VR Legal Rights
It seems that virtual worlds are starting to bring rise to several legal questions as fellow VTOR contributors TD Goodliffe in his Jan. 3, 2007 article Taking photos of public sims copyright infringement? Um, no and Weirdharold in his Jan. 5, 2007 article More Copyright matters over photos in Secondlife point out. C|net news also reports on the issue of legality in an article by Daniel Terdiman published on Jan. 5, 2007 titled: The legal rights to your ‘Second Life’ avatar.
It seems to me that there are those who wish to abuse the provisions of the DMCA in order to serve their own self-interests. It ha been my understanding that the intent of the DMCA was not to stop free speech or dissemination of information, but rather to stop individuals from unfairly profiting from the works of another. Since we are living in an age where a woman can sue McDonalds for serving her hot coffee “hot” or people can sue their employer over stress, it is not surprising that the DMCA would be used to serve the self-interest or shall we say greed of others.
Both US & international copyright laws apply to works within virtual words whether they are intellectual works or artistic works. These copyright laws do make sound provisions for both infringement and fair use, which means that anyone may assert copyright claims or fair use claims. The issues that surround the copyright and fair use doctrines are the same within a virtual world as they are in the real world. However I am not a lawyer, but I can read and am basing my statements upon my own personal research into the area of copyrights.
Now with that being said, it is clear that within any virtual world you hold the copyright to everything that you create, but as the copyright holder, under fair use you would have no rights that enable you to stop people from recording videos or taking screen caps of those creations. You would also not have the right to stop people from publicly displaying these images for the viewing pleasure of others. The only right that a copyright holder would possess in this instance would be that if they could prove that actions and intent of the creator of those images was a deliberate intent to bring harm to them in some manner. Intent in this instance can be a rather difficult thing to prove.
Let us consider the recent events surrounding the YouTube display of an off-color video showing the Second Life land developer Anshe Chung being harassed during an interview. Anshe Chung Studios demanded that YouTube remove the video clip citing the DMCA. This implied that the image of her avatar was a copyright violation. Despite the obvious fact that the video clearly falls under fair use and does not violate any copyright, let’s look at a few other issues that could come into play here.
First off, while it is true that the residents of a virtual world own and thus hold the copyright to those items that they create, one needs to define creation. Especially in the case of an avatar, because unlike the case with prims where you generate basic geometric shapes, link, and texture to them to compose your creation, you start with geometric mesh that already is rigged and has built in morphs that allow the base mesh geometry to be modified.
Now the first question is that was the avatar a creation of Ailin Graef (the real life name of Anshe Chung) or was it just a derivation of a work by Linden Labs? If so, then wouldn’t Linden Labs hold the copyright and the residents of Second Life just have a license granting them permission to modify and use the avatar.
Perhaps Ailin Graef meant that the appearance of the Anshe Chung avatar was the copyright. Ok, even if the Linden Labs avatar was skinned with a skin independently created by Ailin Graef, was that skin a new work of art or just a modification of a template originally created by Linden Labs, Robin Woods, or some other third party artist?
The same considerations also apply to the eyes, the hair, the clothing, and the textures involved. At what point does a derivation of another work make it original? There need to be some clear definitions outlined here first.
What are your ideas?
January 6th, 2007 • 
jvastine • 
comment | January 6, 2007 at 19:48 | individual comment-link
Nicely done jvastine,
I would like to call attention to the fact that no resident holds copy write rights to anything they create in Second Life… seems from the TOS those belong to Linden lab. Linden lab allows intellectual rights to the creators of items in Second Life.
Not being an attorney myself I am not certain what the legal distinction between the two really entail but the difference is significant I am sure.
I think your article is extremely relevant to what is now taking place in real life about what Chung is trying to do concerning incidents in Second Life. GOOD JOB!
comment | January 6, 2007 at 21:20 | individual comment-link
Look, ‘hot’ coffee? Look up the urban myth. Third degree burns don’t come from drinkable coffee.
LL only holds copyright insofar as it needs to distribute the content across the network and into viewers.
…And taking video on private sims or inside buildings? Technically the right to pass is granted by the owner - and abusing that as a guest to make a video or grief isn’t protected speech. The video would then be profit from a crime… Do we really want griefers getting noteriety for recording their efforts?
comment | January 6, 2007 at 22:04 | individual comment-link
Crissa, I don’t think anyone here associated with VTOR in any way support griefers or should that be grievers? Yet it appears most of the authors here are concerned about rights to cover an event… notice that even though there are still hosted copies of the grief attack on Anshe; not one picture has been published here… but that is for good taste not because of any threat or fear of a threat. Our concern is a precedent being set which will limit individual rights which is no more acceptable to me in Second Life any more than they are in Real Life!
