“Bulletproof Babyphat 2″ on sale at SLExchange
I’ve noticed a lot of confusion about this particular subject – consistently. I am going to present my opinion about the subject and “where the line is” in hopes that it might help all of you evolve your own ideas about copying and inspiration from another designer, whether it be in real life or in a virtual world.
Maximilian Milos had an experience last year with Herman Miller. Maximilian really enjoyed the HM designs, and wished to bring them in world. He did what few other designers do – he contacted them for permission. HM granted Max permission to replicate their designs.
However, later on HM began looking into Second Life and around the time that Armani was moving in, HM contracted Rivers Run Red to replicate their products for Second Life. Max was a little concerned, so he contacted HM again and was assured that he was fine, and not to worry.
Max did stop selling his HM recreations after finding out that Rivers Run Red would be doing direct work with the company. He exercised caution – something not many people might have time to do.
Two weeks later, Max logged in to discover that all of his HM creations were missing from his sim – the Lindens had deleted them. Whether this was action from Herman Miller or Rivers Run Red, Maximilian isn’t positive. He never received a cease and desist letter – his items were simply gone. Maximilian wasn’t even trying to masquerade the items as his own designs; he takes care to always clearly credit the original designer. HM wanted it gone, and thus it was so – the Lindens made sure of it. (You can read Maximilian’s reaction at SLNN )
Now imagine this scenario with less communication. So many designers in Second Life both fail to ask permission of the original designer and also don’t bother to give credit by leaving a notecard with the item.
Fashion in Second Life carries data strands along with it – that’s called a UUID. It identifies the particular texture or prim object within the system. Suppose the original company happened to come into Second Life, discovered the replications and demanded that Linden Lab remove them. Linden Lab could, potentially and if pushed hard enough, call up the UUID and delete every single item out there.
After all, we did and do agree to the Linden Lab Terms of Service every time we log in, stating that anything we upload to their servers is, effectively, theirs if they so choose.
Now, let’s take a look at the real world for more information. I’m sure some of you from the United States are familiar with the chain “Forever 21″, which displays their knockoff clothing without order, without care, under blaring fluorescent lights and deafening techno music. “Forever 21″ isn’t exactly an innocent shop chain — they’ve experienced lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit – and mostly from designers.
Diane von Furstenberg filed a copyright infringement lawsuit with Forever 21 over the copy of two dresses – the “Aubrey” and “Cerisier”. Neither are perfect duplicates of DVF’s, but they’re “close enough” to get a lawsuit go-ahead. The lawsuit is based on the fabric designs. The lawsuit goes on to say that Forever 21′s dresses are near to exact scale of the DVF’s and the color is also dead-on. The infringement, they say, was willful.
Diane Von Furstenberg “Cerisier” dress on the left, with Forever 21′s copy on the right.
The DVF lawsuit also contains more allegations of copyright infringement, federal and state unfair competition, false designation of origin and unlawful deceptive acts. DVF asked that Forever 21 recall and remove all of these dresses, including advertisements that depicted the items. DVF also asked for “unspecified” financial damages. (Hm, maybe compensation for all revenue generated?) DVF’s motivation was and is simply to protect her brand’s intellectual property.
The DVF vs. Forever 21 suit occurred in March of 2007. She is, effectively, the person that “got the legal ball rolling” – she paved the way for other designers to file lawsuits and gave people like Gwen Stefani the ability to also file a lawsuit with the Forever 21 chain over design infringement (Read: Direct copying) and Stuart Weitzman used DVF’s springboard to take on JCPenny.
You can follow the Harajuku Lovers LLC v. Forever 21 Inc. lawsuit here. Jury trial for the case is scheduled for October 28th, 2008.
Legally, the only thing that a designer can copyright at the moment is something absolutely distinctive – a logo (Babyphat, anyone? Louis Vuitton?) or a particular pattern (Burberry), occasionally going as far as embroidery. However, while one might not obtain a copyright, one might gain a patent for a particular item – and patents tend to hold up in court.
