Seriously? is this legal?

[Luna Bliss]

18 hours ago, Kardargo Adamczyk said:

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.

what a creep (owner of club)...don't let it stifle your creativity!

[Drayke Newall]

2 minutes ago, Jerilynn Lemon said:

Trademark office?

No, a trademark is for the use of words, logos, animations and the like. A design patent is for the aesthetic (outside) of the building, however still has to be unique against any copyrighted designs.

An architectural design is copyrighted just like a book or a work of art and extends to general drawings and blueprints, preliminary plans, sections, elevations, floor plans, construction plans, rough models, models of internal support, models of external appearance, photomontages of the building against backdrops, computer-generated images of a design, and constructed buildings.

Quote

If it involves a building that only exists in SL, accept it as a compliment to intuition and design abilities.

As mentioned in one of my previous posts copyright of items within SL is possible and was ruled as such by the court.

[wesleytron]

1 hour 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. 

What makes you think you can't claim your LEGO build is original and that no one may legally copy your creation? I suspect you can - although I'm sure LEGO would like you to think that you can't.

[ChinRey]

1 hour 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. 

 

42 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?

Oh, that's always an interesting and important question. Everything new is based on something that already existed in one way or another and so far nobody has ever been able to come up with a clear an objective definition of how similar something has to be before it IP violation/plagiarism. There is always a huge greyzone.

Time for some music. Here are snippets from three different songs. Plagiarism or not - you decide:

 

[Drayke Newall]

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

Oh, that's always an interesting and important question. Everything new is based on something that already existed in one way or another and so far nobody has ever been able to come up with a clear an objective definition of how similar something has to be before it IP violation/plagiarism. There is always a huge greyzone.

Time for some music. Here are snippets from three different songs. Plagiarism or not - you decide:

I wouldn't be able to tell with music as its not an area I know much of. Whilst yes, they sound the same you have to take a more qualified professionals word for it that they aren't, though what I do find interesting is that modern era songs seem to run into copyright issues a lot more than classical music. Though it could just be that I haven't heard all classical music to verify this or they are in the public realm. That said, once again that is music and not design and comprises a different from of creativity.

It is still prevalent within even architecture or design that if you change 10% of a design it is enough to void copyright but this isn't the case and is also why design wise, as I mentioned on the first page, design intent comes into being as the form of argument. Design intent, whilst still difficult is far less a greyzone than simply changing the plan or copying. In essence, it is proving creativity and that you spent time making that design from scratch. For instance an easy way to prove design intent is to show a timeline of concepts and how the plan evolved over time into its final form. This allows any person to see that what started off maybe as a series of circles with connecting lines or squares led to changes upon changes to the final design. It is also why in painting it is the style and composition that is used to determine copyright not the subject such as a building or person.

The above is also how one would argue against a copyright claim regarding design. If they can prove an evolution of the design from a form that doesn't look like the claimants design then it would be hard to sue for copyright. It would be a different story if you go from one design into a completely new design that looks identical to another plan from someone else, changed only slightly and you don't have the in-between design changes from one to the other from its original basic form.

There is also the issue as to what is perceived as unique as opposed to common practice. For example, speaking as far as architecture goes, there is only so many ways you can design a basic 3 bedroom house and therefore other areas such as façade, aesthetic and reasoning comes into play. It is also why you see replicated floor plans of homes and no lawsuits being filed as it would be near impossible to determine any form of creativity within that plan unless there is a specific element within a plan that is central to the design.

This is also why it is necessary to be able to define an element and style apart from design intent. A column for instance is a necessary element required for construction and therefore would be hard to copyright. As would a Doric or Corinthian column as this was a style of a building element that was used by an entire civilisation. It would be like trying to copyright the use of the style Baroque, Victorian, Modern Contemporary; or in a furniture design capacity Chippendale and Queen Anne style; or in a painting capacity Cubism or Late Modern. It wouldn't be possible. Design intent however as in I designed this building this way due to x,y,z or placed those windows there due to x,y,z is a lot easier to determine from a person simply copying.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[Ceka Cianci]

I think the only thing you would have any claim to would be any original textures or mesh they would be using without permission..

