Member since: Aug 1st, 2007
Feb 4th 2008 3:52PM I'll admit openly that I do not play second life nor do I fully understand everything that is going on, but I've been reading a great deal about this controversy over the weekend and today. I haven't seen that many people demanding DRM, but rather, effective action from LL about thefts.You say that it comes down to action and I agree. However, part of teh problem is that LL has been notoriously difficult to work with. Their DMCA process is needless cumbersome, many have reported that they are slow and some have said they do not respond at all. Whether they are understaffed or simply don't make it a priority, many creators are complaning that LL is not taking adequate action.I suppose some are requesting some form of DRM, by fixing the system that was supposedly in place, but most of the outrage I've read has been at LL themselves.That's just what I've seen.
Nov 11th 2007 2:21AM What you have here is a pretty tricky and untested legal situation. Let me try and give a rundown.Generally, when dealing with matters of photography, the copyright rests in the hands of the one holding the camera, be it real or virtual. If I take a photo, even if it is of a model, I have copyright of the image (we won't get into misappropriation of image or privacy issues here). If I am under the employ of an agency, then it is a work for hire and they get the rights.The exception is when you're taking a photograph of a copyrighted work. For example, if you took a photo of a painting that wasn't in the public domain, your photo would be a derivative work of the original and would be an infringement unto itself unless a fair use argument could be made. If you do it with permission of the copyright holder, the original rightsholder still has copyright over the painting and you would have copyright over your photo apart from the painting. So, in this type of situation, you have the potential for a work where two or more people have a copyright interest in a work. If we assume that the avatar is copyrighted, which is hard to say for a number of reasons and the photo was taken without permission, then the photos and all copies of it are violations of the original avatar. If avatar copyright is assumed and the photo is taken with permission, then the photographer holds the largest interest in the rights. If we don't assume avatar copyright, the photographer holds all of the rights.This doesn't touch on an implied license, which might be assumed in a world such as second life and might allow photography of copyrighted works, nor does it look into the terms of service for participating in second life, which can say almost anything it wants on the topic.If you have a headache, just imagine you're a judge trying to sort through these issues. This is why I don't become an attorney.Anyway, I would encourage either the rightsholder or the avatar to file a complaint through Ebay's VeRO program. Failing that, consider filing DMCA notices against Ebay.It certainly beats making this the test case for all of the above issues.Hope that this helps clarify things (or not).
Aug 1st 2007 10:22AM This problem is very serious and it is growing rapidly. The problem is that the spam blog applications can rip and post thousands of feeds per hour. It only takes a handful of pirates to do a lot of scraping.I've had a lot of experience in fighting these guys. I've stopped over 500 misuses of my own content in the past five years not counting the ones I've stopped for others. If anyone needs help, feel free to email me jonathan at plagiarismtoday.com or visit the "Legal Issues" forum on performancing.com.I'll gladly help out any way I can.I may not be an industry organization, but I will help anyone who needs it.
Save your tabs and Panorama tab groups in Firefox 4
Amazon Appstore for Android hands-on review: Android Market is in trouble