No Mod Shapes in the Age of Mesh ... Why??

[Masami Kuramoto]

---

Clarissa Lowell wrote:

Masami, you can claim that this or that is not eligible for copyright but I don't know why anyone should weigh your opinion above any other resident's opinion. What you have said just sounds like opinion to me.

---

From Wikipedia:

---

When does derivative-work copyright exist?

For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.

Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began with the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Feist v. Rural, some pre-Feist lower court decisions addressed this requirement in relation to derivative works. In Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp. and earlier in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder. the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement.

In the Batlin case, one maker of "Uncle Sam" toy banks sued another for copying its coin-operated bank, which was based on toy banks sold in the United States since at least the 1880s. (These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and outstretched hand adapted to receive a coin; when the user presses a lever, Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag.) The plaintiff's bank was so similar to the 19th Century toys, differing from them only in the changes needed to permit a plastic molding to be made, that it lacked any original expression. Therefore, even though the defendant's bank was very similar to the plaintiff's, the plaintiff's was not entitled to any copyright protection. "To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work."

In the subsequent Durham case, the court applied the same principle in a suit between two different Disney toy licensees in which one licensee claimed that the other had pirated his Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Pluto. Durham conceded that in making these toys it used Tomy's Disney figures as models. That was not determinative. The court said that "the only aspects of Tomy's Disney figures entitled to copyright protection are the non-trivial, original features, if any, contributed by the author or creator of these derivative works." But Tomy's toys reflected "no independent creation, no distinguishable variation from preexisting works, nothing recognizably the author's own contribution that sets Tomy's figures apart from the prototypical Mickey, Donald, and Pluto, authored by Disney and subsequently represented by Disney or its licensees in a seemingly limitless variety of forms and media." Because the court considered that "it is clear that the originality requirement imposed by the Constitution and the Copyright Act has particular significance in the case of derivative works based on copyrighted preexisting works," it denied relief and dismissed the claim. Thus the law is clear that a derivative work is protectable only to the extent that it embodies original expression. Its non-original aspects are not copyright-protectable (what is loosely called "uncopyrightable").

In both of these cases, the defendants were held not to be liable for copyright infringement, even though they presumably copied a considerable amount from the plaintiff's work. They were not liable because the plaintiff did not enjoy copyright protection. The plaintiffs' works lacked enough originality to acquire copyright protection of their own. They were too close to the original works on which they were based.

---

Emphasis added.

[Ceka Cianci]

shapes are really in a strange spot ..

basically because LL owns the avatar intellectual property rights or copy writes or whatever it is..on them..

as well as every prim on the grid..it's their clay or canvas pretty much..

where a creators property rights comes into play is with  their creations they have added to the system..

things uploaded and could take out of here and use elsewhere..no matter what the silders are at ..you can't take a shape from SL legally and download it from here and use it elsewhere..

an avatars shape from the tools won't hold much value or chance of winnign anything in court because of how many close versions there are in world or can be to it..

it's like comparing the same style of shoes sold in 50 different stores that look exactly alike..

where selling complete avatars with certain looks..like say creating the eyes and hair and outfits and things to make a unique avatar..that can have more holding power than a canvas basically..

basically  if the account were to be deleted..so would any of LL's property..

the only thing left standing would be what the creator could walk out of here with..

mesh avatars are a whole other story because those are created outside and uploaded..

 

but the sliders i doubt will win you a case in court because the shapes are just not as unique on their own as they would be built with a certain unique look added to them..

 

i'm not tryring to take away anything from people making shapes..because i know it's a pain i the but to get good at it..

i just think shape alone  it would be hard to claim original or unique iin sl..enough to win..

 

 

 

[JoJo Aurelia]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

shapes are really in a strange spot ..

Basically because LL owns the avatar intellectual property rights or copy writes or whatever it is..on them..

as well as every prim on the grid..it's their clay or canvas pretty much..

where a creators property rights comes into play is with  their creations they have added to the system..

things uploaded and could take out of here and use elsewhere..no matter what the sliders are at ..you can't take a shape from SL legally and download it from here and use it elsewhere..

an avatars shape from the tools won't hold much value or chance of winning anything in court because of how many close versions there are in world or can be to it..

It's like comparing the same style of shoes sold in 50 different stores that look exactly alike..

Where selling complete avatars with certain looks.Like say creating the eyes and hair and outfits and things to make a unique avatar.That can have more holding power than a canvas basically..

Basically  if the account were to be deleted.So would any of L's property..

the only thing left standing would be what the creator could walk out of here with..

mesh avatars are a whole other story because those are created outside and uploaded..

 

but the sliders i doubt will win you a case in court because the shapes are just not as unique on their own as they would be built with a certain unique look added to them..

 

i'm not tryring to take away anything from people making shapes..because i know it's a pain i the but to get good at it..

i just think shape alone  it would be hard to claim original or unique iin sl..enough to win..

 

 

 

---

I agree with this statement.

