Another interesting Test case: A Sl avi sues another

True of American Law, and despite the best efforts of some US law is Not yet Universal. So, Protect what is yours.
If you just make assumptions about your rights, you're ultimately going to Lose.

Angel.

While I agree that one should be aware of your rights and what is necessary to protect your rights, I do not believe the claims that you are making are accurate for the vast majority of SL citizens. I do not know what country you're in, but as you're on the internet, unless you are in China, it is likely that the Berne convention applies to you.

That's probably open to (legal) debate. I wouldn't think that permissions imply any contract (if only because the enforcement of them is beyond the control of the creator).

I don't think a DRM (which is what the permissions system is) has anything to do with implying intent, or waiving copyright rights. DRM just exists to (optionally) enforce copyright.

I think in any copyright dispute the burden of proof is on the accused (after it's been established that the accused indeed did not create the item in question) to show that they had permission to distribute/use/resell or that it was accompanied by a copyright waiver? Absence of restrictions doesn't imply permission.

I know when I signed up, I was under the impression that we all kept our IP for our creations, and it still seems to be said all over the website.
However, I can NOT find any legal documents that state that (the only one that I can find, the TOS, says higher up about your IP, but lower down it takes all that away again, as soon as it hits LL's servers).

Any ideas?

Can you own intellectual property? You cannot own an idea, so where is the difference?

EDIT; In a legal sense, not TOS sense, that is. I had a similiar issue to this at one point, and all the information I was able to gather pointed to no, you cannot own an idea, ie; intellectual property. I suppose the difference is if you had their item, recreated it with the exact same specifications, and the exact same textures, and then resold it, as exactly the same item. If someone makes something, and you create something similiar, with different textures, and a build you made all on your own, they would have no case against you.

Of course you can own intellectual property. I'm not sure how you define the term "idea"... if you call the complete plot of a book an idea, or a softdrink recipe, then yes, you can own an idea. Of course, the idea needs to be more complex than "My story plays in a future world with aliens and space ships" or "my softdrink contains sugar".

If I create something complex and rather unique, and someone else copies the overall design and functionality, then I do have a case. Even if the copyist built it on his own and used different textures; if the item looks similar enough, it might be considered a copy. The similarity counts, not necessarily the way the item was created.
With similarity I mean: no car manufacturer can sue you for building your own car, but if the bodywork reminds too much of, let's say, VW's New Beetle (a patented design), you might get legal problems.

Section 102 of the US Copyright law

§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

( architectural works.

--- (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. ---

Further, definition;

“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

--

Just for reference

I don't live in the USA. Even if no copyright protection for non-artistic works such as industrial designs exists in the USA (and I highly doubt that), the US signed several key treaties of international copyright laws. Such as the Berne Convention (international copyrights for literary and artistic works), the WIPO Copyright Treaty (international software and database copyrights), WIPO Performances & Phonograms Treaty, and especially the GATT/WTO TRIPS (international intellectual property of trademarks, software, industrial designs, patents and trade secrets).

I do live in the US, I don't know those (though I have heard of some, such as the Berne Convention). I just went with what I know, being the US Copyright laws. Since you don't live in the US, maybe you could

jk, though you sound quite well versed to be able to list them all like that, it wasn't very hard to copy and paste the sections I did.. I'll look for them, if I can, as I am at work, and I already had that particular section on hand, as I had a similiar situation as this one come up with something I made.

EDIT: Since you edited your post so that it's no longer asking me to list anything, it kinda makes mine sound stupid. Ah well, lol. I still stand by this section of the US Copyright law, and as a US citizen it's what I go by, regardless;

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Second Life's legal status has yet to be fully established in law, certainly with regard to in world taxation and jurisdictions.

I believe that fact that the servers exist on US soil is not in itself a defining argument, for example that fact that the casinos are still running is a moot case in point. Another example; a telescope or other technical device on US soil that enables us to view (and perhaps electronically travel) the Planet Mars, does not legally assume Mars is subject to US law.

Linden dollars (although not a first life currency) do have what is called fungible value. A similar situation exists with WoW Gold and some other VR currencies.

There is yet no legal answer to another question. If I enter this world and virtually stand in say, Dreamland, Caledon, or The Linden Village, WHERE am I in law?

I believe a legal argument exists that could hold Second Life is a separate PLACE or even COUNTRY, subject perhaps to its own laws and Government. Perhaps the question of emanate domain is an issue.

Can anyone offer legal feedback on this?

a copy right is not a patent.

and if it was a illegal copy linden would take care of it.

Not entirely true. Trademarks are a function of use in commerce. Theoretically, you could begin using a name in commerce but not register it and successfully contest it if someone else started using it after you. There are some factors to consider, but it can be done. States have trademark/unfair competition laws that protect their use, the federal scheme of protection is a different animal. You don't need to use the TM or apply for the R, but certain presumptions roll in your favor if you do.

All it means is that ownership and enforcement are related concepts, but when it comes 0s and 1s on the servers, LL is king.

Why would or should SL be considered any legally different from a website or the internet as a whole?

