I think the majority of SL residents agree that stealing from content creators within SL is wrong, ripping skins from well known creators, changing minor details and then selling them for profit is unacceptable. There is nothing I can do about this apart from letting the creator know and not buying from the ripper. As with all IP infringement issues it’s up to the IP owner to file.
Then there is the more sticky issue of RL to SL IP theft, where people take image or products from RL and import them into SecondLife, again for profit. The current glut of Avatar related products is a prime example of this. In RL if a business wants to use the images from Avatar they would have to gain licensing from the Copyright holder, such as Fast food chains running avatar promotions and kids meals with a small toy, in SL that should be the same thing.
Arabella said it perfectly here
Why is it acceptable for people to produce products they have no rights to and sell them in SL? why should it be any different than RL?
I have heard many excuses to justify these products ‘I’ve seen Wizard of OZ stuff!’ or ‘What about those Spiderman Avies?’ as if that makes it ok, it’s not, and saying ‘everyone else is stealing, why can’t I? is not a valid reason. Again it’s not up to any of us to file a DCMA against those people, all we can do is file an AR and not buy. Just because others are doing it, doesn’t mean its ok, you risk the wrath of the not-so-efficient LL cleanup and it could go missing from your inventory at a later date.
Another excuse is the ‘but what about Elves? Leprechauns? Fairies? well all of these are ancient folk story creatures, that belong to all of us and there is nothing wrong with creating ‘faery’ skin because it’s your interprative vision of what that represents, you just can’t make Tinkerbell. Inspiration is one thing, straight copies are something completely different. What irks me the most about this kind of thing is the laziness and the lack of imagination, you can make pretty much anything in SecondLife, why use someone else’s ideas of a fantasy creature?
There has been rumours that the film itself is rip of a 1950′s short story called ‘Call me Joe’ but that’s up to the copyright holders and James Cameron to sort out between themselves. Just like he did for an undisclosed sum for the Terminator story 
“I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. …[If] the secondary use adds value to the original–if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings–this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.
Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses.” —- Judge Pierre N. Leval in the Harvard Law Review, Toward a Fair Use Standard
From your block quote:
“The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original.”
“Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses.”
I can’t help but notice your quote isn’t mentioning recreation for profit. Come on, Lizzie. Your argument is fail.
Agreed, when profit is involved all fair use arguments go out the window
The words of Judge Leval were frequently cited in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. which was about commercial use of a derivative work.
And what was the context of this case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.
PARODY, Lizzie. Like Weird Al Yankovich. He’s parody.
My point of of quoting Judge Leval is to simply express another view or idea when it comes to derivative art and for readers, if they are interested to look into the topic themselves to decide.
http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php < -- a very good read for fair use education.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html <– a second great read.
Anyway, it’s not my place to decide what is what. It’s the owner of the trademark/copyright to make that decision, just including some very good reads. (for the edumacation)
awww lawdy at the formatting. Sorry!
Quoted from your link:
“3. How Do You Know If It’s Fair Use?
There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what’s fair use and there are no “automatic” classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes — Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.”
Fair use is decided by a judge
“Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.—
Here. Have a few more straws.
LOL what? I am just expressing an opinion.
Its case law which is subject to interpretation by the courts. I am not attempting to discount your opinion here. I am just giving food for thought and research. Honestly though if you guys feel strongly about this issue contact Mr. Cameron’s lawyers – let them be the ones to decide if they want to purse legal action. Its a great topic for debate though in my eyes.
Yawns, sooo over it, don’t you people have any interesting topics to post. It’s all you go on about, rippers this, copybot that, IP theft….bla bla bla, give it a rest already
I’m not really into the whole “Avatar” thing, I haven’t even seen the movie yet. But I have a lot to say on this topic.
I’ve been a cosplayer irl and have participated in anime and gaming fandom for year now. Walk into the artist’s area at just about any convention and you’ll find artists selling fanart. You’ll find cosplays and props for sale. The anime and game industries know this happens. They don’t care.
The only time there’s ever been an issue, to my knowledge, is when a fan-made item is in competition with an official product.