As for as notoriety….are you trying to suggest that because it happen in Second Life it should be covered any less than a crime in Real Life? If so…. what world are you from?
Please don’t think I am trying to condemn you… as your comments are not only welcome, but are appreciated… as all non spamming comments… whether they are right or wrong.
comment | January 7, 2007 at 23:48 | individual comment-link
I definitely don’t support griefer activity. I report this type of activity using the ‘Abuse report’ function and if I was at said event above I would have reported it too.
With that said, I wonder if this is why Anshe insisted on having the interview on her sim? So she could play this “it’s mine, all mine” card when the videos and pictures were published? Duh, you invite a reporter for an interview on your land and they aren’t supposed to take any videos or pictures of what happens?
The Anshe Chung interview griefing seemed more like her and husband trying to flex their muscles over an embarassing incident than anything else and I’m surprised that Google/YouTube so easily caved.
It’s ironic though that the griefers have helped Anshe Chung more than hurt her and I’m sure that wasn’t their intention. Now even more people know who Anshe Chung is due to the most famous virtual penis attack ever. She got even more media coverage for being flogged with flying body parts than she ever would have for doing a non-event interview with C|Net.
comment | January 8, 2007 at 08:03 | individual comment-link
Actually TD I think she got more coverage for her (sometimes)successful attempt to brow beat folks into submission with their demands to remove the pictures and video.
comment | January 11, 2007 at 00:19 | individual comment-link
First off, I do not support grievers - as in those who cause others grief, or crackers that reverse engineer or hack into things for the purpose of causing problems, grief, or injury to others.
These comments leave me wondering if the whole Anshe Chung grief scenario might not have been engineered to see just how far they could carry things. Nah, I doubt that they are that smart.
Hmm, no someone please explain to me how coffee could be hot enough to cause a third degree burn and not melt the styrofoam cup into which it was poured. This was perhaps a second degree burn and is by no means an urban legend as some suppose as one of these suits occurred nearby. Plus recent television ads portray a boss standing over a secretary who’s desk appears to be swamped with paperwork and he is yelling as the narration exclaims: “is your job causing you undue stress? Well just call Slimy, Seazebag, & Scrotum to get the compenation and relief that you deserve.” The point that I was making in my post is that there exist certain elements in our society that do abuse the legal system for their own personal gain.
It seems to me that in order for the rights to video or screencaps to pass to the owner of a private sim, it must be clearly posted as a “private” sim. Anyone could argue that in one way or another all sims are private as they are owned by various distinct entities. But even so, this violates fair use copyright law. But I’m sure that the way things are going, this issue will be tested in the courts more sooner than not!
pingback | January 16, 2007 at 16:00 | individual pingback-link
[...] As previously covered in my post VR Legal Rights where I discussed the issues of copyright, fair use, and those who would try to twist laws in order to serve their own self interest, it seems that the Anshe Chung debacle is back in the news once again. This time with a slightly different twist. [...]
pingback | January 24, 2007 at 12:32 | individual pingback-link
[...] fills the news and blogoshere with a myriad of articles. As expressed in my previous two posts: VR Legal Rights and VR Legal Rights Revisited, the regular readers of VTOR already know my feelings regarding [...]
comment | March 21, 2007 at 02:06 | individual comment-link
I absolutely support grievers, and I know that this will probably start a flurry of responses, but please, hear me out.
Actions done by individuals to disrupt the system cause us, the participants of the system, to review its structure and accountibility. Should this event not have happened, we would not be reviewing the impact of a larger issue: the DMCA and Fair Use in the Virtual arena. Many people are having their fair use rights violated by the DMCA, and the more this comes to light, the more likely we are, as a society, to review this piece of legislation and have it reformed to reflect the rights of individuals, and the right to information.
I say more people need to look at the systems that bind them and work to subvert the frameworks that do not make sense. This is where the saying “thinking outside the box” comes from. If it take grievers to get anyone to think outside this incredibly imposing and powerful box we find ourselves in, then all the more power to them. Some flying penises may have been annoying, but it set back the millionaire mogul as well. We need to keep this balance, moreso now than ever.