Copyright abuse in SL

Very simple - because every time copyright owners DO find they are being ripped off by someone like you, the good reputation of SL takes a hit. I have seen discussions on art forums along the lines of "SL residents are all a pack of thieves". That's not good for SL. It's not good for honest residents of SL.

So I thought it needed bringing up. SPECIFICALLY because we are all in danger of being tarred with the same brush.

Now see there you go. SLBoutique's policy on protecting thier interest against copyright "more Proactive then Linden Labs" but they inestigate and then remove the content.

Flip if I might ask what does SLBoutique do to "offenders" that violate copyright? Does SLBoutique ban them first offense or do they remove content and inform the person why they removed the items, etc.

Haha - good point. ALL images and depictions are copyright, not just those that originate from the original released media. If you have anything Star Wars, even if you made it, you are in violation. NFL logos? Seen lots of them... Music Group posters, shirts, or logos? Everywhere... A Very good point indeed. One that I think people need to realize is much more prevalent in SL then they are acknowledging.
I do sell a few items of public domain origin, but most are copyright by me or my business partner. If someone requests one of those other items be removed after proving to me they are indeed the original creator, I would happily do so without question. I will NOT, however, remove such an item because some finger-shaking third party may have seen it before. Public domain is just that, and I too have an investment in time and money to bring such an item to SL.

True. They will, however, always pursue the biggest fish first. That is good business practice.



True also, and as you have mentioned, LL can only remove content they know exists. Searching through 40+ terrabytes of data for textures bearing the Coca Cola or any other brand is not possible. They require specifics and coordinates, then they act. I know this because I have filed DMCA notices of my own.



I hope I didn't imply that this conduct was acceptable. There probably isn't a single Fortune 500 company that is not aware of Second Life and the potential to use it for internal collaborative work and global connectivity (for example, IBM USA and IBM China). Coca Cola and all others, when and if they feel compelled to, will probably prepare a general DMCA notice to LL asking them to clear out all copyright infringing material related to thier company and product branding, at which point I would expect infringing items to disappear randomly and without warning as LL finds such items. This has already taken place with some RL company branding, but this is a slow process simply because of the scope of the task and the resources available.

If this starts happening often enough word might spread that one can risk losing part of thier inventory if they use well known copyrighted materials. Of course, this kind of thing happens already as a result of bugs in the software, so I'm not sure how effective a deterent that would be. Perhaps perma-banning upon a second offense would get enough attention.

Well Daisy as I said if the owner wished to have me remove the items from SL there is a process and honestly if that process is followed barring SL being down for maintence and/or me being offline (currently moving and without internet for a few days later this week) I would be happy and cheery to remove the content at thier request that is backed by a legal proof of ownership. That's all I am saying is show me the legal proof (not just a copyright symbol anyone can make) and a desire to have it remove and I will take it down. Problem is you might be show proof of ownership but you can't speak for the owning party.

http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php

If they file a notification and LL contacts me. I'll remove things. Problem is others have told me before "well I own that copyright"...ok... that's nice...file with LL. They don't cause of this line:



Those that have a legit claim and wish to remove the content can contact LL and people have four choice:
1) Remove it and be respectful. (Hey the proved they owned it and they want it down. Take it like a person with dignity and be happy.)
2) Remove it and whine (Seen that here in forums. If they got you dead to rights...why?!?!?!)
3) Don't remove and whine (LL will then do it for you and most likly lawsuits will follow)
4) Don't remove and stand stand ground (again lawsuits likly.)

You're absolutely right that only an authorised agent of the copyright owner can file a DMCA with LL, SLex, SLboutique etc... but I think you have a slightly (and dangerously) wrong idea of what a DMCA take-down is.

The DMCA request doesn't have to come with a court order - or any other kind of proof - and the DMCA act only grants "safe harbour" to the service provider through which you're publishing copyrighted material - NOT to you. Essentially, a DMCA is a formal complaint that a copyright owner delivers to a service provider saying "one of your users is infringing my copyright, take this content down immediately and we won't hold you responsible when we take legal action". If the service provider complies and takes the content down straight away, they _can't_ be sued.

As the actual infringer of the copyright, the protections of the DMCA have *nothing* to do with you. The copyright owner can still take you straight to court - no warning required. (and, to be honest, the fact that you've confessed on this thread that you're willfully violating copyright probably won't do you a lot of favours on that front!).

It's a common misconception that the DMCA somehow gives copyright infringers a guaranteed option to "cease and desist", before they face "proper" litigation. That's absolutely wrong. The DMCA is _not_ there to help copyright infringers - it's there to protect service providers (like LL) from unwittingly becoming an accessory to the crime.

