Extract codeine from fioricet. Liquid codeine how to make. Codeine. Sell codeine.

But that “public place” isn’t a direct exemption – RL architecture (but not plans), art galleries and so on are released or waived by the owners expressly for public dissemination. SL equivalents usually aren’t.

Although none of this rules out the effect of any covenants or lease conditions that renters variously impose or omit to impose.

(yes, I know – lame post – it’s 3am – ‘night all)

*no, I don’t know the renter or the story

My reference was to an unpublished article regarding two houses. Both of which are built in a mediterrean style but one of them built on the land of a prominent renter of land, the other not. The renter of land was claiming copyright infringement over the arrangement of the prims as well as the underlying textures. The builder of the second house happened to rent on the land of the prominent renter and was banned from his rentals because of alleged copyright infringement.

Its just that in other forums, not necessarily this one, the prominent renter claimed that certain buildings can be used for a calendar without the builder’s permission because the building was in a public place. Essentially the claim being from the prominent renter, there is a copyright in the building but only some of the rights of copyright attach.

Times Square is a PLACE.

Read that again. I’ll wait.

SecondLife is a login-sealed network, based on the conference-call model, made to look and feel like a place.
So Shep’s right – the image may be moving, it may be responding to your commands, but you’re STILL capturing an image of an image. If Shep was wrong, we’d already have hundreds of court decisions to say so.

Jessica, to use your example…
The origin or status of the textures won’t come into it, unless their author knows about it and decides to involve himself. Then he could have them both done.
Since he’s chosen (in your scenario) to waive his rights, Wynx’s avatar would be deemed the original. Which means Auto-Copyright immediately.
What Steve does is the more brazen infringement colloquially known as “piracy” (ie. it’s not even derivative – it’s faithful duplication). She could stop him from distributing the avvie or piccies thereof (or even using it, if it’s a sale item of hers). And if he sold it, she could claim a piece of the action.

But as Cynthia pointed out just now, IP law all comes back to consent. If persons, or possessions thereof, or intellectual property thereof, are in the image, you need releases in order to publish. Or edit those parts out.
Ferrari can NOT touch you Cynthia; unless the units you snapped are yet to be sold or disposed. Either way, ask the driver.
Now, if the owners of the depicted characters have issued a release, those can be used in any fashion.

How much of an avvie is protected or not, is neither here nor there. It’s wether ANY such content is shown, and wether the holder lets you publish.

But the rights holder of a depicted item (Wynx) has already objected. Therefore, Writer can’t legally use those images that feature it – and certainly not to sell something; even a charity. I’ve seen no end of one-man-band “charities” get themselves in trouble by using that word as some kind of carte-blanche.

Wynx, if you still feel the same way about it, pursue the cease-and-desist order, or the equivalent. I’ve never seen such a case fail – and it’ll be contempt of court if he continues. As for compensation… if Sony or Polygram can’t pull that off, neither can you.

*Now, before anybody starts dropping loads in their undercrackers over the prospect of SecondLife Herald having to pull content left and right, STOP WORRYING. This falls under the “News Reporting” heading – you don’t need a license, and veracity of content isn’t one of the criteria.

If I take pictures of a bunch of people with their cars at drive-ins and (with their signed consent) publish a calendar I”m likely fine. Ferrari probably cant come after me (well, they always can but might not have legal grounds since I’m not presenting my work as an official Ferrari publication nor is Ferrari even a focus for the publication). The pictures are mine and my copyright to do with as I will as the photographer. If I, like those people with the Mustangs tried to do, take pictures of my cars and go to publish a Mustang themed calendar (probably would have wanted to have Mustang in the name of it also which Ford could worry would indicate use of their branding) I’m likely to run afoul of Ford. There is a clear difference there.

Let’s say that someone, Steve, decided to make the exact same avatar as those Wynx makes. The reproduction is so close that you can’t tell the difference between the two. But let’s say that the textures came from the same open source. (Wynx and Steve got the Textures from Textures R Us or something, just to take out texture theft.)

If you believe that Steve should not be allowed to copy the original avatars, then all the other rights of copyright kick in and Wynx can block publication.

If you believe that Steve can copy the original avatars, then the photographs are ok to publish.

SL is a public place, it’s free to sign up and access. Times Square NYC is a public place right? But I live in Europe. I have to get on a plane to access it, but it doesn’t make it any less public.

The pic is a totally separate work, even if the avatars themselves were protected, which is dubious to start with, the textures maybe, the entire av not so clear. The successful Eros copyright infringement cases were about the textures used, not the SexGen beds themselves.

Clearly the avs were purchased, so they are not Wynx’s possessions, and the only permission is model releases required, not the av maker’s permission. Wynx is wrong on this. There would be a caveat if it was used for marketing a product or endorsement, but it isn’t, or if trademarks applied perhaps, but unlikely in this case. It’s like wearing clothes in RL. If that were applied almost zero photos could be used in RL, and clearly they are all the time without the permission of clothing or jewellery makers.

So it’s incidental to the point of the pic (nuts and popcorn), the av copyright is not directly copied, and as such it’s also not a derivative work, but a wholly new work owned by the picture taker.

Best of luck in the court case, but I’m pretty sure Wynx will lose.

As an aside: Education fair use really means the actual process of teaching, eg a teacher copying texts for classwork. It does not apply to non profits or campaigns, and even educationally, there are strict limits. Schools have to buy textbooks after all lol. News is specifically allowed, but whether the Herald actually qualifies as a newspaper, since most of the stuff here is complete fiction, is open to a high level of doubt.

if you make a product, you own the copyright.

if bob takes a photo of the product, bob owns the copyright on the photo.

why are you worried about bob?

duh.