Questions about IP rights in SL & iitems rezzed

hey all

I am still pretty wet behind the ears here at SL. Other posts I have posted probably bear out this fact. Well, I am trying to learn. I have some questions about creating items. If I fail to get all the lingo right, feel free to correct me (please don't slam me if I mess up!) Probably over thinking AGAIN but, I supposed it is better to be overly cautious than not cautious enough.

I enjoy very much building furniture, and am learning how to put it together. The technical stuff I am kind of learning by feel, by example, trial and error, etc. Despite my being quite new at the game, I have whipped up a few items that people have told me they liked. However, the IP rights to all the various components is something I am wondering how works. I have a curio cabinet I built, five prims, very simple, plain, probably too many prims for what it is. TMI, I am sure for what I am asking here. Anyway, were I to decide to open up a little shop somewhere some day and sell some of the stuff I make--what the heck if it is something I like doing!--I would not want to be sued over some dumb mistake I made. Back to the curio cabinet. I rezzed the five bits myself, out of the simple raw materials in the create dialogue box. I have seen no reason to believe that I do not have the legal right to sell the item I create out of those raw materials. What I have created and "cntrl-l" ed together is my own intellectual property now. Yeah (I suppose)! Now, I add to this curio, lets say, a texture. Now this is where it gets complicated. If I go to sell that curio, am I culpable financially to pay royalties the creator of that texture, whether I bought it from them or not? This is a simple example. I have the same question about scripts, sounds, animations, previously existing action balls etc. that one can add to an item to give it various functions. My RL job involves Intellectual Property issues for written materials. However, I am a bit foggy on how this works exactly? I am trying to ask questions as pointedly stated as possible, as I find too much generality in much of the literature I have read on SL about whose is what and why and how.

Also, a stupid, imbicilic question...I can lock things together that I have made using "ctrl l"...but I have not had any luck in unlocking the prims if I want to fix what I made later. How does one do this?

Easy answer first .... You can unlink (not unlock -- that's a different thing) prims by selecting and then typing Ctrl-Shift-L, or by using the dropdown Tools menu and choosing the Unlink option.

As far as IP is concerned, yes it's a murky area. It's tempting to say "Read the TOS," but that won't make you any less confused. The easiest part of an answer is that anything you create yourself is yours. So, if you make something from raw prims or a sculpty and decorate it with a texture that you created, there's no problem. There's also no problem if you are using components that you received from another person with transfer rights, so long as the item is a PART of what you are selling, not the item itself. So, you may apply a texture that you bought from a designer with all rights and you may sell your creation without worry. When texture designers sell their work, though, they usually say up front that you are NOT allowed to resell the textures themselves as your own work.

The challenge comes in deciding how much of your own work has to be in an item before you can legitimately claim that you have intellectual rights to it. As an extreme example, imagine that you get a piece of furniture that someone else made and sold with copy/mod/transfer rights and then you add a single prim to it -- an extra finial or something. If that extra piece is linked to the original as the root prim of your "new" piece of furniture, you will appear to be the item's creator, but you will clearly have cheated. So, how much do you need to change someone else's work before yours becomes a "derivative" creation instead of a theft? That's the murky part, and the rules are the same ones that apply in RL. When in doubt, err on the side of honesty. If you are sued for IP theft, case law and the judge will decide whether you screwed up.

That's my own best shot at an answer. If you look back through the archives of this forum and the Texture Tips forum, you will find much more elegant and comprehensive replies. Look for some very articulate ones by Chosen Few.

Good luck.

Depends on the customer agreement you have with the texture vendor.
To be honest, it'd be rather pointless to sell textures but not allow customers to use them on objects they wish to sell. Most texture vendors don't have any agreements about textures though, except the "you may not resell this texture as-is" thing.

Of all texture vendors, "Textures R Us" probably has the most complete license agreement. I'd almost think they had some laywer look it over

