Intellectual Property and Law

Another example from the software industry: Apple against Microsoft and IBM, 1988. Apple tried to protect their graphical UI, the overall "Desktop with windows and folders" idea, and lost of course. BUT... IBM was forced to remove the trashcan icon as well as the folder icon from their Windows precursor "NewWave". They also had to change the name "Trashcan" into something else.

The judge ruled that anything but the folder symbol and trashcan symbol + name was either unoriginal to Apple (done by Xerox before), or the functions were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea (like overlapping application and folder windows).

Only a small victory for Apple, but it shows that a unique combination of look & function can indeed be protected. Microsoft didn't include a trashcan in all Windows versions until Win95, to be on the safe side, and in Win95 they chose a design that totally differs from Apple's trashcan and named it "recycle bin". IBM was also quite careful later and used a paper shredder for the same purpose in OS2.

Copyright law in regards to art and writing is pretty easy to understand. I'm not well versed in the protections for functional things like software or inventions beyond the patent process. Copyright is granted automatically as soon as a new work is created. Is there anything similar (automatic protection) for software code or functional items?

Creating a 3d digital representation of a chair (for example) does not automatically grant the creator exclusive rights over all future 3d digital representations of chairs. It only grants them rights over that particular representation. Ever hear of a Utah teapot?

If I made my own representation of an object in SL, I would tell the person making the threats to BRING IT with the attorney, because I know it wouldn't happen.

As far as I know, IP rights also apply there as soon as something unique enough is created (only IP rights though, not an automatic patent or copyright). It's up to a judge though what "unique enough" means.

I'm starting to get suspicious about what the OP actually made...seeing how they omitted that fact. That could decide this whole debate in one shot!

While I agree with the chair analogy, there ARE things out there that are unique and able to be protected under IP laws.

So what is this thing anyway?

It's only that easy if the object in question is something as simple as a chair, a teapot or a plain white shirt. You can't say "Because it is like this for a chair, it has to be the same for a rather unique combination of design and functionality". There are many law cases being fought in RL over IP rights and design patents (I used to work with an interior design company once). In some cases it seems like an obvious ripoff, but the judge decides that the design is too common; in other cases the copyist changed parts of the design, but it is still judged to be a design patent breach.

/Edit: even the chair is protected from creating an exact 1:1 copy with the same textures and prim sizes, as long as it isn't just a plywood box but a design that someone invested some work in, like applying unique textures.

My perspective comes from digital creations, as that is where my background lies.

Most digital objects in SL, are in fact representations of objects found in RL or even imagined objects from RL. Even the Starax Wand, which is one of the best SL inventions ever, comes from the RL idea that many people have of a "magic wand".

One huge difference here is the absence of a patent on these objects. If you were trying to patent it so that THEY could no longer make it, they could claim prior art., etc. It sounds more to me as if they are behaving as though they have a patent. Do they?

That would be the first thing I would ask them. Sure, people have a copyright on their work the moment it is created. Registering it, etc., is added insurance, but in the end your *works* are yours. "Features" and things like "look and feel" aren't covered by copyright though, unless someone simply copies the actual work and passes it off as theirs.

People invariably bring up Microsoft in these discussions, but companies at that level do their best to patent and trademark everything they create. That is what sets something apart as intellectual PROPERTY. The item is then an asset, and no one else can make one unless you give your say so.

The stuff in Second Life for the most part doesn't really deserve the term, with all due apologies to the common wisdom here and the stance of the Linden folks. Second Life is much more like artistic industries, like fashion, etc. Feel free to try and protect your "intellectual property" in, say, the hair styling industry, or your decorative use of a scarf.

I am a total noob around the Second Life world, but I come from a long background in the application skinning/digital art community. We always fought to protect ourselves from people who gleaned our creations in zip form and took them to other sites, passed them off as theirs, etc. I've personally had sites taken down because they filled their database dishonestly.

In terms of people who copied our style, grabbed functionality ideas from our scripts, etc., well, we were screwed. Even if you want to call it that. In reality we just birthed something new that was adopted and built upon. What is annoying is also a credit to what we do. I see interface concepts that amateur skinners innovated back in the late 90's being used, even commercially, all the time.

So, no, this can't hold water. Not even close. Given the fact that SL has protections in place so that an author can protect their scripts, prevent copying and modification, etc., it would be painfully difficult to claim that you took this person's actual work to profit from. To borrow from "The Crow", they had a good idea, and the idea is becoming the institution. What was the idea?

People will bemoan the Devil's Night greeting cards, but such is the way of the world.

As an aside, I've noticed that there is a lot of stuff from RL used in the creation of particular objects within SL. I'm not interested in making any kind of a stink about it, but I will say that at least one cottage industry in Second Life borrows heavily from the stock apps they use to make the objects they sell, so much so that I can look at some of them and see the quirks the apps leave on the items; almost certainly assuring that the graphics were cut and pasted.

What is and isn't one's own work is pretty relative in this kind of environment, using the tools we use. I think one reason these kinds of conflicts don't go further is because the wronged party down deep understands that casting stones isn't easy when what THEY make is constructed from others' uncredited, work however indirectly. If you pulled every item in Second Life that was, say, created from a second-hand texture found randomly on the Internet or from Google images, well, there'd be a lot less content.

