Am Radio and Bettina Tizzy Copy Andrew Wyeth
Oh, dear God, Benjamin Duranske is at it again, deciding all on his own, without benefit of due process, law, or actual cases and judicial rulings, what is "illegal" and what is "criminal" regarding copyright matters. How is he able to do this? Don't lawyers have ethical rules that prevent them from describing actions as "illegal" when there are no laws to prescribe such acts? Don't they have ethical restraints against pronouncing persons guilty of crimes in the press without benefit of due process of law? Don't they have to be careful in rendering opinions warning people of "illegal actions" of this nature if they want some sort of credibility or even if they want to hang on to their law licenses? Please, explain this to me. I truly don't understand. Why does Duranske feel he can do this?! On what basis? I'm all for free speech, but normally lawyers are more circumspect. If they feel entitled to spout on their blogs, then, I get to call them on that spouting, too.
I believe that when Benjamin Duranske warns us that there are copyright issues in effect for people who take screenshots in Second Life, and that we must now all begin asking permission of every creator of every item seen in our SL browser if we take a screenshot, he is utterly talking out of his ass. He has no grounds for doing this, and even with his caveats, issuing writs about this, even as a "blog opinion," is really invalid. It's wrong.
He has concocted an entire line of bullshit, claiming that each pixelated thing in a picture is a "piece of programming" and therefore potentially "copyrighted material". Ah, we know where that comes from. In a previous life, Duranske was a coder. There is probably nothing nastier on two legs than a code-as-law-coder-turned-lawyer -- except for Internet-designers-turned-Internet-lawyers. Ugh. Duranske really appears here in his past power persona as tekkie, not in his current power professional role as "lawyer". The objective is merely to grab power, using whatever levers and instruments are available for such power, which these days is the Internet and its related technologies. No need for anything in "meat world" to get in the way.
This latest flap got started, not surprisingly, by Not Possible In Real Life Bettina Tizzy (no, she wouldn't be possible in real life with this bullshit), in awe over the latest oeuvre of AM Radio. I probably am the only person in Second Life (well, except for the other 69,099 people logging on right now who aren't in the 100-strong FIC arterati) who doesn't think much of AM Radio. I find him derivative, fascile, glib, and smug. When I said that his waves of wheat were basically purloined from Andrew Wyeth (which of course, they are, indelibly printed as Wyeth's images are in the American imagination), you would think I had uttered a Heresy. I actually had people on the Herald argue with me that he looked anything like Wyeth, which shows you how blindly stubborn the FIC arterati are. Whenever I go on the AM Radio stage set er sim, I feel a grave sense of ennui. I feel like I'm supposed to "enjoy art". I'm supposed to "pose". Usually I bump into a fashion photoshoot. It's all so very SL. Unreal -- and unreal with a kind of aggressive mediocrity that's an immersion turn-off.
Tizzy admits that in RL, you can photograph the Empire State Building without a permit from the descendents of the architect or the city of New York. But suddenly, when it gets to SL, people on Flickr bang on her for photographing or videotaping other people's works, and act like we're all in some kind of uber-special and uber-artistic 3-D painting that isn't real life in any respect. Tizzy even feels browbeaten into having to credit in her machinima or screenshot the makers of all the items that appear in the photo, i.e. the prim hair, clothing, blah blah. (We used to do this on Sim Stories merely as an act of appreciation of creators' work; now it is becoming a legal mandate under penalty of law).
Is she daft? That's a nice thing to do -- but Jesus Christ, people, you are on *Flickr* not the cover of Time magazine. It's just a Flickr group. If you used it to make income, perhaps the people *might* have a case, but I don't think even there they have a leg to stand on. If they don't want their avatars, clothing, jewelry, and Wyeth-cloned wheat fields to appear anywhere, they should stay off the Internet, or shut their SL islands to all but the closest little tribal circle.
