Masami Kuramoto

Chosen Few wrote: I can make a model of a cardboard box, but that doesn't mean the box itself is now considered an artwork. It's still just a box, still utilitarian. The reason why you can make a model of a cardboard box is because cardboard boxes don't have distinctive shapes. However, there are artworks made of cardboard boxes, and if you recreate them as 3D models, you infringe copyrights. The utilitarian nature of the boxes used to create the artwork does not prevent copyrightability. The arrangement of the boxes is separable from the boxes and their utilitarian aspects. The same things can be said about Ferraris and Frank Lloyd Wright buildings. These are utilitarian items, arranged in a way that is unique and copyrighted. The arrangement is separable, which is why 3D models of Ferraris and FLW buildings are recognizable. But you know what's going to happen the next day? Knock-off houses are going to come out with hundreds of dresses that look just like it. That will be perfectly legal, because no matter how beautifully or uniquely designed a dress may be, it's still just a garment, a utilitarian item as defined by the law, not a copyrightable artwork. The fact that everyone knows Gucci designed the thing doesn't mean its legal status changes in any way. This is not contrary to what I said earlier. In fact it is explained in the article I quoted. A dress is utilitarian, a 3D model is not. For your convenience, I will repeat the part that you failed to comprehend: Copyright protection would prevent the outright copying of the painting. In addition, copyright law would prevent the creation of a three-dimensional model of the automobile found in the painting. However, under the specific terms of the Copyright Act, copyright law would not prevent General Motors from making a working (hence utilitarian) automobile of the design found in the painting. Emphasis added. This would perhaps be a good time for reminder that all of Gucci's drawings, sculptures, digital models, or other design documents, ARE copyrightable artworks, even though the dress itself is not. With that in mind, you may be thinking, "Well, if Gucci produced its own 3D model of the dress, then Chosen Few's model of the dress must be a copy of Gucci's model of the dress." And the legal answer would be no, it's not. The legal answer would be yes. In order to copy the model, I'd have to have seen the model, and deliberately set out to copy the model. If I haven't seen it, I can't have copied it. Simply depicting a dress I saw on TV is not the same thing as copying the designer's model of that dress. If that were true, you could also make a Darth Vader avatar and sell it, because it's just an outfit you saw on TV. The fourth paragraph appears to have you very confused, especially the part you bolded. You seem to be so excited that you found something that says "three-dimensional model", you did not stop to consider the context at all. The meaning of the paragraph appears to be completely lost on you. The reason you can't produce a 3D model of a car that only exists in a panting is because the painting itself is a copyrighted artwork. SInce the car doesn't actually exist, any reproduction of the car would be a reproduction of the painting. This does not mean that if the car actually did exist, one would be prohibited from making a 3D model of the actual car. The painting is copyrighted; the real car is not. The copyright to the car design does not expire when the car is physically built. The 3D model you make is not a car, it has no utilitarian aspects. I must demand that you either delete that libelous statement, or rephrase it to make it absolutely clear that you're expressing your own opinion, rather than fact. I do not steal intellectual property, ever. You may NOT claim it is fact that I do. Your own words from comment #29: Since you mentioned Roddenberry, let's talk Star Trek for a moment. It's hardly any secret that I've done tons of Star Trek work in SL (and elsewhere), both in official and unofficial capacities. The official stuff isn't really relevant in this context, since of course I had express permission for that, by the very nature of having been hired to do it. As for the unofficial stuff, the Star Trek franchise is incredibly supportive of fan art. With very few exceptions, they really don't care what you do, as long as you make it clear that your work is a fan production, and not try to pass it off as official. (A lot of franchises could learn a thing or two from this policy.) And later, in comment #57: Or how about this one, oh great and wise interpreter. I've been hired many times over the years, by many different companies, to replicate various city blocks and such, for use in games, virtual worlds, television shows, even the real estate business. You really want to tell me I've been breaking the law every time I've done that? My attorney doesn't seem to have any problem with it when he reviews my contracts. Let me make this crystal clear for you: Every time you created a 3D model of copyrighted content without permission, you broke the law. If I had a list of the items, I would report you. This forum is a place for artists, not for people who rip stuff. We don't like your kind here.

