Lindens Announce Upcoming "Content Seller Program" -- The End of (Most) In-World Content Theft to Follow?

On the official Second Life blog, Linden Lab VP of Customer Relations Cyn Linden has a very long but well-worth reading post on the company's "Roadmap" for Second Life content creators. Its most salient point, in my opinion, is the announcement of a “content seller program” now in early development; essentially, it'll be a kind of official registry of verified SL entrepreneurs, similar to Linden's solution provider program. To qualify for a content seller listing, a Resident must provide Linden with real world identity and payment information, and affirm, writes Cyn, "that all necessary intellectual property rights and licenses have been obtained for all content that the Resident has for sale." (Among other criterion.)

The intent, of course, is to strengthen the brands and reputations of established Residents, and encourage a market of reputed vendors. (It's somewhat similar to the creator licensing system for the upcoming virtual world Blue Mars.) If implemented successfully, I believe it would curb most clearcut cases of content theft, which seem to be the province of temporary "alt" Residents who haven't registered their payment info, while minimizing their incentive for creating knockoffs in the first place. (For example, take the famous case of Stroker Serpentine versus anonymous, unregistered Volkov Catteneo.)

In other announcements, Cyn discusses the DMCA process (she says it'll be streamlined), an upcoming "sticky" licensing system applied to content taken out of Second Life, and a call for Residents to help establish an "industry standard" policy on acceptable uses of Copybot-type programs. On each of these points, however, I think implementation will be much more challenging than the content seller program. In any case, such a registry could also help address the thorniest controversies around those issues as well.

Comments

[Gauge Laville]

For all the complaining we hear about Linden Labs it appears that, at least in this instance, it has clearly and concisely stated it's intentions and a plan of action. *applauds*

Much of this was clearly aimed at Rezzable's poorly thought out statements about their BuilderBot product, and the overwhelming opposition from the community. The Rezzable team not only took a bunker mentality, but demonstrated arrogance and disregard for original content creators.

The Greenies have been put on notice. Go ahead & put out your money recouping virtual middle finger, without proper checks, and a sincere effort to prevent content theft. Then watch what little (if any) venture capitol dollars you have left get eaten alive in litigation.

Dear Jonathan Himoff (aka RightAsRain Rimbaud),
You can take your ball and go home, crying.
You can't come back to our playground and do as you please.

Linden Labs lawyers are bigger than yours.

[Shava Nerad/Shava Suntzu in SL]

In a previous phase of my first life, I worked in the entertainment licensing industry. A statement that "all necessary intellectual property rights and licenses have been obtained for all content that the Resident has for sale" seems to me to make a seller on very shaky ground who sells "fan art" -- anything from a Harley Davidson leather jacket to a Star Wars AV or an Apple logo t-shirt.

In Coca-Cola's case, they gave residents a clear license to promote Coke by creating in-world merch for their brand.

However, most merch sold in world on other folks' IP is generally justified by vendors by using the "fan site" argument -- that a fansite can use an entertainment/logo IP without license.

Unfortunately the VAST majority of fan site policies specifically *forbids* the *sale* of items with the images or IP on them. You can use images or logos to promote the fan site to fans, for example, but you can't sell t-shirts on zazzle or cafepress.

Although this is often ignored by licensors, when I was in the field, folks such as HBO would periodically sweep cafepress, ebay, etc. for violations and send cease-and-desist.

It's only a matter of time before SL comes under notice for this, and LL can now legitimately claim they are not liable, because they had an agreement with sellers in-world.

[Connie Sec]

I have already heard of a person selling cars..not unlike Ferrari's ( though not sold under that name) being notified to cease selling said cars as they infringe upon the shape of RL Ferrari's.
So, watch out content creators,enforcement of rights is a double edged sword.
I'm waiting for Converse, or some RL shoe seller to pop in and send cease and desist notices to people selling shoes close in design to the RL ones. Same for clothes and other things "inspired' by RL products.

[HatHead Rickenbacker]

The horses are already out of the barn.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

What's the impact for people who use 3rd-party textures and sculpts in their creations? Apart from the issue of texture vendors ripping and repackaging from each other, there's the endemic problem of thieves stealing internet images and representing them as their own original work. At best, the end-product producer can affirm that the raw material suppliers affirm that this is their IP. Is that going to fly with the CSP?

[DagnyT Dagger]

So, I'm a tad confused. Is this program required for people who want to sell things in-world? I mean, the stuff I create, I make myself, 100%. I create the textures, I create whatever animations or sculpties etc. How can I provide proof to LL that I created these, without giving up my originals?

[Nalates Urriah]

DagnyT's point of proof is interesting. I suspect one will only have to STATE the works are originals and they have all necessary rights. Proof will only be required if there is a problem. Think how mush stuff LL would have to wade through by requiring proof for everything.

When proof is needed I suspect it is much like copyright proof. Drafts and samples of work in progress are the proof. Photoshop files with the layers and other original work. One can also file copyright on clothes images and other textures. By the time files are needed it is litigation stage and the files are protected evidence... well... they could still be stolen but the thief would have to be really dumb to use them after that.

Some RL vendors realize the advantage of having there products all over the place for people to see. It is advertising that affects RL sales. That Nike has imitations of their shoes all over SL is not a problem so much as protecting the trademark. As long as the imitation creator has acknowledged that, it is not much of a problem. How progressive and creative the RL company is decides what they allow in SL.

[Jen]

Interesting. For us to be able to state that we have copyright for the things we sell, that precludes making copies of things other people hold copyright on. That would include avatars-as-fanart and other types of fan art.

I'm fine with that, but it's interesting. People in SL seem to get more bent out of shape about ripping each other off than they do about ripping off creators outside of SL.