Be careful.

Namssor this is what I have been asking for all along. To have people follow the DMCA to have the content removed. DMCA shows two things Ownership and desire. Ownership of the rights and desire to have the item removed or controlled by another body within SL. Do that and I will personally invite you over showing the removal of the items from my servers and then take you over and show that the vendor no longer displays them.

People say things are wrong every day but there is still a legal process to follow in many things. While not always needing to be sue happy many people will defend and follow those laws. That is all I want to do follow the law. The law of LL states if proof and desire are there then LL will give me a good faith chance to remove the items. That is EXACTLY what I would do but not a minute before.

When I first started trying to create and sell items in SL I found some lovely Fairy artwork on-line and brought it into SL, slapped a frame on it and sold a few pieces.

I soon realized that I probably should not be doing that.

Many folks may not realize that's it's tacky at best to be doing this. I just wanted to make something pretty and see if it sold.

But after getting the feel of the SL community and discovering that I wasn't really 'creating' anything I took those pictures down.

@krazzora: The anger directed toward you isn't about whether or not you'll get away with your crimes, it's with the offensive and blatantly disrespectful approach you are taking to the creative output of others. Note this line from an earlier post:


Yes, you are right that you are unlikely to get taken to court. That doesn't make you any less of a criminal.

Actually what I am unclear of is the desire of the owner of the copyright to have the content removed. Hence why I reffer to the DMCA order. It shows proof and it shows desire.

Many owners will knowingly not care if thier public for sale items are displayed somewhere like a website. I am simply following a thought along those lines and again if I am mistaken so be it. If these items are truly copyrighted and the owner wishes them down they are welcome to inform LL to have the item removed. If the party still wishes to file a legal lawsuit after me being complaint to thier wishes so be it I will take it with stiff lip although sour taste in my mouth.

I would strongly suggest that you read up on copyright and the DMCA. I'm not a copyright lawyer, so nothing I say will be without fault either, but I can point out some things I'm reasonably sure of.

Copyright holders do not need to inform you that they hold the copyright on something, the burden is on you to show that you had good reason to believe that the item is question was not copyrighted ("I found it on a site" really does not qualify, everything is copyrighted unless explicitly noted that it's not), or to come up with something that shows you had the permission to use their work in the way you are using it.

A DMCA also does not require a court order in any way, a DMCA notice simply alledges that a copyright violation occured at which point LL has to remove the content to prevent itself from being liable for the violation. You then get the option to file a counter-notice, in which case the original filer has to either start a lawsuit within a certain amount of time, or LL is required to restore the previously removed content.

Having a DMCA notice filed against you, does not magically clear you of the act of violating someone's copyright in the first place though, the copyright holder always has to option to take you to court and get an actual conviction.

I'm not looking to get away with a crime. These items were uploaded by a fan of the work and the items are simply there with a small fee to pay for the prims they take up. I'm very worried about court but it doesn't need to go that far. All I ask is for the copyright owner to contact me and tell me I am doing something they wish me no longer to do with thier items.

It wouldn't really upset or insult me. I have a clear conscience and a clear set of priorities when it comes to being proactive in finding out whether I am using other peoples copyrighted works.

Trademarks are very different from copyright. Only the copyright owner can claim a violation, but everyone can inform LL of a trademark violation and they have to act on it if it's quite clear that the resident in question neither owns it, nor obtained permission.


(Edited to fix the quotes )

EXACTLY!
You are not a copyright lawyer and nor am I. I simply state from what I have heard about copyright issues in SL and after talking with lindens about it what I understand of the system. There is normally a "good faith" period where suits do not follow if you remove the content. LL does this usually for you by removing the content and demanding a counter to be filed to argue what I did is not in violation and that I still intend to sell the items. This is what normally leads to a lawsuit.

These arguements have been long standing in SL and my advice is to file a DMCA while maybe not "court ordered" it does hold "legal weight" as filing a false report does lead to payment of damages.

See *this* is the problem though.

SL is full of people making things, but most of them are without the skills or knowledge to understand they are doing anything wrong. Almost everything you have said above is ill-informed or just plain wrong. If you are going to create items for sale, you should really do some reading and find out what the real facts are first.

For starters, look up "public domain," (you will find it's not the same thing as "publicly available."

A good follow-up would be any book on moral behaviour.

Jeremy that qoute actually states my desire. To hear from the copyright owner they do not want any sales of their items in SL. If they do this by contacting LL then LL will be more proactive (refference anyone selling hello kitty. LL knows the comapnies desire on this.) This will also give people with more time to report others now with the backing of documentation. As far as I am concerned there is no issue of morality behind it. I do find it intersting this arguement comes up and suddenly everytime it does someone gets ganged up on who "violates copyrights".