Now, I don’t know if the company behind Avatar is going to adopt an attitude towards fanworks similar to the one anime and game companies have (and I hear Lucasfilm has a similar outlook on fanworks), but a mass-condemning of fanworks from people who do not understand fandom is…. frustrating, to say the least.
*years
I can type -.-
I’ve been looking for official statements from franchises like the Star Trek franchise and LucasArts regarding ‘fandom’ for a while now. I think you are right how they handle it, unofficially, or rather off the record. (at least from my personal observations).
Thanks for pointing this out. <3
You’ll know when you get nailed by LL and/or lawyers. If nailed you’re screwed when the content seller program opens.
So if serious then you won’t be ripping anyone off.
I have to toss in a comment too, like Alex, I was a cosplay/anime convention attendee/etc. One thing I’ve gained from all there is no definite science or laws for this.
Now you can toss out court cases trying to argue otherwise, but consider this – SL isn’t just US. I work for 2 japanese SL stores and have been well trained about limits and what is acceptable and what is not to a point over there. A lot of common things between the US and Japan with these things is that these topics/copyright/etc. can really vary through the companies themselves.
Some companies are very dead set to keeping all their items kept out public hands that means youtube.com videos, fanart, doujinshi, etc. But as Alex mentioned usually it is dipping into something they already do and causing conflict. But then there are companies like LucasArts who has been known to say that ‘It is alright to make fanworks but do not do so at a profit.’ Ina Centaur is the BEST example I can think of who was clearly in the rights for LucasArts agreement yet SL decided to take action and remove her free fanwork/content that she made. Now where is the line drawn? Is SL right? Is LucasArts right? It’s hard to really say without going into an opinion and such.
Now on the other hand, say a company actually contacts a creator in world (yes, as shocking as this may sound it DOES happen). What is that creator supposed to do? Are they supposed to provide information to the consumer stating they were comissioned to this and are protected? Better yet – how many people would believe them anyway?
This whole argument is not as simple as click YES or NO. I really encourage people to keep and open mind, investigate for yourself, and not let rumors and random issues cloud your judgement until you can see what is the truth.
If a content creator chooses to use intellectual property for which he or she has not secured licensing, then the creator takes a risk—at least, to be criticized, at worst, to be charged with infringement in a court of law.
Just because something *may* be legal does not mean it is also ethical. Yes, ethics may not be black/white in all things but if you choose to use others’ IP, don’t complain like a bitch if someone else thinks less of you for that. I personally wouldn’t want to risk my reputation and future business just to cash in on a current fad.
Really darkley..who gives a flying fuck. People come into SL to use imaginations, fly around and be whatever they want..Are you serisously thinking anyone but you and this retarded blog care about someone running around as an avatar or as superman or barack obama??? i saw someone in an “avatar” avatar and thought..whoa thats pretty cool, good job.
Do you run around at halloween screaming “COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!!”
Quoting a very famous Second Life builder and designer – “I can do whatever I want in Second Life and so can you”..thats it.
You and SCD trying to (or thinking you are making an actual difference to anyone) turn SL into a fucking nanny state is a bigger problem than someone in a virtual costume. Trust me, more people complain about you than they do a blue cat person AV. How about worrying about your own shit for a change. No one cares.
This would be so funny that you actually say down for 2 hours to write this blog, actually trying to put together deep thoughts about such a luicrious topic, if you werent so sad.
Complaining about me? links pls kthxbye
“ripping skins from well known creators, changing minor details and then selling them for profit is unacceptable”
Why “well known creators” ? Don’t Jane Jiggs and Bob Blue count because they don’t have Fuehreh Dielle’s snout up their backside?
Noone ever accused SCD of being either an intelligent nor unbiased read.
I was alluding to a blog post from earlier in the week, where an ‘avatar’ skin was blogged but was a Laq rip.
Who is Fuhrer Dielle anyway?
I await the day when accounts are being hijacked again and everything named “Avatar” is deleted.
which is hilarious because weren’t WE called avatars before “avatar” came out?
What exactly is the intellectual property you guys are talking about here? Blue colour?, the ancient Sanskrit word avatar?, pointy ears maybe?