Second Life is a public place. You can't argue very convincingly that it is a private club, like a casino where photographing the patrons is not allowed, or an art museum, where photographing is not allowed to avoid making and sale of forgeries when it's free, without admission. It's just a public virtual world, and if the Lindens aspire to "common carrier" status, they can't become involved in "takedowns" of such items, especially overreaching to third-party sites. Flickr doesn't seem to have a legal leg to stand on either; this is fair use, not commercial use, if someone puts a screenshot up on their blog or makes a machinima that happens to have the camera fall on somebody's build or avatar.
Normal lawyers understand all this, but not so the goofy bunch we have in SL. Duranske rushes to assure his future virtual clients (I don't see that he has any now) that there *is* a vulnerability here, just "because" -- because he wants to be "in" with the cool group, which includes Bettina and her thumbsucking worries about dissing AM Radio by publishing a screenshot of his Wyeth field (she may already be getting summonses, for all we know!).
Bettina asks "Who is the artist in the first shot, AM or me?" Um, well I'd answer, uh, "How about...Andrew Wyeth!" Snapping screenshots is nothing like photographing, of course. There aren't the enormous numbers of lenses, light meters, skills in setting dials, angles, etc. that a real-life camera possesses -- while you can fiddle somewhat with Windlight and the sliders like "post-production" it's basically just a point and click. Let's not glorify it, shall we? Still, if Bettina has picked a particular angle she likes on AM's Wyeth-lawn, she is making the sort of selectivity for which artists pride themselves, even derivative mediocre artists, and that's ok -- but it's just like a real-life photograph then -- being in SL doesn't give it extra-special powers or restraints. I mean, does AM Radio not want anybody to ever come to his sim or hear about his work? If Bettina's purpose is merely to blog about the thing, it's definitely fair use. If she puts it into a ThinkBook or some other publication called "My Second Life Adventures," does she need to get permission? No, no more than she does for the Empire State Building. Again, you don't want the public to treat your sim as a public space, close the space. And good luck trying to prove you are like a casino, or like an art museum. You aren't. You are an amateur on a sim in SL making stuff in a world of massive amounts of user-generated content.
Chestnut of course rushes to this thread merely to stick up for her friends, and claim it's "very very sticky" when these images are used commercially on the grounds that...she has to stick up for her friends (that's the stickiness). That's usually what these discussions amount to in SL: "How can I defend my little tribe?" She demands crediting of the work of the person who made the scene -- this is "polite". Um, did AM Radio make that locomotive? And wait, did AM Radio make Windlight? Didn't Pastrama Linden make Windlight? Why aren't they crediting Pastrami Linden, these ingrates?
I found that when an exploitative type took photos of our SL Public Land Preserve, photographing the builds of two artists in SL, and resold those photographs as a calendar of SL scenes, I really couldn't do a damn thing about it. I could only complain that this was unethical, as the proceeds didn't go to helping the land preserve, but I had no legal grounds for action, truly, just like some J.P. Morgan or Vanderbilt descendent isn't going to suddenly start demanding credits or proceeds for pictures of the buildings in NY that resulted from their ancestors' philanthropy. Again: put something in public, leave it in public and stop being a kvetch.
Lem Skull tries to claim there is "art" in the SL screenshot. We little pathetics touting our little world do think that. Most of the rest of the world won't think that, because they'll compare it to a real camera, which simply does more -- lots more lol. Seriously, we need to know our place here. Virtuality is great -- but, let's not accord it more rights than real life, shall we?
It goes even more nerdier and wonkier from there, if you have the patience to read about 100 more posts.
Meanwhile, Benjamin simply "decides it for us all" making a completely unfounded, uncited, and ridiculous claim:
"At least under the law as it currently stands, in-world shutterbugs need to be very careful — more careful than they would be in real life."
Watch Benjie take a bold leap of bullshit *as a coder*, now, not as a lawyer. He admits that in RL photographs can take photos of most things (of course there are exceptions, as I noted, casinos, artwork in museums, probably some government military installations).