Anyway, as you build and sell objects:
1) Try to get the original textures from the original artists, preferrably with permissions to resell objects using those textures. At the very least, try to buy them from a vendor that's at least attached to the "creator" of the texture as you know it (look this up in the texture properties)
2) Keep your textures sorted in the folder you got them in. IF someone asks where you got the texture, you'll be able to look it up quickly.
3) Stay away from "free-bee" textures. You have no idea how legal these are, you have no idea where the "vendor" got them from. If a random junk on the street offers to sell you a car radio for 10$, you should have a strong notion about it being stolen too.
It varies by country and state, but here in the Netherlands, buying that 10$ radio is an official crime.
And SL is no different. Yes, you can get hundreds of textures for free and save a pretty penny. Some are infact even legal. But just as many are not. So do double check the properties of textures you used, and see if there's any infringment possible. Look up the creator. And yes, textures can very easily be re-uploaded, to change the shown creator, but it's the least you can do.
4) *never* put textures into the contents of the root prim of any sold object, and never put textures in the contents of any child prims of a sold object either if the object comes with modify permissions.
5) If you wish to use some texture-changing script for an object, think about using the UUID's of the textures in the script instead, and make at least the script no-modify. Yes, this is almost overkill for protecting someone else's textures, and still not 100% safe, but it's as safe as you can make it.

The problem with textures is: setting any one permission causes problems to the builder using the texture.
Most notably, the copy permission, it would prevent people buying that texture from even putting it on a prim!
Texture vendors giving the transfer permission should be a rather clear indication though, that builds using said texture are allowed to be sold.

I suppose my devil's advocate answer to this would be if the texture creator created the script and allowed its use only for items one creates for him or herself and not for sale. Too, isn't it so in RL that "textures" are copyright-protectable? For instance, if an artist creates a pattern and sells usage rights to a fabric company, that company has to pay him or her for it, possibly with a "per yard" royalty of some sort? I am no business law person, alas.

I also wonder too about the people who create textures and sell them...

*If they are using software like Adobe, isn't Adobe technically legally entitled to remuneration?

*What about the person "creating" the texture who simply copies something from the Net, renames it, saves it, uploads it, and then sells it as "their" texture?

The fact is, I want to build things. The fact is, if I can make a couple of L$ on what I build that is good too. And, the fact is, I don't want to end up in RL court being sued for thousands of RL dollars over selling a total of $3.00 US worth of cartoon furniture to other cartoons for their cartoon houses using a made up currency.

Of course. All creative works are protected by copyright, at the moment they are created. Whether an image happens to be digital or physical makes no difference.


The answer to that would be the same answer you already got in previous posts here. It all depends on what agreement was struck between the artist and the user of the image. There are any number of ways it could go. Here a few of the many possibilities:

1. The fabric company were to enters into a royalty-based agreement with the artist. The company is then legally obligated to pay the artist some amount for every unit sold that incorporates the imagery in question.

-OR-

2. The agreement was a work-for-hire scenario. In that case, the company owns the copyright on the image. The artist is paid once for the service of creating the image, in much the same way you might pay a contract laborer a one-time fee to paint your garage.

-OR-

3. The image is licensed and/or sold to the company royalty-free. In that case, the company simply pays once for the license price and/or purchase price of the image, and then they're free to reproduce it as many times as they want without paying anything extra.

I don't pretend to know enough about the fabric business to tell you which of these three arrangements, if any, would be most typical, but all three are quite common in other fields.

Bottom line, if you enter into a royalty agreement with an artist, you are legally bound to pay that artist royalties. If you don't, you're not. It's as simple as that.

Just to be clear, strictly speaking, royalties are a separate issue from copyright itself.


In most cases, the licensing for textures intended for SL does not include royalties.



With the exception of the purchase price of the software, the answer is absolutely not. A piece of software is just a tool. Expecting every digital artist to pay a royalty to Adobe for every work created with Adobe software would be like expecting every mechanic, carpenter, and laborer to pay Craftsman a royalty every time they build something with Craftsman tools. That's just not how it works.


That's illegal and immoral. Don't do that.


If you want to have absolute certainty, make your own textures.

If you want to have 99.99% certainty, purchase textures that come with clearly written license agreements, and adhere to the terms of the licensing. If you're not sure the implications of any particular point, contact the owner and ask. You'll find most sellers will be receptive to questions. If they're not, deal with someone else.

The only way you're at any real risk is if you use other people's stuff without their permission.

On behalf of other designers, let me say gently but sincerely that I take offense to being called a cartoon. I am a real person. I create graphic artwork that is used and appreciated by other real people who want to add beauty to their virtual world. Intellectual property is not about money -- itself a virtual construction of sorts -- but about respecting the creative work of real people. The details may be hard to nail down, but the basic concept should be clear: Don't take things that don't belong to you unless the owner gives you permission.

