Dracona Thor Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I just got notified an item was removed "Removed under our Intellectual Property Policy"But the outfit was made by me, from full perm items bought or images I uploaded and there's no details why... what the hell do I do?? I'm really upset as I thought up this costume on my own and made it, it's not based on anything except mine. The intellectual property rights are MINE. Is there any way to recind this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Hi Dracona, It's possible that one or more of the full perm items you purchased were themselves referenced in a DMCA takedown notification. When Linden Lab receives one of those from a copyright holder, they are legally obligated to respond. Without knowing more about the items in question, it's difficult to suggest a remedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Buying something does not mean you hold the copyright to it. Buying something does not mean you made it either, even if you textured and assembled it. If you did hold the copyright, you could counterfile, but you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Dracona Thor wrote: I just got notified an item was removed "Removed under our Intellectual Property Policy" But the outfit was made by me, from full perm items bought or images I uploaded and there's no details why... what the hell do I do?? I'm really upset as I thought up this costume on my own and made it, it's not based on anything except mine. The intellectual property rights are MINE. Is there any way to recind this?? You bought the full perm items and 'uploaded images". The copyright for the full perm items remains with the original creator who is not necessarily ther person who brought them into SL to sell. Unless the images were created by you as original artwork not depicting a character from a book, game. movie etc. You don't own the copyright to them either. The "puttinig together" of these items to form a costume is an idea and you can't copyright ideas. The only way you would own the copyright would be if you created the full perm items and images yourself based on an ORIGINAL character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markkemp Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Unfortunately they are telling it how it is. Only way to be 100% sure that you won't be DMCA is to create everything yourself without using full perm components. I will say you were very very unlucky though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 This is what comes of giving everyone on the team a trophy for Participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexbot Sinister Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Dracona Thor wrote: I just got notified an item was removed "Removed under our Intellectual Property Policy" But the outfit was made by me, from full perm items bought or images I uploaded and there's no details why... what the hell do I do?? I'm really upset as I thought up this costume on my own and made it, it's not based on anything except mine. The intellectual property rights are MINE. Is there any way to recind this?? The bolded part is a contradiction. You say that the outfit is not based on anything except yours, but it's based on something you bought full perms. That means it's actually based, fully or in part, on the fullperms object. When you buy something, you haven't created it. The intelectual property then is not fully yours. You have bought a license to use someones intellectual property. Assuming you created the images/textures uploaded yourself, that part is your own intellectual property. The fullperm objects could be legitimately the IP of the seller, but sometimes it happens that they actually downloaded it from a game etc, and don't have a license to re-sell them. The rightful owner of the IP them files a DMCA, and that fullperm object gets removed from SL. You can ask the seller of the fullperm objects if they have had the objects removed. It's only them that can counterfile the DMCA then. If it was your textures/your objects that got DMCA'd, i think the letter from LL would link you to a counterfiling process. Can someone correct me on this? I have had an item removed on IP claims only once, and it was also incorrectly removed. Upon contacting the (very) reputable seller, i was immediately offered a replacement copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Anyone, including the OP, can file a counter claim but if they do not hold the IP rights, it is a felony to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexbot Sinister Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Pamela Galli wrote: Anyone, including the OP, can file a counter claim but if they do not hold the IP rights, it is a felony to do so. Anyone can claim to be a police officer, but it's a felony to do so. Anyone can commit A, B or C crime but it's a felony to do so. It kinda goes without saying, don't you think? I was explaining that the OP doesn't posess the entire IP to the outfit they put together. Then even the OP can understand that they can't counter a DMCA for something they don't own the IP rights to. Not sure what you find to be the issue there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I dont know why you think there is an "issue". I am stating a fact re counterfiling, for the benefit of those like the OP who think it is okay to claim to own IP rights they do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexbot Sinister Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Reply to Lexbot Sinister - view message 10-01-2014 09:09 AM Because you replied to me, not the OP. Anyhow, the discussion has moved on. The OP thought that they could do something about the situation, thinking wrongfully that they owned the IP rights to a fullperm item. Having that ironed out, i haven't seen them claim they would counter anyways? So i'm not sure why you jump into conclusions, and address me with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Because you said the seller of the full perm items could counterfile; as an addendum I was just pointing out, for those who might consider doing that in spite of not holding the IP rights, that there were consequences for doing so fraudulently. You seem to take offense at that, no clue why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Pamela Galli wrote: I dont know why you think there is an "issue". I am stating a fact re counterfiling, for the benefit of those like the OP who think it is okay to claim to own IP rights they do not. Actually the OP may have IP rights here, she "purchased" the product under licence, the Licence being SL's permissions system. Notice, when you file a counter notification you don't claim ownership: "State the following: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The OP made a purchase in good faith. She is just claiming she has reason to believe it is a mistake. I'd certainly ask an attorney before proceeding because if the person she bought it from stole it then it gets into a deeper legal tangle. Ultimately the original seller would be responsible but what a mess to handle it. Disclaimer: I Am Not An Attorney. Just some dummy on the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I dont know why you think there is an "issue". I am stating a fact re counterfiling, for the benefit of those like the OP who think it is okay to claim to own IP rights they do not. Actually the OP may have IP rights here, she "purchased" the product under licence, the Licence being SL's permissions system. Notice, when you file a counter notification you don't claim ownership: "State the following: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The OP made a purchase in good faith. She is just claiming she has reason to believe it is a mistake. I'd certainly ask an attorney before proceeding because if the person she bought it from stole it then it gets into a deeper legal tangle. Ultimately the original seller would be responsible but what a mess to handle it. Disclaimer: I Am Not An Attorney. Just some dummy on the Internet. A license to use something, regardless of terms, does not transfer copyright to the user. In the case of the OP, based on her claim to own the copyright of the removed material, if she counterfiled on that basis, it would be fraudulent. She is not in a position to claim that. The full perm seller might be, I don't know -- but a lot of people clearly think "I downloaded it" means they own the IP rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Pamela Galli wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I dont know why you think there is an "issue". I am stating a fact re counterfiling, for the benefit of those like the OP who think it is okay to claim to own IP rights they do not. Actually the OP may have IP rights here, she "purchased" the product under licence, the Licence being SL's permissions system. Notice, when you file a counter notification you don't claim ownership: "State the following: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The OP made a purchase in good faith. She is just claiming she has reason to believe it is a mistake. I'd certainly ask an attorney before proceeding because if the person she bought it from stole it then it gets into a deeper legal tangle. Ultimately the original seller would be responsible but what a mess to handle it. Disclaimer: I Am Not An Attorney. Just some dummy on the Internet. A license to use something, regardless of terms, does not transfer copyright to the user. In the case of the OP, based on her claim to own the copyright of the removed material, if she counterfiled on that basis, it would be fraudulent. She is not in a position to claim that. The full perm seller might be, I don't know -- but a lot of people clearly think "I downloaded it" means they own the IP rights. I'm just reading what is written in the counter claim which simply says "result of a mistake or misidentification." The owner of the original copyright could be going after unlicensed users and mistakenly included a licensed user. That would be a mistake. It's been too long since I read the DMCA and I have no real desire to dig through it again. Like I said, I'd sure be asking an Attorney before proceeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I dont know why you think there is an "issue". I am stating a fact re counterfiling, for the benefit of those like the OP who think it is okay to claim to own IP rights they do not. Actually the OP may have IP rights here, she "purchased" the product under licence, the Licence being SL's permissions system. Notice, when you file a counter notification you don't claim ownership: "State the following: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The OP made a purchase in good faith. She is just claiming she has reason to believe it is a mistake. I'd certainly ask an attorney before proceeding because if the person she bought it from stole it then it gets into a deeper legal tangle. Ultimately the original seller would be responsible but what a mess to handle it. Disclaimer: I Am Not An Attorney. Just some dummy on the Internet. A license to use something, regardless of terms, does not transfer copyright to the user. In the case of the OP, based on her claim to own the copyright of the removed material, if she counterfiled on that basis, it would be fraudulent. She is not in a position to claim that. The full perm seller might be, I don't know -- but a lot of people clearly think "I downloaded it" means they own the IP rights. I'm just reading what is written in the counter claim which simply says "result of a mistake or misidentification." The owner of the original copyright could be going after unlicensed users and mistakenly included a licensed user. That would be a mistake. It's been too long since I read the DMCA and I have no real desire to dig through it again. Like I said, I'd sure be asking an Attorney before proceeding. Since the OP was not served the DMCA the problem must lie in one or more of the full perm items used rather than the images or textures he uploaded. If the items were uploaded into SL illegally or copybotted, then even if the OP has a license, it is not a valid one since the person who granted it didn't have the authority to do so. I would think that the person who filed the DMCA would probably request that ALL of their items sold by the person who violated their IP be removed from the grid since all copies of it would be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I dont know why you think there is an "issue". I am stating a fact re counterfiling, for the benefit of those like the OP who think it is okay to claim to own IP rights they do not. Actually the OP may have IP rights here, she "purchased" the product under licence, the Licence being SL's permissions system. Notice, when you file a counter notification you don't claim ownership: "State the following: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material identified above was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The OP made a purchase in good faith. She is just claiming she has reason to believe it is a mistake. I'd certainly ask an attorney before proceeding because if the person she bought it from stole it then it gets into a deeper legal tangle. Ultimately the original seller would be responsible but what a mess to handle it. Disclaimer: I Am Not An Attorney. Just some dummy on the Internet. A license to use something, regardless of terms, does not transfer copyright to the user. In the case of the OP, based on her claim to own the copyright of the removed material, if she counterfiled on that basis, it would be fraudulent. She is not in a position to claim that. The full perm seller might be, I don't know -- but a lot of people clearly think "I downloaded it" means they own the IP rights. I'm just reading what is written in the counter claim which simply says "result of a mistake or misidentification." The owner of the original copyright could be going after unlicensed users and mistakenly included a licensed user. That would be a mistake. It's been too long since I read the DMCA and I have no real desire to dig through it again. Like I said, I'd sure be asking an Attorney before proceeding. Since the OP was not served the DMCA the problem must lie in one or more of the full perm items used rather than the images or textures he uploaded. If the items were uploaded into SL illegally or copybotted, then even if the OP has a license, it is not a valid one since the person who granted it didn't have the authority to do so. I would think that the person who filed the DMCA would probably request that ALL of their items sold by the person who violated their IP be removed from the grid since all copies of it would be illegal. Right, Right! Somehow because how the thread went I got it in my head the OP has been served a DMCA. I do know the difference between an IP Notice and a DMCA. I need to pay closer attention to details. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monti Messmer Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 For short, maybe the images you uploaded are the problem. Do not just google for pictures ;-) Monti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now