Another source: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html Useful articles: Copyright protection is generally not available to articles which have a utilitarian function. Examples of these types of "useful articles" would include lamps, bathroom sinks, clothing, and computer monitors. Under the Copyright Act, the only copyright protection available to these items is for "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." Unfortunately, this test is inherently ambiguous when deciding the scope of copyright protection for certain useful articles. Some distinctions are clear. For instance, a painting on the side of a truck is protectable under copyright law even though the truck is a useful article. The painting is clearly separable from the utilitarian aspects of the truck. The overall shape of the truck, on the other hand, would not be copyrightable since the shape is an essential part of the truck's utility. Another commonly considered example is that of clothing. The print found on the fabric of a skirt or jacket is copyrightable, since it exists separately from the utilitarian nature of the clothing. However, there is no copyright in the cut of the cloth, or the design of the skirt or jacket as a whole, since these articles are utilitarian. This is true even of fanciful costumes; no copyright protection is granted to the costume as a whole. One of the primary purposes for prohibiting copyright protection in useful articles is to prevent the granting of patent-like protection through the copyright laws. If a useful article was protected under the copyright law, the protection against copying would be quite similar to patent protection. Since copyrights are so much easier to obtain than patents, there would be no way of limiting this patent-like monopoly to inventions that are truly novel and non-obvious. (For more discussion on patent protection, see the BitLaw discussion on patents). Another interesting copyright concern is the extent of copyright protection in pictoral or sculptural works that portray a useful article. Take, for example, a painting of a futuristic looking automobile. Copyright protection would prevent the outright copying of the painting. In addition, copyright law would prevent the creation of a three-dimensional model of the automobile found in the painting. However, under the specific terms of the Copyright Act, copyright law would not prevent General Motors from making a working (hence utilitarian) automobile of the design found in the painting. Emphasis added. It won't get any more explicit than this. If you want to point out that copyright law is ambiguous, be my guest. But if you want to prove me wrong, nothing less than case law will do at this point. The fact that Chosen stole intellectual property for years without getting caught doesn't mean stealing is legal. By the way, there was a related discussion on the New World Notes blog just recently: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2012/03/iris-rants-in-support-of-second-life-cosplay.html This comment is particularly interesting: I have talked to a lot of lawyers about this, and the off-the-record response is basically, "Don't make money off their IP and don't do anything that makes the IP look bad (i.e. use the characters to spout racial slurs or whatever), and the company will probably look the other way." Thing is, they can't say that on record, because they're lawyers. However, at a Stanford law conference I talked with lawyers for Blizzard, EA, and Microsoft, and they went out of their way to say they support fan-made content, and don't like to pursue it with legal action. The other issue is the doctrine of fair use, which would probably apply to much or most types of cosplay and other fan content, as parody or editorial commentary. There's very little legal precedent around these issues, because they rarely go to court, which is probably a good thing for the rights holders, because they might not like the outcome. Even if they won, they'd just be winning a case that alienates their paying customers, and opens a Pandora's Box. Fan-made riffs on game/movie/TV IP are a massive, massive, massive phenomenon online, and Second Life-related stuff is actually a very small iteration of it. Go check out the Deviant Art site, for example, it's rife with it, and it has many tens of millions more viewers than SL. Bottom line: If you think you understand all the legal and practical subtleties of the cosplay/fan content issue, you're probably wrong. And if you think most media companies by and large want to take legal action against cosplay/fan content, or even want you to ask their explicit permission to engage in it, you're *definitely* wrong. Despite all this, random Internet users who clearly don't fully understand the issues involved, still presume to police the IP rights of multi-billion dollar media corporations. Basically, they're engaging in corporate lawyer cosplay. Posted by: Hamlet Au | Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 09:13 AM I do not often agree with Hamlet, but his observation here is spot on. I also think it is worth pointing out that the only people getting upset over these ripped meshes are SL content creators. History shows that the IP owners almost never care. Which brings us back to the example I mentioned earlier: the guy who saw himself in direct competition with imported car and aircraft models.