I don't think there is a claim for layout of the land.

 

 

[ChinRey]

38 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I wouldn't be able to tell with music as its not an area I know much of. Whilst yes, they sound the same you have to take a more qualified professionals word for it that they aren't,

The case is still open as far as I know.

I chose this example because it has some striking similarities to the OP's. The similarity people notice right away here, is the descending chromatic bass line. It's very noticeable even to the most tone deaf person but it is not copyrightable. It's an old trick used by many musicians and composers and is well and truly in the public domain by now. Here's an example from 1659 (just a short sequence from 0:35 to 0:45):

And here's one from around 1600:

 

The plagiarism question is all about context and that's where it gets horrendously complicated. There's not a single element in Stariway to Heaven and Taurus or the two SL builds in the original post that is original in itself. The question is whether the combination of different elements is similar enough to be called plagiarism. Even experts will often disagree about that.

Edited November 28, 2019 by ChinRey

[So Whimsy]

The layout is so generic that one doesn't need to copy anyone to get to the same result.

[Marianne Little]

Late to the discussion, but I think the original had a good idea about the layout, the copy took and changed it so it looks and works better.

I can not say it's illegal or not. I do know I was looking through a lot of house catalogues in RL 10 years ago. Amazing how many had the same layout, just with different makeup and details. Different looking stairs, but in the same place. The kitchen a bit smaller or bigger, but with the laundry room off to the side with it's own door out. And so on.

Why the same layout? It makes sense. It works. Architechture is trying to reinvent itself all the time. And the very rich can go for the new and flashy ideas. Us others take what works. Maybe because we don't have servants to pick up after us, so it must be practical. It is a number of ways you can do practical, you can not invent totally new and never seen before, on a limited space with a limited budget.

 

[Alyona Su]

10 hours ago, Layla Claven said:

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.

You have made my point specifically.

[Drayke Newall]

42 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

The copyright is not on the building itsel, but everything used in the design and planning of the construction.

What if someone walked through the building, liked what they see and then proceeded to replicate that building based on the physical building without seeing the plan. I.E. they drew the plan themselves based on what they saw.? Who owns copyright then?

Quote

A Trademark is the protection of a brand, nothing more, most often a graphic design or written words or both, it must be a tangible item. A patent is the protection of a design or idea, provided there is enough detail that it can be plausible reconstructed from that detail, it may or may not be a tangible item. A copyright is a protection of physical works (manually-created in the physical world) and must be a tangle item.

Your description of how an Architect's work is copyrighted is spot-on.

All correct apart from the fact that in architecture a design patent allows for the patent of the façade or an interior design, generally not the layout of the building.

Additionally, of course copyright is of the physical works, however the design is protected due to this as well. I assume you are implying by saying copyright must be a tangible item that anything created in Second Life doesn't received copyright? If this is the case the please explain how you would argue against the ruling of a Supreme Court Judge saying differently.

Quote

You win the biggest cookie I have to give!

Your basis for this bold statement is? Also have you attended copyright claims based on architectural design in RL as I have?

I pose this question to you.

If I created that same design and was the first in SL to do it based on a old canceled project plan I had in RL (irrespective of whether it has been built in RL) and then proceeded to create all the mesh etc in SL and then claimed that the design is in its entirety the club. Meaning, that the now covered courtyard, covered streets and all buildings are designed to be utilised as a open air club whereby each building serves a different function in relation to the club such as one for the delivery of beer, another for pizza, another for a motel situation as is done in pubs over here in Australia, etc. Then that the courtyard is the dance area and the streets are not for vehicles (which looking at the original would be the case as well) but for tables and chairs of club patrons. Then finalise that design statement that it is on a single plot of land and designed for that plot of land specifically. What part is copyrightable in your expert opinion?