“Louis Vuitton” Rosher Bag, on sale at SLExchange.
“In an age of ‘knock-offs,’” says Sheppard Mullin of FashionApparelLawBlog.com, “patent protection is an avenue that can be used by the fashion and apparel industry to protect products.” There are two sorts of patents that fashion as a community can use – “utility patents” which protect the way an invention is used and works, and “design patents”, which protect the ornamental appearance of a useful article.
Infringement on patent is determined by an impartial observer. Infringement exists if the impartial observer can not tell the difference between the two – or thinks that they are similar enough that the products are both by the same company. Immediate recognition is the problem – not variations. Someone could say, “Oh, I like that hem!” and add, say, a princess-cut sleeve and military style cuff to top off a shirt and it would be, effectively, changed enough to avoid a lawsuit or simple infringement.
One news article I read today claimed that “piracy” of all things was the motivation behind the fashion industry. Not so. The fashion industry is propelled by innovation and development, not outright piracy of designs. Mullin, of the aforementioned blog, urges new designers to consider filing for patent protection to curb rampant imitation.
Diane von Furstenburg recently told the LA Times that design piracy is “counterfeiting without the label”.
And of course, underground counterfeits are rampant in real life but are not unknown. The Los Angeles Police Department recently conducted a raid (one of many) that confiscated over $8 million in counterfeit goods and arrested 26 people. The copied designs ranged from Prada to Rolex, Fendi to Gucci.
I digress.
Balenciaga’s Fall 2007 design on the left, Paper Couture’s following creation, as covered previously on Shopping Cart Disco.
One might argue that Second Life fashion, boiled down, is nothing more than an image of the original outfit, and therefore not infringing on anything nor stepping on anyone’s toes. This is not correct.
As near as I can tell, Photosourcing is the worst offender in all of these cases because it doesn’t allow for the variations – colors, logo mish-mashing, etc – that could save you from legal trouble. Hand-drawn items come into issue when they are recognizable, and the original creator is not attributed.
Alexander McQueen on the left, Cachet on the right, as covered previously at Shopping Cart Disco.
One might also argue that Second Life is the best place to have these things, since they are unobtainable in “First Life” for so many. But at what cost? What happens if the original designer discovers what you’re doing as a virtual designer, virtual artist – and worse, discovers that you made income off of it?
The best you can do if the original company comes after you (seeing as how Second Life is splattered all over the internet and Flickr, and god knows who you’re actually running into in Second Life – I hear Drew Carey logs in with his girlfriend) is play possum. Fork over everything, delete it all off of the SL servers and apologize profusely. I would imagine that refusing to do so could result in some severe actions from the original company and designer, spurred on by anger over theft.
Better yet, don’t create these distinctly copied items at all. It’s not that we don’t enjoy them. I’m sure we all enjoy a knockoff or two on some level. It’s just the fear of legalities and artistic integrity that smell funny in the end.
—Special thanks to Sheppart, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP for running such a fantastic setup of legal information.
Loading ...
Amazing post, Tenshi. You’ve reminded the readers that this goes beyond “right” and “okay” — buying these items means you run the risk of wasting that money if LL ever cracks down. Caveat emptor. That’s why it’s even MORE important that people be given the full skinny on what they’re buying. If they don’t even know it’s an SL “knockoff”, they’ll be even more upset if their SL closet ever gets raided.
And it’s just not right to do that to your customers.
Tenshi, can you start writing about other things? This one-trick pony show you continually do gets old.
Ditto to Naoki (reluctantly).
I like the knockoffs, I just wish the designers are more honest (when they aren’t honest in the first place) about where they got it. So that people don’t have this impression that the content creator dreamt the designs instead of actually getting it off a rl runway.
-Portia <3
Exactly, Portia. If the designer has the nerve to equip their devoted customers with the proper knowledge, then it’s up to both the designer and the customer to take the risk on their own. But if designers aren’t willing to tell their customers that they are buying a knockoff, then they deserve the anger they’re going to receive later if the designs are pulled by LL.
