Seriously? is this legal?

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

[Jerilynn Lemon]

You may wish to elaborate some information.

Is WHAT illegal?

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

Just blatantly copy a design, and present it as your own?

I wonder if there is anything that can be done about this

[Alwin Alcott]

1 minute ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

Just blatantly copy a design, and present it as your own?

all i see is a deign based/inspired on eachother, or even both seen it from a third party .. who perhaps also seen it elsewhere and used the idea , no 1=1 copy.. btw what you call fake might even be the original..
There are quite some different buildings.
 

 

3 minutes ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

I wonder if there is anything that can be done about this

if you'r the owner of the original idea you can try, but seeing the amount of differences you'll have a hard case to win.

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

Well yeah i build the original, lol.. and yeah i was wondering if i could do something about it, apparently not, so building another it is, thanks for the info..:)

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery \0/

[Richardus Raymaker]

Sorry if this disappoint you.

But both creations are complete different in look and design. It's for sure not a copy, then the copy would look the same as the original.

There are some design idea's a bit the same, but that makes it not a copy.

There are more buildings, the buildings look different. The whole design is nice and not the same  of what you call 'fake copy'

I go with what others write, it's based and inspired on the original.

 

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

yeah well, took me 6 weeks to come up with the design, then build it, texture it and get it ready to put in place, something that is obviously impossible now because the whole idea was stolen. oh well.. a little disappointing.

[Mollymews]

Kardargo, to protect your work under the US copyright regime then you have to show that your work has original design elements

when these design elements are present then are they functionally required ? If so then they can't be copyrighted. A door is functional for example. A door that when textured and shaped looks like no other door can be copyrighted

basically a builds aesthetics are copyrightable. It's functionality is not

exanple: the layout of buildings are aesthetic. The layout can be copyrighted, but you would have to show that nobody else has used this layout design before you. That you are the first original designer of the layout. That is first original in the whole US history since about 1790, not just first designer in SL

edit add for completeness

functionality falls under the US Patent regime

Edited November 27, 2019 by Mollymews
example

[Cindy Evanier]

Just now, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

yeah well, took me 6 weeks to come up with the design, then build it, texture it and get it ready to put in place, something that is obviously impossible now because the whole idea was stolen. oh well.. a little disappointing.

The bolded part confuses me.  Have you rezzed it inworld already for someone to see it.  How long has it been inworld in order for someone to copy the design?

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

only a few people saw me building it, my gf and yeah.. the owner of the club who now has build, and is using the copy, i would be fine with that would it not be that this person presents it as his original idea, that really stings.

again, this is not to publicly shame anyone, i just wondered where I stand from a legal point of view, and that is clear now, thanks everyone for your input, i will start building something else.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Kardargo Adamczyk

[Pussycat Catnap]

They BOTH look like items I bought on Renderosity years ago.

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

That is not helpful Pussycat, if you have proof of prior art then please post a picture, thank you

[Qie Niangao]

I don't get it. They look only somewhat similar, and frankly the "Fake copy" appears (from these pictures) to be a much more functional design. I mean, what's with (what appears to be) dead-end paths near the 3 and 9 o'clock corners of the "Original" design? (On the other hand, these images are very hard to interpret, so maybe those aren't really the cul de sacs suggested by the paving pattern.)

Anyway, maybe the new design borrowed elements of yours, or maybe they both reflect the same specifications for the design... it's really only a question of how sleazy the owner might be, not a question of illegality (as far as these images suggest, anyway).

[Hunny Bunny]

Is this some kind of mall like I've seen all over SL with vacant buildings for rent?

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

yeah the dead ends, are no dead ends, besides that, the owner saw my design, and simply copied it....

enough said, we can close the topic, thanks everyone

[ChinRey]

1 hour ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

i would be fine with that would it not be that this person presents it as his original idea, that really stings.

Yes, that's rude, especially when it's a venue that's a direct competitor. Rudeness is not illegal though

 

54 minutes ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

That is not helpful Pussycat, if you have proof of prior art then please post a picture, thank you

The town part in the copy is all made from a modular Victorian town set that has been on the market in SL for four years (I know exactly how long since I was a little bit involved in the work). It's all over SL by now and neither you nor the copyist can claim any kind of copyright there.