Copyright protects, quotes Duranske, “original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture” that are “fixed in a tangible form of expression." He claims that RL protects against models posed on famous sculptures or, say, posters of the Titanic. Of course, open up any fashion magazine and find lots of examples of models posed by famous stuff they haven't gotten any "copyright permission" to use -- please. Did Annie Liebowitz get permission from the New York Times to photograph their new landmark building *and* the construction worker building it?
Of course not, and Duranske admits that's how it works in RL:
"That’s because copyright law generally does not protect real-world clothing (because it is deemed a “useful article“) nor does it protect hairstyles and makeup (because they are not “fixed in a tangible form of expression”). And though copyright law does protect architecture (at least for plans for and designs of buildings constructed after December 1, 1990), taking pictures of and creating artistic works using buildings that are ordinarily visible from public places is specifically allowed. These limitations on copyright law may not mean much in the virtual world, however."
Er, why?
Because Duranske is cooking up something entirely on his own, unsupported by fact, law, or case, that's why. Because he says so -- with a completely preposterous leap of coder's logic. Here's how:
"The problem with applying real world copyright law concepts here is that virtual dresses, hairstyles, personal appearances, and buildings are not exactly the same as real world dresses, hairstyles, personal appearances, and buildings."
"Real world hairstyles and various components of individual appearances are generally not protected by copyright because they either are not enumerated in the code, because they are not “fixed in a tangible medium,” or, regarding certain personal appearance attributes, because they do not represent “creative works.” Dresses and other clothing designs are not protected because they are “useful articles” and copyright law only protects “creative works.” Buildings have special rules that protect their designs, but these rules do not protect them from photography or other artistic interpretation when they can be viewed from public places."
Suddenly, just because we are online, just because people design the clothes on Photoshop or build the furniture with tools in a software program, something "magical" happens that removes common sense, that removes the ordinary logic of real life -- although it is Duranske who used to claim that real life applied in virtual worlds always and everywhere (when it came to what he characterized as "pyramid schemes," but which were actually like badly-invested High Yield Investment Plans).
Says Duranske,
"In the virtual world, however, every dress, hairstyle, avatar “skin,” and building is really a tiny piece of online software, and online software, including the output of the software to the screen, is protected by copyright. There’s even a copyright office circular (.pdf) describing how to go about registering the copyright in what the office describes as “works accessed via network (websites, homepages, and FTP sites) and files and documents transmitted and/or downloaded via network."
Privileging the coder-as-artist -- as if there is something fundamentally different about making ordinary clothing and buildings seen in backdrops in Second Life, by contrast with RL, Duranske claims:
"If I’m a content creator, I’m going to argue that when I am making something in Second Life, I am functionally writing code using the graphical interface Linden Lab provides me, and that code should be protected. Alternatively, I’m making digital art using tools that are only trivially different than those in a program like Maya or Blender. For some creations (such as virtual world animation packages that cause certain expressions and sounds) the code is obvious; the scripts are written in a formal scripting language. For others, such as buildings, the code is relatively hidden, but there is a good argument that building a skyscraper in Second Life is just “coding” one using a graphical user interface that operates as an overlay on the code, or that it is, at minimum, no different than any other creative work made using software. Certainly, no one disputes that artistic creations built using software (such as most of the second Star Wars trilogy) are protected works."
Oh, shut up. None of these things are code. They are the *visual renderings of the effects of code, not code itself*. The mechanical function of code, and the author of that mechanical function, does not invade the rendering of the object and its interactive use by another -- which already takes place in another realm, beyond the code's limited execution. The code has executed. It has rendered an image. That image is now in the public domain. We are now interacting with it and viewing it. The view alone of it is not copyrightable; the individual elements as dresses, clothes, vehicles *are* copyrightable and we should respect those rights and buy the item, not steal it. We are under no obligation to coders for the byproduct of their code, which is our interactive view. Know your place, coders, you don't invade every element of the virtual world. This is the intrinsic nature of *social* media, used in virtual worlds and blogs and forums, and that's what makes it so different (and more versatile) than the simple mechanical code that makes up ordinary software driving hardware.
