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…

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.

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.

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.

“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.

one would rather spend more time making new clothing instead of solving legal issues….. better be safe than sorry

I had a “but” with that statement. Please don’t misquote me.

-Portia <3

That’s the only way I can think of a difference though

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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?

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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