Chosen Few wrote: You appear to be saying that if I make a model of any utilitarian item, the fact that the model is artwork somehow means the original item magically becomes artwork, too. That makes zero sense, Masami. That's not how it works. No, that's not what I'm saying. This is what I'm saying: http://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/pictorial-graphic-and-sculptural-work/ Copyright is a form of intellectual property that gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work. Copyright protection is available for various kinds of work including literary, musical, choreographic, dramatic, pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works etc. Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Copyright protects only the form of the work and not the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of the work. Therefore the design of a useful article shall be considered a pictoral, graphic, or scriptural work only if, and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictoral, graphic, or scriptural features that can be identified separately from and are capable of existing independently from the article. Under Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act, pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. A significant number of works distributed across the Internet are pictorial and graphic works. A work of art which is incorporated into the design of a useful article, but which can stand by itself as art work separate from the useful article, is copyrightable, but the design of the useful article is not. Section 113 deals with the extent of copyright protection in “works of applied art.” The section takes as its starting point the Supreme Court’s decision in Mazer v. Stein, that copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work will not be affected if the work is employed as the design of a useful article, and will afford protection to the copyright owner against the unauthorized reproduction of his work in useful as well as nonuseful articles. The broad language used in various sections of the Copyright Act raises questions as to the extent of copyright protection for a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work that portrays, depicts, or represents an image of a useful article in such a way that the utilitarian nature of the article can be seen. This confusion gave rise to the question as to whether copyright in a drawing or model of an automobile gives the artist the exclusive right to make automobiles of the same design. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights after considering this point stated that copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, portraying a useful article as such, does not extend to the manufacture of the useful article itself. The Report therefore recommended that the distinctions drawn in this area by existing court decisions should not be altered by the statute. The Register’s Supplementary Report also stated about the need of finding statutory formulation that would express the distinction satisfactorily. Section 113 (b) reflects the Register’s conclusion that “the real need is to make clear that there is no intention to change the present law with respect to the scope of protection in a work portraying a useful article as such.” Section 113 © provides that it would not be an infringement of copyright, where a copyright work has been lawfully published as the design of useful articles, to make, distribute or display pictures of the articles in advertising, in feature stories about the articles, or in the news reports. Pictorial, graphic and sculptural work encompasses everything from sculptures and paintings to less conventional items like mannequins and decorative belt buckles. As with other works of art, the required level of creativity is minimal, so this also includes everything from realistic photographs to drawings and renditions of a product. However, unlike other works of art that are entitled to copyright protection, there is an important limitation to this category. In case of pictorial, graphic and sculptural work, the Copyright Act notes that the utilitarian aspects of such works cannot be protected – thus, the design of a useful object cannot generally be protected. So even if there is artistic creativity in a work, the work is protected by copyright only if the design incorporates some pictorial, graphic or sculptural work and if that work is separable and capable of independently existing from the useful object. Emphasis added. By making a 3D model of a utilitarian item whose design can be traced back to its original creator, you confirm that the original item incorporates pictorial, graphic or sculptural work that is separable and capable of independently existing. It is exactly that design which makes your model recognizable. For example, if you model a car, and people recognize the result as a Ferrari, then you have proven beyond doubt that there is copyrighted separable design in a Ferrari, and your model is a derivative work. The same rule also applies to architecture, including the type which is not protected by §102(a)(8): If you model an object that looks like a Frank Lloyd Wright building, then you have copied Frank Lloyd Wright's copyrighted design.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: You are reading the article completely backwards. It's the utilitarian aspects of the actual building that can't be protected by copyright. How you as an artist decide to reproduce it is completely besides the point. To be even more specific. If in the actual building something is utilitarian, you can't claim any copyrights. Walls are utilitarian, windows are utilitarian, a roof is utilitarian. If the architect decided to make something special by using a supercomplicated and original rooftile, which could be used as a sculptural piece of decoration, the roof is still not protected by copyright, the rooftile however is. Sure, I'm reading the article backwards. The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation is reading it backwards. Actually the entire world is reading it backwards, except for you and Chosen. From Wikipedia: Architectural designs registered as pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works under § 102(a)(5) are evaluated for functionality under the separability test.[33] Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, pictorial, graphic, and sculpture works are protected "insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article . . . shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and to the extent that, such design incorporates . . . features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."[34] Thus, for example, a building constructed from the plan registered under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5) is not protectable because the functional elements of a building cannot exist separately and independently from the aesthetic elements of the building.[35] On the other hand, architectural blueprints and plans have been held to be protectable because the plans themselves are not the useful articles, but are rather the expression of the useful articles.[36] Emphasis added. Sorry, Kwakkelde, but you and your stealing friend have argued yourselves into a corner from which there is no escape. The wording of the statute, and all the existing commentary, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, leave no room for doubt. The utilitarian aspects of a building exist nowhere except in the constructed building itself; not in its blueprints or any other kind of pictorial, graphic or sculptural representation. A 3D model of a building is not a building but an expression thereof, and the expression is protected by copyright law. If the design is not yours, you have no right to use it. Following your warped logic, one can never reproduce a building if the result is not an actual building. Why was the copyright law on architecture introduced? To make sure the building stays unique and to protect all the work the architect has put into realising the building or to make sure some 3d builder or other artist can't make something resembling it? There is nothing warped about it. You can never reproduce a building in any other form than its actual construction (§102a8 notwithstanding) because all other forms are protected by §102(a)(5). The exception of §120a applies only to buildings constructed after 1990 and covers only pictorial representation. The protection for architectural works (§102a8) was introduced in order to protect the actual construction of the building (not covered by §102a5) and in order to create the aforementioned exception for pictorial representation.

We obviously don't have the text of the original cease-and-desist letter sent by the Foundation, but we do have this statement: http://iggyo.blogspot.com/2010/12/reply-from-frank-lloyd-wright.html The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation (the Foundation) has received numerous inquiries regarding its decision to terminate the license relationship with Virtual Museums, Inc., the builder of the Frank Lloyd Wright Virtual Museum in Second Life. Misinformation directed towards the Foundation regarding the situation appears in press releases, blogs, and throughout the Second Life community and is perpetuating an incorrect and misleading perception of the Foundation’s position with respect to an educational presence in Second Life. The Foundation and the owners of various Frank Lloyd Wright building sites own copyrights that give the Foundation and others the exclusive rights to copy and display Wright’s buildings and designs. The Foundation entered into a licensing agreement with Virtual Museums, Inc. (VMI) for installation of a virtual museum in Second Life that allowed VMI to reproduce the architectural designs of the homes and buildings created by Frank Lloyd Wright and protected by copyright and trademark law. It was the Foundation’s hope and intention that a virtual museum would be a positive and educational undertaking to allow architects, scholars, students, and a younger generation to be able to learn about the many aspects of Wright’s architecture. The Foundation terminated the license agreement with VMI for numerous reasons, including the fact that several of the buildings as constructed in Second Life and displayed by VMI did not accurately reflect the buildings as actually designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The Foundation further offered a new and revised license agreement to VMI’s new board and management but it was declined. The Foundation was disappointed that they could not obtain agreement with VMI as to the license agreement terms, but the Foundation and the real world Frank Lloyd Wright building site owners have a duty to protect the intellectual property and works of Wright. The Foundation will continue to look for creative ways to work with academics, authors, scholars, reputable organizations and online and virtual communities to educate the public about the work and teachings of Frank Lloyd Wright. Emphasis added. You say that the letter sent by the Foundation is "just a letter" that anyone could write. However, this particular one was a C&D written by a lawyer which the recipient could not easily ignore. As you can see above and on the Foundation's official website, the Foundation claims to own the copyrights to FLW's buildings and architectural designs. The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation has been around for a while and is well respected, so let's assume for a moment that its claims are not frivolous. FLW's physically constructed buildings cannot possibly be protected under §102(a)(8) because they were built before 1990, so the lawyers obviously refer to the building designs, i.e. the blueprints, which they consider protected under §102(a)(5). The final straw you are grasping now is the distinction between design and utility. Let's see what the law says about that distinction: 17 USC § 101 - DEFINITIONS “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. Now there's the rub (and I already pointed this out earlier): Since a virtual building is pure decoration and serves no utility, all of its elements exist independently of utilitarian aspects. And there goes your last straw. You cannot dodge §102(a)(5) through the utilitarian doctrine if the copy is anything but an actual physical building (and that last loophole was removed when AWCPA was passed). Once again there is no case law involved; the statute itself says so. The truth of the matter is that you, dear Chosen, infringed copyrights when you produced 3D models of copyrighted real-world buildings for commercial purposes without permission. The only reason why you got away with it is because no one was there to report you. By your own standards, you are not just an advocate of theft; you are a thief.