Another thought;

So if every creation made and sold is only allowed to be made and sold by the person whom first made it, then we are stuck buying that item (if we want it) from only that person?

That smacks more of a monoply than IP protection.

In this particular case, as described by the OP, he used talent and materials of his own. He in no way used anything other than the idea of the original creator to make his work.

Saying that is wrong would be like saying only Ford can make cars, or only Levi can make jeans since it's their idea. That line of thinking is just so dumb it rediculous.

Quite frankly, if you don't want to share your ideas in SL, then get out.

~Jessy

hmmmmm....

So many things already said, but the most points seem to be that its most likely NOT an original idea anyway, you did YOUR interpretation of of it...

And as the saying goes ... you get what you pay for. You openly admit that you feel that hers is higher quality yet yours offers " similar functionality" for a lower price. She really doesnt have any leg to stand on legally as for example if 100 people had the same resources (i.e textures and prims) its likely that a lot would come up with similar items.

She should accept the fact that you have made a similar item and may alter her price to something more realistic as it wont be long that somebody makes the item BETTER than hers for half price.

Marty

What does "IP rights" mean in this context? The only IP rights I am aware of are patent or copyright, so if it's not one of those two then what are you talking about? These automatic IP rights over an invention that you allege, what does that do? Does it enable you to sue another person who recreates your invention?

ADDITION: Oh right, and also trademark. That doesn't change anything here, just want my list of IP rights to be complete.

Exactly. Being a copycat or a "poser", etc., isn't breaking the law. The 'P' in 'IP' stands for property.

You can't claim ownership of an idea. A good example is all the tragic stories of amateur inventors throughout modern history. That's why secrecy is such a big deal in R&D, but once you are distributing the object the secrecy part is moot.

in science, Watson and Crick seized upon a colleague's idea, and became giants in genetics. Few know who Rosalind Franklin was. Tragically, it was HER secrecy that lends now to her anonymity. In guarding her research she ensured that few knew that she had the idea first.

So, you can hunker down and protect ideas, or you can release them like your child and watch them bloom. I'm all for IP, but when taken to extremes it robs humanity of innovation. Disney wouldn't exist without public domain fairy tales, yet they do everything they can from allowing their own stories to slip into the public domain. Tragic, imho.

I don't think what you have done is very ethical, but unless the item is an exact copy down to the prim dimensions, textures and functions then you are not violating any law or LL's TOS. If I was in the original creators positon and personally felt that you had ripped off my work then I would blow hot air at you as well in order to scare you, in addition to exploring a number of other avenues to motive to you to stop selling the item and to ultimately damage/ruin your business. It may seem extreme but some people make a lot of money in this game and will act accordingly when someone threatens that income.

It's not difficult to go to slx and do a little digging. Especially when the OP only has one item up for sale, and the product name includes the name of the person for whom he made it

There are a GAZILLION of these things on slx. The original complainant is smoking way too much crack if he/she thinks they have a DMCA claim on this.

Agreed. I think a certain RL movie industry would have more of a legal leg to stand on ROFL. Anyone in SL claiming IP for this should have their head examained.

Oh, and for the record, nice work on that, BX. Don't know what the other's looks like (since we can't name names here so I have no idea who made it), but yours looks very well made, imo.

~Jessy

Lol agreed... how can anyone claim IP on this in SL?

It's plainly obvious whats happening here, the seller of the 1,500L$ units doesn't like your 200L$ units, as they make theirs look too expensive. Empty threats about a lawyer... lol.. lemme think.. Lawyer charges what 200$ an hour... thats how many units in L$'s potential loss of profits? Gimme a break.
Tell them to politely go find a sharp stick and poke themselves in their own eye.

Someone will be telling me next that a single plywood prim, sized to look like a widescreen TV, with a texture on one side, is the sole property of Logi Baird.

If it is the lightsaber, there is also a freebie one floating around too, and has been for more than a year.

I'm sorry, i fail to see how what the OP did was unethical. If he'd taken the original creator's efforts and tried to pass it off as his own, that would clearly be unethical. But the OP used his own efforts to create a completely new variation of an existing product. Looking at something and thinking 'that's nice, but i'll bet i can do it better, faster, cheaper or with more style' may not be the soul of innovation, but it certainly must be at least its significant other.

People who threaten to sue you, never do. The lawsuits just arrive, from people smart enough to keep their mouth shut.

Intellectual property lawyers are MASSIVELY expensive beasts. Like, insanely crazily monstrously expensive.

If I'm not mistaken, the OP states it's something similar I'm guessing to a photo studio/photo sphere type of thingy.

Sorry, but that's... partially incorrect. I've registered my SL company as an RL trade and have some design patents pending, so I'll very soon have a legal leg to stand on. I also have a legal expenses insurance, which lessens the threat of those expensive beasts called lawyers.
But I would never sue someone out of the blue. First comes a friendly hint, plus a try to find out if they really intended to copy my work, or just happened to have a very similar inspiration. Then possibly the threat of a lawsuit. If that is enough, I'm happy. I don't want any stress or trouble. Nonetheless I'm prepared to go through with a lawsuit if there's no other way.