I didn't realize this forum had morphed into intellectual rights until I came back to read it all!

I've never found one that was perfect for me. I always modify something. But I've never sold a shape, or given one out, or whatever. When I mention shapes in my style cards, I will note if it's modifed and where. I would not use or buy an unmodifiable shape. Thus, it's always best to read the terms before purchase.

People steal anything and everything in SL. I see it all the time. Blatent thieft of products. 

The OP wanted to know why shapes were not mod. And my answer, I don't know, just shop till you find one who is modifable...and forget about those who don't allow it. It's no different than skirt makers. A modifable skirt can be copied easily. I know this. Other designers know this. But to satisfy the customers, we make them modifable. Sadly, there will always be theift in SL, it's no different than RL.

[Clarissa Lowell]

None of us are stupid even if those who are loudly proclaiming shape creations have no value and should be stolen (not only that but claimed creation of, when they know darn well not a single thought went into just xeroxing that shape) keep talking to us as if we are.

As someone just said we all know theft takes place here rampantly, as it does in real life. No one is saying it doesn't. We would have to be really ignorant to claim that when people in this very thread are BRAGGING about doing it.

I originally came into this thread just to answer the question, which others have also done: Shapes are made no modify because of the number of bold as brass braggart thieves who also for some reason known only to them or their therapist must also then declare the very thing they are stealing, worthless.

I stuck around because of the level of arrogance and misinformation. And of course, trolling, as people deliberately ignore valid points in order to basically just taunt and or insult the others in the conversation.

"an avatars shape from the tools won't hold much value or chance of winnign anything in court because of how many close versions there are in world or can be to it.."

Did I mention how useless the quote function here is, by the way? I want to quote from more than one post and without having my entire reply turn into italics...anyway...

I disagree with that. Pretty much anything involving creative thought can be copyrighted. That's what intellectual property really means - it comes from one's mind, from thought and creative design. Then you carry it out. The fact that the tool is commonly available means squat. The fact that there is no legal precedent, really, for game IP or virtual worlds IP means squat. Stealing is stealing. And I'm not saying you are advocating stealing in your post by the way.

Does it occur to you though that there are a lot of 'close versions' because of all the stealing?  Also there are a lot of shapes that are not all that original, that's true. They copy a trend, they make the avatar's face as much like the current trend as possible. For instance the current trend of pouty fish mouth faces. However the first one who made those, could, if the means were available to, and it were financially practical (worth the trouble) copyright that face and have a case. Yes, they could! Yes, they could. (It really does not look like the average avatar face that preceded it in Second Life.) The fact that a lot of juries are unpredictable does not mean a case has no merit, either.

"Miss Catnap" I am not going to reply to your post until I get past your insult in it...if ever...No insults were needed. (Having ethics is judgmental now?) Others already replied to it very well and to the pertinent part anyway.

I've honestly not seen such a depressing topic since the Red Zone debates, with all the justifications for sociopathy going on in those topics. This one is worse. If you didn't create it, you didn't begin with an inspiration, conceive a design for that inspiration, and work it out with all the limitations of the available in world tool provided, then  you did not create that shape. Sorry, you did not create it. If it is so easy, which no one ever seems to respond to by the way, if it is so easy to do and such a worthless skill, then why are you stealing what other people do? Start from scratch yourself.

Masami, I am NOT your dear (Why is it when people mean the B word they say DEAR instead) - I ignored that the first time - and you don't merit a response any further, either. If you really think the shape I made looks like Ruth, or like most other shapes, you need help. (THAT is the criteria for originality not your made-up criteria.)

"it's like comparing the same style of shoes sold in 50 different stores that look exactly alike.."

That is also prosecutable, all the 'knock offs' are prosecutable. The problem is that proving it and taking it to court is not usually worth the financial expenditure. The person or company's time is also worth money. People get away with a huge amount in real life as well as virtual worlds because of that aspect of human nature and practical reality. But if they did, they could win. There is a huge difference in saying those two things. Thieves know that getting any payback on theft in SL is difficult and there isn't much help if any for it. But whether in the real world or a virtual world, designs can certainly be copyrighted. Virtual world law has just not caught up with real world law yet by a long shot. Even if it had, it would be difficult to pursue. We all know that (the thieves or those who were their victims, maybe better than most.)

What I take issue with is the gloating about it, and the insistence that there is actually zero thought or creativity involved - the statements like "it was all in my hands already" or "it's just there to be found." So was the statue before the chisel was used. It isn't the tool that matters it is the person behind it. Changing a name on the result does not change who actually brought it to life. I have no idea why that simple point is so hard for some in this topic to fathom?

tl;dr - Similar is not the same. (I could name 100 examples but, obviously, those intent on stealing have to self justify it some way, maybe that is some slim indication of a conscience after all.) I do wonder at the motivation some would have for so strenuously arguing the merits of stealing other people's work from them...in order to slap their own name on it or to sell it. Or even to distribute without permission. 

smaller tl;dr Lol - LINDEN LAB put permissions on everything we make. No transfer means no transfer of rights - PERIOD. All my shapes are no transfer, unless I sell or license rights up front, which I am not going to go into more because of confidentiality - but in those cases I am PAID. For a full perms copy. If you got a shape that was no transfer that is a CLUE BY FOUR.

