Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Amon Dragonash

copyright issues

Recommended Posts

Probably already mentioned somewhere but honestly, i couldn't care less.
I just want to get my frustration out right now!

Why can people not flag an item for copyright related stuff anymore.
I can understand there needs to be some control but in some cases it is just so blatant and obvious.
Take the stuff from famous movies..
Harry Potter, Ghostbusters, Aliens..  all the Tim Burton stuff// 

We all know it so why do we put up with it untill the original IP holder claims his rights? If LL has never seen a Harry Potter movie they must be from another planet. Get that stuff of our marketplace or don't pretend to embrace the creativity of user driven content.
This is just too much.
Again i will state i can understand some degree of tolerance but why would we do our best to come up with cool stuff when others are allowed to just look at the latest movies and copy all they see? 

I could easilly show you 100 links to items i know for a fact are stolen or replicated.
We all can.. no doubt.

I would opt for simply making copying that stuff less interesting by removing those branded keywords from search.
Can anybody tell me they got a sound reason for using keywords like Harry Potter without stealing?
Feedback anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Amon Dragonash wrote:

Why can people not flag an item for copyright related stuff anymore.

Because the general public doesn't know if the creator or merchant has a license of the copyright owner to distribute this content, nor is everybody a copyright lawyer or an infallible judge of similarities. I've seen people claim that products were ripped when they looked nothing like the original.

Also, this would undoubtedly be abused to flag the merchandise of competitors, in the same way the rating system is currently being abused. And finally, it is up to the copyright owner to decide what steps to take. You can't take it upon yourself to make this decision for them. They might want to sue for financial damages and leave the infringing content out there as incriminating evidence.

If you see something that looks fishy, contact the original creator or copyright owner. Only they can decide how to proceed from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Amon Dragonash wrote:

*nods..

Leaves me with much frustration still aye.

Hard to believe 10 people have those rights to each the latest blockbusters. 

True :( But some film companies choose to ignore fan art. After all, it's good advertising for them, and if it's given away for free it probably falls under fair use anyway. And even if people sell it for a small fee, that is probably small fry and not worth suing over, especially if the copyright owner doesn't have a stake in SL. 

PS: The whole thing has a good side too btw. Some people are here for Star Wars or Star Trek role play. If they couldn't buy props and outfits, they probably wouldn't stick around and pay money into the SL economy. But since some SL creators cater to their hobby, they also buy other content, such as skins, hair, and of course land. Everybody wins. So until the copyright owner decides to send a cease & desist or a DMCA, I'm glad for everything that brings people to SL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just becuse it looks like a certain product doesnt make it ip infringmet.  Useing a name brand name is. if you make products that look like harry potter items . that isnt ip infringment. but if you use the name harry potter to sell the product then it is.

Before you red flag other peoples work its best find out first about IP law there is alot of gray area. some of you say well  every thingin sl falls under art work cuse its all just pixels. clothes in sl some say wouldnt be compared to rl clothes as worn objects and or laws dont apply.

For examples. this is a link to a Real life  IP lawers web site this is her blog site with stories of  IP law news and cases,

http://www.francinewardblog.com/



Fashion Designs. Designer Fashion. Clothing Designers. 

This story on her site is interesting, cuse if applyed to sl means  the only  ip protection on clothing is brand names and defineing feathures,if its part of the working or main part of the garment then its not  under ip,

Mian point im saying is every one has there pitch forks and flameing torches, but even the lawers sitting on the sidelines watching sl alot of the gray area will be worked out   in court, and the play ground of sl is defined.

http://fwardattorney.com/index.html

 this is her main web site, you can find all types of information, and links.

I run a business center in sl she is one of my  renters,  she has said her and other  lawyers have there eye on sl, they know there will be court cases.

As i see it the lindens are mianly worried about brand name infringments ,  just cuse your shoe looks like a nike  but named differently doesnt make it infringment. if you use there logo the check mark , or nike in name then yes its a problem. A idea is not copyrightable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ishy, you covered it nicely.

I'll add only one thing. Copyright law (and indeed many business models) did not and could not anticipate the changes brought about by perfect and inexpensive digital copying and distribution, both good and bad. The mess that has resulted as content creators try to continue to make a living at their craft may be unavoidable. So we live with simultaneous frustrations and delights as we all try to work it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to your question is that in large part, the IP owners don't care.  As an example, Coca Cola was all over the grid when they had a presence here then like most other companies they pulled out.  Their primary reason was why did they need to be here when their brand was all over anyways.  They latter announced at the Virtual Worlds conference (where Philip Linden also spoke) in 2007 that they where not going to pursue any branding issues in the virtual world since it gave them more value in branding than they could have recuperated from litigation.

The same holds true with the Harry Potter releases with Warner Brothers.  The cost to DRM their DVD and Blue Ray releases where not worth the cost as piracy, was also branding and they felt, helped drive sales as the copies where not the same quality as the disk.

We brought in 6 adult companies who do pursue piracy violations with Tube Sites and Torrents.  However, as we quickly found, any result from receiving an illegal copy of an adult video, had a high likely hood of bringing that person back to one of our website and overall, the economics to prosecute, did not outweigh any marketing potential we had.

For many reasons there is a strategic decision not to pursue DMCA violations which is why it is and always should be up to the IP owner.

 

Edit: and what Ishy said...lol :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's another reason not covered... it's not legally required, and therefore not worth the effort in general unless that particular brand is known to be litiginous :: cough ::  James Cameron, Sony, Disney :: cough :: and for the rest that aren't or might sell license to use their content, it creates a ridiculous workload of cross verification, that there is no legal reason to have in place.

 

most of that stuff actually would not fall under fair use simply because it devalues the merchantability of officially licensed wares in the same or comparable venues, but most companies don't care as long as the profits are small to non-existent, because it adds more exposure for them and cost recouped on litigation make it hardly worth while.

 

that said it is sad to know that certain works cannot be reported even though their authors are publicly well known for NEVER licensing their work (I've seen this repeatedly with the works of well known artists), but this has always been the case inworld. only the copyright holder can submit DCMA, and now apparently the marketplace is being brough into line with same policy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not known yet, the Saban Corp filed a copyright infringement notice with LL on their Power Rangers TM. LL removed the items from in-world & from the inventory of 1 or more residents related to this infraction. They searched for names related to the Power Rangers but did not pull every item from inventory to look at them 1 by 1. I don't think most SL residents really care about WHAT the items are on the marketplace enough to flag em. LL did put out a notice last year that if you don't own the copyright, or licenced with 1, NOT to sell these items on the marketplace. There was a short crack-down on merchandise when it was put out, but it seems to have died as there are a number of items being sold that may be questionable, as far as copyrights go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...