Copyright abuse in SL

This is the problem... in Second Life, you aren't "making a costume". Instead, you're uploading a character design and making it part of an interactive computer game - and that is very often a restricted right.

Certainly in most online games that allow user content, you can't make a Stormtrooper or similar outfit for a character because Lucas have their Star Wars games to sell. Whether Second Life is considered - by a judge, not by LL - different enough from other games that this wouldn't apply is something we may not want to test. :?

In most cases the Only communication you will receive a Notice basicly saying "Cease, and Desist", then all you do is comply, and problem solved. That is where the Copyright Disclaimer comes in Handy, it shows your Willingness to Comply with thier legal rights should they choose to exercise them.

Angel.

I don't have any basis to back it up, but to me it feels like putting up a note only illustrates that the person is very much aware that they're breaking copyright and trying to somehow indemnify themselves.
If there's any doubt - especially when profiting - why not just contact the copyright owner and play it safe?

In the stormtrooper example creating - without permission - a derivative (enough to resemble/remind of the actual thing) and calling it a Stormtrooper would break both copyright on the character, and the trademark Lucas seems to hold on the name itself.

Well, actually, you ARE making a costume. If I were to dress up as Supergirl (yeah, right) I would still be Daisy Rimbaud in fancy dress. I would not be Supergirl. I would still have "Daisy Rimbaud" floating over my head.

At least in that case, I have a feeling that n*z* Germany probably has a prior claim on the usage of that word.

Again, I don't think this would work.

If someone makes a Stormtrooper and Jedi avatars and uploads them for a Half-Life 2 user content pack, then there is no way Lucas would allow that - because if they did, someone could make the next big Star Wars shooting game right under their noses (the now famous game "Counter Strike" started as a user content pack!) without them seeing any money. Sure, the name floating over the character's head wouldn't be "Luke Skywalker" but I don't think that makes any difference.

Now what's the practical difference between doing that, and doing it in Second Life? The only one that I can see is that SL isn't mainly designed for shooting. But of course, you can shoot in SL - I've seen stormtroopers having battles with Linden popguns. And just because it's a social game doesn't exempt it - Lucas might argue that they also make a Star Wars social game (Star Wars Galaxies) and want that game to have exclusive rights to the ability to appear as a Star Wars character and party in a Cantina online.

Of course if you wanted to dress up as a Stormtrooper for your friend's real-life Halloween party that's fine, but that's something that you can "naturally" do in RL. So Lucas would have to stop you as an individual, which would be difficult and intrusive. But in Second Life, there's no "natural" ability to do anything - everything is a "service" provided to you by Linden Labs and various content creators, without whom it couldn't be done, and who are thus responsible for enabling you to do that.

But that is not real dollars?

How do you think people get Linden Dollars and if they sell enough of that item, do you think they are not going to exchange it into real money?

Copyright infringement is illegal no matter how it's done. Like someone once said to me, "It's not the fact that you were speeding, it was the fact that you got caught"

Just watch your back and keep pressing your luck! Karma is a bad thing to mess with...

Dear Daisy, will you kindly introduce me to some of the art forums that discuss SL? You've posted quite an interesting topic - one that I have been pondering myself recently. Thanks a bunch!

Hey U.S. Second Lifers - check out the U.S. Copyright office web site: www.copyright.gov for more on this topic and about intellectual property rights.

Yes, so one would think, BUT it is also a Statement that you are in No way Claiming Thier rights for Yourself. In Fact, in Most cases of Fan produced Materials ALL the copyright holder will do if one is distributing a fan Based creation is request such a Disclaimer be put in Place. They recognize the benefit of Allowing Fan use of thier Images in terms of Braoder exposure, and also, Occasionally they have been Known to Adopt ideas that Fans have produced.
There are Currently Thousands of Unlicenced Star Wars, Star Trek, Transformers, What-have-you, Fan creations circulating both within the Fandom Circles, AND general distribution on the Net. The Two things that protects them are, that they all contain some form of Copyright disclaimer and/or they are either Given away Freely, or any Charge for them is so Nominal as to Not present a signifigant Financial threat to the profits of the Copyright Holder. The copyright Holder doesn't HAVE TO leave them alone, But for Business, and Public relations reasons it is expedient for them to do so.

