In the midst of the recent copybot controversy, Linden Lab updated their terms of service (TOS) for Second Life just prior to Thanksgiving. However, it may not address a concern some people have for streaming their content into Second Life. (Note: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Ask a lawyer if you have questions about LL’s TOS.)
While section 3.2 specifically states, “You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life…” subsequent paragraphs give Linden Lab a license to use your content.
For marketing purposes, the TOS, say that you can ask LL to stop using your content in their marketing, but only after they start using it.
The TOS also says by creating content in-world, you’re giving LL and all users a license to use your content in-world.
Idea City recently had a situation where we were going to stream a conference at our Idea University facility so that in-world participants could attend the sold out, real world conference. At the last minute, the organization’s lawyers prevented this from happening because of the old TOS. While the new TOS clarifies ownership, it doesn’t seem to address the original concern of automatic licensing. That is, once something is in-world, anyone can use it for any purpose–or so it seems from the TOS.
This licensing issue needs to be addressed if SL is to grow. Right now, real world investments are relatively modest, so people are willing to take risks and I imagine are under the radar screen within their own organizations. However, once the lawyers dig into things like the TOS, there will be a drag on innovation. For example, let’s say a movie studio wants to show sneak previews of a movie in SL. It’s my hunch the current TOS would appear pretty frosty to a studio’s lawyers, preventing that from happening. Same with music, live or recorded.
From a practical point of view, people are assuming LL will be using their rights wisely. And…being mentioned in LL’s marketing literature could generally be considered a Good Thing. However, other residents reusing your content could be considered a Bad Thing.
The solution? Eliminate the paragraph that says everyone in-world has a license to use your content, or at least rewrite it to reflect the intent that of creators retaining ownership. I don’t believe LL wants to restrict the use of Second Life as a medium, but may have inadvertently done so. Nor do I believe they’re taking the view that “all your content belongs to
2 responses so far ↓
1 Sibley Verbeck // Nov 30, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Your point about the marketing materials rights of Linden Lab is a good one, and certainly a fundamental problem for major content owners who often do not even have the legal right to put their content on this platform under those terms.
But you’ve fundamentally misinterpreted the rights one gives to other users, as I understand it (and I’m not a lawyer, but am fairly confident in this case). The license you extend to all other users is only over patents, i.e. Linden Lab has extended patent peace on their platform. I heartily agree is an excellent thing to do given how poorly the patent system operates in the regime of software. This extension of rights to other users does not at all apply to copyrights, trademarks, or content.
So I only think you should hold back on events or content due to the former concern, not the latter, which I believe is a misunderstanding.
2 Joel Greenberg // Dec 1, 2006 at 2:35 am
Great point; here’s the text to which I was referring, from LL’s Terms of Service:
So, what you’re saying is, LL is preventing you from preventing others from creating things that are similar to things you created. Let’s say you create a new type of Swiss Army Knife and you call it the Biloxi Blade. If you were to patent it (not getting into the whole discussion of whether or not you can patent a virtual item…that’s for another post!), this paragraph in the Terms of Service prevents you from stopping someone else from making a similar product. Or a better one.
With this paragraph, then, LL is enhancing in-world innovation. Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.
Based upon my interpretation, I would bet that LL doesn’t want to see software patents in-world because they slow down innovation.
This is also sounds like you can’t insist on how people use the products you offer for sale or give away. For example, you can’t say, “You can buy my Biloxi Blade, but you can only use it for purposes x, y, and z.” So, they’re also protecting innovation of use, not just design and production.
All this has implications for companies’ (or individuals’) approach Second Life. If you approach developing in SL as would say, someone like Microsoft, or Novell, that is, companies one would think would want to patent their software and aggressively enforce their rights under patent law, then Second Life would not be the place for you because this paragraph effectively prevents you from doing so.
I interpret the Terms of Service, then, as being a value rich document which allows me to interpret what Linden Lab thinks is imporant. Understanding this value of innovation over protection (patents protect the rights of patent holders) gives me insight into LL’s stand on things like copybot. Because they’d rather innovate rather than legislate their way out of problems, Philip Rosedale’s stand against DRM makes sense at a fundamental level. Many folks who would be effected by copybot are saying they want DRM to protect their textures and products. Philip says DRM doesn’t work and that there are other solutions that would be more effective, like making owners easier to identify so that the agrieved can better go after the offenders.
Leave a Comment