Jump to content

Creating Mesh of Copyrighted Characters

Chaos Saeed

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3444 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Hello there, I was wondering how this works. I am not going to steal any mesh, but I want to create my own mesh but of certain characters, lets say... Pikachu. Say I made a mesh tiny Pikachu and set it for sale in the marketplace. How would I go about this without running into trouble? Can it look exactly like pikachu but be named something else? Should I put in its contents that I do not own the rights to Pokemon? I saw this done with Mario stuff. I'm not quite sure what I should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is as much a question of Trademark as it is Copyright.


IF you model the object yourself,

AND IF you make it look sufficiently different from the original,

AND IF you do not use the same name,


THEN you could sell it.


If you don't do one or more of those, you will have to either make it so you fall into the 'parody' clause (tricky to prove), or contact the rights holders and get permission.  In this case, I believe the current copyright and TM owners of all the various Pokemon characters is still Nintendo.  So in this example, you'd have to contact Nintendo USA and ask to obtain the rights to reproduce the Pikachu pokemon character within SL.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

What confuses me is the fact that there already are Pikachu avatars that look nearly exactly like the actual character, even one using textures directly from the anime and are being sold and even use the name Pikachu, yet they are still there and have not been taken down, and the account is still active. This isn't the only one, so why hasn't anything been done about all the copyrighted stuff on the marketplace if its not even allowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another option might be to give rights-holders the finger and make your tiny SL pikachu anyway, regardless of what they dictate with their bought-and-paid-for "international" copyright laws.

How do those other people do it?  By being too tiny for Nintendo lawyers to care about it.

Copyright may for now be a recognized legal right, but most creative people that educate themselves about it more tend to remorse, when they realize eventually why it's a moral wrong in all eternity -  no matter what the TV says. Just because you're a creator & merchant yourself doesn't mean you have to go along with it and become a sanctimonious copyright fascist like these people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(optional doctrinal material, for personal education if desired)


# This text is based on the work from Vladimir Yakovlevich Propp in
# his 1928 essay "Morphology of the Folktale." By studying many
# Russian folktales, Propp was able to break down their narrative
# structure into several functions, literally exposing an underlying
# thirty one step recipe to write new and derivate similar stories.


Once upon a time in the wonderful Folklore Valley, a creator wonders
about the becoming of her memetic folktale legacy and decides to take
some distance from the anonymous creative practices of her community.


The creator is warned by a giant caption. It reads: "Do Not Want".


Despite the viral warning, the creator leaves her community and starts
to sign her work as a mean to legitimate her individual contribution to
the folktale scene.


On her way to authorship, she encounters the Lawyer and the Publisher.


The Lawyer delivers rights to the creator.


The creator becomes the Author.


At this point the Author and the Publisher begin to promote copyright
laws in the Folklore Valley.


With the help of the Lawyer, the Publisher uses the Author as an excuse
to transform the Folklore Valley into a profitable folktale factory.


The Author receives distressed calls from another creator persecuted by
the Publisher for making a derivative work from a copyrighted folktale.


The Author hears the sound of a flute. The free melody comes from a
campsite, beyond the Folklore Valley.


The Author leaves the, now fully copyrighted, Folklore Valley and heads
toward the campsite, attracted by the melody of this open invitation.

The Lawyer is following her from a distance.


Arrived at the campsite, the Author learns from the Man with a Beard,
that useful information should be free. And by free he is not referring
to its price. The Lawyer, hiding, is listening attentively. The Man with
a Beard resumes his flute practice.


Leaving the campsite, the Author wonders whether or not cultural
expressions can also be free and, somehow, now liberated from copyright.


The Lawyer appears in front of the Author and hands over free culture


With the help of remix culture, the Lawyer uses the Author as an excuse
to transform the Folklore Valley into a techno-legal free for all
bureaucratic maze.


With licensing proliferation, the Author cannot cope with the increasing
complexity linked to her practice. She feels that she lost all control
over her work, just so it can be used as fuel for the ever expanding
information network nurtured by the Lawyer and the Publisher.


Regardless of what her true intentions are, her whole body of work gets
tattooed with different logos, iconic representations of supposedly
human readable deeds that all reinforce the many conflicting ideologies,
commercial interests and beliefs now rationalised by copyright laws and
their different copyleft-inspired hacks.


The only escape left is to ignore copyright, no matter what. Leave
everything behind, a small personal victory, over the techno-legal
machine, but a first step towards the liberation of the Folklore Valley.


As a result, the Author becomes Pirate of her own work, of any work,
once again.

She puts on an eyepatch.