It becomes Different If you are Mass producing materiels based upon thier creations, and selling them for a signifigant Profit. By rights, those profits belong Mostly to the Copyright Holder, and they are well within thier Legal rights to both Halt, or sieze your Production, and Take legal measures to recover the Profits made from thier sale. If the transaction had been done legally, the producer gets a Good share of the Profits, If it is done Illegally, the Copyright Holder can gain All profits as Punative Damages.

Artists like Boris, who's SOLE income is from the sale or Licencing of thier Images generally choose NOT to take an Indulgent View of Fan Reproduction. again, it's his right.

And you are right on this point, Lucas does NOT hold Total copyright on the Name "StormTrooper" he holds it Only within a certain Context. any Book, or Publication for example referring to a Crack Military outfit as Storm Troopers Need not Give a Nod to Lucas simply because the term has been in Common Usage for a signifigant length of time. It's the same reason I could not Copyright the Name of "Fire" and demand payment every time it is used, I CAN however Copyright "Fire" as a Proper Name for a Product of My Manufacture (A Perfume, soap, deoderant, Car, Hotsauce.), and No other SIMILAR product could use the name.
A recent Suit filed by Matel toys against the Owner of a Resteraunt called "The Barbie" Failed simply because it was ruled that there was signifigant diversity in the backgrounds of the two products and no person was Likely to confuse the resteraunt with the Doll. Matel could ONLY have prevailed had they gone into the resteraunt Business Prior to the establishment of the "Barbie" resteraunt.

Copyright issues are Far more complex than most people think, and the Laws can be Razor Fine in it's definitions. But the Biggest Issue in Fan use of Copyrighted Images is Not that the Images are used, But that the Maker is Claiming total Authorship/Ownership of the Image.

Angel.

I've been thinking about this some more, and I think it may be plausible to argue that the creation and sale of stormtrooper outfits (or something similar) in SL is actually allowed under the umbrella of "fair use." as follows:


According to the TOS Linden dollars have no value. We know that they're not actually worthless, but it IS one step away from being a straight up commercial venture. One might argue that SL is a game, Linden dollars are a kind of score. Content creation and selling is a way of earning better scores in the game. If you earn enough to have a positive cashflow, it's more of a prize (similar to a starwars costume contest), than a business profit. (Interestingly, if a court rules that indeed Linden dollars are valuable, LL may be forced to change their TOS to be more fair to account holders w.r.t. arbitrary banning and/or removal of player "owned" assets.)


Might be a bit of a stretch, but one might argue that FANDOM is a legitimate pursuit that IS in the public interest on cultural grounds. Fandom requires a certain amount of TRIBUTING via reproduction or imitation.


Obviously copying the entire form of the stormtrooper is substantial (let's say it involves some sounds and poses as well), but in the creation of an avatar, this is required. Thus only as much as required was copied (that is - all of it, within the limits of technology and talent). This would not include say, movie clips of stormtroopers in action.



We have a clear winner in this one. The effect on the out-of-SL market is effectively 0. There is a potential of the copyright holder entering the SL avatar market, but the 0 value Linden dollar problem again arises to make the potential damage a big fat 0. It's even likely that in-world fandom increases the value of real world starwars assets.

It's not clear-cut by any means, but I think one could make a decent argument for fair use. (A good lawyer could probably do better.)

Not true - as I mentioned above, what if someone who just wants to socialise in a Star Wars avatar goes to Second Life instead of Star Wars Galaxies because that way they don't have to level up? If it wasn't for the potential copyright infringement in Second Life, they might have been prepared to put up with SWG.

And Lucas don't just have a trademark on the name "stormtrooper" - they have a trademark on the character, and especially the appearance. Characters with an appearance as distinctive as a stormtrooper's can have that appearance trademarked - that's why there's so many trademark issues that come up with superheroes. If you wanted to be a Jedi, you could probably sell the robes without touching the trademark (as long as you didn't call them "Jedi robes", but not a stormtrooper costume, or a mask that looks like Darth Vader, etc..