So it’s my opinion that any designer who refuses to be forthright with their customers about where a design comes from should simply be viewed as untrustworthy in general.
Do you really equate a low-resolution 2-D image of a garment with Piracy Tenshi, or have you just gone overboard?
Thanks for doing the research, Tenshi. It did lead me to dig around a bit on the matter myself, and I’ve some comments.
Two weeks later, Max logged in to discover that all of his HM creations were missing from his sim – the Lindens had deleted them. Whether this was action from Herman Miller or Rivers Run Red, Maximilian isn’t positive. He never received a cease and desist letter – his items were simply gone.
The very act of asking permission and receiving it may be what did him in. They could have forwarded the e-mails to LL to show that his designs were done solely with their permission, and therefore if they withdrew it… *poof*. Although as usual, this also seems to feature another example of LL’s unwillingness to explain things after the fact, if the report above can be believed (Max’s response doesn’t actually discuss the deletion or what efforts he made to learn more about the why and how of it.)
… and also don’t bother to give credit by leaving a notecard with the item.
Technically, doing so could bring greater risk of getting in trouble, since you’re then clearly connecting your work with a trademark, which the holder of the mark might take umbrage with.
The lawsuit is based on the fabric designs.
I think that’s the salient point. SL designers, don’t copy fabric patterns slavishly. These can be and often are copyrighted. In the DVF vs. Forever 21 case, it seems that the same factory (in China, of course) that produced the DVF design just reused it for Forever 21′s cheaper items.
… patent protection is an avenue that can be used by the fashion and apparel industry to protect products.
While technically true, the fact is that design patents really aren’t a feasible solution for designers for several reasons. See here:
“At first glance, patents seem a promising way to protect fashion designs… While in theory design patents seem suited to fashion designs, in reality they are not. To be eligible for a patent, a work must be a new invention and must advance beyond the prior art in a way that is non-obvious. Courts have generally not considered works of fashion to meet these criteria. Second, compared to the relevant life span of most fashion works, patents take a long time to obtain and, for small designers, are prohibitively expensive. The Patent and Trademark Office takes an average of eighteen months to review each design patent after application, and then rejects roughly half the applications. The relevant stylistic life span of most fashion designs is one season, approximately three to six months. Finally, even if designers secure patent approval in the Patent and Trademark Office, the courts often find design patents invalid; even if the design patent is deemed valid, patent infringement is found in only about half the cases brought to court. Because of all the obstacles that patent law faces when applied to fashion works, fashion designers do not normally seek patents for their designs.”
Or here:
“Second, design patents are difficult and expensive to obtain, and entail a lengthy examination process…
… it is our understanding that the process of applying for a design patent can take several years, which exceeds the life expectancy of the market for many designs.”
The copied designs ranged from Prada to Rolex, Fendi to Gucci.
Presumably all bearing distinctive trademarked elements, such as the Gucci ‘G’ and so on. SL designers should certainly avoid misappropriating these elements when creating their designs.
It’s just the fear of legalities and artistic integrity that smell funny in the end.
The reason fashion has almost no copyright protection to speak of, and limited other protections, is because courts have repeatedly accepted the fact that there is very little clear originality in the industry. Many new designs are found to draw from a mish-mash of previously created elements. The “artistic integrity” argument falls flat for me because of this.
I do agree that designers should always consider their own designs critically, considering it in terms of both quality and originality. Do a lot of “editting”, as they say on Project Runway. It’ll improve your work, and make you more esteemed by those SL fashionistas that believe fashion in SL shouldn’t be beholden to the real world.
Charron: If you read the whole article, I think you’ll find that Linden Labs certainly has, once — and that’s reason to open up your eyeballs.
Noaki: I think you need to have another think about anatomy. Open up your eyeballs? What?
Also, this article genuinely doesn’t offer much in the way of cohesive argument, irrelevant of my opinions of copying RL designs to the letter, piracy is a pretty strong word for what’s happening.
