rss rss rss
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Submission Policy
  • Back Issue Archives
  • Volume XXII Editors and Staff
  • Alumni
General // Apr. 08, 2009 // by webmaster // 0 Comments

I’ll Be a Fashion Designer In My Second Life

By: Emily Nash

Despite their increasing popularity, I’ve never understood the allure of virtual worlds, but my interest in the phenomenon was recently piqued by conversation amongst friends who are hooked on Second Life, the popular virtual world formed by Philip Rosedale under the name Linden Lab in 1999. Second Life provides an online forum for users to interact and share ideas as well as valuable intangible assets in a “virtual” universe fraught with the same intellectual property concerns as in the real world.

To further explore the perils and promise implicit in having a Second Life, I decided to create an account, which can be done for free by logging on to the Second Life website and downloading the required software. Not surprisingly, Linden Lab’s detailed Terms of Service Agreement (“Linden Lab TOSA”) includes a provision1 regarding compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). 2 This Act provides a safe harbor for internet service providers (“ISPs”) who comply with the Act and its requirement that ISPs adequately respond to notices alleging copyright infringement by their users. The DMCA helps protect both ISPs and copyright owners, but what protections exist for trademark owners and to what extent are ISPs responsible for their users’ infringing use of marks?

Branding is a key element to the Second Life concept. One user who is an advertising executive in New York noted that the “real draw” of Second Life is the “creative driven process” of developing, marketing and selling one’s own brand in the virtual world. Second Life blogs abound and the site has even created its own version of Wikipedia, where users have lauded the site as “a new platform for creative and entrepreneurial expression” that might otherwise be unavailable due to real world spatial or financial constraints.5 Real world owners of valuable marks such as Reebok, Lacoste and BMW have also penetrated the Second Life market by setting up shop in the virtual world. One user described that the virtual stores where these goods are sold usually allow users to customize the established mark owner’s goods within the owner’s established parameters, the equivalent of mail ordering customized M&M candies. The site also provides incentives to create new designs as opposed to buying existing brands, since the creation of one’s own design costs more time than money. The principal financial investment comes in the form of acquiring retail space with virtual dollars to make the product available to other users in Second Life.

Despite the incentives for creativity as opposed to infringement, users frequently confuse the line between “real world inspired” creations and virtually infringing use. As one practitioner noted, “[infringement]…is easy to achieve on Second Life.”3 A quick perusal of Second Life blogs such as Fashion Planet shows that virtual designers are often drawn to the same pitfalls as real life designers who take looks they see on the runway and, after making small changes, market them as their own. One user on Fashion Life copied a dress worn by a contestant on American Idol, making one barely noticeable change and customizing the look with accessories purchased from other virtual merchants. The infringement may be done virtually, but it creates potentially harmful outcomes for real intellectual property owners.

Linden Lab is clearly cognizant of the value of trademarked material and, perhaps to attenuate itself from potentially infringing use, decided in 2003 to give users “copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to the Content [they] create in Second Life,” as embodied in section 3.2 of the current Linden Lab TOSA. According to users on Fashion Life, the program features “allow creators to label work as their own, flag it with the level of copy permissions they want to assert over their work, e.g., all-rights reserved or freely modifiable and transferable,” enabling users to “start their virtual brand with confidence.” Apparently there is even a Patent and Trademark Office in Second Life4, enabling users to virtually secure and enforce trademark protection for their virtual creations without looking to real world laws and remedies.

But the grant comes with the proviso that Linden Lab has a perpetual non-exclusive and royalty-free license to use content created on the site and that users are responsible for “understanding all copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property or other laws that may apply to [their] content.”5 By giving users greater control over the content they create in Second Life and making the responsibilities that come with that control explicit, Linden Lab may be less likely to be found contributorily or vicariously liable if named a defendant in a copyright or trademark infringement suit.

Bringing a trademark or copyright action for infringing use in the virtual world may seem unlikely, but in at least one case, the courts have entered judgment in favor of Second Life content creators. In January of 2008, a consent of judgment was entered in the Eastern District of New York, whereby defendant Thomas Simon (aka Avatar “Rase Kenzo”) paid $525 in damages “for profits made through unauthorized use of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property via ‘unauthorized copying and distribution of plaintiffs’ merchandise’” in Second Life. As Virtually Blind, a blog covering legal news, issues, and events impacting virtual worlds, reported, “[t]hough the judgment will not have as significant a precedential value as a contested decision on the merits would have had… the judgment [stands] as the first formal, if tentative, recognition of virtual property by a U.S. court.”

As litigation of trademark and copyright disputes involving more well known ISPs such as YouTube and EBay proliferate, it is worth keeping an eye on practices in the virtual community. Virtual IP infringement may be the new frontier in soft IP.