 

 

OK I can't help it here is one example. You can buy a knockoff of a Gucci purse on a street corner in NYC. A lot of people have a lot of trouble telling the two apart (same for an art forgery.) (Note, I am NOT saying my SL creations are Gucci. Please, trolls, don't obfuscate.) They look similar. They are both purses. They are both leather (sometimes.) They both use the same tools. But obviously, they are not the same. So what is the difference? The design was not done by the factory knocking them off. The craftsmanship matters. The designers and craftspeople who constructed the Gucci have more experience and/or skill and/or talent than the factory making the knockoffs. Maybe the versatility or wearability is better in more situations. All those things come from experience, skill and/or talent of the one who actually thought up the design and carried it out. 

The name and reputation of the one who originally designed and crafted out the original item also matters. To that person for sure and most probably to their customers (in the case of SL shape makers who charge $1000 per shape for instance. If the shape is duped and given out all over the grid, those customers who paid $1000L are going to be upset, and not want to wear it. The shape shop loses business, and that customer is out their money.) That is why copyright protection should be part of SL, and that is why one day in all virtual worlds, it will be, as much so as in 'real life' (which virtual life is a part of.) Laws are very behind in realizing that people spend a lot of time using the internet. The lack of law to protect against online stalking/harassment/bullying is where real life laws were 20 years or more ago. But it will all catch up.

If someone with more experience, skill, or artistic ability (and it does require about the same types of talents and hand-eye coordination as drawing does, to make a good shape) makes a shape, it is probably going to be better than someone who has no ability, no skill and no experience. That is WHY that second person would WANT to take what the first person made and pass it off as their own. Anyone who's actually done it the hard way knows the difference and 'should' know better than to say anything else. Especially if they have made more than just their own shape. Their own shape can be done at their ease and over some months if necessary. Try filling up a shop with shapes, that do not all look the same.

The customers might think it's all easy because 1. they never made a shape or if so, not really a good one or 2. may not be able to tell the difference between ick and well done and 3. may be buying the same thing that's been passed off as original but was in fact stolen. 

I don't spend hours perfecting a butt on a given shape (which sometimes is the case) in order to have someone else claim they did it all along, when all they did was take out a pen. Of course it's easy if you didn't work at it. Being a thief is easier than working. (And more lucrative I'd imagine too since it is so much easier.) But a conscience stops most people from doing it.

[Ceka Cianci]

wow ..i'm really taken back that you think i trolled you ..let alone that i would just post on something like this  shooting from the hip without having researched on it or knew anything at all about it..

i have never trolled you ever in past years and didn't think i was now..

i design houses with my father for our company..also our websites and websites for other people ..as well as have my own art that is protected that will never see the light of day in this world  of theft..

i was posting about copy rights..not how hard it is to make a shape..

i've been making shapes since i got here ..i know how hard it is..i've got an inventory full of them..

my point was we don't own our shapes we created like someone that uploads a texture to the grid owns that texture they created..

while we are here ..all we own is the shape itself..not the numbers.. the UUID that goes with that shape..

if our account was to be deleted tomorrow so would our permissions and all of our LL content that they own..our shapes we created included..

then someone could roll in with those same numbers the next day and get LL copy rights to their shape and be honky dory..

if we came back and seen those shapes on the market place...what could we do about it? nothing..

because everything we had was deleted and taken away..

if we took those numbers to another grid and found shapes with the same numbers already there..

we are out of luck on claiming anything..because someone already has rights to them there ..

you don't have the slider numbers copy rights..you have the shape..

you just own what you modified them to..

that's the shape itself that is sitting in your inventory or the store shelves..

that ownership is limited to LL permissions..

this is why i said avatars are in a strange place in this..

i didn't say they are in a strange place because they were easy to make or the person creating them is not creative..

LL has the invention rights to the avatar..the intellectual property rights..they grant you certain rights to sell what you create from them if you choose to..

just as if you were to take one of these full perm kits and use it in one of your creations..you would have to follow their permissions or you could be breaking someones copy rights..

 

i don't think anyone's works should be stolen and i do think shapes are creations and do take a lot of work and time to get them to what we want..i know they take a lot of work..

but as far as being a troll or misinformed i'm not..

i only read part of your post because i wasn't going to read anymore names you decided throw at me..

i was responding to a thread like i have many threads in these forums for years..only a few times i have been called a troll..that has usually been from a troll..never from someone i felt was a friend..not unless we were kidding around...

i won't return the favor and use name calling..it's not something i care to do..

maybe if you read what i said without a temper you would see i wasn't trying to troll anyone..and i would never troll you..never..