect your intellectual property from a fair use (such as, wearing clothes when someone takes a picture of you is generally a fair use of clothes), then you need to think about that protection before the sale. After the fact, it's too late.

Hey every one,

Thanks for your input. I've been helping some friends promote some of their creative endeavors because I'm somewhat web savvy. I got some ideas of my own along the way. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to waste time creating something I couldn't use.

Doesn't really sound like it will be a problem though.

That's a crazy, crazy deal about the clothing restriction. Doesn't sound like it would hold up to me.

Thanks again,
Andy

The case I'm thinking of especially is Anshe Chung accusing griefers of violating her copyright on her avatar by posting pictures of her on the web. Which is especially unusual because - at least, as far as I know - Anshe doesn't make her own clothes.

Isn't this one of the penultimate threads? Imagine now some RL maker/seller saying you can't post photos of someone wearing these clothes siting IP. WTF? everything crumbles. the movie industry for sure. television and the web in general. Oh so you want record and sell the sounds that the violin i made produce without compensationing me or royalties? I mean come on where do we draw the line? Or do we have to pay IP right to some one to use drawn lines too?