Seriously? is this legal?

[Erwin Solo]

31 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Secondly, I know you have to file for copyright in America and I said that in my post.

You keep saying that, but it's a bit more involved. 

"Copyright is automatically granted to the author of an original work (that otherwise meets the basic copyright requirements, discussed above). Registration is not necessary. However, registration amplifies a copyright holder's rights in a number of ways. Registration is required before a lawsuit can be filed, and registration creates the possibility for enhanced "statutory" damages.

A copyright can be registered online at the US Copyright Office's website. The Copyright Office reviews applications for obvious errors or lack of copyrightable subject matter, and then issues a certificate of registration. The Copyright Office does not compare the authors new work against a collection of existing works or otherwise check for infringement."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

28 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

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.

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.

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".

You keep referencing RL examples when this is a SL issue. You can absolutely copy someone's layout in SL, if you can buy the buildings they used. You cant copyright the layout of a sim in SL. 

As to "Why Americans think that their law is absolute everywhere" you agreed to follow US laws in regards to SL when you agreed to the ToS. Anything pertaining to RL that does not pertain to SL is completely off topic. 

I have spoken to a lawyer about digital copyrights and SL and there are vast differences between RL and SL laws. This is not a breach of any Digital copyright, 1 he did not file one, and 2 you cant copyright the layout of a SL sim.

[Alyona Su]

Different people on opposite sides of the planet come up with the nearly exact same idea all the time in real life. Why not here?

Copyright applies to a work, not an idea. If you create something and I see it and I create, from scratch, the same thing, then my creation is my copyright and your creation is your copyright because we each did the work on our own creations.

People who throw the copyright argument about, more often than not, are confusing it for Trademark.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Arduenn Schwartzman

[Drayke Newall]

2 minutes ago, Erwin Solo said:

You keep saying that, but it's a bit more involved. 

Registration is required before a lawsuit can be filed, and registration creates the possibility for enhanced "statutory" damages.

Always is however, this clause I quoted only exists in American Law well at least as far as here in Australia goes.

2 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

You keep referencing RL examples when this is a SL issue. You can absolutely copy someone's layout in SL, if you can buy the buildings they used. You cant copyright the layout of a sim in SL.

I beg to differ. What if that design was based of a project he did in RL, uploaded it to SL to showcase to a RL client and then deleted it but used premade items within second life from the marketplace to save time. But in that time someone came in took pictures and then created it for profit in SL. You seem to think that a RL business in the real world doesn't use second life and if what you said is true even with the example I gave, then LL need to clarify this as it will effect RL business practices.

You don't know all the facts, simply that the OP made a design and used premade items to reflect it. This is why I generalised and you seem to not grasp that.

Quote

As to "Why Americans think that their law is absolute everywhere" you agreed to follow US laws in regards to SL when you agreed to the ToS. Anything pertaining to RL that does not pertain to SL is completely off topic. 

Incorrect. Plain and simply. The ToS does not remove copyright from the original owner nor does it overwrite laws of other countries in relation to copyright. That would imply a company in Australia, Asia or the EU would have to file for copyright in the USA to submit a DCMA to LL for removal of something from the marketplace that is copyrighted in another country.

Quote

I have spoken to a lawyer about digital copyrights and SL and there are vast differences between RL and SL laws. This is not a breach of any Digital copyright, 1 he did not file one, and 2 you cant copyright the layout of a SL sim.

In America I would have agreed though the post that Erwin Solo posted regarding copyright clarifies and states otherwise "Copyright is automatically granted to the author of an original work (that otherwise meets the basic copyright requirements, discussed above). Registration is not necessary."

That said there is no response from the creator as to whether that was a design made outside of second life for another purpose to which he uploaded to second life. If this is the case he owns copyright plain and simply.

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

@Kardargo Adamczyk , so are you going to file a lawsuit? Will you keep us posted on the legal proceedings in this thread? 🍿 🍺

Edited November 27, 2019 by Arduenn Schwartzman

[Drayke Newall]

29 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Different people on opposite sides of the planet come up with the nearly exact same idea all the time in real life. Why not here?

Copyright applies to a work, not an idea. If you create something and I see it and I create, from scratch, the same thing, then my creation is my copyright and your creation is your copyright because we each did the work on our own creations.

People who throw the copyright argument about, more often than not, are confusing it for Trademark.