Also, consider on the topic of attribution: most RL companies would want this even less than someone “ripping off” their designs. They have strict brand management guidelines and don’t want to be associated with someone’s amateur pixel-apparel business.
Oh, and as Charron pointed out to me in private, “capital” is not profit. It’s the money you invest into the product to begin with.
Ran: “The very act of asking permission and receiving it may be what did him in. They could have forwarded the e-mails to LL to show that his designs were done solely with their permission, and therefore if they withdrew it… *poof*.”
Are you suggesting he should have done it under everyone’s nose?
“Technically, doing so could bring greater risk of getting in trouble, since you’re then clearly connecting your work with a trademark, which the holder of the mark might take umbrage with.”
All the designer has to do is simply look at the piece in SL to recognize it. At least having a notecard acknowledges that you yourself know where it’s from and you want to give THEM the credit. You *have* to roll over quietly when you’re taking someone else’s designs.
Again, I can’t help but think that you believe people should continue doing it under everyone’s noses.
“I think that’s the salient point. SL designers, don’t copy fabric patterns slavishly.”
Yes, they do. Burberry comes to mind. Direct photosourcing comes second to mind.
Whether or not the original designers have applied for a patent on anything is a moot point, only in reference to “you could be hit with a lawsuit if you make them angry enough”. Please see the Milos story for “without-patent” content disappearance.
The other problem is, the big SL designers in question who do this (RL>SL copying) get a lot of traffic, so they are *hardly* running under the nose here.
‘Kota: If you bring in SL income to your RL bank account, I think people should be considering that this is indeed relevant to creation.
Of course, this article was about direct copying – not inspiration, as so many do and are allowed to do.
Are you suggesting he should have done it under everyone’s nose?
Not at all. But there’s no reason to complain when they withdrew their permission for him to use their marks and patents. He did the right thing to ask to use that particular set of intellectual property.
Now, if what he had instead done is use their items as direct inspiration for similar furnishings without using HM’s marks, patents, and patterns, there’d be no legal reason for him to ask.
All the designer has to do is simply look at the piece in SL to recognize it.
Maybe, but there are truly legitimate “knock offs” out there, because protection for fashion and I guess furnishings is rather weak, legally speaking. They may not find this at all objectionable in SL, because many fashion designers are aware that their designs have very little protection as is. But the stuff that is protected …. like their trademarked brand … well, they’ll defend that tooth and nail, I suspect.
I prefer the subtle nod used by, for example, the “Miss Hathaway” dress from Icing. I think that’s a nice way to homage and point, without actually incurring the legal liability of misusing someone’s trademarks.
At least having a notecard acknowledges that you yourself know where it’s from and you want to give THEM the credit.
Businesses aren’t likely to decide not to sue because a random shmo wants to give them credit. They are, on the other hand, more likely to act if random shmo is implying in any, way, shape or form that Brand Name(tm) is associated with random shmo’s digital representation of some outfit.
Again, I can’t help but think that you believe people should continue doing it under everyone’s noses.
Not my intention at all. My intention is that people should realize that if they avoid trademarked, copyrighted, or patented elements (directly or indirectly, i.e. in advertising copy), their designs are likely unimpeachable in the court of law.
Direct photosourcing comes second to mind.
I would think photosourcing from a copyrighted image incurs the risk of running afoul of the copyright holder of the image. I’m not sure that the designer of the clothing in said image would have a claim (unless they also held the copyright to the image, through a staff photographer having taken it or some such), but I’m not an expert on this.
Please see the Milos story for “without-patent” content disappearance.
Which, as I already noted, relates to the fact that HM gave him an implicit license to create what he did, and then seem to have given that license to RRR and one or the other of them then told LL to withdraw Milos’ items on the basis of the revoked license.
If he did not associate his work with Herman Miller in any way, there probably wouldn’t have been an issue.
Correction to one point, re: photosourcing,
Of course, if the photosourcing leads you to also copy patented, trademarked, or copyrighted elements (like a pattern) then you could fall afoul of the holder of those rights on that score.
