Copyright question!

[SophieeMae]

Hey guys :matte-motes-grin: I am interested in starting a childrens clothing store. I know a lot of stores sell clothing with.. mini mouse.. spongebob, ect.. Lots of popular clothing companies on SL, but I was told I can get banned for doing so? Which confuses me. If the popular stores are doing it, is it okay or not? Are they going to get in trouble?

[TristanMercer]

If you want to use those characters you will need permission from the companies that own the copyright.

You cannot just on a whim decide to use them.

[Storm Clarence]

If you don't know the answer to your OP, then you will certainly deserve everything life throws at you.   Enjoy. 

[Innula Zenovka]

If you don't have a license from Disney or whoever to use their characters in your products, then you shouldn't be using them.

The other stores may have a license or may just be taking their chances on the IP holder not complaining, but that doesn't affect your position.

 

[Chic Aeon]

LL has historically not policed copyright infringement; they wait for a complaint from the RL company. And now under the new TOS it is questionable what happens after that.

If you have not yet taken the MESH UPLOAD test available from your web account panel, then I suggest you do so. It explains clearly what you can and cannot do LEGALLY. 

[Cerise Sorbet]

Those people just didn't get caught. It's not OK to use that material.

For all the hype in past years, SL is still kind of a niche place, so lots of unlicensed content sneaks under the radar or doesn't seem important enough for some companies to act. Other companies do notice and do act, especially if the content gets wider exposure on the marketplace, write-ups on the web, etc.

You'll get better sleep if you don't wander into that game.

[Dillon Levenque]

It is easy to think that SL is a place apart and that we can duplicate RL things here without worrying. I know that I have purchased several things that were based on things from real life—I searched for them by their real life names—but now that I know a bit more I'm guessing the creator did not have permission from the trademark/copyright holder to sell those items.

In a way, it's too bad that we can't be exempt from RL rules. We are mostly harmless, after all. How much damage can we do to a brand name or logo?

 But in fact SL is subject to copyright rules from RL, and anyone who sells something with a trademarked or copyrighted image/text/whatever without the copyright holder's permission is open to punitive action. So it's probably best if you leave those kinds of things off your creations.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

It is easy to think that SL is a place apart and that we can duplicate RL things here without worrying. I know that I have purchased several things that were based on things from real life—I searched for them by their real life names—but now that I know a bit more I'm guessing the creator did not have permission from the trademark/copyright holder to sell those items.

In a way, it's too bad that we can't be exempt from RL rules. We are mostly harmless, after all. How much damage can we do to a brand name or logo?

 But in fact SL is subject to copyright rules from RL, and anyone who sells something with a trademarked or copyrighted image/text/whatever without the copyright holder's permission is open to punitive action. So it's probably best if you leave those kinds of things off your creations.

---

I do wish there was a little bit more latitude granted for "personal use" versus "commercial use."

We are after all doing free advertising for them.

Maybe we need an SL program like this:

http://www.humanadspace.com/

[Madelaine McMasters]

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

 

THis reminds me of one of the odder requests I have had over the years.  Someone approached my company with an idea they wanted help with.  They made sex attachments and had designed a the control HUD with a screen on it that played ads while it was attached to the screen.  They wanted us to solicit RL companies to buy ad space.  I'm glad that meeting wasn't in voice because I never laughed so hard in SL before.  Needless to say we turned down the account.

[Dillon Levenque]

That is just too funny. I mean, ads of any kind would be a mood-killer, but imagine how much fun you could have selecting wildly inappropriate ads.

[jujmental]

---

Chic Aeon wrote:

LL has historically not policed copyright infringement; they wait for a complaint from the RL company. And now under the new TOS it is questionable what happens after that.

---

Erm, since LL now own all material in SL, then they have made themselves prime targets for litigious rl organisations, who will be able to sue them for their culpability - which makes a lot of sense to the latter, as LL both has money and cares about their reputation (although not much apparently).

© The Judge

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

---

SophieeMae wrote:

Hey guys :matte-motes-grin: I am interested in starting a childrens clothing store. I know a lot of stores sell clothing with.. mini mouse.. spongebob, ect.. Lots of popular clothing companies on SL, but I was told I can get banned for doing so? Which confuses me. If the popular stores are doing it, is it okay or not? Are they going to get in trouble?

