Jump to content

Copyright question....


Skunk Spaatz
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3603 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Hello all i had a question regarding copyrights. i recently made myself a replica of the marker from the popular game Deadspace out of mesh. i DO NOT intend on selling it passing it on or sharing it in any way shape or form. my question is is this a problem for me to have a marker that i built for my own personal land? seeing as i am not selling it or distributing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those 100% gray areas.......there is no black or white (even at the edges).  The only good advice is to contact the owner of the copyrighted material and state your case and ask for them to allow you to do what you want to do.  Otherwise, the ice you are skating on is so thin the tiniest duck landing on the pond could break it.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it is for your use you enter a gray area. Since you are not selling it, there are no financial damages. So, if a law suit were brought it would be hard to prove significant damages. Since you made it for your use, they lost the value of one sale, which would not cover the attorneys fees.

In some measure you ripped off the creator by building a dupilcate. They thought it up and that makes it their intellectual property. 

But, people don't get sued for humming a song... 

Basically, there isn't enough financial worth for it to be a question. So, it then becomes a matter of eithics and morality. Since it is you, you get to decide. The most reassuring part of that is no matter which way you decide someone will disagree with you and they'll claim some rigthious position that you should adopt.

If you are concerned what Linden Lab's people will think... You must ask yourself who you have pissed off that might turn you in. Otherwise, LL unlikely to notice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for being conscientious enough to ask!  As others have stated, it is somewhat of a gray area, but not exactly for the reasons that have been offered so far.  Let me explain.

First, let's cover the points that are not in your favor on this.  There are several:

1.  By the strict letter of the law, if you copy a piece of artwork to which someone else holds copyright, then you're right away infringing on the owner's rights.  There are some exceptions to this, which we'll discuss in a minute, but generally speaking, no one is authorized to copy an existing work without the IP owner's say so.  The owner of the intellectual property is the only person who gets to decide how many copies are allowed to exist. 

2.  It's a commonly held misconception that it's only illegal if you'll be selling, or otherwise distributing, the copies.  But the truth of the matter is this.  Distribution would merely be a second violation, on top of the first one.  The copying itself is illegal in the first place, whether or not you distribute.  In other words, just because you're won't be selling or distributing the copies you've made doesn't mean you actually had the right to make them in the first place. 

3.  The concept of private personal use (which is also subject to a great many misconceptions) can't be applied here.  You've already stated you plan on doing two things that make the usage not private, and not just personal.  The first is you plan to upload it to a large computer network that you do not own (SL), so it can't be personal.  The second is you plan to do display it on your land in SL, which means it won't be private.  It will be a public performance, and for that, you do need permission from the owner.

It's analogous to what happens when you record a TV show on your DVR.  If you recorded just so you could watch it later in your own home, that's personal use, and there's no violation.  However, if you bring your DVR to the local movie theater, plug it into the projector, and present the show to the whole audience, it's no longer personal.  It's now a public performance, which does violate the owner's rights.

4.  Beyond general copyright, you also have to consider the EULA you agreed to when you purchased the Dead Space game.  Here's the relevant excerpt:

"EA reserves all right, title and interest in the Software (including all characters, storyline, images, photographs, animations, video, music, text), and all associated copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights therein... Except to the extent permitted under applicable law, you may not decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer the Software, or any component thereof, by any means whatsoever."

 You agreed that EA owns all right to all components of the game, and you further agreed that you would not disassemble or reverse engineer any part of it in any way.  It's certainly arguable that reverse engineered the existing model of the marker when you created your own.

5.  You also agreed to the Second Life Terms of Service, which states:

"In connection with Content you upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service, you affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have all necessary Intellectual Property Rights, licenses, consents, and permissions to use... the Content in the manner contemplated by the Service and these Terms of Service"

You promised LL that you would have permission to use anything you upload, but you also acknowledged that Electronic Arts, not you, holds all rights to all the artwork in Dead Space.  You don't have EA's permission to bring any IP from Dead Space into SL, so you can't do it.

6.  The SL TOS also sates:

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service.

 You can't grant those rights to LL, since you don't have them in the first place.