* 20. RETURN

The Pirate returns to the, now fully copyfreed, copyrighted, copylefted
and copyfarlefted incompatible and fragmented Folklore Valley. The
Publisher and the Lawyer make sure everything is tidy and sound.
Vladimir Propp's Morphology of the Folktale becomes a patented algorithm
for a freemium manufacture that feeds itself automatically from the
aggregation of open content produced by the Folklore Valley's creators.

She has something to say about that.


The Publisher and the Lawyer, who see the presence of the Pirate as a
serious threat to their information empire, start several campaigns of
misinformation to question the legitimacy of the Pirate to comment on
anything but her unlawful, therefore moralistically evil, activities.

This undermining process is strengthen by increasingly aggressive,
punitive and gratuitous repression mechanisms towards any creators who
might want to follow her footsteps.

* 22. RESCUE

The Pirate escapes for a while from the Publisher and the Lawyer by
using the underground networks of tunnels and caverns right under the,
now fully tracked, logged, cloudified and gamified, Folklore Valley.


Eventually, the Pirate decides to face the surface of the Valley instead
of living the rest of her life as some underground rat. She emerges
right in the middle of an astonished crowd of brainwashed creators and
template-based folktales.

* 24. CLAIM

The Publisher and the Lawyer steps in and deliver the usual moralistic
speech, the one that kept the creators of the Folklore Valley quiet and
under control all this time. The fear of being stolen can be felt in all
the tales, panic is about to break loose.

* 25. TASK

The publisher and the Lawyer challenges the Pirate. They argue that she
has no rights to comment on the situation. She is merely a parasite, a
free rider who has no clue of what is at stake.


The Pirate drops her eyepatch.


All of sudden all the creators recognise the Author. The one Author who
once started to sign many of the folktales that are now used as licensed
templates in the tale factories planted by the Lawyer and the Publisher.

And they all listen to her...


The Author explains her journey.

Since her individualistic awakening she started to initiate many
experiments and ways of working with her medium, using others' material
directly or indirectly. She was interested in as many collaborative
methodologies as there were colours in the world. She explains that, as
her practice grew, she felt the need to sign and mark her work in a way
or another, and was confused about this sudden paradox: on the one hand
her desire to be just this simple node in this continuous stream of
creativity, and on the other hand she had this instinctive need to stand
above her peers, to shine and be visible for her own contribution. She
also tells them about her needs to simply make a living and therefore,
why  she genuinely thought copyright was a fair model, harmless for her
audience and peers. She says that she equally failed to understand that
the freedom they once had as a community of folktale creators cannot be
emulated through contract laws, no matter what good intentions drive

She concludes that at every stage of her quest to understand the very
fabric of culture, the Publisher and the Lawyer were present to enable
and support her experiments, yet slowly getting stronger and out of
control. If anything at all, she feels responsible for letting them
decide how her work, how culture, should be produced and consumed.

She apologises.


The Author becomes a creator, once again.


The Publisher's and the Lawyer's work is undone. Copyright is banned
from the Folklore Valley.


The creator marries another creator. They live happily ever after,
creating many new folktales.

As for the Man with a Beard, I was told that he turned his campsite into
a brewery, but that's another story...


src: http://su.kuri.mu/00000001/2012----MORPHOLOGY_OF_A_COPYRIGHT_TALE/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaos Saeed wrote:

why hasn't anything been done about all the copyrighted stuff on the marketplace if its not even allowed?

Are you asking why something hasn't been done by LL, or why something hasn't been done by the actual owner of the character?  (Pikachu is owned by Nintendo, by the way.)

Either way, the answer is self-evident, if you just think about the situation practically for a moment.  I'll explain.

First, let's talk about why LL does not go proactively looking for things to take down.  From a practical standpoint, they just can't.  They have no way of knowing in advance who does and does not have license to distribute what.

I myself have been hired many times over the years by movie studios and TV networks to create avatars of very well known characters that they own or have license to.  LL has no way of knowing that I'm actually authorized to do that stuff.  After all, it's not like I call them up before hand, and say, "Hey, guess what?  CBS just hired me to make ________!"  Since they don't know I have permission, should they just delete the stuff as soon as they notice it?  Of course not.  Again, that just wouldn't make any practical sense.  The practical thing to do is to respond if, and only if, an IP owner files a takedown notice.

For all LL knows, whoever created that Pikachu avatar you're talking about might have Nintendo's permission, or might even BE Nintendo itself. Until and unless Nintendo tells them something's wrong, they've got no reason to believe it's not.

