Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cori Sabena

RL products copyrights and what Linden bans

Recommended Posts

I made a Walle, Eve and Mo robot toys.  I sold a number of them.  The last sales was all three by the same person. Within a day Linden took Eve and Walle off for copyright violation, but not M-O. 

No problem I said in my descriptions if Disney did not like me selling it I will stop.

My problem Is why do people get away with selling other Disney stuff like TRON, Star Wars, Harry potter, Dr Who, Star Trek, Red Dwarf, Mattel (Barbie and ken, Marvel etc?

You know if all the intelectual property was removed from SL. Linden might lose most of it's income.  Most of my sales is and was stuff I made up, like mail boxes and newspaper delivery,  no copywrite voilations but some places sell only someone elses RL creations.  I have a TARDIS by the way.

Is it possible to get permission from Disney?  I did not sell a lot but the were fun and did a lot.   And a good experence at scripting and building. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not become a member of your local/national copyright authority? Most offer some form of publication or info service that outlines clearly what is and what is not possible. You may not even have to be a financial member to gain most of this information. Leaflets/info sheets and electronic information abounds.

Also reading copyright information for individual items, although boring, is a great way to find out more about these laws and processes. 

Just a thought :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Disney corporation is known to be very strict about protecting its copyrights, so creating anything with a Disney character or logo is likely to get you in trouble with their legal department. Other owners of copyright may be less strict, such as BBC & the Dr. Who franchise. Linden Labs tends to side with the people who hold the copyright, so if you get a DMCA filed against you for copyright infringement, don't expect them to take your side. Your best recourse in a such a situation would be filing a counter DMCA (especially if you believe the other party had actually stolen your work) and hiring a lawyer to defend you in a potential court case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cori Sabena wrote:

No problem I said in my descriptions if Disney did not like me selling it I will stop.

 

I think you can be pretty certain that Disney won't like it and will have a problem with you if you use their trademarks without their permission.

 


Cori Sabena wrote:

You know if all the intelectual property was removed from SL. Linden might lose most of it's income. 

No. Most SL content is original and legal.

 


Cori Sabena wrote:

Is it possible to get permission from Disney? 

Yes, if you're prepared to pay their license fees. That's a lot of L$ that you have to earn back though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cori Sabena wrote:

[...]My problem Is why do people get away with selling other Disney stuff like TRON, Star Wars, Harry potter, Dr Who, Star Trek, Red Dwarf, Mattel (Barbie and ken, Marvel etc?[...]

the largest reason is, simply put, because no reports those specific items... and/or because LL only deigns fit to respond to IP complaints about large commercial entitiys that are likely to complain.... Disney is known to very agressive about it's brand, but BBC is not for instance, so they don't bother with Dr Who, but heavens help you if you made mickey mouse ears.

I see art by RL artists that have well known policies forbiding the use of their works in ANY electronic medium... and it's impossible to report an IP issue myself, and instead I have to inform the author and they have to come and get an account and log in and run over to this place just to file an IP claim against it... the entire system is a bit ridiculous (and not entirely LL's fault)

 


Cori Sabena wrote:

Is it possible to get permission from Disney?  I did not sell a lot but the were fun and did a lot.   And a good experence at scripting and building. 

possible? perhaps... you'd have to check with Disney about a licensing agreement. once you had one you'd probably need to send a certified copy to LL, and some yahoo would probably still report it and some yonk at LL would still remove it, and you'd have to do it all over again, because there is no  system is place for verified licensed resellers.

 

PS

you found Red Dwarf stuff? really? where!?! I loved that show! =)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cori: If you think all the intellectual property you have listed belongs to Disney then I predict you are likely to run into considerably more problems until you do some research. You CAN be prosectued for ignorance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point really is

Be fair Linden.  You take my Wall-e but Dr who, Star Trek, Star Wars, Barbie, Red Dwarf stuff etc is still being sold I doubt BBC gave permission!

I doubt that Disney knows about Second Life or cares if they did or George Lucas.  And if Disney did know about SL they why do they let all their stuff be sold?

If you pick on my stuff then that is favoritism to the others.

I am not questioning  rights I am an artist, programmer  and am working a couple of patents myself.  I wrote an application that was planning on selling.  

I made Walle and EVE for a programming and build exercise and because my kids suggested it.  

But why not take MO?

I would like to see Linden consistent. 

By the way they did not even comment on this thread.  How could they explain not doing anything about all the other violations but picking on us that are selling the stuff we make.  Or some envious merchant that cannot sell stuff turning us in.