To say otherwise -- to say that coders' rights reach even into the view and the interaction of the collective artifacts of code -- this is all just a lot of power grabbing by people who want code privileged above other human artifacts like bricks and mortar. The builder of the Empire State Building, who did something a hell of alot more important -- and big, and arguably more enduring -- doesn't have a claim to copyright of his building within some tourist's photoraph or even a fashion magazine that might pose a model by him to sell perfume. Yet every prim-rezzer in SL's an "artist". On the earth, we have all of God's creations free of copyright -- building blocks of stone or earth or water or light -- which online, become elements that coders' arrogate as *their* exclusive creation online.
Just because it's software, and not a hammer and bricks, it's "special" and gets artificially-induced special treatment.
Duranske cites the other argument -- which he's about to dismiss:
"On the other hand, if I’m a virtual world photographer, I’m going to argue that there’s a real-life parallel here, and that buildings, personal appearances, clothing, and other objects in a virtual world should not be protected to any greater degree than they are in the real world."
Exactly. That's what will prevail when/if it ever comes to court. Of course, even Duranske admits that there is no case law on this premise.
No case law.
Never any case law, when Duranske and other puffed-up Internet virtual lawyers get going at this topic. Bring me a case, please, and we'll talk.
Stroker Serpentine was able to bring a case against another SL resident who stole his designs and resold them. That's of course not "fair use" but theft. Even there, he had an uphill struggle getting to court with this, and in the end *there was no court decision* (something that Duranske tried to spin and spin ridiculously, as we could see on his blog at the time, until he was corrected by another lawyer finally). There was no judge's ruling or verdict. They settled out of court, and Stroker only got like $500. End of story. No precedent. No law. We all pretty much think it *is* against the law to steal another person's design in SL and resell it, but that notion really does still await it's day in court, and not the court of blogs, but real courts with real judges and juries.
Ignoring common sense and the rule of law as it is practiced in this country, Duranske tries to make law on the Internet:
"With the caveat that no case has directly addressed this, I believe that the “code” argument will carry the day because it is simpler, it preserves the public policy arguments behind the real-world exceptions, and mainly, because holding otherwise would undermine the now fairly well-established body of software copyright law."
Bullshit. There's no case! And there is nothing "simpler" about the code argument, and nothing "established" about software copyright law that extends into the field of perception of artifacts -- it's a naked power player by coders, and coders-turned-lawyers trying to rule the Interwebs, that's all.
What a hypocrite! For two years, we've heard Duranske tell us arrogantly on his blog, over and over, that SL is no different than RL, that real-life laws on banking and such "must" apply, and we can't be idealistic and pretend SL takes place in some kind of special unregulated autonomous zone.
Oh? Then how come taking a picture of a building now all of a sudden got "special"? Merely because Benjie saw an opportunity to a) get in good with the FIC types like Bettina and kiss ass -- he always smarmily wishes to be popular and loved and adulated by this bunch who will then stroke his ego as a legal genius; and b) grab the meme space on this subject and try the case on the Internet, so as to create fake situations from which clients have to protect themselves, and to pressure any real court that really does come to grapple with this at some point.
Unfortunately, we can't expect Flickr to exercise any good judgement on this, given some of the past incidents on Flickr. I remember when Cytherea Eagle tried to pull this stunt on Ordinal Malaprop. Ordinal took a screenshot of one of her ugly towers with her company's logo on it, and suddenly she filed a DMCA takedown notice to Flickr, claiming that her company's logo, on the ugly tower on the extortionist plot in SL, was improperly copied. Naturally, we all rolled out eyes 360 degrees in our sockets at that sort of chicanery and misuse of the concept of copyright. It was a news story, it was fair use, and Cytherea was an abusive ass. I don't know how that episode opened, whether the picture was restored. If Flickr bought that argument in the end, shame on them.