Sadly this is the kind of stuff that shut down half the forums in the first place and I do see the arguement is getting revolving. We just will have to all agree to disagree I guess and wait to see if anyone reports me to copyright holders and what happens. I don't have the time or enegry to defend against a mob that have no claim on the copyright.

It doesn't really show either, and the DMCA doesn't come to you - it goes to LL.

The person submitting the DMCA does NOT need provide proof of ownership to LL (and, in fact, are encouraged not to - It's irrelevant to the "safe harbour" process).

As soon as LL get a properly-filed DMCA request, they will remove the content from their system without your consultation.

They'll then tell you that the content was removed, and advise you to file a counter-claim if you believe that the removal was inappropriate.

Meanwhile, if the injured party has decided they want to pursue you for infringement, that will happen *completely* independently of the DMCA process....

A DMCA notice is the only viable option content creators have to combat illegal sales and distribution of thier IP within SL. While you sit in front of your computer blindly copying and accepting IP that you have not checked out sources on, hundreds of DMCA notices are being filed with great effort all over the SL community. Think of all the sweat and frustration you can save people by making sure you only sell and display content that is legally your right to do so.

I am left with the conclusion that you don't care and don't want to take any proactive effort in finding out whether or not you are infinging upon other peoples copyrights. That is what really offends me.

Well I just checked my email and at the request of the person that uploaded the pictures (Yes I never uploaded these my friend has asked me to host the pictures in a vendor.) I am removing them as it appears they are now being attacked in offlines and being called offensive names. Which is sad since they were already one foot in the grave with SL.

That's too bad, Krazz. Regardless of if I agree with you (and I don't) it sucks that people feel the need to resort to harassment.

Krazzora -

How much or how little you profit from the sale of unauthorized copies justifies nothing.

And if horning in on the sale-ability of someone else's work wasn't bad enough... you also want to incur them extra cost and effort to tell you to cease and desist?

You really are too much.

What's really really sad here is that harassment and offensive names seems more effective than people rationally trying to get you to understand what you're doing is wrong and unjustifyable, despite your attempts to smooth it over.

"But someone else scanned in the image first..."
"But I'm not making very much..."
"But I just doing this for a friend..."
"But I don't know they don't want me to copy it..."
"But I'm entitled to break the law until I'm caught..."
"But I get one free strike with each artist cause I didn't know better..."
"But I just want to have a successful business like other people and I don't have the skills to make this kind of stuff..."

Sorry, I don't see any of that covered by "Fair use".

Hey, guys, I took Krazzora's car without asking, but that's okay, because she hasn't noticed, and there wasn't a "Please don't steal my car" sign on it. I'm using it to start up a taxi service, but that's just fine, because I'm not charging for the actual use of the car, just for my expenses! I swear I'll happily give the car right back if Krazzora learns I am using it without permission and sends the police after me. They won't do anything at all to me but ask me to give it back, anyway, so what do I care? Besides, she left it sitting around in a parking lot unlocked, where the last guy who stole it left it. Actually, it wasn't even my fault at all . . . a friend hotwired it and gave it to me, so Krazzora doesn't mind -- let's go on a road trip to Tiajuana! Oh yeah, and piss on those people who IMed my friend the thief to complain. They made her feel bad, and I think we should steal some cookies to cheer her up.

Kinda makes you stop and think doesn't it?

Or at least it should.

I don't know what to say to you Krazzora, stealing is always a moral issue.

You seem to be saying just that you can't be bothered to spend the time looking into whether you are stealing or not? Yet in another part you seem to be aware that you are stealing and don't seem to care?

I don't personally agree with copyright law as I think it only benefits corporations and not creators at all, but if you are interested in being both moral and on the side of the law, here is a quick and dirty guide to what to do.

Rule 1) If you *know* that an image, texture or whatever is copyrighted then it is both immoral (because you know the intent of the creator), and illegal to use it, period.

Rule 2) If you find a texture on the web and you don't know where it comes from or who owns it then it's fair to use it until you find out otherwise, but it doesn't have to be the original copyright holder. No matter who the person is that lets you know, once you know something is copyright and you still use it, you are immoral and illegal again.

Both of these situations are based on the idea that you are *selling* the stuff you make from the copyrighted work. so there is one exception to these rules in regards "tribute" or "fan-art" stuff.

Exception 1) If you make a Star Wars Storm Trooper outfit and wear it around town there is no copyright violation. If you sell the outfit in a store (or lots and lots of them) then you are immoral and illegal again.