But, say, that dress from Cachet (for example) is likely safe in this regard, because I doubt that plasticky corsetty thing (here I show my fashion acumen!) is under any such protections.
I doubt the Cachet dress is “safe”, given the DVF cases.
I have been following this debate with great interest, especially with the heated debate with Cachet, trying to pick out the objective data. With this post, Tenshi, you have certainly done your homework, and I do appreciate that. However, there are two sides to every story, and I believe you have only looked at one side of it (The side that you agree with, which is fine). My thanks also go to Ran Garrigus for providing the “counter-point” info, so that both sides are now presented.
With regards to the DVF vs F21 case, this is seems to be a case where a particular pattern was used AS-IS, without any modification whatsoever, in a RL ARTICLE OF CLOTHING. The medium of design and creation is the same in this case, being RL clothing. I do agree with Ran that the Cachet item is “safe”, given that the medium of design is not the same, and the orignal RL design does not have any copyrighted items on it. Now, if Cachet used copyrighted IMAGES in their items, such as the red belt on the grey dress, then that could very likely be a problem for them. If that belt was recreated by being hand drawn, then, legally, they would be in the clear.
There is a GREAT difference between RL knockoffs, and what is done in SL, in my opinion. In SL, the clothing are images….data representations. I beleive that this fact is very important, legally. Ethically and morally, that is up to the individual. Let me put forth an example. Say, one sees a clothing design that they really like, from a famous designer. Say that they want to create a RL oil-on-canvas painting of the said item. They can paint it as life-like as possible. They can now sell that painting for as much money as they like. They can make a million dollars if people will buy it. Legally, they do not have to share that with anyone. The reason they can do that, is that they created the PAINTING, using something else as a reference. This is done all the time. In my opinion, SL is no different. Designers use SL as their digital canvas, with pixels being the digital paint. The confusion, is that the digital representations are in the form of digital clothing; but it is still an image.
I look forward to see how these comments progress. I do hope that they remain objective, and doesn’t deteriorate into personal and hateful attacks, as can happen at times
.
Ran brings up a very good point about photosourcing…Isn’t it more and issue of the *image* owner, and not what is in the image?
Tenshi,
Not at all.
I actually read DVF’s filed complaint (you can find it here).
What DVF alleged was not, “OMG, this dress is like mine,” but that Forever 21 was selling, “dresses narly identical to the DVF’s Cerisier and Aubrey dresses that bear print designs identical to the DVF copyrights…”
Emphasis mine. If you read the amended complaints, they add a few more dresses to the list, the common denominator being that these dresses at Forever 21 used print designs identical to those which DVY had copyrights for.
My understanding from some googling is that Forever 21 got in touch with DVF’s manufacturer in China and they ended up using substantially the same patterns and precisely the same print designs for their knockoffs, thereby creating the problem.
Short of the McQueen dress pictured having copyrighted, patented, or trademarked elements, Cachet does not, in fact, have a real legal problem. The only element I can see in the picture that might even deserve such particular protections is that thing about the model’s middle, and as noted, it is unlikely to be patented, and it probably has neither special trademark nor copyright protections.
So, again, Sl designers should avoid directly or indirectly making use of trademarked, patented, or copyrighted elements of apparel or other designed items, and any trademarks associated with those items. The rest, however, is considered fair game under the law.
i guess not all fashcon, fashion circles, fashionista heard of the free fandom projects.
i joined the group long time ago. it’s some kind like a group where they create things from RL to SL, free of charge. they abhor the people who sells things that a copy of RL into SL. and they always put credits to the original things, at least at the name of the things that they make.
while it caters more on superheroes or movie based clothing/avatars that they like, and share it around with other people, the thing that make people bitching over these rl copies are only arise when you make money out of it. even for 1L.
so why not make a group that caters free distribution of fashions from RL to SL?
say it because of your principles and what not, but when u got it free, people like it, there will be no harm done.
they only thing that makes people mad is not crediting the original, AND selling it.