What have been copied, are the overall layout and a number of design ideas on the venue. It's enough that it's obvious the copyist has based his build on yours but unfortunately too generic and not nearly enough to trigger any intellectual property issues.

Edited November 27, 2019 by ChinRey

[Kardargo Adamczyk]

i never stated i am the creator of individual objects in the build, i did however design the layout and design of the venue.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

20 minutes ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

i never stated i am the creator of individual objects in the build, i did however design the layout and design of the venue.

The layout, IE surrounding stores with a central landing point, has been done over and over is various styles since i have been in SL. There is enough of a difference in the buildings used and detail that you couldn't claim Copyright violation even if you had copyrighted it. 

Unless your buildings are just placeholder blocks, his have far more detail than yours do. 

Sorry, but you really have no legal issue here. 

[Drayke Newall]

3 hours ago, Mollymews said:

Kardargo, to protect your work under the US copyright regime then you have to show that your work has original design elements

when these design elements are present then are they functionally required ? If so then they can't be copyrighted. A door is functional for example. A door that when textured and shaped looks like no other door can be copyrighted

basically a builds aesthetics are copyrightable. It's functionality is not

exanple: the layout of buildings are aesthetic. The layout can be copyrighted, but you would have to show that nobody else has used this layout design before you. That you are the first original designer of the layout. That is first original in the whole US history since about 1790, not just first designer in SL

edit add for completeness

functionality falls under the US Patent regime

I haven't looked into American copyright law regarding what would be termed design etc, however if it is anything like Australian copyright law as far as architecture goes (which it more than likely is apart from the fact that in Australia copyright exists the moment it is on paper i.e. you don't have to copyright design or ideas like you do in America), which in this case it could be classed, then you are only slightly correct. Design elements cannot be copyrighted as the element of a design is subjective. You say that a door is an element (yes it is) and if the shape is different it can be copyrighted, perhaps, however as an architect and in copyright law I would call design elements things like material, façade, green wall, roof garden, portico etc. and the door textures and shaped like you suggest simply a style otherwise the inventers family of a rectangular door would be the richest person in the world by now. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone copyrighting a door style and claiming it successfully. Its construction and parts maybe, but not the style or door as a whole.

As far as the layout or plan of a building goes, you are technically right and technically wrong. When someone sues for copyright on the design of the building it is the design intent that is argued not the floor plan as such and this can be very hard to determine. If it was the floor plan itself then anyone could argue that a typical school layout with a corridor in between classrooms on either side and a pair of doors at either end of the corridor is copyright and school architects would be sued left right and centre. Similarly a house with living areas on the left and bedrooms and wet areas on the right would also start to put stress on the legal system with all the copyright claims it would receive.

Whilst not a lawyer or from America (so take this with a grain of salt) as an architect, I would say (respectfully) that everyone that posted in this thread is wrong and that the "fake" image is indeed a copy of the original design if you can prove that you were the original designer from the beginning of second life as I too have seen this build design everywhere.

@Kardargo Adamczyk Looking at solely design intent and as an architect (keeping in mind I don't really know what the original designers intent was) the fake copy infringes on the design intent that being a stage set on water accessed by 3 bridges, whereby the people are funneled into the stage via a large plaza by use of storeyed buildings framed by the same. The "fake", whilst yes, slightly different (style such as Victorian being a non-issue here) copied the intent, by use of a stage surrounded by water, accessed by 3 bridges in identical positioning and also includes an identical, in nature, plaza and buildings as a frame to the plaza. It even copies the triangular floor at the ends of the bridge as well as stage positioning, rear columns etc. Also keep in mind that this is a site design and therefore building style (like Victorian) etc. are irrelevant.

That's said, I have no idea how Linden Lab's copyright infringement is stated in relation to design (and you will need to prove that no one before you has done similar), but almost 98% sure in RL, Mr. Fake builder would be ordered to rip down his building or be out of pocket by a lot of money.