The flesh wound quote is from a Monty Python movie. If you have seen it, you know what kind of behavioral pattern it refers to. You have to understand that my desire to keep things civil and polite was somewhat reduced after you guys accused me of lying, advocating theft, or being dyslexic. After consuming ten pages of Chosen's patronizing prose, I feel entitled to some remedy. What goes around comes around. If you disagree that Chosen's legal theories have been utterly debunked, feel free to point out how the FLW museum does not conflict with pretty much everything she said. Was the museum allowed to continue using FLW's works after the license was revoked? How does the Foundation's C&D letter align with Chosen's claim that architecture is "utilitarian and not copyrightable"? If the C&D letter was based on trademark rather than copyright law, what difference does it make to the result that the museum is shut down and the exhibits are gone? Should we, in light of these events, report any reproduction of real-world buildings that we find on the grid, on the marketplace, on Turbosquid, Renderosity and the Google 3D warehouse? Are we advocates of theft if we don't?

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Nothing, absolutely nothing in the termination of the museum in any way proves Chosen wrong Masami. "It's just a flesh wound!"

It's a shame that Chosen Few and her family of lawyers were not around to filibuster the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation into submission. I was sad to see the museum go.

§102(a)(8) declares a rule, and §120(a) declares an exception to it. If you interpret "pictorial" as "pictorial, graphic and sculptural", then §120(a) will essentially override §102(a)(8) because it will encompass all possible representations of the copyrighted work as defined in §101: “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. This is clearly much more than mentioned in §120(a) explicitly: "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work". So I'd say it's unlikely that the law actually means graphic and sculptural. What a court would say I don't know. I guess the easiest way to find out is to follow the suggestion given at the beginning of this thread and report all mesh reproductions of post-1990 architecture that we find on the marketplace.

Chosen Few wrote: Throwing in the towel? No, I'm declaring victory because I debunked all your claims.

Chosen Few wrote: Once again, if you can find a single point of law that prohibits the sculpting or digital modeling of an already built buidling, go ahead and post it, and I'll happily recant what I've said on the subject. Frankly, I am getting tired of wading through yet another one of your walls of text where you repeat the same nonsense over and over again. The law you are asking me to post here has already been posted multiple times. It explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted architectural works. It does not permit graphic or sculptural representations. Your conclusion that "pictorial" actually means "pictorial, graphic and sculptural" is backed up by nothing. The law means what it says, and if it meant all three, it would mention all three, just like it does at other places.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Surely whether or not something is or isn't fair use is a factual question, to be decided by a court by applying the relevant legal tests for the jurisdiction in question. You or I might have our opinions about whether something's "fair use" or not, but they're not particularly relevant. Exactly my point.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: 100% agreed, your interpretation of fair use is at best a bit blurred though, as Chosen tries to explain. The definition of fair use is blurred. However, Chosen is plain wrong when she says that every unauthorized use of copyrighted content in SL is infringing. Ironically, she is also plain wrong when she says that every unauthorized use of copyrighted architecture is not infringing. Here's one: I recall you saying there's no such thing as patent in Germany, that's not true. Let's rephrase "lying" then and call it "being mistaken". Still lying, just not on purpose. I said there is no design patent in Germany. Product designs get registered as Geschmacksmuster, which is an intellectual property right totally separate from patents. So if at any point in time the IP owner wants to sell the object in SL, having it already there is potentially harmful. The risk that the IP owner finds himself in competition with unlicensed versions of his works is exactly zero, because DMCA takedown notices can be filed at any point in time. When the IP owner is ready to enter the market, he can purge all unauthorized content or offer a way to license the content retroactively. That choice is entirely up to the owner. However, determining whether fair use provisions apply is up to the courts. It is pointless to speculate about it. What's important here is not how you or anyone else feels about copyrights, it's whether there's a violation. Whether or not we report unauthorized content is always a matter of how we feel about it personally. You may feel that what I consider fair use is actually infringing, and vice versa. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if you accuse me of advocating theft, you better do your homework. If you don't like the copyrights, there are two things you can do. I don't have an issue with copyright, but I do have an issue with people who don't accept it in its entirety, i.e. including the limitations and exceptions. Fair use is part of copyright, and if you don't like it, all you can do is pray that SOPA, PIPA and ACTA pass ASAP and fix it for you.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Not that I need to point it out to anyone really I think, let alone Chosen himself, but if there's anyone making up things, misinterpreting things and is straightout lying, not to mention advocating and defending theft, it's you. Let it go. You're doing nobody a favour. Fair use is not theft. It does not require permission either. And no, I wasn't lying anywhere. Someone asked what we do when we see a ripped mesh, and I answered truthfully. If the mesh does not obviously harm the IP owner's market in any way, if its use is transformative, non-substantial and/or non-commercial, I will not report it. I will not call the police when I see fans roleplaying Star Trek or similar pop culture, because these things don't harm anyone, and I don't think they require authorization. If they do, then something is seriously wrong with copyright.