Remember when Anshe Chung tried to use the "copyright protection" and "takedown" argument on the Sydney Morning Herald, for taking a picture of her, on her sim, on a set which she designed, with large penises floating by her head? She called it a copyright issue. Everybody snorted and ridiculed Anshe and pilloried her in the press. Of course, it was bad news judgement to keep celebrating a criminal griefing act like this and damaging someone's reputation -- she might have tried fighting it on libel grounds rather than copyright grounds. Everybody said she didn't have a leg to stand on invoking "copyright" on a set on a public news conference in SL.
When it was Anshe, people used this concept to harass and ridicule her. As soon as it is AM Radio and Bettina and Mrs. Duranske's little boy, why, the concept suddenly aquires gravity and dignity. That's how these hypocrites work in SL.
In the end, what Duranske does in his own article, and in the comments on NPIRL, is to say, "I recommend seeking permission before using somebody else's creation in your work."
To which we can all say: "No, Benjamin, fuck you, we will not be doing that. Get your lawyerly paws off our free Second Lives in free public places, and find some other way to make a living instead of playing virtual prosecutor and cooking up fake dangers that you will rescue your clients from."
As always, with lawyers, we must ask: who is Benjamin Duranske's client? For whom is he giving this "legal advice"? And I come back to the same answer I've come to before: we have a case here of someone who represents himself, and has a fool for a client.
(To make this all even more hilarious, FIC coder extraordinaire Zha Ewry comes along to claims that none of this is "software," but only 'software renderings of a bunch of digital artifacts" -- the ability of the person turning on SL to modify the scene in his browser means it is no longer "software" -- which of course goes much farther than my analysis to undermine the very concept of copyright, always Zha's goal in these discussions. Yes, and the Empire State building is made up of atoms, too.)
Here's what we need to say to get this topic down to earth.
1. Code is not law. Law is law, and law is made by humans in societies, not by people constrained in virtual online environments who must rely on code to render the view of the world itself.
2. Copyright of created works needs to be protected, so that creators can make a living in online in virtual environments selling discrete objects of virtual clothing, furniture, houses, cars, etc. But their reach does not extend to "fair use," or to claim that the elements of the world that they may have had a hand in creating, visible to the public, cannot be photographed by the public for use in the media.
3. Virtual creators cannot claim that the overall view of the world is itself a "derivative work"; "derivative work" must be defined as discrete items incorporating another's design within it, for distribution or resale. A screenshot does not incorporate another's work and is not a derivative work.
4. Photographers, journalists, bloggers, publishers, must not seek permission from authors of articles viewable in their screenshots, or they will inevitably help enforcing an invalid "code-as-law" regime which will harm the freedom of the world's press, speech, assembly, and commerce in real life as in virtual life.
When I read about this the other day, and saw the stream of comments, I just shook my head. I thought the whole thing was just too ludicrous to give any credence. Of course it always irritates me when I hear about name clearances and getting permission to include a food wrapper in a television show. And lawyers wonder why we want them all... oh no, better choose my words correctly... (just laughs and laughs)
Posted by: Clubside Granville | November 23, 2008 at 09:46 PM
A sane voice, finally. Seriously, this whole issue is overwrought with lots of people talking as if they know the answer, or there are precedents, or there is specific case law, and the reality is - you should do what makes SENSE. Taking tourist snap shots in Second Life and posting them to Flickr will be no more illegal than taking shots of the Eiffel Tower.
Sure, credit people. Or don't. If you're going to make money off it - I'm not sure how, exactly, but if you are, then credit people to play it safe. If you're going to rip people off, then you KNOW you're ripping them off, and DON'T.
I got myself embroiled in reviewing the legal issues of virtual goods and worlds and whatnot and I'll get to my giant post some day, but it gives me a headache thinking about it.