That is to say there is no such thing as the old "if you change it by 10% it voids copyright".

Hope this helps and good luck.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[Drake1 Nightfire]

27 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I haven't looked into American copyright law regarding what would be termed design etc, however if it is anything like Australian copyright law as far as architecture goes (which it more than likely is apart from the fact that in Australia copyright exists the moment it is on paper i.e. you don't have to copyright design or ideas like you do in America), which in this case it could be classed, then you are only slightly correct. Design elements cannot be copyrighted as the element of a design is subjective. You say that a door is an element (yes it is) and if the shape is different it can be copyrighted, perhaps, however as an architect and in copyright law I would call design elements things like material, façade, green wall, roof garden, portico etc. and the door textures and shaped like you suggest simply a style otherwise the inventers family of a rectangular door would be the richest person in the world by now. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone copyrighting a door style and claiming it successfully. Its construction and parts maybe, but not the style or door as a whole.

As far as the layout or plan of a building goes, you are technically right and technically wrong. When someone sues for copyright on the design of the building it is the design intent that is argued not the floor plan as such and this can be very hard to determine. If it was the floor plan itself then anyone could argue that a typical school layout with a corridor in between classrooms on either side and a pair of doors at either end of the corridor is copyright and school architects would be sued left right and centre. Similarly a house with living areas on the left and bedrooms and wet areas on the right would also start to put stress on the legal system with all the copyright claims it would receive.

Whilst not a lawyer or from America (so take this with a grain of salt) as an architect, I would say that everyone that posted in this thread is wrong and that the "fake" image is indeed a copy of the original design if you can prove that you were the original designer from the beginning of second life as I too have seen this build design everywhere.

@Kardargo Adamczyk Looking at solely design intent and as an architect (keeping in mind I don't really know what the original designers intent was) the fake copy infringes on the design intent that being a stage set on water accessed by 3 bridges, whereby the people are funneled into the stage via a large plaza by use of storeyed buildings framed by the same. The "fake", whilst yes, slightly different (style such as Victorian being a non-issue here) copied the intent, by use of a stage surrounded by water, accessed by 3 bridges in identical positioning and also includes an identical, in nature, plaza and buildings as a frame to the plaza. It even copies the triangular floor at the ends of the bridge as well as stage positioning, rear columns etc.

That's said, I have no idea how Linden Lab's copyright infringement is stated in relation to design (and you will need to prove that no one before you has done similar), but almost 98% sure in RL, Mr. Fake builder would be ordered to rip down his building or be out of pocket by a lot of money.

That is to say there is no such thing as the old "if you change it by 10% it voids copyright".

Hope this helps and good luck.

In the US you have to file for copyright on any blueprint. This is not a blueprint. Its a 3d model of a design in SL. If they could copyright it, which i'm don't think they can as it uses buildings they did not create, they "might" be able to file a DMCA. However, I do not believe you can copyright the layout of an area in the US. Even if you could, this layout has been around in SL for a decade or more. ANd in RL for much longer.. Hell, most malls use this layout. Surrounding stores, courtyard in the middle, something off to one side.. 

Also, LL would do no such thing as to order someone to " rip down his building or be out of pocket by a lot of money" as there is no law against duplicating someone elses land 100% in SL. If visit an area and fall in love with the design, i can buy all of the buildings used and make my own on my land. 

Nowhere does the OP say he was commissioned to build this. Nor could he legally sell this unless the buildings were purchased full perm. Unless the club owner is selling this as his own work, you have no leg to stand on legally. 

[Erwin Solo]

Libel is not legal, and so care must be taken generally speaking. 

"Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages."

Nolo.com › legal-encyclopedia › de...

How Do You Prove Defamation? Is Any Defamatory Speech ... - Nolo

Edited November 27, 2019 by Erwin Solo

[Wulfie Reanimator]

This "let's line the area with vendor spots and put some in the middle as well to maximize the space" is not original. My friend built a mall exactly like this, minus the environmental details, on our sandbox sim back in 2012 or something. I'm sure we weren't the first geniuses either.