We, of course, can theorize about why Nintendo hasn't filed a takedown notice.  There can only be three possible reasons.  The most likely explanation is they're simply unaware of it.  A less likely possibility is they know about it, but have opted not to put a stop to it.  Finally, it's remotely possible that the content is 'official', in that the maker actually does have Nintendo's authorization.

If you want to do your civic duty, you can fire off a quick E-mail to Nintendo's legal department, to tell them about the avatar.  If they already know about it, then no harm done.  If they don't know about, though, then you're doing them a solid.  They can then decide to deal with it, or not deal with it, however they see fit.

For my part, I do try to notify the owners, whenever I spot stuff like that.  It's none of my business what any particular owner decides to do from there, of course.  But making sure they're at least aware of what's going on so is the only right thing to do.


I hope that answers your question.  In summary, LL will take down infringing content, if and when the rightful owner has asked them to do so. 


If you're curious about how the takedown process works, by the way, here it is.  Linden Lab, just like every other online service provider in the United States (and in all other reciprocating treaty-bound countries) operates in accordance with the rules set forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Those rules state that once a provider has received a properly filed takedown notice, they must remove the allegedly infringing material.  The rules also state that if they receive a proper counter-notice from the accused party, they must put the material back. If the parties wish to pursue the matter further than that, that's what courts are for.  It's not the provider's job to pick sides, or even to get actively involved at all.

It's important to understand that the provider's role is to remain neutral.  When they take something down in response to a notice, it doesn't mean they agree with the accuser, and when they put something back in response to a counter-notice, it doesn't mean they agree with the accused.  In both cases, they're simply fulfilling their obligations, under the law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say you spot a person at a village marketplace who is selling poodles (puppies). And you just happen to know the person in your village who bred the very first, original poodle and invented the name "poodle". 

Now, do you reckon in a free society (if you hold your village to be such) it ought to be your civic duty to rat and tittle-tattle on the first guy and his "illegal"  and "stolen" poodles, so the original poodle guy, who has nice connections with Village Chief and is in bed with his daughter Justitia, can send his jackboot thugs to raid the guy and take him down, kill his illegal puppies, and "restore order" to the marketplace? 

Mmm!  Makes a law-abiding conscientious person feel *good* all over, seeing that happen, all those little lives (the puppies and the little shop they belonged to) snuffed out, doesn't it???


The civic duty of creators is to create, not to stifle and kill expression.

Creators are being brainwashed by cheap & disingenuine appeals to our own financial self-interest to support the worst forms of corporate fascism, feeding the cancer that will kill what little creative culture we have left by transmogrifying it all into an "industry" (i.e. "music industry", "movie industry", "book industry"...).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You know, Cindy, when you tattle on someone, you're not just telling on them. You're telling on yourself. And, by tattling on someone, you're really just telling them, "I'm a tattletale." Now, is that the tale you want to tell?"


some people would say yes and then when hardly anyone will trust them, not confide in them, they'll wonder why and think, "well they must all be thieves at heart, they don't care about what's right, but i do, i am the better person because i care." while not caring who they might hurt with all their caring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure ChosenFew  just had an unlucky word choice by mentioning civic duty in this context, I don't want to make it look like I  mean any disrespect to Chosen or anyone else that may disagree with the stuff I said.

Only wanted to highlight the sad reality of how all creators are being had, and constantly lied to by the copyright lobby, and so often it's the creator's own misguided moral feeling of ownership that becomes their lifelong prison. And in that prison they are now subtly being taught to tattle-tale on the other inmates. We didn't invent this, and nobody asked Chosen or you or me for permission to do this to us, it was just done underhandedly without a lot of people noticing or taking the time to think it over.


Have you ever wondered how good people in places like say, Germany and Italy, could permit fascism to take root in their country? It happened exactly the same as it's happening to us now in the "intellectual property" sphere.  We even have our very own jews and gypsies already that we ostracize and hate - the pirates of every colour.

Ask yourself, how exactly do you know that someone infringing on copyright is a  bad person? When has this ever been proven or shown to be true, except in the fascist copyright propaganda we're innudated with constantly?

There's an interesting difference this time though, the pirates are not an ethnic or political minority, they are in fact the vast majority of the human race. We're all born, absolutely natural pirates - monkey see, monkey do. If there was ever a proper vote about it, copyright would instantly be dead.  It can only be perpetuated as a fascist imposition. This is precisely why the copyright establishment enlists and indoctrinates the creators themselves, to make it look on the surface like it's a struggle for fairness, fair creator compensation, against "free loaders" and "thieves"  (textbook terms right from Nazi propaganda against the social unwanteds).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I'm glad your soul craves the same things, like simply some justice and telling it like it is without all the fascist posing we get in TOS, omnipresent DMCA threats etc.  Most of it being moot anyway because, let's face it, nobody even at Nintendo could afford or want to litigate against tiny 3d pikachu every time somebody made one for the SL market. The thing is, unlike real creators, corporations don't have to litigate, they routinely scare people into submission with legal threat, without any judge or jury. 