As far as the first comment, technically no, but getting no-where in this thread so cant be bothered re-explaining.

Correct, you cant copyright an idea, but you can copyright the physical manifestation of that idea.

When it comes to plans, or architectural designs it is different as they are not idea's but considered a work and form a completely separate section of copyright law even if I draw the plan at a reasonable quality on a paper napkin. But hey what do I know...

3 minutes ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

@Drayke Newall, so are you going to file a lawsuit? Will you keep us posted on the legal proceedings in this thread? 🍿 🍺

Why would I file a lawsuit? I didn't start the thread. 

[Alyona Su]

24 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Correct, you cant copyright an idea, but you can copyright the physical manifestation of that idea.

That is true, if there are architectural plans, which I doubt. Any copyright applies only to that physical manifestation. If you take a picture of something, and I take a picture of that same something, from the same angle, in the same light, with the same camera and lens and the settings for them, you cannot assert the copyright of your image against my image. Copyright applies only to the actual works, meaning: you did it yourself from scratch. I refer to U.S. law, which is where Linden Lab is based, and as such, U.S. laws apply with regard to anything in-world, to my understanding. If the OP had a trademark on the design, then and only then, do they have any argument for originality.

So in the OP: There is no copyright claim whatsoever. I deal with copyrights every day, all day in my RL. With all that said and the bantering about, the only recourse the OP has is to file a complaint with Linden Lab (who will dismiss it outright) or take legal action, which can be done regarding virtual goods.

~shrugs~

Edited November 27, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Erwin Solo]

49 minutes ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

@Kardargo Adamczyk , so are you going to file a lawsuit? Will you keep us posted on the legal proceedings in this thread? 🍿 🍺

Indeed. It will be a big job. I would budget US$ 1 million to get started. One would expect an immediate countersuit for libel. It will be ugly, and the only winners will be the lawyers. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Erwin Solo

[Love Zhaoying]

31 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Yes but in the context of what I wrote it wouldn't have made sense.

You will learn. Or not.

[wesleytron]

3 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

You keep referencing RL examples when this is a SL issue

I don't understand what you mean by a "SL issue". What is it that is different about a thing created for SL compared to a thing created in 'real life'? Surely a SL issue IS a RL issue, and is as 'real' as any RL example.

Second Life exists in 'the real world'. It is not separate from it - 'the grid' is not a self-contained reality where the laws of our world do not apply. Real Life laws absolutely apply to anything and everything you do in SL. There is no, "this is a Second Life issue, so real life laws don't apply here", which seems to me on one hand what you are suggesting. And if not, then why call it out as a "SL issue"?

As it says in the ToS Intelectual Property Policy: "Real-world laws apply to intellectual property infringement, and nothing about your use of Second Life will shield you if you are infringing on someone else's intellectual property — the rightful owner of the intellectual property can take direct legal action against you in real-world courts of law."

I'm sure you know this @Drake1 Nightfire, but your own post seems contradictory in its thinking.

3 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

As to "Why Americans think that their law is absolute everywhere" you agreed to follow US laws in regards to SL when you agreed to the ToS

So which is it? Real life laws do or do not apply to SL? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying one thing then the other.

Anyway, there is nothing I can find in the ToS which specifically states that by agreeing to them we agree to follow US law, but there are instances of the opposite in other areas. For instance, your 'right' to play in games of chance or access adult content in SL is based on "the age of legal majority where you reside." Not the laws of the country and state in which LL reside.

That will probably be true of most things, and if a copyright claim is taken to court, it will most likely be by a resident of SL against another resident of SL, and will be judged on the laws of the countries where those residents live. And probably be further complicated if those are not the same countries!

3 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

I have spoken to a lawyer about digital copyrights and SL and there are vast differences between RL and SL laws.

Is that literally what they said? How can there be 'vast differences' between RL laws and SL laws? What are these 'laws of SL'? There are no 'different' laws just for SL! Second Life has no 'laws', except for the laws of real life.

LL has its ToS, but they are not 'the law' and they are not above the law or separate from the law. The law supersedes. In most cases, the ToS are there so LL can 'pass the buck' of legal responsibility back to us - it protects THEM legally against claims of copyright infringement in this instance by making us all agree that WE are responsible if/when we do - and that any legal case will no doubt be between the 'residents' involved.