“dresses nearly identical to the DVF’s Cerisier and Aubrey dresses that bear print designs identical to the DVF copyrights”
I can see where you guys are coming from, honestly, but look at the pictures – they are SIMILAR, very similar, and one might mistake one for the other but they are most definitely not the same. Note three flowers on top of one, and four on top of the other.
Similarities and willful intent to duplicate, as it appears, are grounds for (insert word Ingrid won’t let me say here) in the real world.
Whether that will cross into SL or not has yet to be determined – but as Max’s case says, his HM inventory was seized by Linden Lab. If it’s happened once, it can more than likely happen again.
‘Kota: ever heard of a figure of speech? There’s little need to be so rude.
JH,
Good points. Regarding images vs. actual items, I think that a fabric pattern is likely considered copyrightable because it is, essentially, graphical and fixed in nature. So you should still avoid those, regardless.
Tenshi,
… they are SIMILAR, very similar
As per the filing (pg. 5), there are two different copyrighted patterns on Cerisier. “Flower Lace Border” would be the stuff on the top and the hem, I guess. The central bit, though, is “Small Dentelle”, and it’s that one which DVF alleged was identical on Forever 21′s knock-off. And, looking at the picture and accounting for hte blurriness of Forever 21′s photo, it does indeed seem exactly the same. The filing does not in fact claim that “Flower Lace Border” has been infringed, which is why it’s “nearly identical” rather than “identical”.
If you read the filings in the case, the real salient bit is the copyrighted elements being used identically. The “nearly identical” part merely feeds into the idea that, when combined with copyrighted elements, the garments will cause confusion, that Forever 21 knows this and wanted to create confusion, etc. That’s why the suit is about copyright infringement (the fabric patterns), unfair competition (purposeful confusion of the provenance of items), and so on.
As to Max’s case, again, his issue is his issue. If he used HM’s marks in relation to his product, he opened himself up to this when he accepted a license from them to create his work and make reference to the fact that these are Herman Miller designs. It made him beholden to them, to some degree. Though, that said, I’ve no evidence his work was actually removed from his inventory beyond his say-so. Has LL or HM confirmed this to provide corroboration?
It’s absolutely true that if you take direct inspiration from RL designs, you could accidentally fall afoul of trademark, patent, or copyright issues without being aware of it. It’s also true that even if you don’t, but a design house is feeling ornery enough, they could still hit you with claims, betting on the fact that they will intimidate you into “rolling over” rather than contest what may very well be a false claim. But then, you could make something completely original, and they could still decide to do this because they get it into their head you’ve somehow copied something of theirs, and you’re still going to have to deal with it.
In the end, the main thing SL designers really need to know is:
1) Don’t copy copyrighted elements (if an outfit features a fabric pattern that seems unique, DON’T USE THAT PATTERN)
2) Don’t copy trademarked elements (the Gucci ‘G’ thingamabob, the Nike swoosh, etc.)
3) Don’t copy patented elements (I’ve got nothing on this one)
4) Don’t associate your work with anyone else’s marks without permission (‘Based on McQueen’s Spring 2007 collection’ not only makes an affirmative claim that you’ve willfully copied, which may or may not be a problem in a court of law, but it can also be construed as trying to add a bit of the ‘brand power’ of McQueen to your product, thereby giving them even more cause to take a dump on you if they wish.)
5) When in doubt, do something else.
6) Ultimately, even if you’re entirely within the letter of the law, someone may still decide to take you to court (or at least get LL to act) because they have a good faith or even a bad faith belief that you are infringing on some right they legally hold. The chances of this happening are probably significantly reduced if you never base your graphical design on someone else’s work, but the chances of it ever happening in the first place if you keep in mind the above points are probably not very significant.
Still, you have to make the decision for yourself whether there’s any amount of risk you’re willing to take that someone might decide that they want to call you a copyright infringer.
I think the “When in doubt, do something else” is the key point.
@Ran Garrigus:
Your list of points should be published on blogs worldwide. Great and simple points. That should be the last word on this topic as far as I’m concerned.
