Jump to content

Linden Lab Goes Copyright Nuts


Nalates Urriah
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2215 days.

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

Recommended Posts

On 3/3/2018 at 1:19 AM, Callum Meriman said:

Trademarks and trade dress need defense, copyright doesn't. It exists defended or not.

That is not accurate. While copyright is inherent in the creation of copyrightable works, failure to defend a copyright is prima-facie evidence of the author's intent it was intended for the public domain or granting of permission for others to use the work.  This is the reason that copyrighted works are the subject of so many cease and desist letters, which generally require payment for their creation to an attorney. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2018 at 12:51 AM, Chase01 said:

There is good reason why LL only does the minimum that is required for them to be compliant with copyright law. Do you know how much work it would take to vet all of the products being sold on the MP; not to mention the potential liability that may come as a result. Do you have any idea how much content in SL is in violation of copyright? Sure, there are original content creators on the grid, and some that do use 3rd party works have license to do so, but many do not.

I'll point out that the Lab does not defend their non-exclusive copyrights in our copyrighted works. This thread started because they were overly vigorous in defense of THEIR copyrights.

If one of our works is deemed to have entered the public domain, that is good for the Lab. If one of ther's does, that is a bad thing, a lost to the company and shareholders. So, it is easy to decide which copyrights and trademarks they will defend, as in spend money defending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

That is not accurate. While copyright is inherent in the creation of copyrightable works, failure to defend a copyright is prima-facie evidence of the author's intent it was intended for the public domain or granting of permission for others to use the work.  This is the reason that copyrighted works are the subject of so many cease and desist letters, which generally require payment for their creation to an attorney. 

That is not accurate currently. Copyright law has been changed many times and the status of the work depends on when it was created. In the United States for a work to be copyrighted it used to need to be registered and the term was shorter, but in 1989 the US joined the international Berne Convention which makes copyright automatic. The "works entering the public domain" you may be thinking of were probably all from long before 1989.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I'll point out that the Lab does not defend their non-exclusive copyrights in our copyrighted works. This thread started because they were overly vigorous in defense of THEIR copyrights.

If one of our works is deemed to have entered the public domain, that is good for the Lab. If one of ther's does, that is a bad thing, a lost to the company and shareholders. So, it is easy to decide which copyrights and trademarks they will defend, as in spend money defending.

I know why the thread started. My comment was to someone who thought it was asinine that they didn't remove that known content. I quoted them.

I'd also note that Linden Lab is a privately held company.

Edited by Chase01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

That is not accurate currently. Copyright law has been changed many times and the status of the work depends on when it was created. In the United States for a work to be copyrighted it used to need to be registered and the term was shorter, but in 1989 the US joined the international Berne Convention which makes copyright automatic. The "works entering the public domain" you may be thinking of were probably all from long before 1989.

The doctrine of laches while somewhat toned down recently for copyright still works for those defending their use of copyrighted material.

Relying on it is risky for those on both sides of a copyright issue, the owner and the one using copyrighted works.

Edited by Nalates Urriah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

That is not accurate. While copyright is inherent in the creation of copyrightable works, failure to defend a copyright is prima-facie evidence of the author's intent it was intended for the public domain or granting of permission for others to use the work.

It's accurate, and complex as heck.

Thinking about laches and how they could be used - In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (MGM) - The USA supreme court held the view " laches cannot bar legal relief where Congress has enacted a statute of limitations noting that laches is primarily an equitable defense against claims in equity for which there is no time limitation. " Quite simply, copyright has a statute of limitation, therefore laches can't apply during the statute of limitations period - so the preceeding five(?) years.

As for inaction providing evidence of intent the work was meant for the public domain, and thus the defense of estoppel being possible, that would require taking some affirmitive action that didn't result in a suit. That affirmitive action potententially changes the terms of use of the work, that might go all the way up to putting them into the public domain if not done precisely. The Lab have done such an affirmitive action here, although the work clearly isn't public domain.

The general legal opinion I have seen - worldwide - is that you do not need to police your copyright to keep it. Copyright is death+70 in most of the world - outside that really weird period unique to the USA where people died between 1955 and 1964 might have their works protected and might not.

Where policing becomes more useful is if you intend to sue for damages. A history of policing will allow you to go after damages, while if you don't police then damages are harder, or impossible.,

 

Edit: adding https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/05/19/unusual-split-as-supreme-court-upholds-raging-bull-suit-vs-mgm which is rather on-topic to this I believe.

 

Edited by Callum Meriman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

That is not accurate currently. Copyright law has been changed many times and the status of the work depends on when it was created. In the United States for a work to be copyrighted it used to need to be registered and the term was shorter, but in 1989 the US joined the international Berne Convention which makes copyright automatic. The "works entering the public domain" you may be thinking of were probably all from long before 1989.

Oh, I could write an essay on this one but I will simplify it. I will also only talk of individual creators, and not corporations (as (c) Disney is 120 years in the USA only)

For most of the world copyright is now plus50 or plus70 (70 years after the creators death) with small differences on when that came into effect. Work by a creator who died in 1947 would likely be public domain, work by someone who died in 1948 would likely not.

In the USA, from 1909 to 1978 it was plus28  (for published work) which had to be manually renewed for a further 28 years.

In 1976 the USA law was changed so the copyright was plus50 and the renewal 47 years. Still had to be manually renewed. As that came into effect in 1978 - 50 years before is 1928 and a fairly good guarantee of individual worked being public domain. Then in 1996 Sonny Bono (Cher's Ex Husband) suceeded in getting the law changed to plus70.

So, plus70 would mean works from authors who died before 1948 would now likely be public domain, those who died in or after would not.

Except... Automatic renewal didn't start until 1992 in the USA.

So, any work by an author who died in the period 1948 to 1964 might not be copyrighted - in the USA - if they didn't renew the copyright back then. But, as other countries didn't have renewal, it would still be copyright in those markets.

 

Edit; and a further spanner in the works is that in the USA, works published before 1978 are protected for 95 years from publication (if they were in copyright or renewed copyright at the time)

Edited by Callum Meriman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2215 days.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...