That's what corpy-right is all about,  the corps have all the rights, and ordinary people wanting to make some lemonade and sell it from a little stand now have to navigate the corporate legal minefields to get anywhere. How else?  It's Lemonade, now. The message is pretty clear, just give up, you don't need to create, you are just here to consume what the Industry makes for you.

I used to read Ray Bradbury a famous scifi writer who often emphasized dystopia where paper books are forbidden and think it's unrealistic, took it as a metaphor. But now? More and more it's becoming the absolute reality these days, thanks to copyright and related laws. Paper books don't have DRM chips, so they're a vehicle for infringement. Corporations like Amazon and Google are digitizing everything for their electronic readers and trying to claim perpetual copyright on those digital versions of public domain works. Digital books can be remotely changed anytime right on your Kindle (if it was necessary) to make them politically correct and that's just perfect for the party line, so the big gov is big on copyright too. 

Under those kinds of conditions, I fear the criminalization and mass destruction of paper books, Nazi style, could be just a matter of a decade or two. We're gonna do it to celebrate being "green" and saving trees from abuse, or to fight global warming, or something trendy like that. I was stupid, Ray Bradbury was smart.


We see constantly how policy makers are trying to dupe people into becoming prim Nazis and ratting each other out to the "copyright police" every chance they get.  But you do not have to willingly follow along with it, don't march to that tune waving the new nazi flag thinking it's going to mean financial prosperity for you in some mythical future when all the jews and thieves are legally eliminated. It will not, it's a big lie and cultural cancer.  And if you wanted to ask me, I'd even say it's every creators civic duty to have utter contempt for those attempts and practices, even if that makes their opinions unpopular with the status quo.

I hope the OP makes that little 3D Pikachu, and that little Pikachu ends up prominently shown in the SL marketplace listing giving the middle finger to an unknown yet pervasive newfangled tyranny.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's like you read my mind.

and lets not forget the "owners" of the copyrights are hardly ever the creators. the music industry is littered with creators legally defrauded out of their creations and that is but one example. its never about protecting the artist, it's always about protecting the empty suit who has never created anything but the rules to screw everybody out of everything. it's always been about the power to control lives.

i hope the OP does it too and i hope one day enough people decide to take back their lives instead of following rules designed to funnel them into a pen where they can be neatly controlled.

when the artists and scientists among us rise up a new day of enlightenment will dawn for humanity.

"we run this" - anonymous

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, you had to go through the mesh-upload questions and there you got your answer !

NO you cannot

Because others break "law" doesn´t make it right. (What an old odd line but still true)

Do not expect copyright owners think you are to small. It is not only them even some, maybe bored lawers, search the net and report things.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monti Messmer wrote:

Hello, you had to go through the mesh-upload questions and there you got your answer !

NO you cannot

Because others break "law" doesn´t make it right. (What an old odd line but still true)

Do not expect copyright owners think you are to small. It is not only them even some, maybe bored lawers, search the net and report things.


If they want me to take it down I will, but they will also have to go after the others doing it lol. Also I must remind you that just because there is a law, doesn't make it right. Someone stated before this, that the owners of the copyright are usually not the original creator. Also, this model is my own, created from scratch, I own every vertice and pixel in it. As long as Linden Lab doesn't have a problem with it, I think it will be fine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can "boohoo" a whole lot about the creator not owning the copyrights to a certain product, but "some suit" instead. You are really missing the entire picture if you do. How do you think that "suit" obtained those copyrights? When anything that can have copyrights is created, the creator has those rights, period. So in order to get the rights, the "suit" will have to get out his wallet and pay the creator for them. Even if the object is made especially for the suit, the rights are still in the hands of the creator. So by saying it's fine to copy things because "some suit" owns the rights, take in mind you depreciate the value of copyrights. Why would the suit pay the creator next time? "They're clearly worth nothing if I own them, I'm just a suit..."

