Copyright question using brand product images

[Mollymews]

10 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

A three-dimensional scan is creating a replica and therefore is not a derivative work. Taking a photo of an artwork and then cropping the artwork to be a replica of the original is not a derivative work. These both will offend copyright because they are replicas. Taking a screen shot that is obviously just a screenshot is a derivative work and does not offend copyright. In all these cases, I refer to Title 17 of United States code, other jurisdictions may be different.

yes this is true also, as it also depends on the jurisdiction

[Sasy Scarborough]

This is along the lines of if you go into Macys and take a picture of an item of clothing and then use all the pictures to make a photo sourced version of the item,, that is ok as the pictures are your own so the zipper, buttons etc all become usable (I think that is correct) vs taking a picture of a celebrity and making it into a skin, if you did not in fact get up and personal with said celebrity you would be not in fault of the celebrity but doing wrong by the photographer of the celebrity. Then throw into that all the modifications needed to make it into something turns it into that only so much used etc it is a tricky topic, but I will say that as a consumer in SL I open a marketplace page or walk into a store and if you have items with a brands logo all over them I walk back out again.

If a street vendor in RL selling knock offs is wrong and those buying and using said knockoffs is 'faking it' , why in the world do people want to pay in SL for even bigger knockoffs...at least with the RL ones there is a high chance they were often made in the same factory with the same materials, just fell out the backdoor or into the wrong box for shipping etc. I found a cool store yesterday, would have bought most of the store until I saw all the LV items, not even trying to make it their own or changing the logo absolute blatant, so I closed the pages. 

[Marianne Little]

A derivative work can be changing the image in an editing program? Replacing a color with another, turn it into B&W, or applying a filter?

I am still not selling it.

I am just curious, it is not so important for me to do it or not.

The only legal way would be to buy it in RL, then take a picture of it and use it in SL?

[Alyona Su]

39 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

A derivative work can be changing the image in an editing program? Replacing a color with another, turn it into B&W, or applying a filter?

I am still not selling it.

I am just curious, it is not so important for me to do it or not.

The only legal way would be to buy it in RL, then take a picture of it and use it in SL?

With regard to imagery: a derivative work must be an obvious derivation, so in your example it does not qualify.

For example: This is the original (I can post it here under Fair Use clause as it is for informational purposes):

 

And this is a derivative work, and also a parody (two exceptions under the fair use clause of Title 17):

There is an obvious difference; the difference *must* be obvious. As for "objects" in-world: they are virtual items for display only and only displayable within Second Life and unusable in any practical sense. This is why a scan is still a derivative work, not because it's a scan, but rather because it being inside Second Life where no one can touch it (it's just a dynamically changing picture) and it is intangible, it is inherently a derivative work.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Marianne Little]

Thank you, it's been very informative. Now I know what the law says.

[Sasy Scarborough]

13 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

With regard to imagery: a derivative work must be an obvious derivation, so in your example it does not qualify.

For example: This is the original (I can post it here under Fair Use clause as it is for informational purposes):

 

And this is a derivative work, and also a parody (two exceptions under the fair use clause of Title 17):

There is an obvious difference; the difference *must* be obvious. As for "objects" in-world: they are virtual items for display only and only displayable within Second Life and unusable in any practical sense. This is why a scan is still a derivative work, not because it's a scan, but rather because it being inside Second Life where no one can touch it (it's just a dynamically changing picture) and it is intangible, it is inherently a derivative work.

so  to be clearer still someone takes the LV stuff as I mentioned earlier, and changes the LV to different letters, but uses the same symbols that LV is known for, such as the Disney Castle etc, then that is allowed ? or are the symbols trademarked like nike swoosh sort of thing. Because if just changing the LV means a whole lot of LV inspired stuff is a go in SL and people have gotten a lot of that wrong. Me personally just wishes they would make the brown bags and leave off the other stuff.

