- 0
Is oblivious/indifferent author a valid excuse to sell stolen content for profit? (Flagging policy)
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3634 days.
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Question
Ariel Vuissent
The law in the United States, as it is right now, makes the holder of a trademark or copyright solely responsible for protecting his or her rights. If you hold a copyright or trademark, only you can enforce your rights to it. Part of this is because it's difficult to determine if the holder of a trademark or copyright has sold a license to use it to a third party. Most of the content you see that appears to be ripped or otherwise in violation of those laws is, in fact, in violation; but you don't KNOW that. It's possible, for example, that Disney has sold a license to create and sell Mickey Mouse ears in Second Life to Joe Schmoe. Not likely, but possible, and you don't know for sure that that did not happen.
You might get an interesting discussion going posting this over in the main forums, perhaps somewhere in Creation or in the General Discussion area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2 answers to this question
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