Intellectual Property and Law

This is a pretty straight forward question. Someone is threatening to sue me.

I saw a particular item in Second Life, barely glanced at it truth be told, at a price that I thought was rediculous. So I took the time to make one, albiet not exactly the same. Truthfully the one they made was nicer than mine, and had a few features mine doesn't, and better textures, but mine was cheaper, and I made it from scratch myself. I posted it on SLX, and within a day I recieved a cease and desist from the person themselves, not a lawyer, threatening that they would contact their lawyer if I didn't remove it within 24 hours.

My question is this, do they have a case against me? I made my object from scratch, myself. I personally think they are just blowing smoke because they are upset that mine is 200 Lindens versus their 1500 Lindens. I went back to them with a comment about how I made it from scratch thus it's my intellectual property not theirs, and they replied with a straightfoward "My lawyer will be in touch."

Are they just trying to scare me into taking it down or do they have a case?

I should mention that I have no problem leaving my ad down. I don't want her to feel like I am stealing business from her, or as she put it;

"Oh and btw, you think anyone is going ot
buy your LOUSY rip off of someone elses work?"

She's right, it's not nearly as fancy as hers. But it does everything hers does. Still, I don't want her to feel like I am stealing business from her, and I'm not trying to go to court over this. I am just wondering why she is doing this, and if she has standing. If that's the case, it's like someone said on the SLX forums to me, you could make a no mod no copy white shirt and then sue anyone else who makes the shirt. It's a sphere, with a couple of scripted light orbs and a ramp. Anyone and their mother could make it if they tried, and I don't like someone threatening to sue me over this.

She's blowing smoke. If you made it from scratch, you have nothing to worry about. I highly doubt she has a patent on her sphere/light/ramp thingy.

It's called competition. Capitalism. etc.

Absolutely blowing smoke. And not even blowing it effectively!

She obviously is not versed in copyright law or how it works, OR she knows she doesn't have a case. The proper course of action would be to file DMCA notices with LL and SLX, and proceed from there. But that is more work and would put her at risk of legal consequences (defendant's lawyer fees, perjury charges).

Why do all that and risk losing when it's so much easier and less risky to send you a bullying letter?

I would just send a serious and unemotional response stating simply that you feel there is no copyright violation, and that she should address any further complaints using the DMCA process.

You know what the worst of it was... I made that thing because my girlfriend wanted one. Afterwards, we took some pictures with it, and I thought, "wow, this works pretty well... Maybe I'll sell it." I didn't expect a huge profit from it, it's why it was cheap. I didn't even expect that much at all. If she'd just asked me, nicely, without throwing some Lawyers name in my face, I might've just removed it without incident.

And thanks. I surmised as much, from info I gathered on the SLX forums. I just wanted to see what the SL forums would tell me, and basically the same thing. She's got nothing, and I guess her lawyer is contacting me in world? very strange, but we'll see what comes of all of this =)

Now I'm curious what the item is.

Ooo, I know, I know!

It's actually not your own intellectual property as it's derived from the work of someone else (and apparently not much deviation in the derivation as the original creator noticed how much it looked like their object). One cannot look shocked and say, "Gosh, how dare this person ask me to cease and desist from distributing this object which I based entirely on their idea."

Also, having made a (supposedly) unique object for your girlfriend it's bad form to then place copies of it for sale. "Look, honey numkins, I made this juuuuuuust for you (and the marketplace of 3-million people) because you really really really are that special to me."

One does not get to complain if someone then makes a knock-off of the knock-off.

I guess the key question to ask is, If a CopyBot had done the same thing would you let the CopyBot off the hook?

There's a substantial difference between a rip of someone's work done with a copybot or some similar tool and an item that's made from scratch that merely copies someone else's idea. The former directly steals the fruits of someone else's labor. The second, while not an original idea, doesn't. It's understandable that the person who originated the idea might be upset but they don't have a claim in a legal sense unless they have a patent on the idea. If copying other people's ideas were wrong then everyone who makes an animation HUD would be at war with their competition. People should expect that if they come up with a novel and unique idea someone's going to copy that idea. That's just life. The way to combat it is to continue to improve the orginal product to keep ahead of the competition.

Competition is good. It drives innovation and the continued evolution of ideas and products. It's just a bummer when your one of a kind product suddenly isn't one of a kind anymore.

My experience with receiving threats of being sued - in a much more general sense than just intellectual property rights - is that people just love to scream "I'm going to sue you", and that 99% of the time they simply don't have a case whatsoever. Usually, a threat of legal action just gets a response of "tell it to my attorney, that's why we have him on retainer" and I never hear another word about it. On the two occasions that my initial response didn't shut them up, I kicked their ass in court. You can't just sue people over nothing, despite what so many people seem to think.

Surely someone with actual legal training could provide an informed opinion on whether you actually do have any right to worry, but until then I'd just assume the person is full of crap if I were you.

.

I should add that I think copying the exact functionality of someone else's product without adding your own unique spin or features to it, and then putting it on the market substantially undercutting the original, isn't especially ethical, even if it's completely legal.

Reverse Engineering has been argued to death *gives that horse a proper funeral and throws away the stick*

If you want to argue that point, then you need to tell everyone that uses inspiration from RL objects not to crate them here in SL. *rolls eyes* Yeah. Right. I'm sure that'll happen.

If you want to go that route, you stiffle creative input into SL.

I couldn't begin to tell you how many stupidly high-priced items I've recreated myself. Do I sell them? No. I'm here for a Second Life, not a Second Job. I do however give them away for free to friends, so I'd call that really really cheep lol.

Some things look alike by function, not design. Example: There's only so many ways you could design a baseball bat.