 

 Now here are the points in your favor:

1.  Copyright law makes exceptions for so called "fair use".  (Peggy kindly provided a link to the US Copyright Office's page on the subject.)  What it boils down to, mainly, is a question of free speech.  At what point does your right of free speech trump an IP owner's right of copy?

Historically, the courts have upheld that free speach wins under any of the following circumstances:

  • If you need to quote a work in order to explain your observations about the work, then you're free to quote it (within limits).  This applies to purposes such as review, criticism, illustration, or commentary.
  • If you need to quote a scholarly or technical work in order to illustrate or clarify what it says, you're free to quote it (again, within limits)
  • If you need to quote a work in order to teach, either about the work itself, or about the subject to which it relates, you may do so (within limits)
  • If you need to quote a work in order to parody it, you may do so (also within limits)
  • If you ned to quote a work in order to report on it, you can quote it (still within limits)
  • If you're restoring a damaged work, you may copy the parts that have been damaged, in order to do your restoration (mainly applies to libraries)
  • If you need to copy a work for legistlative or judicial purposes, you can copy the whole thing
  • If a work just incidentally happens to be at the location where you're filming a newsreel or broadcast, it's OK to film it.

In most cases, fan art, which is what you're doing, doesn't quite fit the bill for any of that.  But if you think you can argue it, that's what courts are for.

2.  Notice I said "within limts" after every one of the bullet points above.  The limits are mainly meant to protect the copyright holder (you don't get to copy an entire book, and then claim you were merely quoting), but they can also work in favor of a copier's free speech.  That's where those four numbered points on that web page from the Copyright Office come in.

Notice the third point, which sates, "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole."  In other words, when judging whether use of a work is fair, the court must consider whether the portion of the work that was copied is a significant enough to be of concern. Notice also that the fourth point states, "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work." In other words, if just an insignificant piece of the work has been copied, and the copying isn't likely to diminish the copyright holder's ability to market the original work, then the copier MIGHT be in the clear.

With that in mind, how significant is the marker in relation to Dead Space as a whole?  I don't know.  Neither do you, and neither does EA (even though they'd probably argue that they do).  A judge woud have to decide.

Does your having copied the marker pose a likely threat to the marketabilty of Dead Space?  Again, a judge would have to determine that.

 

Knowing all this, if you think you've got a good enough case for Fair Use that you could defend it if challeged, then if all other things were equal, I'd say go for it.  But things aren't really equal.  In agreeing to EA's EULA, and SL's TOS, you surrendered some of your right to Fair Use.  You have to take that into account as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the feed back, i sent EA a email regarding the matter if they give me permission to use it ima be one happy camper... if not meh rules are rules and we gotta follow em.

[edit] After reading the rest of that it really is a grey area o.O and im not up for fighting in court just because i want something for atmosphere. no way. if the copyright department of EA tells me no then im just gonna drop it and move on to the next thing. if i cant use the marker then... some other strange atrifact looking stone i think i can make just as well. its also good practice in blender.

i will have to wait and see, also you put alot of effort into helping answer my question i thank you for your effort you where very helpful ^.^

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Skunk Spaatz wrote:

thanks for the feed back,

 

No problem.  However, I hit the Post button by mistake, while I was only half way through writing.  I had to do the rest as an edit, and it looks like you replied before I finished.  Oops. 

Read the whole thing. :)

 


Skunk Spaatz wrote:

i sent EA a email regarding the matter if they give me permission to use it ima be one happy camper... if not meh rules are rules and we gotta follow em.

Cool.  It would be wonderful if everyone were so conscientous as you.

Realistically, I wouldn't hold my breath, waiting for a reply.  But you never know; maybe somebody over there will be supportive.

 

 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should probably mention that my Sci Fi Museum, which was in SL for over six years, before I finally sold my sim just a couple months ago, had all kinds of things in it which were not unlike your marker model.  Nobody every had a problem with it.  But then, I deliberately stuck with franchises that have historically been tolerant of fan art (Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Robby the Robot, etc.) and made a point of avoiding those that were tratiditionally sue-happy (Marvel).

