The Collabor88 event is under new management, and the website also received a makeover. I like the new content, cos they even have the full catalog of each round posted on the site for convenience. June’s theme is “Chill Pill” or 90’s, that wonderful decade full of so many iconic things.
I saw a few things posted on Plurk that were inspired by RL items, so I asked my friends if they thought these things were alright to reproduce in SL. It was the Plastic Combo TV from Vespertine and the Furby, from Fashionably Dead (Toast Bard). What followed was general confusion — some people thought the Furby might be “inspired” so it’s not violating copyright, and the overwhelming majority agreed that taking video cover art was probably not okay.
As a shopper and a blogger, I do want to stay informed about these things. Some really rude people on Plurk assumed that asking was equal to “pitchforking” or forming a “hate campaign” against said creators. It’s not. I just wanted to know for MY own enlightenment, and for current and new creators to learn from this and know what is acceptable and what is copyright infringement.
The creator of Vespertine (Amelie Knelstrom) was notified, so she corrected her mistake by removing ALL of the VHS with movie covers from the package. My picture above represents the “before” — a version that is no longer for sale. The current version only includes the tv, empty boxes of home-made VHS, and a blank but editable VHS cover. Once she apologized for the mistake and corrected it, citing that she was in a rush and under a lot of stress to get the item out asap, people were happy with the outcome. I didn’t see anyone say anything negative about her brand or the item itself. Unfortunately, a lot of people on Plurk like to cause drama and censor other people, going as far as saying that asking such a question about copyright is causing drama. Never be afraid to ask questions, it’s the only way to know for sure.
Do you think using art from RL for SL creations is okay? Is creating an ‘inspired’ item violating copyright? Let me know in the comments!
I also picked up this Boatneck Dress from Fashionably Dead, the Aiko headpiece and bangle from LaGyo, Lydia Slingbacks from Ingenue, the Peace Marquee Light from Floorplan, the Blue Lagoon tv from Vespertine (the fixed version) to decorate my new house (more on that later).
What I’m Wearing:
Pink Fuel – Harley (Peach)
Exile – Fire To The Rain
LaGyo – Aiko bangle Collabor88
LaGyo – Aiko headpiece Collabor88
Fashionably Dead – Boatneck Dress (Teal Pink) S Collabor88
BOOM – Friendship Bracelet Arcade
SLink – Mesh Hands (av)
Ingenue – Lydia Slingbacks (Shocking Pink) Collabor88
SLink – Womens Medium Height Barefeet
*note: the Vespertine VHS were rezzed by my friend, since I do not have this version. I asked to borrow them for the pic cos I wanted to discuss it.
Check out this fabulous post written by Aemeth if you want to read more about this topic.
I saw your question and I don’t see why people considering the inquiry as witch hunting or stirring the pot. The question was very matter of fact in the wording. We do have the right to question things in SL for our own knowledge if anything. So ask away my dear!!!
Unfortunately, some people use it as a way to align themselves with the creators, by saying “look how mean Gogo is, asking about your things!” I’m a consumer, I will keep asking questions 🙂
SL products are filled with illegal items. ignoring specific rules (http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Intellectual_Property) relating to trademarks, patents, and copyrighted designs is blatant even from well known “designers”. shockingly in-your-face rip offs appear on the feeds every day. who’s to blame?
Do you think using art from RL for SL creations is okay? — For personal use, sure, but to sell and make profit from? F* no. I’ve uploaded artwork I really admire and favorite movie posters to my inventory so I could display them on the walls of my SL home, but I have not and would not sell them, ever. I don’t sell anything on SL at all, except for leftover gacha items during Arcade rounds.
Is creating an ‘inspired’ item violating copyright? — That totally depends on how “inspired” it is. It would have to have a distinct unique quality to not violate a copyright. Then again everything is inspired by something else. C’mon… Furby = a more colorful Gizmo… but it was its own character as well. It just depends.
I have looked in the Ingenue store for the lydia slingbacks and cannot find them. I even checked on marketplace. Is there maybe a different store? I really would love to find them. thanks
The Lydia Slingbacks are sold at Collabor88 🙂
It’s probably not okay when you look at LL Tos… However I almost squeeled recognizing all those movies and I think it’s sad they are taken away.. Just like you wouldn’t be allowed to have Nike shoes or a diet coke can.. Sometimes I just think.. its sucks. But, as a creator I wouldn’t take the risk either..
Actually a Diet Coke would be ok. They’ve released their trademark to sl. lol
(sorry im an oldie who was around when this fight with coke played out. your comment made me think of it so i had to dig it up http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Coca-Cola )
Hahaha! Okay cool good to know 😀
Looks to me like the Furbies are trademarked for just about every use they could think of:
http://www.trademarkia.com/trademarks-search.aspx?tn=furby
If you want to make something that already exists in the real world, why can’t you just do a quick search to find out if you’re legally allowed to do it first? It would solve so many silly disputes.
I think it’s kind of ironic that this copyright violation bothers you enough to question it, but you had no problem co-oping someone’s heritage with your Native American ‘inspired’ photo.
Thanks for your comment 🙂
How are the two related? How is it ironic? I think you mean to use another word here.
“Ironic statements (verbal irony) often convey a meaning exactly opposite from their literal meaning. In ironic situations (situational irony), actions often have an effect exactly opposite from what is intended.”
Gogo didn’t seem to care about artistic integrity when it came to using a headdress as an accessory. In this post, she acts like some beacon of moral integrity, ~innocently checking up on the copyright infringement of a creation when she’s proven to be quite the opposite. I couldn’t care less if someone wants to take a chance on using a picture of Pepsi on their prim. I’m way more offended by someone who pulled the “I have a Native American friend so cultural appropriation is okay!” card.
LOL