EDIT:

As to your ninja edit while I was responding, I agree they are your opinions as are mine, however whilst I respect that you deal with copyright and trademark issues as part of your RL job (whatever that is) and understand that, it is also difficult for people that are within this specific professional field that would have (without trying to brag) a far better understanding of how the specific laws apply to that profession. Whilst sure, I admit I can be wrong at times and are most certainly happy to be proven wrong, unless you are in the same professional field with experience in such copyright claims then you are going to have to bring in a lot more evidence to argue against it.

I'm sorry if that sounded rude or whatever, tried my best to make it sound civil and like I'm not "up myself". ("up myself" etc. is aussie slang for thinking much higher of oneself than others do if you were wondering).

Edited November 28, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[Alyona Su]

23 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

What if someone walked through the building, liked what they see and then proceeded to replicate that building based on the physical building without seeing the plan. I.E. they drew the plan themselves based on what they saw.? Who owns copyright then?

Perfectly legal. It is called reverse engineering. Ever heard of Open Sim? That is precisely what they did. I deal with trademark, patent, and copyright law on a daily, ongoing basis in my RL. You?

[Drayke Newall]

1 minute ago, Alyona Su said:

Perfectly legal. It is called reverse engineering. Ever heard of Open Sim? That is precisely what they did. I deal with trademark, patent, and copyright law on a daily, ongoing basis in my RL. You?

Well I would disagree that it is legal as the design is copyrighted and that extends to the building. There is no such thing as reverse engineering in architecture. This is why architectural copyright it is often misunderstood as Architects have specific laws within copyright that are different to all other forms of copyright. For example architects have been using a grant of license of use well before it became the norm in software or even Second Life and this always causes issues as our clients think they own copyright of the plans when they are for construction even when they actually don't.

I have been trying to explain this as well as I can however seems I am doing a terrible job.

Here is an article that perhaps can explain it better than I can https://www.archdaily.com/328870/the-10-things-you-must-know-about-architectural-copyrights/.

Take note of section 1 of that article where it says:

"...the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act which explicitly provides copyright protection to original designs of architecture in virtually any form, including architectural plans, drawings and buildings themselves."

I cant really explain it any more than I have as every post I have made in here is generally the same and as if I am banging my head on a brick wall. People need to grasp that there is a completely separate copyright law distinct and not part of other copyright that is unique solely to architects.

BTW, Im an architect and deal with copyright related issues regarding architectural design all the time.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

5 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

 People need to grasp that there is a completely separate copyright law distinct and not part of other copyright that is unique solely to architects.

I assume that means Licensed Architects? One would think that a law aimed at a group that has to be licensed wouldn't apply to those that are not. 

[Alyona Su]

14 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Well I would disagree that it is legal as the design is copyrighted and that extends to the building.

Your are welcomed to disagree, though your position will not stand in a court of law. Legal records are generally public information. Go look-up some of the outcomes to this type of challenge.

[Drayke Newall]

21 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

I assume that means Licensed Architects? One would think that a law aimed at a group that has to be licensed wouldn't apply to those that are not. 

Well once again can only say what it is in Australia as I don't know how many other design professions exist in America in relation to architecture or how the AIA have formed their laws.

Here it isn't restricted to a registered architect, a building designer, drafter or even the average joe down the road with no degree has copyright of a design if they created it. An architect/designer here also has the right to sell the copyright to the client or a builder etc. for a fee which can be 10's of thousand's of dollars. Not sure if this is the same in America but presume it is.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[Drayke Newall]

13 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Your are welcomed to disagree, though your position will not stand in a court of law. Legal records are generally public information. Go look-up some of the outcomes to this type of challenge.

Did you even read the article I posted? It specifically states that the copyright extends to the building itself. Even the Wikipedia entries of American architectural copyright as well as the official (i.e. the actual law) Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act states the same that a constructed building is copyrighted as a architectural right that cannot be copied however can be photographed. It is the same in Australia.