I hear you, Rolig, and I don't disagree, but wouldn't it be cool if you WERE a cartoon? I don't know about you, but I'd love to be able to drop a piano on my head, and walk a way unscathed. And how 'bout that Princess Jasmine? She's pretty hot. If I were a cartoon, I could hook up with her. And just like Fry, I've always wanted a robot for a friend. If I were a cartoon, I could have one. That would be awesome.

Just stay away from the Dip.

My recommendations would be

Textures - sure you can buy inworld. But I would really really recommend creating them yourself using photoshop or similar. That way you know they are legal and not a copied image from the web. Or you can buy from external image stock libraries and obtain extended that cover the works you wish to use them for. One thing is Second Life is still a bit "unknown" in the TOS of those sites, so always contact the artist direct before purchase to get explicit permission to use in writing.

Prims " I rezzed the five bits myself, out of the simple raw materials in the create dialogue box. I have seen no reason to believe that I do not have the legal right to sell the item I create out of those raw materials" Well technically no. If that was a copy of a RL design or a design that already has been created, you would NOT own the IP rights to it (especially once you layer with a similar texture etc). If the design is your own / unique then yes you do own the rights to sell it within Second Life.

Other elements, furniture builders use scuplties, pose balls, perfect sitters etc to enhance their furniture all are sold with specific licences and permissions to allow certain uses and this is completely acceptable. The key is knowing you are buying from a trusted vendor with a decent licence and that they own the IP rights to what they are selling. There is a group for furniture makers etc in world, feel free to IM me am happy to provide you with reputable vendors details so you can buy with confidence.

Good luck with the building!

That's not necessarily accurate. In RL, structural design elements for items like clothing and furniture are considered functional, not artistic, under the law, so copyright does not apply to them. That's why knock-off's exist. Patents can protect such things under certain conditions sometimes, but in most cases, they're up for grabs.

You can't include the original logos or brand names, of course, since those are trademarked. But the overall design of a piece of furniture is usually OK to replicate.

The lines get a little blurrier when you get to the question of what happens when two people replicate the same RL item in SL. If both people copied the RL item independently, then it's likely neither could accuse the other of infringement. But if one copied the other's SL version, then there'd be an issue. Since the SL version has no physical structure, no physical functionality, just imagery, it is entirely a work of art, and as such, is protected by copyright. How to define whether one work is an independent work, inspired by a RL design, or an infringing copy of another SL artwork, is a very tough question. Courts will have their hands full trying to decide such cases as time goes on.

Gee, I dunno ...... In SL, I think I can already give Princess Jasmine a run for her money .... on a good day ... and if I'm running downhill. I wouldn't have the energy or the wardrobe to do that in RL. Nah ..... if I'm going to be a cartoon, I'd better stay in world.

Good luck with that one....

You might want to refer to:

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2007/10/preferred-seati.html

I wouldn't trust that something you have copied is not IP protected as it is defined as a "chair". There are other definitions that are applied in certain cases.

First of all, I did not mean to belittle anyone with the cartoon reference. If I offended you I offer you my sincerest apologies. I know that "cartoons" are not creating these thing but rather real people using real talent. I have seen so many beautifully made items that it I am astonished. There must be a lot of work that goes into making items to sell. I did not mean to belittle anyone, or to demean or reduce the value of their work or their pride in their work.
If I didn't take you seriously and respect your rights as an artist, I would not have bothered to start this thread in the first place.

I appreciate the other comments as well. As I said, in my field, it is imperative that we give all credit where credit is due. While in my field I may not end up in court for stealing someone's intellectual property, my career would be over. I think that it is important for those who provide goods or services to have all that is coming to them in the way of remuneration. It is sort of crippling, considering the vast number of total prims, scripts, textures, sounds, etc., and I wonder how many illegally distributed items are likely floating around SL.

As for using items as exemplars for fashioning items, I imagine that there could be legal obligations to mind copyright laws. I just wonder how far into absurdity such things could slip. I have a really cool lamp by my desk I would like to try to rez up into a functional item. The manufacturer is no longer even in business and I doubt judging by the lamp's age if they artist is even alive. But I can imagine someone someplace owning the "idea" of the lamp. I am at this moment trying my best not to think about the moral philosophical history of the "idea" of a lamp or anything else!

In short, thank you all for your input, advice and clarification. I think that the advice that I make my own textures from scratch is well put, and the only certain way to feel really moral about selling anything I make. After all I could only assume that even the most renowned texture distributors in SL made their textures themselves with no more than a mouse and software with licenses that allow distribution of images made with that software. Locking together a few prims that look like something recognizable I can do; alas, the part of my brain that controls my drawing ability does non function! I guess I will make things for myself and my own SL living quarters, and hope that even this is legal. And again I am sorry to have offended with the cartoon comment.