Almost missed this one between the walls of text... Chosen Few wrote: The ensuing argument began when one person suggested that if permission is not given, then people should just take the work anyway, to "fill the void". I'm sure you'd agree that that suggestion is wrong. Chosen, I'm kindly asking you not to misrepresent my statements, especially when addressing others. I think I don't need to tell you that this is poor style and tantamount to trolling. Please save yourself the embarrassment of walking down that path.

Chosen Few wrote: No, a file is a piece of data that describes a piece intllectual property. The IP itself is what is copyrighted. Whatever format might describe it is simply a copy. If I take a digital painting, and print it out, it's no longer a file. But it's still the same copyrighted artwork. The file and the printout are both copies of the artwork, in different forms. The file is just a sequence of ones and zeroes that tells a computer what the artwork looks like, and the printout is a collection of ink dots that does the same, for the human eye. Printing is an automatic process, a format conversion, which has nothing to do with creative expression. Remodeling on the other hand is a creative, artistic process. If it resembles the copyrighted work, and it was deliberately created as such, then it's a copy of the copyrighted work. An inaccurate copy is still a copy. Depending on the level of inaccuracy, it can qualify as a derivative work. And derivative works can constitute fair use. The legal test is not about accuracy or exacting precision. It's about whether or not a reasonable person would recognize the similarity. Irrelevant. Mona Lisa with a moustache, Marilyn Monroe's face with bright colors. Everyone recognizes the similarities, everyone agrees that the works are derivative rather than mere copies. If it's been heavily modified, then yes, it might be a deriviative work. But that changes nothing. The original author still owns the intellectual property. Only those parts of the work that are wholly original can be copyrighted separately. The creator of the deriviative may not distribute the original elements without the original author's permission. Derivative works can constitute fair use. That doesn't mean that the original author loses the rights to his work. In fact fair use requires someone else's copyrighted work. As for the second paragraph, which deals with fair use, do I really have to repeat everyhting I already said about that subject? You may distribute a derivative work if, and only if, your usage is fair. And again, that mostly comes down to free speech issues. It always comes down to free speech issues because copyright is, by its very nature, a restriction of speech. Any information you disseminate, regardless of originality, is speech. The fair use doctrine is nothing more than an admission that some forms of reproductive speech are either too insignificant or too important to be resctricted by copyright. Too insignificant so that they don't interfere with the original author's interests, or too important so that the author's interests take a backseat. None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Ripping a model from a video game (or copying it by hand), uploading to SL, and redistributing it, is not fair use, period. Probably not. But ripping a model from a videogame (or copying it by hand), uploading it to SL, and then using it to create some machinima that transforms the original work into something else by giving it a new meaning, expressing criticism, or just plain poking fun at it, is fair use, period. But actually that is besides the point. Because our discussion is not really about whether fair use of ripped models is possible or not. It is about vigilantism and my refusal to participate in it. No, the service itself is not illegal. But your individual actions as a user MIGHT be. It depends on what license you have to the music. If you bought it on iTunes, then per Apple's agreement with the record companies, and your agreement with Apple, it's perfectly fine to put it on iCloud. If you bought it elsewhere, it's likely a very different story. Shall we explore the relevant passages from the iCloud terms of service? This part, in full compliance with the DMCA, states that you are responsible for what you upload, not Apple: You understand that all Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted on the Service is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated. This means that you, and not Apple, are solely responsible for any Content you upload, download, post, email, transmit, store or otherwise make available through your use of the Service. This part, in compliance not only with the DMCA, but also with copyright law as a whole, says you agree not to upload anything you don't have the right to upload. If uploading equals distribution (which is what you said earlier), then there is no way to use the service legally (except for one's own original recordings), because commercial music never comes with distribution rights. Again, unless you bought the music on iTunes, it's very unlikely you have license to upload it. If uploading equals distribution, then even music from iTunes cannot be uploaded. Maybe you were just wrong about the upload=distribute part. It was, and still is, an ongoing patent dispute. There are patent disputes between Apple and Samsung, but the case about rounded corners isn't one. But then of course, the whole reason why we are still talking about it at all is because you just can't concede that rounded corners on a tablet computer are now considered intellectual property, turning Samsung's tablet into a rip-off product in spite of totally different hardware and even a different form factor. Once the building has been built in public view, its copyright protections as an architecural work are no longer fully applicable. It's right there in black and white. If you keep refusing to even try to understand, there's nothing further I can do for you on this subject. A 3D model is not a pictorial reproduction. And the architect's copyright to the model is fully applicable. A wikipedia artical is not incomplete at all? 26 paragraphs, summarizing a subject that scores of full legal volumes are written about, is not incomplete at all? Your quote was incomplete. You left out the parts that proved you wrong, and you added things that are not written down anywhere, because you made them up on the fly. Right, and those tech dirt articles you linked epitomize responsible journalism. Logical fallacy 101: Discredit the source. Riddle me this. If anything I've said with regard to the modeling of existing buildings is incorrect, then how do you explain the legality of Google Earth? Fair use. Google's use of the buildings is transformative and does not harm the markets of the originals. Just like Google's use of thumbnail pictures in their image search service. Wow, that was easy. Or how about this one, oh great and wise interpreter. I've been hired many times over the years, by many different companies, to replicate various city blocks and such, for use in games, virtual worlds, television shows, even the real estate business. You really want to tell me I've been breaking the law every time I've done that? Yes, according to your own interpretation of copyright. According to my interpretation, it could be fair use, but we will never find out because the IP owners didn't care. My attorney doesn't seem to have any problem with it when he reviews my contracts. EA's lawyers didn't see the helicopter issue coming either. Nor did Samsung's lawyers expect rounded corners to become a problem. Intellectual property is a minefield. Once again, a building exists in public view in the real world, then all publicly viewable aspects of it are reproducible, in any medium. Show me a law that prohibits this, and then we'll have something to talk about. 17 USC §102(a)(8). First, your narrow focus solely on pictorials is unwarranted. As I said, the article is incomplete in that it excludes representations that are sculptural, rather than strictly pictorial. Sculpture, whether physical or digital is in no way disallowed. It depends on whether fair use provisions apply or not. Pictorial reproduction of buildings in public spaces is generally considered fair use, but you cannot conclude that 3D models automatically qualify as well. These issues need to be determined by courts on a case-by-case basis, and as long as that hasn't happened, we are in unchartered territory. Heck, the winner of the Halloween contest I attended last year came dressed as the building in which the contest took place. He had carefully and immaculately created a wearable sculpture, in exquisite detail. It's a beautiful old building, and a very tall one, so there were hundreds of little windows, gables, and all manner of other features to sculpt and paint. He did an outstanding job, and well deserved the $5000 he won for taking first prize in the contest. You really want to try to claim what he did was illegal in any way? It absolutely was not. So what? The other guy who came in a Darth Vader costume wasn't arrested either. That doesn't mean you can model a Darth Vader avatar and sell it in SL. These are totally separate things. Second, your understanding of what a rendering is seems to be a little screwy. Just to display a model on screen, it has to be rendered. Whether you're looking at it in SL, or in a modeling program, or what have you, you're looking at a rendering of it. The digital model itself is just that, digits. You really think a static screenshot of any one frame is more legal than a series of frames displayed in sequence? No. I'm saying that the model itself is copyrighted, regardless of its rendered presentation. No, you're copying publicly viewable scenery. A 3D model is not publicly viewable scenery. A photo is. Just because you personally are unable or unwilling to wrap your brain around the concept that there is a legal difference between the design of a building, and the publicly viewable end result, does not mean the difference isn't actually there. I've been talking about that difference all the time. The one who can't wrap their head around it is you. Once again (and this is really getting painful by now), a building, once built, becomes part of the scenery. It's no longe legally considered just an architectural work, and copyright protections no longer fully apply. Wrong. Copyright protection fully applies, fair use notwithstanding. Fair use does not eliminate copyright. Correct. EA's original designs are copyrighted and/or trademarked works, which they own. Except for the helicopters which are not original. And that's where the ambiguity is. EA creating a derivative work of Bell's aircraft design for commercial purposes is fair use. Joe Sixpack creating a Darth Vader avatar for SL roleplay is theft.