Posted by: Dusan Writer | November 23, 2008 at 11:05 PM
There are plenty of cases that have been thrown out (or ruled against) when the owner of a building (NYSE, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, etc) tried to squelch the photography/use of images. Primary issue was that the images were not used as trademarks.
Fair Use is decided in court. So if someone files a DMCA notice, fine, take it to court and prove that the intent to infringe copyright or violate trademark -exists-.
User-gen content DOES have a high liability in this area, since it's not as open/shut as say, taking screenshots of a normal video game like Warcraft, where Activision Blizzard does fully own the IP.
I'd suspect courts would throw these cases out, mostly because of the LL TOS, but yeah, 'not a lawyer' and all that.
Posted by: Eric Rice/Spin Martin | November 23, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Of course, some nit steps up in the NPIRL thread to tell you that it's illegal to take shots of the Eiffel Tower at night, that there is some ordinance about this or something -- they don't cite it. Look, that's ridiculous. Go on Google images, and see how many gadzillion pictures there are of the Eiffel Tower at night. I have one in my house somewhere somebody took and framed for me. Sorry, I won't be going to jail over this, and neither will they.
I was just thinking about how this sillyness of "virtual objects as copyrighted software" is such a hypocrisy, coming from this same bunch that are usually out telling us why we need to celebrate opensource everywhere. Suddenly, when they need to make this provincial and backward insistence on crediting every prim hair in every photo as "protected works of art," they forget their opensource obsessions, when I usually have to argue on that side of the aisle to get them to stop celebrating copyleftism. It's insane.
And then I was thinking how absurd it would be if I, or any blogger, or even, say, the New York Times staff writers who publish on nytimes.com suddenly had to declare any notion of copyright as grounded in software and its effects. The coder of the blogging software would declare that his protected artwork -- a rendered letter or a rendered box like the one I'm writing in now -- was "art". Then I, using this template, this software, would ground my bid for protection in the concept of *the software* I am licensed to use for a fee as entitleing me to some right.
But of course, that's not where intellectual property is housed, inside code or pixels. Intellectual property is housed in the rendered, whole item of property itself.
Communists always and everywhere destroy property. This is yet another instance.
By this logic, the manufacturers of tubes of paint, and the manufacturers of brushes, should also demand copyright and proceeds from sales, and any artist who paints anything is only using a limited license to access their property to create a derivative work from their property.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | November 23, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Spin, UGC has nothing of the kind. It has no high liability. There is no case. There is no law. There is no precedent. Stop spouting nonsense.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | November 23, 2008 at 11:16 PM
That's what I was getting at: there is no precedent. You're agreeing with my nonsense. :P
Posted by: Eric Rice/Spin Martin | November 23, 2008 at 11:25 PM
As someone who lives on the other side of the planet, I cringe whenever I read some American lawyer ( or want-to-be-lawyer) say things like:
..."At least under the law as it currently stands"...
the law.
THE law.
The single all encompassing global law? Or just his local law?
Posted by: Faerie | November 23, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Eric, here's what you just said:
"User-gen content DOES have a high liability in this area, since it's not as open/shut as say, taking screenshots of a normal video game like Warcraft, where Activision Blizzard does fully own the IP."
I'm saying user-generated content does NOT have any liability. It IS open and shut. And frankly, taking the screenshots in the public space of WoW strikes me as something that Blizzard would have a hard time policing -- and does NOT police, as screenshots of WoW are disseminated freely all over the net.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | November 23, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I like AM's stuff (and AM) and think this whole conversation is nuts.
As for Wyeth and wheat, why stop there. Expansive images of wheat fields have been around a lot longer than Wyeth.
Probably some obscure guy in ancient times painted the first wheat field with some stuff in it.
Posted by: Desmond Shang | November 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM
there's a law against everything! if there isn't presently, the bagmen in the government will make them suit any situation. whatever happened to resolving disputes with a set of dueling pistols? the ease by which anyone can avoid any "ethical" behaviour is directly related to the size of their financial fortunes. in other words, the direct corelation is: the bigger your fortune, the less "human" sensibilities you have.