I'd say to tell the person threatening the lawsuit to have a beer and go outside for a chill.

~Jessy

I think its more of a moral issue then a legal one.

But Ill tell you this, if the tables were turned I think You’d be pissed.
Not a legal foot to stand on, but greatly upset all of your creativity and countless hours
went into something, someone used as a model to make their own in a few mins.

hmmm...

this is a tough one..

One worthy of an SL PATENT Library perhaps?

This is the Lotus "Look and Feel" lawsuit that was settled years ago. Lotus lost. Just because your program might be similar to theirs, and achieve the same goal, does not mean that the *function* belongs to them. More to the point, in the code that you originally looked at, was there a copyright notice? If not, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

If you developed it yourself, from the ground up then unless they can *demonstrate* clearly that they had a copyright notice in place, and that you obviously copied their code verbatim to make your product, then they have no case, civil or otherwise.

Some of the functionality will, of necessity be identical, since you are both using LSL. That doesn't count. You're both using the same API, so obviously some of the code must be identical. The *implementation* is the thing. You have an affirmative defense. *They* have to show that *you* copied their code.

You acknowledge that your product is inferior to theirs, so you charged less. That is simply smart marketing. Why buy it for L$1500 when you can buy it for L$200? If they don't like it, then they should change their marketing strategy. That is their problem, not yours.

I invented the binary search. All on my own. True, somebody else invented it 30 years before I did, but that doesn't mean that I didn't invent it. It just means that somebody else invented it first. We came to the same solution, 3 decades apart, and neither of us knew of the other when we did it. That is independent development, not theft of IP.

I guess you need to figure out what is more important to you trying to make few lindens and having to deal with the hassle of conflict and proving you weren't doing anything wrong because someone has done before or using this as experience and your energy to do something even better that was more fun creating?
Everyone copies someone when they are learning at first. Example the young artist who studies the Great Master and reduplicates their work to best of their ablities.
A young child studying his older siblings mannerism and behaviors because they look up to them and want to be like them
Yet truthfully its best whenever possible as Chip says to try to make the item different not exactly the same because it just copying.
Truthfully I wish I had half the know how and ablities, software and hard ware utilities out there that people who are really gifted like Chip has and I know no matter how hard I try I would never be able to duplicate a product or shape even for my friends if I tried. Yet there so many more things I can do that are just as creative and fun. Personally if it wasn't to the quality of great skilled designer I would find it unethical to sell it in first place. I did that or tempted once with few of my textures and I felt so bad about it. I choose never to do it again.

If the object is something that also exists in RL, such as a chair or a house, or even an article of clothing, they don't have a leg to stand on, as they are presumably not the original inventor of the item. DMCA complaints are for people who steal original work, such as those who rip textures.

You can't copyright an idea.

Just smokin'. And good for you!!! There a few shops that I don't even bother with anymore. EampleL1500 for a dress...paleeez! I often make my own versions of opverpriced items in SL and if they turn out well, I sell them. I never directly copy anything, but do my versions. It's the nature of the fashion biz. Knock off and spin current trends until that niche becomes saturated and move on. I applaud your ingenuity, and if you sell your item cheaper, then kudos for you and the cummunity. Options are the primary tool an informed consumer has. Maybe she should lower her price to make it more competitve and start working on new products.

I would have to agree with Chip's take on this subject overall.

However, I think you're safe from litigation since what lawyer in their right mind is going to take a case over an item worth as much as a nice dinner at Taco Bell?

Also, it would help to know what the item actually is. If the original is (for example) "Wonderwoman's Invisible Jet" and you made "Wonder-Girl's Unseeable Aircraft" then you did rip this person off and should have to log 120 hours in the Cornfield (if they even use it anymore).

If it's a more generic item like a chair with preset animations and other features and you made a different chair with similar features then you still kinda ripped the person off, but it's not like they were being too original anyway.

I'd say, in that case DC Comics can sue both of them

somewhat different from the good advice you have already heard.

Tell them politely your version is not derived from theirs, then ignore them.

If you hear from their lawyer, discuss it with the lawyer. Every time you talk to their lawyer, it will probably cost them lawyer money. Talk to their lawyer a lot. if they try to talk to you, be polite, and keep it short.

If at some point it looks like they will actually take you to court, you can either defend yourself, give up, or hire your own lawyer.

Meanwhile, be sure to create a much better version and put it on the market.

If this were illegal, Equate would have been out of business long ago. They even place statements on their products that says "Compare to _______." This example isn't of the same world, but it is capitalism nonetheless.

Well, it seems to be derived from theirs, as he admits. He had a look at the original and he exactly knows the functionality of the original, otherwise he couldn't compare them. It's not that easy.

I agree with you when it comes to clothes or patterns of cloth. However, even there you can't rip off something 1:1. Without some modifications, it doesn't matter if it was stolen or re-designed in exactly the same look. Of course, it also depends on how unique the design is.

But as soon as we're talking not only looks but both design and functionality, the outcome of a law suit is unclear. With a rather unique combination of design and functions, the original designer could really win a law suit. It isn't as easy as saying "no one bothers anymore, free the prims, everyone copies".

If you only use the recreated items yourself, no one could possibly complain. And I agree that there's only a narrow window of design possibilities and possible functions for something like a baseball bat, a prim animal or a prim car. But items that are rather unique, like the design of a futuristic hover car combined with a unique functionality, are protected by IP rights even if the creator has no additional RL design patents or copyrights. In that case it depends on how much of a copy the copy is, i.e. how much the design + functionality was changed.

/me is still curious as to what the item even is!

Is it a Flaming Moe??