Chosen Few wrote: Masami Kuramoto wrote: Did the infringer remodel the object or upload a verbatim copy? That's is absolutely irrelevant. A hand-made copy is just as much a copy as an automated reproduction. An inaccurate copy is just as much a copy an accurate one. A badly made copy is just as much a copy as a well made copy. A copy is a copy is a copy. No. A verbatim copy is essentially a copy of a file (e.g. from a game DVD). A remodeled copy is a copy of the design. Why does this matter? A file is the copyrighted work. A remodeled asset resembles the copyrighted work. Depending on accuracy of reproduction vs. amount of modification, the remodeled asset may represent a derivative work of significant originality. Since you dislike links to Wikipedia, I'll just exercise my fair use rights and insert this quote from the article about fan art: "The legal status of fan made art in America may be tricky due to the vagaries of the United States Copyright Act. Generally, the right to reproduce and display pieces of artwork is controlled by the original author or artist under 17 U.S.C. § 106. However, fan art using settings and characters from a previously created work could be considered a derivative work, which would place control of the copyright with the owner of that original work. Display and distribution of fan art that would be considered a derivative work would be unlawful. However, American copyright law allows for the production, display and distribution of derivative works if they fall under a fair use exemption, 17 U.S.C. § 107. A court would look at all relevant facts and circumstances to determine whether a particular use qualifies as fair use; a multi-pronged rubric for this decision involves evaluating the amount and substantiality of the original appropriated, the transformative nature of the derivative work, whether the derivative work was done for educational or noncommercial use, and the economic effect that the derivative work imposes on the copyright holder's ability to make and exploit their own derivative works. None of these factors is alone dispositive." If it's been uploaded to a third party service like SL, it cannot be considered just private personal use, even if it goes no further than your inventory. So if I upload a piece of music to Apple's iCloud, I distribute it? Wouldn't that render the entire service illegal? Sigh. Not only do you apparently not read your own linked articles, you also don't even read my explanations of why you should. That's not a trademark case. It's a patent case. Totally different thing, not comparable at all. It was not a patent case because there is no such thing as a design patent in Germany where the case was filed. Subject of the dispute was the German equivalent of a trade dress: Apple claimed that Samsung's tablet looked too much like an iPad, causing confusion in the marketplace. The court agreed. A textbook example of a trademark case. An architect's blueprint is absolutely a copyrighted item, and no one may copy it without the architect's permission. The blueprint is not the building, however. Did it occur to you that in the year 2012, a blueprint is a digital model? So when you reproduce the building as a digital model, what exactly are you copying? What you CAN do is make an artistic representation of the building, once it's been constructed in a public space. If you don't believe me on that, go ahead and read the very article you linked. Once again, shall I quote the relevant passages for you? I guess I'm gonna have to. Here's what it says about copyrighting a blueprint: Copyright protection can extend 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.. And here's what it says about the right to make an artistic representation, after the building has been constructed in a public space: when a building is ordinarily visible from a public place, its protection as an "architectural work" does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. Thus, the architect will not be able to prevent people from taking photographs or otherwise producing pictorial representations of the building. That last passage is a bit incomplete, in that It only references pictorial representations, rather than artistic representations in general. Sculptures and digital models are equally allowed. It's not incomplete at all. You just ignore the parts that fly in the face of your argment, and replace them with personal interpretation. There is nothing pictorial about a digital model until you render it. You are copying designs, floor plans etc., all of which are the architect's copyrighted work. So let's recap: You deny that fan art can be fair use, yet you insist that digital models of copyrighted buildings or furniture are not infringing. You say that EA's use of Bell designs is fair use, but anyone else's use of EA designs is not. If there was any doubt left about the ambiguity of intellectual property, you just successfully removed it.