I have no idea which category EA might fit into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i did an edit to mine as well after seeing that.

if they dont reply to me then im just going to keep it its not an EXACT replica anyway its more like a mashup of all the different drawings... wallpapers... models and everything else i have seen of it. it's more or less my representation of the marker itself... but its STILL the marker and when you look at it, it is OBVIOUSLY the marker.

i have been building since i joined sl in 06 and so far everything has been my creation out of my head alone (freelance graphic designer) this is the first time i ever made anything to question. then again i may be a little paranoid.. then again these days sometimes that's not always a bad thing xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:

Not really. Consider something like speed limits. Those rules are routinely broken.

Yes, and people routinely get tickets for it.  Heck, the town board where I live deliberately budgets 2 million dollars short every year, because they know they're going to make at least that much in speeding tickets.

In any case, you're not exactly comparing apples to apples here.  When you infringe on someone else's copyright, you're doing considerable harm to that person.  One of the deeply held tenets of our society is that innovators have a right to profit from their innovations.  That, in no small part, is what transformed our nation from horses & buggies to jet airplanes and computers, in less than 100 years.  Without it, we WILL perish.

But somehow, we've seemingly manged to raise a generation of self-entitled, short-sighted, instant-gratification-seeking, narcissists, who think of nothing but their own wants and desires, with no concern whatsoever for whether or not the bread they were clever enough to get around paying for actually came out of someone else's mouth.  They destroy entire industries, and then have the nerve to complain that we no longer have an economy.

So, yeah guys, speed all you want.  When you figure out you're not immortal, a split second before you crash into that tree, you can remember that at least I'll no longer have to worry about you taking any food out of my family's mouths by stealing the content that I work hard to produce.

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

If you actually followed the rules with respect to speed limits, you would create a safety hazard on many highways. 

Ah, the ultimate self-serving argument.  I had to do it, because everyone else was doing it. If I didn't do it, too, I would only have made things worse.  Riiiiiight. 

Delusions of justification are dangerous things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the Joker says "why so serious"? Let's consider some of your points:

1. Heck, the town board where I live deliberately budgets 2 million dollars short every year, because they know they're going to make at least that much in speeding tickets.

Suggest to your town board the installation of red light cameras. While studies have shown that the cameras significantly decrease safety and increase accidents, they increase revenue with no additional labor required beyond installation and routine maintenance. But, hey rules are rules.

2. When you infringe on someone else's copyright, you're doing considerable harm to that person.

Really? Your Sci Fi Museum must have caused considerable harm then.

3. Ah, the ultimate self-serving argument (If you actually followed the rules with respect to speed limits, you would create a safety hazard on many highways.)

That is supported by substantial evidence. Consult law enforcement. Speeding is so commonplace on major highways and freeways that vehicles going the speed limit create traffic hazards.

There are so many rules, regulation, and laws on the books, that you simply cannot drive from point A to point B in most cities without violating some of them. Once again, consult law enforcement. If they don't have probable cause to stop you, all they have to do is follow you for five minutes and you'll break some rule, justifying a stop.

Finally, you might consider switching to de-caf. You seem to be high strung, overly self-righteous, and annoying, albeit somewhat entertaining.

 @skunk, I especially approve the part about "[w]hen you infringe on someone else's copyright, you're doing considerable harm to that person" from an admitted copyright infringer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:

Like the Joker says "why so serious"?

 

Because copyright is a serious subject. The fact that you seem to beieve otherwise only underscores my point.

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Suggest to your town board the installation of red light cameras. While studies have shown that the cameras significantly decrease safety and increase accidents, they increase revenue with no additional labor required beyond installation and routine maintenance. But, hey rules are rules.


I can't imagine how you think this argument furthers your cause.  You seem to be implying you think rules should exist just for their own sake, rather than for an actual purpose.  Frankly, that's a disgusting attitude.  It's childishly ill-considered, at best.

As for the town board in question, what makes you think they would ever strive to decrease safety and increase accidents?  The police are out there issuing tickets precisely for the purpose of PREVENTING accidents.  The fact that they know statistically how many people (like you) will ignore the rules, and get fined for it, doesn't change that.

Incidentally, the town I'm referring to has been ranked as the safest in America in five out of the last fifteen years, and was ranked among the top five safest nearly every other year.  Clearly, the police here do a good job.

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Really? Your Sci Fi Museum must have caused considerable harm then.