The copyright laws of the countries in which the residents reside will ultimately come into play in any claim I'm sure.

Edited November 27, 2019 by wesleytron

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Why would I file a lawsuit?

Because I made  typo.

[Drayke Newall]

4 hours ago, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

Because I made  typo.

Thought as much and saw you corrected it.

[SpiritSparrow Skydancer]

14 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

 I do not see a copy...... I see similar but not objective copies.. 

[Kimmi Zehetbauer]

I have seen a layout like this long ago.....

Indeed. It will be a big job. I would budget US$ 1 million to get started. One would expect an immediate countersuit for libel. It will be ugly, and the only winners will be the lawyers. 

And if that happened, the Lab might just say "heck with this, lets close up SL."

[Drayke Newall]

31 minutes ago, Kimmi Zehetbauer said:

I have seen a layout like this long ago.....

And if that happened, the Lab might just say "heck with this, lets close up SL."

The thing is it has happened before.

LL have lost cases involving who owns virtual land or not and additionally have also lost as far as virtual goods ownership with the judge specifically ruling "Second life users own copyrights in virtual land and items that they purchase or create". So the precedent is there, despite what many other users lawyers state.

[Erwin Solo]

44 minutes ago, Kimmi Zehetbauer said:

I have seen a layout like this long ago.....

And if that happened, the Lab might just say "heck with this, lets close up SL."

Nah, SL's only involvement would be to provide records in response to supeneas. 

[Drayke Newall]

2 minutes ago, Erwin Solo said:

Nah, SL's only involvement would be to provide records in response to supeneas. 

I'm sure LL would have loved that to be the case instead of being dragged in and having an injunction imposed on them in the infamous horses vs rabbits lawsuit.

[animats]

"Convenience Store", US Design Patent #314052. Filed 1991, expired 2005, now public domain.

The appropriate method of protection for a store design is a design patent. Costs $100 to file, if you do it yourself, and it's examined by the USPTO for being close to any existing design. This isn't done much. Domino's Pizza has a design patent for their storefront. So does Abercrombie and Fitch. Only about a hundred such designs are registered, mostly rather unusual designs. Trademarking a name or logo is far more common.

Then you get to sue copiers, which gets very expensive. Although threatening to sue can be effective. Get legal advice for that.

You probably don't want to do this, because the value of what you're doing is smaller than the cost of asserting patent rights. And your "original" and "copy" examples aren't that close. But that's how it's done.

(I hold six issued utility patents and three registered trademarks, so I've been down this road. It's expensive, but it's been profitable for me.)

[Talligurl]

17 hours ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

Well yeah i build the original

It looks to me you stole your idea from RL. Builders, maybe the one you call a copy stole the idea from the same place you did. But seriously virtually everything in SL is copied from someplace else.

[Pamela Galli]

Claiming a build is “original”, when it is mostly made of parts you bought, is like claiming your LEGO build is original and no one may legally copy your creation. 

[Drayke Newall]

29 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Claiming a build is “original”, when it is mostly made of parts you bought, is like claiming your LEGO build is original and no one may legally copy your creation. 

So how does an architect copyright his design once the building has been built with mostly parts that are bought such as doors, windows, walls, roof etc?

[Layla Claven]

12 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

 

People who throw the copyright argument about, more often than not, are confusing it for Trademark.

Actually copyright covers lots of things on the internet that many may not be aware of. I know this from personal experience when I posted one of my own designs on my blog and it was copied by a big UK company. My original blog post is my 'copyright' and I've been advised never to remove it.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Layla Claven

[Bree Giffen]

I think the new sim design has too many changes for it to be considered a copy of the Op's work. If you remove everything that is different or composed of prior designs you end up with a basic parcel with water and bridges.

Also, buildings should be referred to as "it". 

[Jerilynn Lemon]

9 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

So how does an architect copyright his design once the building has been built with mostly parts that are bought such as doors, windows, walls, roof etc?

Trademark office?

McDonald's once had a very distinct look and feel to their restaurants. Still do really.

Whataburger does as well.

And then there is Taco Bell

Not an attorney but I would say if the OP could show injury to finances or reputation, based on a building design being copied in RL, HE or SHE (see what I did there?) might have a case. If it involves a building that only exists in SL, accept it as a compliment to intuition and design abilities.