Chosen Few wrote: Fact: utilitarian items like houses, clothing, and furniture are not recognized under the law as artistic works, and thus are not subject to copyright protections. If you were previously ignorant of that fact, that's fine. No one can be expected to know everything. But now that it's been pointed out, your stubborn refusal to accept it as truth only makes you look sillier and sillier with each volley. Copyright in architecture in the United States Courts Clarify Copyright and Trademark Rights in Furniture Cases Your increasingly condescending tone barely hides the fact that you seem to know very little about the topic at hand. By the way, housing and furniture in virtual worlds serve no utility. If you rebuild such a real-world object as a mesh, you do so for no purpose other than to copy its design. It's naive to believe that an architect's copyright to the original blueprint weighs less than your right to its faithful reproduction.

Chosen Few wrote: Fact: All original works are automatically protected, as soon as they are created. Correct. I never said or implied anything to the contrary. Fact: Anyone who violates that protection is breaking the law, and infringing upon the author's rights, by definition. Fact: No one is legally free to take anything that belongs to someone else. Until and unless the owner has explicitly said yes, the answer is always no. Wrong. See my previous reply to Pamela.

Pamela Galli wrote: Consumers don't have any right whatsoever to own a creator's work outside of what the creator or the law stipulates. That's right, and the law just happens to stipulate a lot of limitations and exceptions to copyright: the Betamax case, the Audio Home Recording Act, the first-sale doctrine, and fair use, just to name a few. All of these serve the purpose of balancing the interests of IP owners vs. the public interest. Whether or not a "ripped" mesh in Second Life constitutes fair use depends on several things: Did the infringer remodel the object or upload a verbatim copy? Does he distribute it or keep it for personal use? Does he make a significant profit from redistribution? Is the object substantial or just a small piece of a much larger work (e.g. a character from a movie)? All these questions will have to be answered in court. Fact is, there have been valid cases of fair use involving verbatim copies and even commercial use. So excuse me if I give people the benefit of the doubt rather than labeling them "thieves" just because they uploaded a mesh that looks familiar. A while ago in some group chat (I don't remember if it was "Mesh Dev" or "Blender Users"), there was someone complaining about the impending deluge of freebie meshes in Second Life. The person was in particular concerned about free models of real world cars and helicopters, because those would jeopardize his own car and helicopter business in SL. So I asked him why he felt entitled to make money with cars and helicopters that represent real world designs created by someone else. I remember there was some discussion about copyrightability of real world objects. Why am I bringing this up? Just recently, in a strange coincidence, videogame producer Electronic Arts was sued by Textron, the parent company of Bell Helicopter, for recreating their aircraft designs in the game "Battlefield 3". You can read more about it here. As previously shown by the example of Apple vs. Samsung, trademark law can now be applied to pretty much anything, including generic things such as rounded corners on a tablet computer. So no matter what we create for SL, there is always a risk of IP violation. Contrary to what Chosen Few believes, architecture, furniture and clothing have been subject to IP disputes. These things directly affect your and my business as well. All it takes is someone looking hard enough and reporting what they find. History shows that if there is money to be made from a lawsuit, someone will sue, even if the claims are ridiculous.