@I like the knockoffs @ = Portia Rossini
FFS. How can people moan about inworld theft if you then in another breath say oh well I like the knock offs. What is different stealing from Chloe/Chanel or stealing from Avatar in-world. The former probably has the budget to take you for damages, the later – you will just take away hard earned money from them.
It’s seriously double standards. Theft is THEFT. From people/companies NOT on SL to those who are.
I am personally sick of people on SL who rip RL copyright – search for Eames chair for example – see what you bring up.
Max Min did things the correct way – most do not. Shame on people for supporting knock offs. And, for the record, the reason Copyright was originally invented/brought to a court of law was to encourage artistic evolution/creation. If you continue to steal and damper creators – guess what – there will be nothing left. They will migrate onwards to better platforms with better controls.
I think u are missing all the importants points in all this article, and the thing is that u are mixing different markets.
And now leaving all the technical things, if u knock off a RL cloth with the mark prolly the worst thing that will happen to u for if some reason the company decides loose their time going against you will be delete all ur items like happened to that guy.
Then being realistic if a company is not interested in going to SL I really doubt will do something against u, Why? Cos u are doing to them a good thing for them, PUBLICITY. They wont loose nothing cos they have another market and they win publicity.
So the most prolly reason if a company does something against u is cos u are damaging their image, and this is a good point, the most real of all with u can have problems, so be aware, to avoid this the best thing is not to put any trademarked logo.
Really companys dont care a lot if u did a pants, skirt, top or whatever thing like some of their line or even the same. They care if u are selling under their brand with a quality that is not them (yes damaging their image). And this is cos people buy brands, yes is not the same wearing a gucci than wearing a gucci knock off u bought in ur chinise shop of ur street.
Well now another point, if a company comes to SL, of course has all the right to quit all ur items if u puted their trademark, cos NOW yes, u are in conflict with their market , but again the most prolly thing will happen is that they will contact linden, and linden will delete ur items.
Now the real point of all this, that is not law, is morality, some people seems angry with photosource, but true thing of all is that people want realism, 3D games uses photosource, 3d movies uses photosurce, and well all the 3d in general and I will say more, Linden Lab incites u use photosource, cos if u downaload the cloth templates, u will see are photosource.
I really thing there isnt anything wrong if u use photosurce or u paint, its ur choice the technique u use, and both are the same, they have the same difficulty and with both u can do masterpieces or all the opposite.
The problem of all this it ressumes in the quality, and is when enteres morality, its not the same recreate a dress with lot of work to reperesent the quality of RL dress than just make copy paste and sell it. I shouldn’t be the one that says this, but I see lot of difference in terms of quality between icing dress and cachet but both will have the same problems in front of the law even if u said u inspired in that desginer (even can be better not say this cos if the problems grows, they can use this agains u, cos u are saying directly u copied).
Then won’t be the law that condemn them, will be the comunity.
And this finalizes that the problem of all (now i am gonna win some enemys) are the bloggers (not all) cos most of them (apart of lick designer’s ass) just put pictures with the cloth and show how beautiful are their avatars with that clothes and their retouched pictures instead of do a good critic saying the strong and week points of the design.
“How can people moan about inworld theft if you then in another breath say oh well I like the knock offs. What is different stealing from Chloe/Chanel or stealing from Avatar in-world”….
Ran and JH have given a lot of very useful information help guide a consumer and designer as far as the rl to sl “inspiration/copy” debate…
However, ripping from another designer and selling the identical thing is a different issue imo. Wouldn’t it be like breaking into a RL designer’s studio, snatching a couple dresses, then going around trying to sell those dresses and the copies you made from it as your own?
Is it different?
Yeah, it’s different. In SL everything replicates itself upon sale. You can have an unlimited number of those sales.
That’s the only way I can think of a difference though
Hey, don’t target me in this.
I had a “but” with that statement. Please don’t misquote me.