I think the slippery slope argument doesn't apply to obvious cases like this, but to other possibilities that could come up once the RL law gets involved. For example:

a) a big business sues a small business to bankrupt them with the cost of defending themselves.

b) an anti-sex/mature content person sues a sex/mature content industry person on a dubious charge, purely to get the subpoena and expose the person's real life identity.

c) SLAPPs (competing with the wrong business? They'll sue you.)

d) patent horrors. Already somebody a patent pending on the use of a particular LSL call in a particular context (http://www.virtualworldsppv.com/ : llParcelMediaCommandList in a money event). All of this is in the wiki, but that doesn't matter: if you want to use it, you'll have to get their permission first. You can challenge the patent, but that means going to law, paying for your lawyer, and you're not certain to win..

In response to the question 'can you own an idea', the answer is obviously 'no' just by pure common sense. It is not a physical thing in any way; the closest you can get to 'owning' in idea is to think of something and keep that thought secret. "Intellectual Property" is a pernicious invention that helps the 'owners' of it convince the courts and the public that the draconian penalties for copyright violation are reasonable because they equate it with 'Theft' of millions of dollars.

What you actually have is a state granted right to control the use of information, and those rights, and what is required to enforce and defend them, is completely different from one item to another. Copyright is the most relevant to SL, and it gives you a limited right to control the publication and distribution of a work. It does not give you 'ownership' of an idea. If someone takes your work and duplicates it, they are not actually stealing, they are 'infringing.'

Of course, this language battle is all but lost, which is why the RIAA can sue people as though every duplication of an mp3 were actually a CD single stolen from their warehouses, which is nonsensical; but that is the basis on which damages are measured, and terming it 'theft' rather than infringement helps to win judges and legislators to their side. (This isn't to say I condone infringement as such; just that copyright infringement is not theft, and that one does not own a work, one owns a right to control distribution of a work.)

I think I've even been guilty of calling it property and theft in recent days. Insidious.

I agree that ideas cannot be owned. It's a hard thing, I think, for people to believe, that if they come up with a concept that they think is unique to themselves, that no one else can also have a concept similiar, or like it. Second Life is this huge gray area of ideas, where people think they own what they concieve, but the truth is they just own what they make, and even that's a stretch (if push comes to shove, I have little doubt that LL would "own" everything in SL.) Someone can make something, and another person can make something similiar, or even the same, yet they created it entirely on their own, thus making it a seperate product. There's a such thing as a knock-off, and it's just competition, make a better product if you worry that much.

The answer to that question is easy. The user, as a legal person, is sitting at home at their computer. If someone commits a crime or copyright infringement from their home, it doesn't matter if it happens on an internet website, on a filesharing network or on the Second Life servers. A Second Life sim is not any different from Gnutella or Warez.com, the user will always remain the same legal person.

Sorry, that is simply wrong. I've seen law cases over curtain rods in RL. The creator had a design patent on "a rod with two cone-shaped finials, in polished brass finish, with [insert detailed description of the bracket system]". Another company produced brass curtain rods with cone finials and slightly similar wall brackets – lawsuit. It didn't matter that the item was not identical; there was a sufficient similarity, they targeted the same customer group, so it was judged to be an infringement of a design patent.

A trade secret like the exact Coca Cola recipe - what is that if not an idea? Pepsi may mix something that sorta, kinda tastes a bit similar, but if a former Coca Cola employee uses their recipe for his own softdrink, they'll sue his sorry *ss off. Same with the text of a book. If it's sold as an eBook, it's not a physical thing, just an idea. One could create thousands of duplicates without stealing any physical, tangible object. But that doesn't make it legal.



Yes, I often read that distinction. It's simply playing with words. One can end in jail for theft as well as for infringement; in the end it doesn't matter. "Infringement" might sound nicer than "Theft", but where's the difference if it's both a criminal offense and the end result is the same (creator losing money, thief earning money with illegal copies)?



The RIAA can sue people for copyright infringements, because it's a crime quite similar to theft. If the RIAA owns the copyright, every person who uses the copyrighted work without paying for it is stealing money – colloquial description of illegal gains, in legal terms called "infringement".

So should GI Joe sue every knockoff multi-posable military action figure being sold in stores?? It comes with a similiar hand that can hold similiar plastic toys, in a similiar uniform, with a similiar construction. It's called a different name, made with a different mold, but it looks SIMILIAR. By that logic every company out there should sue every other company making knockoffs. It looks to me like it's a giant gray area, and it goes both ways, and it really depends on the particular judge presiding over the case.

Then again, most law is like that.

It is a bit of a gray area, insofar that judge and jury have to judge each case individually. A toy soldier in an existing military uniform is likely too common to be protected. Not the trademark "GI Joe" of course; if someone uses the same trademark it's clearly an infringement. If another toy soldier is called "GI John", it might also be an infringement, depending on the similarity of the toys.

You can't protect a white teapot, but an uncommon combination of teapot and ashtray, or the combination of shape and a pattern painted on the teapot. The design of a toy soldier would be hard to protect, but the design of a Star Wars stormtrooper figure is unique enough for copyright protection.

I take your point, and also the view of another poster, Kitty.

But the core difference between SL (and other virtual worlds) vis-à-vis a standard website is that via an "Avatar" you could be said to be present or there in some way, achieving a degree of interaction with a virtual environment that just does not happen with a standard website.

I also note the concept of a virtual currency, gaming, sex, homesteading, and social activity in general are more indicative of a place rather than a 2D webpage.

Law is a strange beast. In a somewhat strange way this concept is not a million miles away from the views of those within SL who despise first life corporate sites and regard SL as a "place" to visit that is theirs, free from first life commercial and social pressures