Posted by: EnCore Mayne | November 23, 2008 at 11:36 PM
I was more than a little amazed about this controversy.
You are right, all of it is in the public domain if it is open to the public for use. To take all of this crediting to the last conclusion, screenshot people AND Creators will have to credit SL and every tech person who had a hand in making the actual code for the software and the viewer.
I read comments by more than a few creators denigrating the work of screenshot people by calling it a photoshop smudge and the only work in the shot was done by the creator. Some of the most vociferous even stated that they would sue screenshot people if they ever tried to sell a screenshot. It definitely made me rethink where I took my silly pics. Surely.
Posted by: melponeme_k | November 24, 2008 at 12:16 AM
""With the caveat that no case has directly addressed this, I believe that the “code” argument will carry the day because it is simpler, it preserves the public policy arguments behind the real-world exceptions, and mainly, because holding otherwise would undermine the now fairly well-established body of software copyright law."
LOL ! What is this guy on ?
The appropriate law would be that relating to photography..the creation of images. This is where the word 'unique' comes in, for you cannot copyright anything that is not unique.
A photographer ( or indeed the code creator of items in an SL image ) cannot copyright the 'idea' behind an image....ONLY the unique image itself. In terms of SL, every view is unique to the viewer..nobody else will have the exact same view on the screen. Thus, in fact, the copyright to the unique view on my screen belongs solely to me. If I 'photograph' it, then there most certainly IS precedent case law that says Duranske can take a hike as the copyright is mine. A judge would throw Duranske's case out before it ever went to court.
Posted by: Agnetha Vuckovic | November 24, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Second Life is a concentrated prototype of the future of the real world, as it plays out online in virtuality, whatever that becomes, as augmented, immersive, or coercive. It is a war of all against all. Platform makers against their customers, creators against customers, customers against creators, land barons against platform creators, coders against artists, artists against coders -- there are those 6 economies to think about, where even a simple Sunday hobbyist becomes a fierce class warrior armed to the teeth to fight against those people who simply will not concede that they *must* have fun and they *must not* make money!
These struggles are not going to ebb, but only sharpen, and I for one am happy to step up and fight the fight. There is no reason to turn the 3-D Internet over to the likes of Duranske.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | November 24, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Ben has no idea what he is talking about. If a coders "advice" on copyright is to be taken with a grain of salt, I'll be asking the local butcher for advice on financial investments next.
Posted by: Connie Sec | November 24, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Duranske can wear a blindfold if all that copyrights bits bothers him.
I would think he would be more interested in the gigantic sucking sound of people using various unauthorized tools to steal content and take it to ripper grids.. oh i mean open source grids, and be interested in exactly who runs those grids, who they are partnered with, and how many DMCA takedowns were executed against them in Secondlife.
The problem of copyright with Secondlife has nothing to do with screenshots. It has to do with Linden Lab not removing unlicensed content from the asset system, and about how other people that get direct commissions from sales of stolen content are not covered under the DMCA and are liable, and how when someone knows there is a violation they are supposed to take action even when no DMCA was filed.
Much bigger fish to fry for fame hungry lawyers.
Posted by: Ann Otoole | November 24, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Oh and btw everyone has a blanket authorization to do whatever they want with the pictures they take in the Public Photo Garden on Kali Isle in Secondlife.
Posted by: Ann Otoole | November 24, 2008 at 01:26 AM
Good post.
By his reasoning, all web sites are "code" - but is making screenshots of them illegal?
Posted by: IYan Writer | November 24, 2008 at 03:14 AM
There's a concept in some areas of law of "undue hardship" or "unreasonable burden".
Judges seem reluctant to set a precedent that would effectively make an entire class of behavior unacceptable, especially if that was not the original purpose of the law being applied.