Unfortunately, while the financial damage caused by a copyright violation is a factor is determing the size of any monetary compensation assessed by the court, it is utterly irrelevant in determining whether or not a copyright violation took place at all.

This kind of tears apart your entire argument, Watermelon.

I'm not so sure about this, since fair use is based on competing rights, not whether a right was violated. We're weighing the rights of the copyright holder to control copying vs. the right of the public to use that work in the context of free speech. Thus it becomes a question of whether it's more damaging to limit the free speech, or to limit the copyright, thus the amount of damages becomes important.

Most agree with warda on this one........Sorry watermelon you fighting a cause that llabs has turned up the nose too..AT this point most people that have very little understanding about what is once created by maker of the starting content and those that have slightly mod the image of object in questen..Then again the internet has made those tha have no understand in to experts in any issue and subject

I love how people try to use "free speech" as a way to claim the right to do anythng. Free speech is the right to express an opinion, nothing more. It is not the right to take something someone else has made for your own entertaiment without due compensation to the original inspirator.

Hey gang... I think it's more than a little funny that people with no legal expertise are so opinionated about legal topics...

But I note that, *anythig* can be a legal matter... that's what lawyers do... they take the ordinary, and make it a "legal matter" everyday... they get cold hard cash for inventing "injury" wherever they can.

So, it's not saying much.

NEXT, this talk of "selling" in game, seems very thin! We call it "selling" in game, in a "game" sense!

Sexual harassment happens here too... do you really think a judge is going to listen to your complaint in rl? Why would it be especially different for "selling"?

"Your honor, my client was denied sales of thousands of "Lindens" due to the dastardly acts of Bobby Starr, and his use of copyrighted material."

Look, there is no doubt that as time goes by, all of this will increasingly catch the attention of RL institutions, including Fracking lawyers.

Let's let that come in it's own time...

But fergoodness sakes... use for fantasy transactions with fantasy currency in a non-existant "world"... no need to get our undies in an uproar.

Coke not agressivly defending trademarks in a virtual simulation!!!????? threatening their ACTUAL trade marks? SO the courts are now requireing companies to "join" games to scout for virtual tm infringement?

GIMMIE A FRIGGIN BREAK.

Ladies and gents... this is NOT REAL. I KNOW that a LAWYER looking for MONEY may SOMEDAY try to convince a court that this is a threat to all of humaity... but let's not think we are being smart by jumping the gun here.

NOTHING can be resolved here.

Most of what is done/used here is "art". So what if there is a Star Wars X-wing fighter in sl. A FAN created it as a form of *computer art*... are we going to fine little Mikey when Lucas' lawyers catch him drawing Chewbacca in class?

FAN ART is allowed... in RL. So don't get in a panic about it happening here... even if someone trades this game token called a "Linden" for it, in a fantasy "sale" inside of a game.


Next, the reason that folks go ape IN GAME over copies made of game elements for use in game, is that the practice literally threatens the ability of the game to exist.

Coke t-shirts on avatars can not be said to be a threat to coke sales in rl.

I think that *some* here have had their head in game too long... and are losing sight of where fantasy begins, and rl ends.

All the best.

I'll reply to you ingame next time I'm online.

I just got back from an art forum and ran a search on "Second Life".......and yep, all they had to say about SL was that there were a bunch of thieves, mainly about people ripping poser poses/skins and selling them.

May someone please answer my question?



Is it a copyright violation for one to take an RL item and reproduce it in SL? Like a furniture, clothing, etc? I guess it can be done with anything.

Is that infringement?

To those who think "it's just a game" and therefore there is nothing wrong with stealing other people's work.

If you couldn't benefit any way but in game this might be true. But since you can make a profit, it is NOT true. You can make real money by cashing in the L$ that you earn from stealing other people's work, so you are commiting a crime. Period. It is not just being a fan, it is taking other people's work and profiting from it, which I think is disgusting.

I consider selling copyrighted (copywritten) material as theft, plain and simple. I don't do business with theives. I will never buy a single item from any merchant who includes material in their shop/line that is blatantly stolen.

You are quite naive if you think it's totally legal just because it's in a game context.