_______________________________________________________________

1 § 4.3 of the Linden Lab Terms of Service Agreement.
2 105 H.R. 2281 (Oct. 28, 1998)
3 Mark A. Armitage, Virtual Trademark Infringement in A Virtual World?, Vol. 1, No. 4 of LANDSLIDE (March/April 2009).
4 Id.
5 § 3.2 of the Linden Lab Terms of Service Agreement.

Written by: webmaster

 

Leave Your Response

The IPLJ Blog. Brought to you by:

Fordham University School of Law's Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal

Search by Tag

Archives

  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • August 2007
  • April 2007

Fordham University Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal BLOG

IPLJ Editor-In-Chief: Jacqueline P. McMahon

IPLJ Managing Editor: Emily Chepiga

IPLJ Technology & Blog Editor: Amy Dunayevich

................................................. Special thanks to Patricia Chang, 2L staffer, for site maintenance and graphic design.

Blogroll

172685

Congress Wants to Stop Your Smartphone From Knowing Too Much About You

Feb. 03, 2012 // 0 Comments

Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) has drafted legislation,...

1010309-drake-portrait-617-409

Drake sued by Ex for Royalties

Feb. 03, 2012 // 0 Comments

Whoops – looks like someone really could...

bikram

That’s so not zen: Yogis suing Yogis

Feb. 03, 2012 // 0 Comments

This blog’s tech editor started doing yoga...

HIPPA

On the heels of U.S. v. Jones

Feb. 02, 2012 // 0 Comments

CNet suggests that Congress should be following...

CIVET CAT COFFEE

Vietnam’s Counterfeit Civet Coffee

Feb. 01, 2012 // 0 Comments

“here is a growing market in fake...

ipad-art-wide-samsung-20apple-420x0

Samsung: Imitator or Innovator?

Feb. 01, 2012 // 0 Comments

The Samsung Tablet war rages on in...

123Blocks

Links as easy as…

Jan. 30, 2012 // 0 Comments

1. Investors watch Pfizer and Merck as...

Twitter-Censorship

#Censorship?

Jan. 29, 2012 // 0 Comments

This week, Twitter announced that it would...

Journal Updates

Picture 212

Staffer Takes Second in NYSBA Writing Competition!

Jan. 29, 2012 // 0 Comments

IPLJ is proud to report that staffer...

supremecourtimage

Supreme Court cites IPLJ!

Jan. 19, 2012 // 0 Comments

We are so proud to report that...

number-1-sign

Book 1 is ready!

Jan. 08, 2012 // 0 Comments

In honor of the first Volume XXII...

10286-fordham_univ_law_-C

You’re Invited! Premiere IPLJ Event: IP Bullying or Proactive Enforcement?

Oct. 31, 2011 // 0 Comments

Be sure to save the date 11/11/11...

book-publishing-definitions

IPLJ’s Business Editor Published!

Oct. 25, 2011 // 1 Comments

IPLJ’s Business Editor, Amit R. Parikh, co-authored...

iplj-logo

IPLJ Alumna Writes on Fashion Law

Oct. 25, 2011 // 0 Comments

We here at IPLJ are proud to...

1038_old-skate-patent

A New Look

Sep. 14, 2011 // 2 Comments

Notice anything different around here? With the...

linkedin

IPLJ is now on LinkedIn!

Aug. 29, 2011 // 0 Comments

Join the IPLJ group on LinkedIn, students,...

Categories

  • Apple
  • Art
  • Blogroll
  • Books
  • Broadway
  • Celebrity
  • Cell Phones
  • Censorship
  • Communications Law
  • Computers
  • Congress
  • Copyright
  • Counterfeit
  • Design
  • DMCA
  • Entertainment
  • Fashion
  • First Amendment
  • Fourth Amendment
  • FSLF
  • General
  • Google
  • International IP Law
  • Internet
  • Journal Updates
  • Major League Baseball
  • Microsoft
  • Movies
  • Music
  • National Football League
  • NBA
  • NCAA
  • New York
  • News
  • Patents
  • Piracy
  • Plagiarism
  • Privacy
  • Royalties
  • Social Media
  • Sports
  • Surveillance
  • Technology
  • Television
  • Trademark
  • United States Supreme Court
  • Video Games

Recent Posts

  • Congress Wants to Stop Your Smartphone From Knowing Too Much About You
  • Drake sued by Ex for Royalties
  • What’s All This About Pirates on the Internet?
  • That’s so not zen: Yogis suing Yogis
  • On the heels of U.S. v. Jones

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

The IPLJ

The Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal is one of the leading scholarly law journals dedicated to the publication of Articles, Essays, Comments, Addresses, and Notes on intellectual property, media, and entertainment law.

The Blog is the Journal's online counterpart. This Blog strives to present the most up-to-date intellectual property, media, sports, art, and entertainment law news and issues... and then some. We at the IPLJ find this ever-changing field fascinating and relevant. We hope you find this Blog to be the same.

  • © Copyright IPLJ / All Rights Reserved.
  • Premium WordPress Themes / Theme by wpStyles.org