Beleive me, that was always a concern.  But like I said, I made a point of sticking with franchises that were supportive of fan art.  In many cases, I did have permission, and in some cases, I was even on the payroll to create officially licensed content (had a pretty sweet gig for a while with CBS, for Star Trek conent, for example).  In cases where I did not have express permission, I took my cues from how the IP holders had handled things historically.  If I weren't sure an exhibit was going to be OK, I wouldn't do the exibit.

The museum contained not just stuff I'd made, but also exhibts donated by others.  On more than one occasion, I had to turn away an exhibitors whose work cantained stuff I knew wouldn't fly.

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

That is supported by substantial evidence. Consult law enforcement. Speeding is so commonplace on major highways and freeways that vehicles going the speed limit create traffic hazards.

Funny, when I had to go to traffic school after receiving a speeding ticket, they said the exact opposite.  The instructor mentioned that a lot of people say that, though.

Would you care to cite any studies to back up your highly assumptive claims?

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

 

There are so many rules, regulation, and laws on the books, that you simply cannot drive from point A to point B in most cities without violating some of them.


You really think that's the case?  Wow.  Man, if the rules of the road are really that hard for you to remember, you shouldn't be driving a car.  There really aren't that many of them.

Tell me, have you ever actually read a law book?  I think you'd be surprised at what you wouldn't find if you did, given your expectations.

I'm not sure what state you're in, but as I'm in New York, I'll pick that as an example.  You can find all of the traffic laws in New York State here.  Nearly all of them represent basic common sense.  You really want to claim they're difficult for a person of reasonable intelligence to learn?

I get that there's a 49/50 chance you're not in New York, so how about this?  Would you care to list some of the outlandish items of legislation in your state, county, or town, that prevent ordinary citizens from driving without becoming master criminals?  Or are you just desparately throwing up whatever your imagination can turn out that kind of sort of sounds like it might justify your indefensible previous argument?

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

Once again, consult law enforcement. If they don't have probable cause to stop you, all they have to do is follow you for five minutes and you'll break some rule, justifying a stop.

Precisely how many cops did you interview to reach that conclusion?

While it's true that a lot of criminals do end up getting caught because of routine traffic vilations, it's not because it's impossible to drive without breaking a law.  It's usually because the vast majority of criminals just aren't very intelligent, and their behavior on the road is just as stupid as it is everywhere else.  It's also because people tend to get nervous when being followed by a patrol car, and so end up making nervous mistakes.

In my experience, cops tend to be pretty lenient about the latter, by the way, if they can tell you weren't intending to do anything wrong.  I remember one time in New Jersey, a cop pulled out behind me on a traffic circle.  I pulled off the circle, and the next thing I know, lights were flashing, I was getting pulled over.  When the cop came to my window, I right away asked, "Did I make a mistake back there?"  He said, "Yeah, you went right through the stop sign."  I siad, "Sorry about that.  I saw you pull out behind me, and I guess I got a little flustered.  I didn't even realize the sign was there.  I'm not from here."  He told me to have a good night, and that was that.

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Finally, you might consider switching to de-caf. You seem to be high strung, overly self-righteous, and annoying, albeit somewhat entertaining.

And here we have it.  The personal insults begin.  Hardly surprising.  It's what tends to happen when someone doesn't have anything actually useful to say on a topic, but they feel they have to say SOMETHING.

Actually, I don't drink coffee at all, but thanks for the advice. 

I do have to say, I find it mildly amusing what you seem to think you know about an entire human being, from having read just a few paragraphs.  It fits, though, I guess.  By your account, it seems you learned to drive in exactly the same half-baked manner.

High strung, that's funnier than you could ever know.  Ordinarily, I get no end of comments from people on how unusually laid back and relaxed I always am.  Not two weeks ago, I was passed over for work with a certain company who shall remain nameless, because they apparently only hire people who are bouncing off the walls hyper, and I'm just my calm and collected self.  I've even got below average blood pressure.

As for "self-righteous".  Tell me, who better fits that description, the person trying to defend the rights of others, or the one insisting that rules don't matter, and that we should all be so selfish that we should think it's OK to steal other people's intellectual property?

Copyright happens to be a topic I'm passionate about.  If someone with your stance on the subject finds me annoying, well, that's probably a good thing.

If it's a problem for you, there is an easy solution.  Don't read my posts, and you won't have to worry about it.  For my part, I'll always be there to fight the good fight whenever someone tries to say copyright is unimportant.