The only specific copycat I can see is the landing area separated by water with bridges going over it, and the big billboard behind it, but those are not details you have any exclusive rights to, even if the other place used the exact same assets in the exact same places.

[Drayke Newall]

1 hour ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

In the US you have to file for copyright on any blueprint. This is not a blueprint. Its a 3d model of a design in SL. If they could copyright it, which i'm don't think they can as it uses buildings they did not create, they "might" be able to file a DMCA. However, I do not believe you can copyright the layout of an area in the US. Even if you could, this layout has been around in SL for a decade or more. ANd in RL for much longer.. Hell, most malls use this layout. Surrounding stores, courtyard in the middle, something off to one side.. 

Firstly most of my response was in relation to what Mollymews posted (that's why I quoted the post.) as the post was talking about RL architecture areas. My response to the Op was after the fancy orange box.

Secondly, I know you have to file for copyright in America and I said that in my post. That said, if I design something from another country and upload it to SL I would still keep that copyright if that country does not need copyright to be filed such as in Australia. Why Americans think that their law is absolute everywhere is beyond me. I would also be VERY surprised if an urban planner or a landscape architect isn't allowed to copyright their design even in America just because it uses other buildings like a bus shelter or park bench. That would be the equivalent of saying an architect cant copyright a design because he designed a house out of a shipping container. If that is the case, glad I'm an architect and run my business in Australia.

That all said I also know this is Second Life and such things are different, but a design can be copyrighted and that doesn't change even in second life. For instance if I showcased my design in SL as a 3D model for my RL business clients to walk around in and someone copied it, you bet your rear end I will claim a DCMA.

As far as it being around in SL prior, I know it has and mentioned that in my post hence why I also said he has to prove it. With regards to malls, you are missing the point as to what design intent is and is why I also stated it is hard to determine. Design intent for instance isn't a mall of a courtyard surrounded by stores, that is a plan. Design intent is why it is done a certain way and this is how you prove your design is unique compared to others. Exactly the same way a BMX bike could be argued design intent wise over say a mountain bike. One design intent being hill climbing etc. and the other sports and tricks.

Quote

Also, LL would do no such thing as to order someone to " rip down his building or be out of pocket by a lot of money" as there is no law against duplicating someone else's land 100% in SL. If visit an area and fall in love with the design, i can buy all of the buildings used and make my own on my land.

Never said they would or could. I said in RL it would be that. I also said I didn't know what Linden Lab copyright policies were in relation to design. As to whether you can build a design yourself based on something in SL sure you can, but once you make profit from it as a business that is different and that includes commission's. Based on what your saying I could copy insilico exactly, same buildings etc. and get away with it. Interesting but I doubt you would as they use that to generate business and income.

Quote

Nowhere does the OP say he was commissioned to build this. Nor could he legally sell this unless the buildings were purchased full perm. Unless the club owner is selling this as his own work, you have no leg to stand on legally. 

I know that, however he asked whether anything could be done with copying a design and I answered based on my professional RL experience and even placed clauses into my response as to issues he may have such as proving provenance. He also provided no information regarding whether he lives in the USA or even whether he sells it or the other person does. I provided an accurate answer as to what he asked based on what info he gave and generalised e.g showing differences in American and Australian law to compensate for this.

As I said, design and the ins and outs of its related copyright issues is my business and profession in RL. I can only speak as far as that goes in relation to design irrespective of whether it is a 3D model (which I also do professionally for my designs) or a blueprint.

When I look at those two 'designs' professionally (with many years experience) I see them as a direct copy of the design. Whether you do or not is your opinion just as the former is mine, however without trying to be arrogant, if it isn't your profession in RL you would have to come up with a lot more of "you cant copyright design or there are differences between the 2 or this is SL its different".

Edited November 27, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[Love Zhaoying]

5 hours ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

Just blatantly copy a design, and present it as your own?

I wonder if there is anything that can be done about this

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

https://medium.com/@carolineherrera/imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery-that-mediocrity-can-pay-to-greatness-oscar-wilde-4a59ce972f67

 

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

LOL. apologies.. edited, though with so many gender pronouns these days....

Just use "they/them".