-Portia <3
@Jenny:
While I understand your frustrations, if you’re looking to yell at someone who has hinted at supporting or being on the fence about knockoffs, Portia is far from the first choice you should have made. There are plenty of people in this thread who are fully waving the battle flag about being in full support of knock-offs. I think you ought to direct your vitriol in their direction first.
nice to see u posting here Ran
i think the points brought up by u are great things to keep in mind….
one would rather spend more time making new clothing instead of solving legal issues….. better be safe than sorry
Naoki:
The actual figure of speech is “Open up your eyes” and quite a rude thing to say in itself as it implies that Charron hadn’t read the article.
“There are plenty of people in this thread who are fully waving the battle flag about being in full support of knock-offs.”
Perhaps you could point these out, it could be that I haven’t got my “eyeballs” open but I’ve missed this. I see quite a few people pointing out the actual legal position as for as knockoffs in SL are concerned and a bit of banter about freebie knockoffs but not the full support that you mentioned.
If you think my insinuating that she hadn’t read the article all the way through was rude, then I will just have to live with your thinking that I am. One good turn deserves another. We can drop it now.
Find another target. I am not commenting here to have it out with someone who is just looking to pick a fight instead of discussing the issues at hand. Have you failed to see that we at least appear to agree on most of these topics?
The “full support” I referenced above is located in the previous article on this matter. I apologize profusely for such an egregious error.
Naoki,
I did read the article, it suffers a little bit from being very scattershot. To me the Max part of it is more illustrative of problems with LL and their poor communication with their customers who aren’t corporate.
I’m writing up a proper response to all of this, but is going to be a wee bit too much to cram into a forum response.
“What is different stealing from Chloe/Chanel or stealing from Avatar in-world.”
Steal from your betters, not your peers? Copybot and the like are blatant rip-offs, “stealing” if you will (complicated I suppose by the fact that the creator still has endless copies and nothing “real” was taken), a copy of something from RL might be changed enough that it’s can pass as semi-original work, even if that’s just having drawn it by hand.
That said, there really is a lot of hypocrisy in SL about preventing texture theft of things that were photosourced without permission or wholesale copied from RL designs. Possibly because the “victim” isn’t in SL to find out about it and in the case of a big fashion house is probably used to high-street replicas appearing within weeks. Similar to a recent scandal where a texture shop was found to have been illegally selling textures while being very forceful about texture theft within SL.
@Charron: I can concede to that point. ^^ I look forward to your further responses.
I get what you’re saying and I understand what the issues at heart are – but I think that if designers start suing each other over the look of a dress – then we’re in real trouble. That sunflower dress for instance – I KNOW I have seen it well before that designer had made it (I believe my mom had one back in the 70′s), so it isn’t new and even her putting a damask pattern on it isn’t new. My point is that even some of the more outlandish pieces can be traced back and someone somewhere has done it before. SO if this continues then no one will be able to make anything that even resembles anything else as a designer has already copyrighted and patented it. If you make a high-waisted skirt with buttons down the side – who do you pay tribute to? It’s pointless, aside from that fashion magazines will even show you how to achieve a high-end look for much less (Style, Glamour, Cosmo).
However – that doesn’t mean that it’s a free-for-all and that photo sourcing from an image is ok (you have three people who could sue you if you do it the photographer, the designer and the model). The only time I believe it is alright is if you have taken the picture and the photo sourcing is to get an asset (button hole, a rip, a seam or a fold etc.) and it is merely an element in a design. But there are those who can “manipulate” and draw well enough to fool you into thinking it was from a photo – so where do you draw the line there? Ok, so the outfit looks like it is a direct knock off from Ralph Lauren – but then again, the outfit looks like a 1950′s one that was in a movie. Who copied whom?
Obviously copying the look and design from existing fashion or those that have just come out is probably not the smartest idea. But I doubt that anyone who creates fashion in SL OR RL is completely innocent! My point is that people need to be conscious of direct piracy (stealing textures, photo sourcing without permission) and indirect infringement (copying the look and style). The second being rather grey and if you push it – really hard to pin down who really came up with the design.
Oh well my head is spinning now and I really have to finish making a few tops…