Overall, I'm a bit shocked to see the reaction of most people in this thread. The thread starter copied something that seems to be unique enough that so far only one person offered it for sale. He had a look at it and recreated it. He writes "But it does everything hers does", which suggests he also copied the functionality. That doesn't sound like the design of a chair which looks similar to another designer's chair. It sounds like a ripoff, although no one can judge that without knowing the original and the copy in question.

I know that many people who frequent the official forum also try to make a living or at least to cover their costs with a small SL business. Yet everyone gives the thread starter a complimentary ticket to copy whatever he wants (as long as he rebuilds it instead of coying it, something a CopyBot does too). The common view seems to be that IP rights have no meaning, and that's a false assumption.

The arguments from Free The Prims folks are always the same. "Many SL designers copy Poser textures or other digital sources". Well, in that case the SL designer infringed on the copyright of another designer. Same with the old StarWars argument. Yes, the people selling stormtrooper armor, Tie Fighter replicas or AT-ST's are also guilty of copyright infringements. Lucasfilm Ltd. ignores fan art of all sorts as long as no one profits of their ideas. As soon as fan art is commercially sold, even for a few cents only, the seller can get into lots of legal trouble. Luckily for them, Lucas' lawyers either don't know of SL or don't care about peanuts.
Knowing that some persons don't give a sh*t about copyrights doesn't make copyrights and IP rights in SL nonexistent. This argument is as moot as "Some audio CDs contain cover songs, that gives me the right to freely copy music".

And of course, there's always the argument "Where would humanity be today if the person who invented the wheel had insisted on their IP rights, or the guy who found a way to make fire with two pieces of wood." Or "Where would Disney be without public domain fairytales". Sounds like a valid argument, until you consider how people make a living today. Then a counter question comes to mind: "Where would humainty be today if a few jerks had stolen everyone else's food". Today it's unique ideas, inventive products and good service that brings food onto our table. Copying and selling a rather unique product is stealing the inventor's food, when you follow the cause-effect chain to the end.

A large part of the audience attracted by SL may not give much about software and media copyrights. I saw that more relaxed too when I was younger. But when I realized that the survival of my employing company (and therefore my own job and income) depended on copyrights and design patents, I completely changed my view. Suddenly it wasn't the big bad media industry or software industry anymore, but also lots of small companies fighting for their survival. In SL, we only have small companies. Even Anshe is a small fish. But they enjoy legal protection as well.

So, the answer to the original question is: Yes, if you blatantly copied something, there's a good chance that the creator can and will sue you. Perhaps a small chance, but one I wouldn't risk. No matter how loud people shout "Don't stifle creative input into SL", ripping off someone's work has nothing to do with creativity and can have legal consequences.

Sigh, so much confusion.

Copyrights cover derived works. If someone publishes a new piano concerto, and you sit down at your harp and recreate it from memory, maybe leaving out details and sections, it's still a derived work, and you can't publish it without permission. The fact that you created it o your own, 'from scratch', is irrelevant. What matters is how similar it is to the original, and whether the similarities are things covered by the copyright.

Whether or not a particular work is derived from another source, or infringes on another source, is often a judgment call. A judge or jury would look at both, and make a decision about how similar they are. See, for example, http://www.iplawobserver.com/2007/06/jury-verdict-for-copyright-infringement.html , which says "The judge properly instructed the jury that it must find "substantial similarity" rather than "virtual identicality" between the plaintiff's work and the infringing work."

So all those people who say that it's ok because it was made from scratch, or because it's just copying the idea, are wrong unless they've actually compared the two side by side. Likewise for anyone who claims that it is an infringing derived work without actually comparing them.


It doesn't matter whether she's versed in copyright law as long as her lawyer is. It's a common procedure to try to resolve things before filing a formal complaint, to save legal costs on both sides, so you can't read too much into that. Perjury doesn't enter into the picture at all; I've seen nothing to suggest this other person is lying about anything.


Nonsense. Copyright notices are no longer required for a copyright to exists.


So close and yet so far. You're right that aspects that are in common usage aren't covered by copyright. However, if a chair has some unique artistic design implemented by sculpties instead of textures, then that aspect would be covered. Invention isn't the issue here, creative design is.


It's pretty similar. The closest thing to software copyrights are copyrights on technical writing. You can't copyright things that are forced, such as the steps in an installation (e.g. Hit the power button. Insert the CD. ....). The copyright take effect the instant the software is committed to a persistent medium, just like ordinary writing.

There aren't any other applicable IP rights. The copyright is automatic, the patent is not.


There are indeed copyright issues in the fashion industry, but you're right that commercial practice has a strong influence. However, just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be protected by copyright.


And that's precisely the role of patents. Think about prescription drugs. In this case, patents don't seem to be the issue, but there's no reason someone couldn't create a patentable item in SL.


More nonsense. Infringements don't have to be exact copies. What you're saying is that all I have to do is change the size of one prim in an exact copy, and I'm off the hook.