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

I especially approve the part about "[w]
hen you infringe on someone else's copyright, you're doing considerable harm to that person"
from an admitted copyright infringer.

Twist words much?  Proud of yourself on that one, are ya?

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the people reading this.  No doubt most of them are smart enough to realize that when fan art is made in tribute to IP franchises that have already proven themselves to be supportive of fan art, there is no infringement.  It's not a difficult concept, and I'm sure you get it too, despite your convenient pretense to the contrary.  You'd do well not to treat the readers like idiots.  Nobody's falling for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're being way too serious about this, probably because you feel guilty about something. In addition, your original reply to me was insulting starting with the bit about self-entitled. In addition, you're wrong about fan art made in tribute to IP franchises that have already proven themselves to be supportive of fan art not being copyright infringement. As you suggested, I will no linger be reading your posts. Adding you to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chosen Few wrote:


 When you infringe on someone else's copyright, you're doing considerable harm to that person.  One of the deeply held tenets of our society is that innovators have a right to profit from their innovations.  That, in no small part, is what transformed our nation from horses & buggies to jet airplanes and computers, in less than 100 years.  Without it, we WILL perish.


If you read the US Constitution, it grants protection for a "limited time" to inventors and authors "to promote progress".  The reason it's limited is twofold.  Once the rights expire, the general public gets to use the creation for free and build on it.  But also, having them expire means the creator cannot sit on their ass milking one idea forever, so they have an incentive to create more.  In the long term society thus benefits by having more creations.

Some people feel, I among them, that the recurring extension of copyright terms, which have reached life + 70 years, has made the "limited time" provision meaningless.  You cannot encourage a creator to create more two generations after they are dead, and the public cannot benefit from the free use of older creations if the rights never expire.

An orderly society demands we follow the law as it is, but it does not require we think it is right in the moral sense, or if a statute goes against a higher law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


DanielRavenNest Noe wrote:

If you read the US Constitution, it grants protection for a "limited time" to inventors and authors "to promote progress".  The reason it's limited is twofold.  Once the rights expire, the general public gets to use the creation for free and build on it.  But also, having them expire means the creator cannot sit on their ass milking one idea forever, so they have an incentive to create more.  In the long term society thus benefits by having more creations.

Some people feel, I among them, that the recurring extension of copyright terms, which have reached life + 70 years, has made the "limited time" provision meaningless.  You cannot encourage a creator to create more two generations after they are dead, and the public cannot benefit from the free use of older creations if the rights never expire.

An orderly society demands we follow the law as it is, but it does not require we think it is right in the moral sense, or if a statute goes against a higher law.

Well said.  I'm in agreement with you on this.

I'm also deeply troubled by new proposed legislation, which would criminalize certain types of infringment, imposing prison terms for things that are supposed to be civil matters between private parties.  The potential upshot is frightening, to say the least.  (Although, the prospect of Justin Bieber in a jail cell might just make it all worth it! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about this too, maybe there are some game disigners or something with the answer. As far as I know gamedesigners who make racing games try and use actual cars and carbrands, as long as they don't have to pay too much. If they DO need to pay too much, they seem to build the car anyway, but stick another name on it. I was wondering if this is allowed... and if it's not, where is the line? Is a different steering wheel enough to make it no longer a copy? different wheels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

I have a question about this too, maybe there are some game disigners or something with the answer. As far as I know gamedesigners who make racing games try and use actual cars and carbrands, as long as they don't have to pay too much. If they DO need to pay too much, they seem to build the car anyway, but stick another name on it. I was wondering if this is allowed... and if it's not, where is the line? Is a different steering wheel enough to make it no longer a copy? different wheels?

The sculptural design of an automobile is considered utilitarian, rather than artistic, and is therefore ineligible for copyright protections.  So, you can paint a picture of a RL automobile, or take a photograph of one, or yes, create a 3D model of one, and the car manufacturer/designer cannot stop you.

What you can't do without permission is use the auto maker's logo.  The logo is a trademarked property.

Put those two things together, and here's what you get.  If you want to build a 3D model of a Ferrari, and put in your game, go right ahead.  You just can't call it a Ferrari, unless the Ferrari company says you can.