I think I will file a complaint requesting all copyrighted stuff be removed from SL, and see what they do.  Because I am sure someone other than Disney complained about my products.  By the way I did it in good taste just like in the movie, nothing they would have a problem with unlike some of the other Disney rip off stuff I have seen.

I do not want linden to get into the "turn in your neighbor for violations' Like Hitler told his people to do and county and city building inspection has no problem with.  I am surprised they do not give prizes and or awarded for turning in people.  Linden is missing out on that!

 

Be fair just get rid of all private copywritten property everywhere not just when someone complains.

 

Oh by the way “most” content in SL may be original but I bet the big sellers are the stuff people are familiar with,  Star wars, Star Trek, Dr Who, Red Dwarf, Tron, Harry Potter, Disney princess, etc. I have seen this stuff all over and purchased a lot of it, I have a TARDUS.  

 Just search,  You will find Disney princess costumes,  Alice in wonderland stuff, just like the movie,  Disney Dwarfs etc.   If Linden took all of it would put a big nasty whole in content being sold. Not doubt some merchants would disappear completely from what I have seen in my traveling.  Some Sims are totally intellectual property.   So I am sure that is why linden does not do it.

FYI I am making enough $L to pay my premium membership and money to spend outside of SL as well.  Just bought a Barbie PC game for my daughter with money from SL.  The stuff I sell gives Linden money because of the Market place fees.

So am I pushing being banded, no doubt?  People have been banned by linden for doing less, just because someone complained about them falsely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badger you need to to your homework.  I had Walle EVE and Mo and that is all of Disney stuff.  The Dads root beer and Bud beer was a bonus for Linen to take away.  That surprised me, but they Missed M-O!

There are vendors that sell only someone else's intellectual property (or nearly) but Linden does nothing about them That is my point of this thread.

 

Maybe I will start searching (in all my alts) and reporting all intellectual property violations I find in SL. That will keep Linden busy!  They will have to put most of their staff working on it! and shut down hundreds of vendors and sims!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The process of removing copyright content is complex, not only in SL, but in interenet in genreral.

Once I had a photograph stolen and published in a blog without permission. (in fact not just once, but all other that I found give me the credits, and a link to the place were they found it, so I didn't care)

But in this case, there were no credits, no citation and was used in a manner that seems wrong to me. I went to Google (where the blog was running), and have to sent them a letter with many details including my name, proof of identity, proof that the pic belongs to me. Only than they removed the pic (in fact, canceled the blog and his owners account).

This is done to prevent abuse of reports. If I make a Coca Cola can, and Coca Cola don't complain, nobody else can report it. The same day, I make a Pepsi can, and someone in Pepsi fills a complain, the Pepsi can will be removed, but the Coke will remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prosecution for copyright infringement must come from the copyright owner. If the owner is unaware of a copyright violation, they clearly can't prosecute. However, the notion that you can use other people's brand names on the basis that "if they don't know, I'm OK" is erroneous. You are violating Coke® Cola's copyrights if you produce a Coke T-shirt or a singing Coke can, whether they prosecute or not.

The problem is that policing copyrights is hugely difficult and the reason that some people appear to "get away with it" is related to nothing more than the fact that finding them is almost impossible. The guy who sells a "Rolex®" just off TImes Square is unlikely to be sued by Rolex. This doesn't mean he's acting legally (he ain't) but that Rolex can't afford to have folks walking the streets of the world looking for fakes and use of the Rolex mark.

Thus, in practice, copyright owners end up doing what they can - which is to sue those folks they catch and hope it dissuades others from doing the same. That, of course, sucks if YOU are the one who was caught but that's just the luck of the draw, Linden Lab do NOT (and should not) police trademark violation in SL. They have to respond if a copyright owner instructs them that an infringement has occurred but other than that, they are not responsible for the behavior of residents. A moment's thought will suggest why this is the case - because making a 3rd party responsible makes us ALL responsible e.g.. you rent a place on a sim to someone who has an "Armani®" T-shirt and YOU are supposed to make sure they don't wear it! Or your kid downloads an MP3 and YOU have to call RIAA and turn them in.

If you get caught infringing and a "cease and desist" hits your virtual desk, my advice is to cease and desist before it gets too expensive! You ARE in the wrong and you WILL have to pay if you don't stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, Sigmund.

I was not clear. Just wanted to say that only the copyright owner can complain, or a legal representant, not that is legal or ethical to brake copyrights if no one complains.