Chosen Few wrote: What I took issue with was not your level of involvement, but your suggestion that if the author of the work elects not to put the work in SL, then anyone and everyone else should automatically be free to do so. That's just all kinds of wrong. If the author chooses not to enforce his rights (by filing DMCA takedown notices), then anyone and everyone is free to put those works in SL. Not only is this not wrong, it's also perfectly legal. Again, you appear to be operating from a standpoint of entitlement, as if you feel you somehow deserve to have someone else's work, whether they want you to have it or not. If the work is released, then the public is entitled to have it, and the author is entitled to get compensated. If the public were not entitled to have it, then copyright would be pointless, because it would no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I can't believe you had the gall to use the word "ethical" to defend your standpoint. I'm not sure whether that's just laughable or if it's terribly sad. Either way, where's your sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of creators? I am defending the author's right to compensation. If an author makes content available on this platform, I will report illegal copies when I spot them. If an author refuses to make content available here, I refuse to support him. Where is your sense of ethics when it comes to the rights of consumers? In any case, if disagree with a law, any law, then the right thing to do is to petition your congressman, and try to get it changed. If that's not enough, then you always have the option to run for Congress yourself, and should you get elected, you can then draft any bill you want, and do your damnedest to get it signed into law. What you don't do is break the law, just because you don't think it suits you. You abide by the law, even if you disagree with it, until such time as you can succeed in implementing its change. That's what it means to livie in a civilized society. I'll just put this here for your consideration: Wikileaks Leak Shows US Entertainment Industry Wrote Spain's New Copyright Law Unfortunately, since I am not a U.S. citizen, petitioning a U.S. congressman is not an option for me. However, by refusing to become an instrument, I am not breaking any law. The term you are looking for is "civil disobedience". First of all, things like houses, furniture, and clothes are not copyrightable They are. You obviously do not know the full extent of the laws you pretend to defend here. Again, some recent piece of information for your consideration: Apple claims rectangles, round corners and flat black screens are theirs

Chosen Few wrote: You have no way of knowing what the owner is or isn't interested in, Masami. For all you know, they might be planning to release SL content at a future date, but haven't gotten there yet. They might well have an important time-release strategy across a multitude of platforms, and the unauthorized copies could interefere with the plan. The fact that I have no way of knowing is precisely the reason why I won't get involved. As Daniel pointed out, the IP owner may simply not care. It's none of my business to figure this out. But whether any such plans exist or not is entirely beside the point. Only the owner has the right to determine whether, where, and how, copies of his or her work are to exist. No one else gets to step up and say, "You didn't put your stuff over here, so I'm just gonna go ahead and put it there myself." If the owner chooses not to put copies in SL, that's it, end of story. That particular content just doesn't get to exist in SL. I am familiar with that aspect of copyright, and it is one that I find highly unethical. I agree that the IP owner deserves to be compensated, but I reject the abuse of copyright as a censorship tool or as a means to control popular culture. If you look around in SL, what do you see? You see a virtual replication of the real world, with some modifications. You see houses, furniture and clothes copied from the real world. And of course you see pop culture copied from the real world: a virtual environment inspired by Neal Stephenson, with vampires inspired by Ann Rice, Goreans inspired by John Norman, cyberpunk inspired by Ridley Scott, William Gibson or Masamune Shiro, science fiction inspired by Gene Roddenberry or George Lucas. And of course you see live events where musicians perform someone else's works. All these things exist on the grid without proper licensing. How many of them have you reported? I don't want to live in a world where all culture is locked in and indefinitely controlled by corporations. Those laws are not democratic, and I'm not going to become instrumental in their enforcement by joining some kind of neighborhood watch. This notion of yourse, of "filling the void", is pretty frightening. You make it sound as if you believe the public is somehow entitled to have the works, whether the owner chooses to provide them or not. That is a downright digusting attitude. If the onwer has no interest in SL, then the owner's IP doesn't get to exist in SL, period. It's that simple. The public is entitled to have the works anyway, because all works enter the public domain at some point. What copyright adds to the mix is the IP owner's entitlement to attribution and compensation for a limited period of time. That's not frightening; it's the original deal as written down in the U.S. constitution. The whole idea was to encourage authors to release their works instead of locking them away. Why else would the public grant such a right in the first place?

Maeve Balfour wrote: So my question is... For us as responsible mesh creators, who can often easily spot blatant (or suspected) mesh rip-offs on the Marketplace... what is our best course of action? Just ignore it? It depends. If there is a legal way to obtain that mesh/character in SL (e.g. from the original creator or a merchant with a distribution license), I will report the incident to them. Otherwise I will ignore it, because the IP owner obviously has no interest in the platform, and the infringer is merely filling the void.

That method works only with fullbright faces. Flat shading requires all the vertex normals to be orthogonal to the faces between them. If three of the vertices are shared between two surfaces facing opposite directions, their normals will be shared as well, and that will totally mess up the shading at those connected corners. You can "fix" the problem by forcing flat shading in Blender, but then you will end up with 8 physical vertices anyway because Blender will split the surface.

Daniel's method works, but in Blender the Solidify modifier is preferable because it is non-destructive. To avoid adding extra polygons around the edges, uncheck the "Fill Rim" option.