Well, all poses in SL are Poser poses, because that's how you make SL poses. It's questionable whether a pose in Poser is copyrightable at all. Can you have the copyright on "standing to attention"? (I assure you this has been discussed endlessly on Poser forums for years).

As for ripping Poser skins, that's easier said than done. But it may be that SL skin vendors are partially drawing on commercial Poser skins for raw material. If so, that is illegal if done for purposes other than private use. But it would be difficult to prove it, since you can't get the SL skin out of the game to compare with the original.

Right, BUT: #1 Are you saying that there have been *sales* .... LEAGAL SALES WITH RECOGNIZED CURRENCY BY THE COURTS OF ANY NATION, in game?

THAT is the question.

If there is an ACTUAL SALE... you might have something.


"Your honor, I "bought" a car from Joe Blow for $5,000 Lindens, and I want my "money" back.

Let me ask you something....

Have you paid your government SALES TAX on anything you have purchased in game? Have you paid any INCOME TAX on lindens you have received? Have you paid any tax when you win in an SL Casino?


IF YOU HAVE NOT, AND DO NOT INTEND TO, then I submit that your argument that a "sale" has transacted in any real world sense... is ***BUNK***, for you would, to have a consistent and HONEST perspective, be intending to make sure the govermnet gets it's share as well. So until you make a case for the IRS tracking transactions in SL... I think that you are not being honest with yourself on this... and you are pushing things in a dangerous and ugly direction. I don't want the IRS in here, do you?

This is *not* an argument *for* taking the work of others. It is an argument for keeping pespective on things, and not going off the deep end as if this were a true equivilent to RL!

It isn't.... so let's all just SCALE BACK the hyperbole... and enjoy this for what it is... an *experiment* on the leading edge of virtual existance. I think that these issues are worth noting... but nothing more.

If you can get any money you can spend, it is a sale.

You can convert lindens to dollars. You can then spend those dollars. That makes it profit.

It is just a load of bunk (to use your word) to say otherwise.

You can purchase RL things as a result of stealing someone else's work. That is theft.

It does result in real world purchasing power. Therefore, it is profit. Why you keep burying your head about the reality of it is beyond me.

I consider it a big deal, and I will still not spend a single linden to help a thief.

As far as paying income tax, I will declare it when the time comes (I have only been here since October, have made about $2 US, so I don't think I need to declare anything yet). I will have made my money HONESTLY, not through theivery, so I will pay the taxes on it, using the dollar amounts that I withdraw from my account.

As far as sales tax goes, where would I pay it? It doesn't seem to be required (yet) for internet purchases. If I know I'm supposed to pay it, I will.

So the US dollars you withdraw from your account aren't real? I say every penny is. Which makes it real theft.

EXACTLY.... my "private use" is to use it to make a FANTASY STORE in a GAME I PLAY.

The thing that folks are doing in this discussion, are pretending to believe that there is COMMERCE IN GAME.

That is a MASSIVE leap of logic. MASSIVE. "Sales" in SL are MODELED to be LIKE a true commercial transaction in RL, the same way avatars are MODELED to be like real persons. Are we going to start saying that avatars are real persons? Are we going to start saying that everything that is modeled in SL is actually the *real* thing?

This is the danger here, folks. You have to maintain a FIRM grasp on what is real, and what is merely a "model" of RL. If you allow yourselves to be fooled... and you start thinking that SL models are "real" in a RL sense... then there is a lot of potential for trouble.

Linden Labs can PULL THE PLUG tomorrow, on the game.

Do you think that LL has a liability to pay you CASH for the "VALUE" of the "objects" you "owned" in game? REALLY ??????????

FOR IF YOU DO NOT, then acting like there is some equivilence of in game "objects" and in game "use" is truly BOGUS.

Folks, we don't really OWN anything in game. PERIOD. Therefore, we can not transfer TRUE ownership. THerefore there can be no TRUE transactions. IF SL goes away tomorrow... then that's it. it's done... and we lose all the things we never had anyway. That would be a harsh way for those of you who are confused by what is real and what is not to learn the basic lesson... but you *would* learn it.

There are people selling copyrighted items with premeditated intent to cash out their L$ into US$.

That is certainly legally liable as sale of copyrighted material.