As far as paying for it goes, I have a hard time believing any self respecting game maker would do that.  The smart move would be to present the game to the car companies as an advertising opportunity, and charge them sponsorship fees for the privilege of having their products promoted within the game.

 

There's a good lecture from TED you can watch on utility vs. art, with respect to copyright.  It's worth watching.  I disagree somewhat with the speaker's conclusions at the end, but she does an excellent job of presenting the facts.

 

Regarding your more general question, how different does something have to be before it's no longer considered a copy, the answer is there is no answer.  It's totally subjective.  The popular mythical concept, "percentage of difference", does not actually exist.  There's no objective way to quantify the amount by which one item looks similar to another. 

The question that is legally applicable is whether or not it's reasonable to conclude that one work is a copy of another.  That's never an easy question to answer, which is why courts exist.  If you're a copyright holder, and you think someone else's work is a copy of yours, you and the other party both present your case to a judge, and the judge determines whether it is so. 

DMCA introduces a few intermediary steps, which can often help prevent things from having going all the way to court.  But still, the court is always the ultimate authority on these things.

If a copy is a really good imitation, then obviously, it's pretty easy to identify at as a copy, and the original IP holder would likely win the case.  But if it's a bad copy, it gets much harder.  Is it really a copy, or is it merely another unique work that happens to be in the same style as the other?  Again, there's no way to objectively answer that.  A hearing needs to be held, and evidence presented by both sides, to a qualified judge, before a legal determination can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I thought yes. I was aware of the trademark thing and I'd never use someones logo or name. The second question was really part of the first one, but if you can't copyright a shape of a car (or furniture, or fashiondesigns..yes I watched the presentation..) it doesn't matter to begin with.

I'm still not 100% convinced, since artwork for example can be copyrighted and some items are so exclusive they might be considered art by a court of law. I'm convinced enough to put my models up for sale though, without brand names, logo's or references to either of those.

As for the gamedesigners paying...you're probably right, but they ofcourse DO need permission from the original owners. Still it would be nice if someone who has tried to get permission for a game or other 3d work, could post here with first hand information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Skunk Spaatz wrote:

WELL

it seems EA has replied to my email about using their relic and you know what they said?

 

NOTHING they send me a trailer for a new game. i dont think they care LOL

Its because they don't. Yes, there is all this legal mumbo jumbo stuff, but what it comes down to is if whoever originally made/owns an object really cares about other people doing things with it or even hears about someone using it to begin with - and - cares enough to go after them.

Personal use can be considered a grey area, but typically no one cares if money or distribution isnt involved.

One of the most copyright obsessed companies around is probably Games Workshop. I once sent them an email about people making Warhammer 40k models in SL and got no response. This is the same company that stopped distribution of a fan film made in Germany because German law says that a creator always retains rights to something regardless of any contracts removing/abdicating/etc those rights. Essentially this would have meant that saying yes to this would allow anyone to circumvent their copyright. The SL is based in the US, not Germany though.

Then there is Nike(I think) or some other company that decided to stop people from making and selling items in SL and did it themselves instead. Would they have been able to track down someone who decided to make their own pair of shoes and keep it to themselves? No, likely not.

People mention about all this harm caused to people when you copy their stuff. Well, amount of harm caused is one of those grey areas when it intersects with personal use; obviously distribution and/or selling are generally considered bad here. If half the population decided to make their own copies of something from scratch then yes, that is definitely not a good thing and would provoke a response. If a single person decides to make a copy of something, will anyone even notice or even care? Is EA in SL selling replicas of their Marker? No, probably not.

So I typed out alot of stuff but in the end, it all comes down to whether you think someone will care enough to come after you if you make a replica of something or if anyone in SL will care enough to bother notifying anyone of it.

Also, nice work on the Marker, I wanted to get a model for myself because they look cool.

PS. on the moral stuff, its not morals that you can dictate or decide, its ethics; morals and ethics are not the same thing. The question here is: "Is it ethical to make a replica of an item from a game for personal use when there are currently no alternatives other than making said item yourself?" The question by extension to this is: "Will making this item for myself cause any harm, ie, will the company lose any money?"

Seeing as he got the response in the form of not caring, it doesnt matter for this case now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3603 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...