|
Karen Ash
Registered User
Join date: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
01-25-2007 11:29
From: Billie Scaggs Doesnt matter to me.
My builds are copy /mod /no transfer & all scripts used in the house are no mod / copy / no transfer. I would honestly prefer my more elaborate builds to be mod /no copy/ transfer on the prims only, but cant seem to find a rezzer that works well.
How likely is it to happen?
I've seen my builds setup in a "Truman Show" type neighborhood. The owner of copies was the one that purchased it so i was ok with it. He cant transfer them. I am in total agreement, I have sold YOU a COPY MOD Building, It is up to YOU how to use it, I firmly believe that people who buy my items that are copy/mod then they have the right to do what they like with the home it IS theirs after all. Is it fair, you can perhaps argue the point of using copies for rentals but the bottom line is, the customer HAS the irght to COPY, then who am I to tell someone how to use an item they BOUGHT my 2.2 cents  |
|
Learjeff Innis
musician & coder
Join date: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 817
|
01-25-2007 13:22
From: Yumi Murakami I understand what you're saying, but there's also that second clause - even if someone does violate your patent, then according to the above, you can't do anything about it. This rather strongly suggests that their intention was to keep patents entirely out of SL.
I believe that one resident did in fact try to patent an object they made and use it to prevent competitors moving in, and I don't think it worked. Hmm, I think you're right. Note that this does not keep someone from suing a LL service user from violating a RL patent in SL. It only blocks a lawsuit if the patent holder embodied that patent in an SL object. Also, if you have a a license to employ a patent and use that in SL, the owner of the patent can go after any infringers in SL. Therefore, if you want to enforce a patent in SL, you need to use a corporate entity to hold the patent and license it to yourself, and then have the corporation sue the infringer. Ergo, no protection against patent infringement, as long as the patent holder is smart enough. In any case, IMHO, LL should be exempt -- but plaintiffs always name any possible party when they sue so they're not totally off the hook either. |
|
Angelique LaFollette
Registered User
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,595
|
01-25-2007 13:41
From: Abba Thiebaud Ok, to clarify further: Say Object A is a Potted plant. Avatar Object B would be a potted plant with branches for arms, leaves for face, and a "hop" for a walk (pots are hard to make walk decently *grin*).
Object A is sized to fit on a dining room table and look pretty. Nothing moves, nothing changes about it.
Avatar Object B is 7' tall (or whatever the average av height is), has waving branches for arms, moves about independantly, has a mind of it's own, prims in different positions to hide the av legs, arms, neck, torso, etc, and has texturing cleverly done with some freebie textures available in SL.
If you set them side by side, you can see a resemblance, but it would be the same resemblance between a small bush outside your office window and one of the (insert animation studio of your choice here) live talking walking trees in the movie (insert kids movie here).
*BUT* a lot of the original design is incorporated into the new av. For instance, the pots are the same (only one is larger than the other) and the type of plant are the same (non flowering, green bushy thing). This incorporation includes perhaps as much as 40% of the original design (with slight size changes and the obvious texture changes).
BTW how'd you know I was working on a plant-human av?
A Based upon your description i would say that there Is sufficient difference to Claim the work as your own, However i would suggest Crediting the original creator and perhaps making a small Monitary Gift in return for his "Contribution". Make him a Partner? As for How i Knew,, I'm from Martinique, a Lot of us, it has been suggested, can "See around a Few Corners" the Image of a Plant just came to me.  Angel. |