The entire look, I used to have a blue skin myself in SL I didnt look like the Na’vi, there are key elements that make up the na’vi which are instantly recognisable.
I think James Cameron would enjoy all the free movie promotion he is getting inside Second Life.
Some people don’t mind “fan fic” of their work while others do. Some of the artists feel this is a spit in their face. To make a profit off someone Else’s ideas is kinda like kidnapping their baby to make it yours. Authors like Anne Rice have publicly asked no one to use their characters, while i know we have all seen Lestat running around the grid.
This is quoted off her web site
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM ANNE ON “FAN FICTION”
Anne has posted the following message regarding fan fiction: “I do not allow fan fiction. The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters. It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes.”
It doesn’t matter that a movie has been made of most her books. She allowed someone to PAY her to use her works. She was also allowed full production rights. (same as Stephen king) to make sure they represented her work in a true light. I’m sure she was there every step of the way in making the movies or they wouldn’t of been allowed to make it.
In James Cameron’s position, he spent 15 years of his life to make sure this movie turned out the way he saw it. Not 2 hours in paint shop. Is it ok to be blue and have pointy ears? Sure we all did before the movie. But to call yourself anyone out of this movie while wearing said skins and ears is wrong. Why? Because now that skin and ears with that name is a copyrighted Character. One in which Matel and Hasbro will have to buy and make toys and cups and plates and all the other BS that goes with a blockbuster movie. So why do they have to pay for the right and some Yahoo in SL doesn’t?
Some may see this as flattery to the movie, book, character. But really all it is rape of someone elses ideas and creativity.
And someone up there mentioned Halloween. Sheesh. When i go to Party City and buy Costume, Im buying part of that License in which they had to pay for to make the costume. Some people do know the rules and they follow them. It all says this on the tag of the suit you buy.
Harley Davidson made it very clear on what you could use there name on. NOTHING! They spent millions in court battles clearing up all the people using the Harley Davidson Name on everything. You think they would like to know about the 20 thousands of shovelheads and panheads vrooming across the grid?
So yes, some people care. We choose not to turn a blind eye to something just because the cool kids are doing it.
Authors like Anne Rice have publicly asked no one to use their characters, while i know we have all seen Lestat running around the grid.
This is quoted off her web site
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM ANNE ON “FAN FICTIONâ€
Anne has posted the following message regarding fan fiction: “I do not allow fan fiction. The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters. It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes.â€
Yeah, good luck with that in your latest series of novels, Anne. I think you’ll find an older ‘novelist’ might have first dibs on this ‘Jesus Christ’ character!!
Re: Anne Rice on fan fiction
Ever counted Harry Potter books in China? Some above seven. Additional characters. So you wanna engage the country in a nuclear war? … or trade war *cough* … for that matter. Actually you owe them money.
Intellectual Property beeing, matter of fact, last response of a dying continent. Nonsense talking about virtual reality, the real reality allready caught us.
Oh, if you still haven’t seen “Avatar”, it’s *cute* and really catching – exspect beeing two hours on vacation of your real world.
“Why is it acceptable for people to produce products they have no rights to and sell them in SL? why should it be any different than RL?”
—–
Sometimes the people who make these things aren’t thinking, “hey I want to rip this guy off on purpose.”
They are thinking ” I like this, alot IRL I want it for myself. I may even share it but dont want to devalue my work and haven’t considered that even though I’ve put a full day or two of work into this, it is not mine.”
That’s just my answer. It’s not so black and white you know. It’s not right, but I don’t imagine they’re sitting there intentionally trying to piss people off.
of course they are not thinking ‘i want to rip someone off’ they are creating, marketing and selling these items – they are not thinking about IP they are thinking about $L and cashing in
http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2010/01/avatar-not-an-avatar-avatar.html
So much for LL’s position on this theme. In short “Let’s delete everything called Marilyn but advertise with Avatar”
its all a matter of ethics, formation of personal character. You just have it or not!
Oh the fan art angle on all this makes me laugh too. There is no “law” around fan art. As a copyright holder I can choose to not go after for profit fan art that I approve of, or go after not for profit fan art I don’t approve of. If it’s my copyright its my choice.