I myself love Burberry print but know the print itself is actually off limits, but created nails along the same lines hand drawn, so it may look similar enough but nothing of it is in fact the branding, just a lot of lines (so many layers for one nail, I think it ended up 37) 

loving this help by the way because you speak SL'ish, hard to take in all the rules and regs when it is written for RL 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Sasy Scarborough

[animats]

On 7/5/2019 at 5:09 PM, Sasy Scarborough said:

This is along the lines of if you go into Macys and take a picture of an item of clothing and then use all the pictures to make a photo sourced version of the item,, that is ok as the pictures are your own so the zipper, buttons etc all become usable (I think that is correct)

Exactly how much you can copy in fashion is difficult. This gets you into the area of "trade dress law". Herman Miller has gone to court over the "Eames Chair" and "Aeron Chair" designs. They won on trade dress grounds on the Eames chair, but lost on the Aeron chair. The Aeron chair's features were held to be "functional", which isn't covered by trade dress or design copyright. (This is why there's a third party auto parts industry.) Trade dress, like trademark, is forever, as long as the holder continues to use the design.

Trade dress has to have "secondary meaning". Recognizable and recognized branding, like a trademark. Wal-Mart had knockoffs of a line of kid's clothes made, and took that case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Gucci and Forever 21 have been fighting it out over red and green stripes as trade dress, but they settled recently. Right now, In and Out Burger and Puma Shoes (!) are litigating a trade dress issue over shoes with red and white markings and a palm tree, called "Drive Through". Arguing that shoes dilute a burger joint trademark is a stretch. Have to see how that comes out.

This is an ambiguous area of law right now. Doing blatant knockoffs in SL of current well known clothing brands may not be a good idea without legal backup.

(I'm not a lawyer, but I hold six US utility patents and three US registered trademarks. I've spent a lot of money on intellectual property lawyers. It was worth it.)

 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

Do keep in mind there is also a thing called trademark law.

[Marianne Little]

And if I understand correctly, if an image is marked with CC like this David Bowie image:

https://theconversation.com/the-remarkable-story-behind-david-bowies-most-iconic-feature-52920

I really want this for my SL home. The information actually allows me to sell it, with contribution. Not that will care about all the work with a store.

 

[Alyona Su]

On 7/6/2019 at 6:29 PM, Sasy Scarborough said:

so  to be clearer still someone takes the LV stuff as I mentioned earlier, and changes the LV to different letters, but uses the same symbols that LV is known for, such as the Disney Castle etc, then that is allowed ? or are the symbols trademarked like nike swoosh sort of thing. Because if just changing the LV means a whole lot of LV inspired stuff is a go in SL and people have gotten a lot of that wrong. Me personally just wishes they would make the brown bags and leave off the other stuff.

I myself love Burberry print but know the print itself is actually off limits, but created nails along the same lines hand drawn, so it may look similar enough but nothing of it is in fact the branding, just a lot of lines (so many layers for one nail, I think it ended up 37) 

loving this help by the way because you speak SL'ish, hard to take in all the rules and regs when it is written for RL 

Yes - as long as it is *obvious* that is the a derivative and cannot be mistaken for an original or as being produced by the original creator.

On 7/6/2019 at 11:19 PM, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Do keep in mind there is also a thing called trademark law.

You apparently skipped over all my comments.

On 7/7/2019 at 1:17 AM, Marianne Little said:

And if I understand correctly, if an image is marked with CC like this David Bowie image:

https://theconversation.com/the-remarkable-story-behind-david-bowies-most-iconic-feature-52920

I really want this for my SL home. The information actually allows me to sell it, with contribution. Not that will care about all the work with a store.

 

Yes, though Creative Commons license you are referring to would be attribution, not contribution, I suspect. This means that in all cases you must include the statement that the image is "by author name" - either on the image or elsewhere where it can be seen along with the image.

Apologies for my late replies, folks - no one quoted me or tagged me so I didn't't know there were replies. I found the thread again after someone taged a Thank you on one of my comments.

[animats]

There is a company which makes and sells real boxes of fake products to Hollywood. That's the expensive solution to the problem.