But in the specific case of coke and Sl, once I was talking to a friend that work in Coca Cola do Brasil about this problem (there are many Cokes in SL. Later he answered me that in Brazil, the company wouldn't complain because of a cake can in SL - after all it is free advertisement and nobody would avoid a coke in RL because they have one in SL. But this was the approach of the Brazilian subsidiary, he cannot say that the main politics in the issue is the same worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone well known in the Doctor Who community in Second Life (im a co-owner of The Doctor Who Expo/Experience...Katrina sim) I can tell you that staffers from the BBC have frequently visited Second Life in the past.  We've had folks from Big Finish Productions visit our sim and Katrina hosts the seasonal Doctor Who Podshock podcast parties as well and the BBC regularley visit the GE site which hosts podshock, so they know we are here.

The difference between the BBC and major US companies like Disney, WB, Universal, Paramount etc etc is the BBC are more relaxed with the fan base, much more willing to interact with the fanbase rather than crush them with lawyers.

The BBC know we are here, they have known for a fair amount of time now.  In the bigger picture of things though the fan community in SL is small compared to the larger real life Dr Who fan groups that are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok got it.

Some care and some do not.  But it still seems to be a Linden desision.  Dads, Budwiser Walle, Eve but not M-O.

As I said I did the walle because my kids sugessted it and I saw it as a chalange.  They came out geat and  I sold a few.

But that is was it as far as trade market stuff. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you're an artist yourself how can you sell someone else's art as your own? you didn't create Walle, you copied him. you probably shouldn't  encourage your kids to infringe on someone else's intellectual property. as an artist i would think you would be very familiar with the whole copyright thing and what is acceptable and what isn't.  "everyone else is doing it" has got to be the lamest of all excuses, evah. it didn't work in second grade, and it doesn't work now. Disney not care about their trademarks and copyrights? That's just laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Shelby Silverspar wrote:

if you're an artist yourself how can you sell someone else's art as your own? you didn't create Walle, you copied him.

actually, no... OP created a replica based on what they had seen, which is a far cry from "copying"... and it's where copyright law fails in the most illogical way. At best the replica of a character is derivative, and not representative of the the entire work. but by copyright law your labors in creating a replica in an entirely different medium are not your own, and you are not allowed to profit from those labors... it's more than a bit ludicrous. so my sympathies to the OP.

 

My suggestion to the OP?

do an end run around the whole thing.... give the designed characters away for free, and sell the scripts to drive them separately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, no... OP created a replica based on what they had seen, which is a far cry from "copying"... and it's where copyright law fails in the most illogical way. At best the replica of a character is derivative, and not representative of the the entire work.

 

I disagree, Void.

A 'derivative work' is that based on one or more prexisiting works. It may be termed a modification, adaptation, or translation and applies to a work that is "recast, transformed, or adapted."  Juries are instructed to look for similarities, not differences when sitting on a case of derivative copyright infringement. If she re-created Walle as close as possible to the original, it's not derivative. If she created Walle with specifice differences, it's probably derivative. Derivative work is also illegal, btw... but can be done with permission, and changes/improvements can be copyrighted as well if the derivative work  is done with permission.  I don't think  giving it away vs. selling it changes anything, but I can't find specifics about that. 

I know copyright law is confusing at best. I've had bosses ask me to scan photos out of published works to use in a customer's marketing material who threw fits when I refused. I had a boss bring me photographs he took at a local museum, wanting to use those in the same way. Another no, but this time with the backing of the museum.

Not directed at you, Void, just as an interesting FYI... but did you guys know that the light installation on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted? Not the tower, just the lighting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point is not purely what the law says, but what common sense tells us, and where that conflicts with the laws as they stand (because I strongly believe it is severely flawed on several levels)

for instance, under current law both the stories and the indvidual characters within it (to say nothing of their design) are separate and complete works... which is a bizarre way of saying you get to eat your cake and have it too, when any observer can see that one flows from the other, which would change how the law treats them. add to that large corporations that can easily drag out copyright matters in law (even if they are legally in the wrong) well beyond the means of individuals and small studios... toss in the inconsistency of something marketed for public appeal that the public isn't allowed to creatively build from in any sensible way, and you got a mess...

it's not confusing because it's difficult, it's confusing because it clashes directly with sensible expectation.

to clarify my above suggest, not only would the "fan created representation" need to be free, but it also couldn't be co or cross marketed with the commercial product. and probably needs to stay in a non-competing market (which SL is).

 

PS
I'm not and industrialist or neo marxist if that's what you're thinking, I believe in credit (and profit) where credit is due, but the current system is credit (and profit) where it's due, and where it's really not, and stifles creativity more than it protects it. not that my opinion would mean jack in a courtroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...