---

 I see a HUGE listing of the Nike swoop on sneakers.. People selling them full perm too. No one is complaing they are buying them out.  

 

 Its ok if you dont get caught reported or flagged and face it, these companies dont have SL in their radar and we as end users cant flag obvious copyright infringment

[Perrie Juran]

---

Tarina Sewell wrote:

---

SophieeMae wrote:

Hey guys :matte-motes-grin: I am interested in starting a childrens clothing store. I know a lot of stores sell clothing with.. mini mouse.. spongebob, ect.. Lots of popular clothing companies on SL, but I was told I can get banned for doing so? Which confuses me. If the popular stores are doing it, is it okay or not? Are they going to get in trouble?

---

 I see a HUGE listing of the Nike swoop on sneakers.. People selling them full perm too. No one is complaing they are buying them out.  

 

 Its ok if you dont get caught reported or flagged and face it, these companies dont have SL in their radar and we as end users cant flag obvious copyright infringment

---

I'm confused by your post.

Is this supposed to be some kind of justification or way of saying "don't worry about?"

Just because people do it does not make it OK.

 

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Tarina Sewell wrote:

---

SophieeMae wrote:

Hey guys :matte-motes-grin: I am interested in starting a childrens clothing store. I know a lot of stores sell clothing with.. mini mouse.. spongebob, ect.. Lots of popular clothing companies on SL, but I was told I can get banned for doing so? Which confuses me. If the popular stores are doing it, is it okay or not? Are they going to get in trouble?

---

 I see a HUGE listing of the Nike swoop on sneakers.. People selling them full perm too. No one is complaing they are buying them out.  

 

 Its ok if you dont get caught reported or flagged and face it, these companies dont have SL in their radar and we as end users cant flag obvious copyright infringment

---

I'm confused by your post.

Is this supposed to be some kind of justification or way of saying "don't worry about?"

Just because people do it does not make it OK.

 

---

 No there is NO justification. I am saying there is a lot of it and it goes on and on and nothing is done about it because big corporations are not always looking at things and the only way you can flag them is IF you are the owner. So it goes on and on.  and I should have included  this.  :catfrustrated:

[Pamela Galli]

What I understand:  It is unethical and illegal, but fine with LL.

[jwenting]

---

jujmental wrote:

---

Chic Aeon wrote:

LL has historically not policed copyright infringement; they wait for a complaint from the RL company. And now under the new TOS it is questionable what happens after that.

---

Erm, since LL now own all material in SL, then they have made themselves prime targets for litigious rl organisations, who will be able to sue them for their culpability - which makes a lot of sense to the latter, as LL both has money and cares about their reputation (although not much apparently).

© The Judge

---

uh, wrong. You've obviously either misread the TOS or are deliberately spreading lies.

LL doesn't own "all material in sl", they have a right to distribute which they need to, you know, send it from the servers to viewers used by residents who're looking at that material in world.

They follow many companies like Yahoo, Google, etc. etc. etc. in explicitly stating that right, for the sole reason to stop opening themselves to lawsuits by people like you who upload things to their service, then sue them for distributing it without a license.

[PeterCanessa Oh]

Well you're right that they don't "own" it, but they do have a rather broader licence than they need for SL:

"...you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to ... exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats..." (http://lindenlab.com/tos)

Hence all the furore from the content creators when LL re-wrote the TOS.

[jujmental]

You're wrong jwenting, as Peter has highlighted, they have the right to: "exploit in any manner whatsoever"

LL can't cherry pick and have it both ways, assuming some rights while denying other responsibilities.

And since LL is effectively now taking joint ownership of all and any child porn activity they are exposing themselves to further prosecution, and may find that their marketing - especially of the supposedly "child-friendly" new products - is severely damaged, particularly with Google and Microsoft censoring inworld images of kid avatars.

Every cloud has a silver lining!

© The Judge

[Shelby Silverspar]

---

jujmental wrote:

 

And since LL is effectively now taking joint ownership of all and any child porn activity they are exposing themselves to further prosecution, and may find that their marketing - especially of the supposedly "child-friendly" new products - is severely damaged, particularly with

Google and Microsoft censoring inworld images of kid avatars.

---

huh? where in that article do they mention child avatars?