Yes, this is something to give serious attention to. On the other hand, I don't think you should let it lead to intellectual paralysis. There are indeed many illegally distributed items floating around SL, just as there are in RL. Some are deliberate rip-offs (people grabbing textures off of items and passing them off as their own creations, for example) and many are innocent mistakes (people bulding with textures that somone else ripped off, for example).

You can certainly avoid putting yourself in the first category. The second category is more problematic but, hey, that's life. Just as in RL, keep your eyes open. Don't buy things off the back of a station wagon or from some seedy guy in an alley. Deal with people who give you good reason to believe they can be trusted. After that, live with the risk. Don't let it paralyze you from doing beautiful, creative things.

BTW, I didn't mean to overreact about the "cartoon" reference. One of the nicest things about SL, as opposed to some on-line games that people play, is that everyone you meet is a real person, not a cartoon. I just get touchy when someone forgets that's who I am. We're OK.

My feeling is Herman Miller is on pretty thin ice with that one. While their products do have aspects that can and should be protected (copyrights, trademarks, trade-dress), they can't reasonably expect that no one else can or should make any furniture that is similar looking to theirs.

The Aeron chair is a good example. The pattern of the mesh on its back is likely a copyrightable image, as would be any other distinctly artistic features. But the basic shape of the chair itself is functional, not artistic, under the legal definition. Anyone could make a similar looking chair, as long as they were careful not to include such protected features.

Herman Miller owns the name "Aeron Chair", of course, and any associated logos, imagery, etc. that define their brand, but that doesn't mean they own mesh task chairs in general. If I were to design one of my own that happens to look sort of like one of theirs, and they were to want to take me to court over it, I'd welcome the opportunity to defend creator's rights in such a forum.


To put what I'm saying in perspective, I might point out that, as I think anyone whose read even a small percentage of what I've written each time questions of IP protection have come up on this forum would agree, I'm a steadfast advocate of copyright and other IP protections. I have little if any tolerance for pirates and other infringers, and I don't mind saying so, publicly and loudly. But at the same time, I recognize that it's neither practical nor fair to paint these things with too broad a brush. Legitimate inspired creativity should not be stifled. If one wants to take reasonable inspiration from an existing design, that should be encouraged. Outright copying without permission is bad, of course, and should be stopped whenever found, but that's a far cry from what I think we're talking about here.




It's fantastic that you're so conscientious. I really wish more people were like you. However, I think you're being a bit overly cautious.

One cannot copyright a lamp in the way you seem to be thinking. Certain parts of it can be considered IP, definitely, but in most cases, not its basic form. There's no such thing as "owning an idea" in that regard. Go to your local Lowe's or Home Depot, head over to the lighting department, and you'll see a hundred different lamps from a dozen different makes that all look pretty much the same. None of them are infringing on each other's IP rights in any way, just by making similar looking products. And neither would you be by making something similar in SL. So there's no need to worry.

What you don't want to do, obviously, is use brand names that don't belong to you, or copy logos, patterns, images, verbiages, etc. All those things are IP, and are protected as such.

For clarity I agree. But I do find there is a gung-ho approach at times (not in this case by the OP at all for avoidance of doubt and not in relation to a specific chair) so my post was intended to state that just because something is a chair, doesn't mean there are elements that won't cause an issue if copied.

If nothing else, these matters (if not legal ones) can have a horrible effect of brand reputation damage which a new builder/developer starting out will want to avoid.

As I have implied or stated outright, copyright issues are of great issues in many different situations, and the law is different for different types of intellectual property. There is a theme throughout the threads I have read on the community forum as a whole: set up a protocol to protect someone or something, and someone will find a way to subvert it. I do not know which is more unfortunate: that this is a fact, or that so many become disillusioned and pessimistic as a result. The former is infuriating, the latter tragic to me. Keep in mind I am not talking specifically about this thread, but noting a trend throughout the whole message board.

I think it is kind of interesting, too, the disconnect between RL building and SL building. We can defy all sorts of physics when building things in SL, create strange, odd, interesting works. No saws, no paint, no no scissors or brushes But the RL builder has certain advantages too. For instance, wood has grain to it--textures are often simply naturally occurring phenomena. But in SL, to replicate any texture that isn't plywood or blank, it is necessary to rely on artists to make the same item. Aren't limits strange and amazing things?