Under a very literal interpretation of copyright law, any screenshot is a derived work of every work it contains a part of. But I have serious doubts a judge would be willing to enforce the letter of the law in a way that so violates the spirit.
Posted by: Gigs | November 24, 2008 at 06:52 AM
To add to the discussion, some 'Buildings' are copy right protected.
eg. if you publish a photograph of the 'Atomium' in Brussels on your website, you are likely to get a nice letter from a rights organisation charging you for the use of it.
(not joking, and not liking that either)
Posted by: Vint Falken | November 24, 2008 at 07:28 AM
Such notions exist purely to be challenged, Vint, and too-docile and conservative Europeans get what they deserve when they kow-tow to such bullshit.
No, Gigs, there is no "very literal interpretation". Screenshots are not derivatives. They do not incorporate a work, i.e. literally embody a work. They are a view, not in incorporated use.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | November 24, 2008 at 08:05 AM
Actually, Vint has published outdated info. There aren't "some buildings". There's this one. And people challenged their bullshit, and they were forced to back down. See Wikipedia, and note that the official website now has all these icons of Flickr and Facebook on it:
The Belgian collecting society, SABAM, via the United States Artists Rights Society (ARS), has claimed worldwide intellectual property rights on all reproductions of the Atomium image.[2] For example SABAM issued a demand that a United States website remove all images of the Atomium from its pages.[3] The website responded by replacing all such images with a warning not to take photographs of the Atomium, and that Asbl Atomium will sue you if you show them to anyone.[3][4] Sabam confirmed that permission is required.[3]
Ralf Ziegermann remarked[5] on the complicated copyright instructions on Atomium's website specific to "private pictures".[6] The organisers of Belgian heritage, Anno Expo (www.expo58.eu, planning the 50th anniversary celebrations of Expo '58), in the city of Mechelen announced a "cultural guerrilla strike" by asking people to send in their old photographs of the Atomium and requested 100 photoshoppers to paint over the balls.[7][8] SABAM responded that they would make an exception for 2008 and that people could publish private photographs for one year only on condition they were for non-commercial purposes.[7]
Anno Expo later announced they had censored part of their own report due to "complications" and referred to a meeting they had with SABAM.[9] Mechelen's Mayor, Bart Somers, called the Atomium copyright rules absurd.[10]
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | November 24, 2008 at 08:17 AM
I guess this explains the random IM I got from someone asking permission to use one of my houses in a machinima. I was baffled that it would even be a question.
The Eiffel Tower thing- I read that the actual tower is too old and obvious to be copyrighted, so they copyrighted the night time light display on it. It's a bit apocryphal to be honest, I don't think I'd keep my lens cap on if I visited Paris.
Posted by: Ace | November 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I read the Virtually Blind article following a link and noticed a very short "maybe, maybe not" disclaimer toward the end of the article.
I thought, "It is presented as a 'world' with publicly accessible spaces? The creators have received financial remuneration for products intended to be viewed by anyone in the 'world'?" - hmmm, sounds like a case that would get tossed out after the first reading of the complaint.
Plaintiff's attorney might even get an admonishment from the judge.
Posted by: Corcosman Voom | November 24, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I am deleting all my sl photos from my hard drive as I type. I never asked permission of the thousands of content creators who's work appears in the background. Shame on me.
Posted by: Paddy Wright | November 24, 2008 at 02:16 PM
I don't think it's legally necessary to get permission to use an image of something in SL for a commercial venture, but I do think it's sweet 'n' nice to ask.
For machinima - I was assigned the task of getting location permissions for a team effort for last year's 48 hour film thing as the RL person leading the team believed that, as in rl, permissions were necessary. Film industry people from real life making commercial machinima have the view, I think, that they'd rather have the Is dotted and Ts crossed rather than discover a problem at a later date, but amateurs (me) don't need to worry about anything but community goodwill, I think.
Posted by: Osprey Therian | November 24, 2008 at 03:25 PM