IP rights are here to protect creators, never forget that.

btw, LL will not ask you to remove the content. If the owner of the rights (or someone claiming to be that) files a takedown notice, LL takes down the content. You can then counterfile and LL will undo the takedown.

and btw ( I know you didn't say it) it's just insanity to compare pirates to WWII Jews. I don't think anyone ever thought: "Hey I know there are consequences to being a Jew and it might get me killed in a horrible way, but I think I'd like to become one anyway...yes let's go to town hall and apply for a Jew status."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the anology of pirates to jews is valid in the sense that normally just thinking people were convinced by the powers that the reason for the difficulties in their lives was because of the jews, "its the jews that are robbing and stealing from you, that's why you can' t get ahead. kill the jews and everything will be better, its all their fault".  in the same way people are being convinced that its the pirates that are ruining everything for the creators and if we kill all the pirates everything will be better for the creators. when in reality it is the corporations that are the yoke around the creators neck. that it is them that steal and rob the creators and that killing all the pirates goes to only further solidify that paradigm.

you are naive to think they pay to obtain those rights. more like they lie and manipulate and use the system they created to crush the creators into submission. you need not look any further than the entertainment industry for proof of that.

we are better off with pirates than corporations. don't believe the lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your comparison and I explained why it is an absurb one, not to mention extremely insulting and hurtful.. Jews are born Jews, pirates are pirates by choice. If you wanted to make the comparison, the Jew would be the creator anyway, the pirate the resistance or Allied Forces. Still at best extremely far fetched. Please let's leave it at that.

Now..as a creator... two questions..

How is it good for me if someone steals my things, even if they do not make a cent? It's hard to believe they are doing it to promote my items and it's very likely they did it because they just didn't want to pay. Now if anyone thinks they can convince me it's good for me if they copy my work, they can give it a try... and I probably will say no. That's how the system works and it's very reasonable.

How is it bad for me that my rights are protected? If anyone decides to copy my items, I can decide for myself if I want to take legal actions. Without any protection by law, where would I turn to get any justice?

Bouttime Whybrow wrote:

you are naive to think they pay to obtain those rights. more like they lie and manipulate and use the system they created to crush the creators into submission. you need not look any further than the entertainment industry for proof of that.

Instead of pointing at the entertainment industries without any examples or figures...you're making quite an ignorable remark if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, I'm really not going to do any harm, if anything it may help promote their company. I undersatnd when people do things like pirate software, or movies and music and that takes away profits. But here in SL, unless they establish themselves here, I won't be taking anything from them. So I doubt they will mind much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no you don't understand. it has nothing to do with being born or choosing. it has to do with assigning blame.

lay the blame on a race or the devil or a pirate. its about blaming a class, a thing, its about BSing people.

it will be hard to convince you that we ALL would be better off without copyright because it involves comparing a complex system that is a reality to one that is currently theoretical. so it's easy to see how A leads to B that leads to C because there are concrete examples in the copyright world, but when we envision a copyrightedless world we have to plot that out and that is less convincing because a person doesn't have the concrete to point to.

you have to imagine a completely different system of things and then how that would unfold.

in a world without copyrights, will artists stop being artists? will people not engage their imagination and produce things for the sheer stimulation of it? yes they will because humans will always be human. so we will always have those benefits and people will pay for it because they want it. will there be some injustice? of course, that will always be the case as well.

do you create in sl because you really expect to make a lot of money? i doubt it, sure its nice but its not the primary reason for the vast majority. SL is a perfect example of how creators will always create no matter what.

the pirates will always be limited because they lack the means to create, they will always lag behind by virtue of thier very nature because they lack the ability to create. along with that most people will prefer to support a creator over a pirate by their own natural sense of justice as well as all the added value of dealing with the creator over a hack who can't offer anything else like support. and that is just the short of it.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaos Saeed wrote:

The way I see it, I'm really not going to do any harm, if anything it may help promote their company. I undersatnd when people do things like pirate software, or movies and music and that takes away profits. But here in SL, unless they establish themselves here, I won't be taking anything from them. So I doubt they will mind much.


You are taking away profits as much as you are when downloading music or anything like that.

a - you illegally obtain the works

b - chances are if you asked the IP owner you'd have to pay

c - you get to enjoy something you're not allowed to, since you stole it

Now if they mind much? chances are they don't, but it's not something you can simply take for a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

Instead of pointing at the entertainment industries without any examples or figures...you're making quite an ignorable remark if you ask me.



are you kidding me? you mean i have to list things like the tom petty, prince, the beatles, and EVERY SINGLE party that has ever been screwed over because you are ignorant of them? go learn, you can't be spoon fed everything.

anybody who is not unconscious knows how nortorious those industries are for screwing over the artist. if i have to first convince you of that. you are already a lost cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3444 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...