Ill even post the full explanation from the article below not just part relating to the protection of a constructed building:

"In 1990, Congress passed the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act which explicitly provides copyright protection to original designs of architecture in virtually any form, including architectural plans, drawings and buildings themselves. This means that a builder may be liable for copyright infringement if the building itself infringes another's plans or building regardless of whether the plans themselves were copied. Therefore, builders, architects and owners should not attempt to mimic other architectural works in any form. "

I have already said I have been party to such lawsuits of which the outcome is that a constructed building is copyrighted.

To be honest if you cant accept, my professional opinion, an article explaining copyright law in relation to architecture a general Wikipedia entry on it or even the actual Protection Act itself, then I'm sorry but I am lost for words and have to begin to wonder if you are trolling me.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[Alyona Su]

3 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Did you even read the article I posted?

I did not. I base my comments of my own experience. But nevertheless, the subject (and thread, generally) has turned toxic so I will bow out, go ahead and take the last word (invitation to all.) I expect the "like-tag" counts on my posts in other threads to plummet drastically from here on out. LOL

Edited November 28, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Ceka Cianci]

Sooo,are you all looking forward to those 4 days off of work as much as I am?

I just got this really great hat for all the forum reading I'll be doing this weekend..

 

 

[Claireschen Hesten]

Back to the OP for a second while the builds share some similarities they aren't unique and look quite similar to preexisting shopping area set ups. In fact the one you claim is copying you the moment i saw it, i thought it looks to be using some variant or modified version of The Shopping District by Abiss certain features are a giveaway earliest reviews go back to 2014 which no doubt predates your build 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

IBTL?

[Maryanne Solo]

This thread is HAWT! So I'm jumping in for historical purposes 😻
Hello!!!! ☺️

[Jerilynn Lemon]

On 11/27/2019 at 8:43 PM, Drayke Newall said:

As mentioned in one of my previous posts copyright of items within SL is possible and was ruled as such by the court.

Curious if you can refer me to the case law supporting your statement.

I'm not saying you are wrong or I am correct, I would like to read the ruling and get a grasp of what the Judge ruled.

ETA: This thread has taken a great turning route to what was being discussed from the OP. Let's all take a breath and enjoy some kitties.

Doncha feel better now?

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Jerilynn Lemon

[Drayke Newall]

1 hour ago, Jerilynn Lemon said:

Curious if you can refer me to the case law supporting your statement.

I'm not saying you are wrong or I am correct, I would like to read the ruling and get a grasp of what the Judge ruled.

Was the case Evans v. Linden Research. Scroll down in the below link and it states "Second Life users own copyrights in the virtual land and items that they purchase or create."

https://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/78423.html or https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c01952e1-054d-4dcf-9bab-6e49a15d1157

Of course it comes down to interpretation of that particular line and perhaps it is taken out of context by the above links, not sure as the referenced documents are no longer available to peruse. The case was also based on LL old SL ToS so this may also come into play.

Quote

ETA: This thread has taken a great turning route to what was being discussed from the OP. Let's all take a breath and enjoy some kitties.

Doncha feel better now?

So kitty that attacks tail are those that are on topic and the two in the box fighting are the for and against of Gender Pronouns?..... Runs.🏃‍♂️

Edited November 29, 2019 by Drayke Newall

[Chaser Zaks]

To answer the original question, the 1:3 square layout isn't uncommon in SL. I've seen it plenty of times and there is a rational reason for it too. The landing spot has plenty of space for crucial information and advertisements, while leaving a majority of the land space for shops and vendors. If you hop around various clubs, I guarantee you that you will find something with the same, if not similar layout. Heck, Linden Lab once did the bridged entry way at the Second Life Birthday event once before.

The best solution in this scenario is if you want to truly be unique, you'll need to do a lot of blueprinting and revise the design multiple times. The more complex the design, the more chance of someone not having done it before.