Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Withdraws License to Virtual Frank Lloyd Wright Museum in Second Life -- Then Sends Cease-and-Desist

Sad news for architecture lovers in Second Life: The Frank Lloyd Wright Virtual Museum in Second Life, a non-commercial, education-oriented installation which operated under a licensing agreement from the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation (established by the great builder himself), is disappearing from the metaverse this Sunday. Why? Because according to Rowan Derryth, a Board member of Virtual Museums Inc. (which runs the site), the Foundation let the agreement expire, then sent a cease-and-desist to the group. This happened even after another VMI member made an in-person trip to Arizona, to plead the Second Life installation's case with the Foundation. One interesting (and disappointing) reason for refusing that entreaty is reportedly this: The Foundation blamed VMI for commercial infringement of Wright's intellectual property sold on Second Life's commerce site -- when other content creators were actually to blame for doing that:

[T]he most surprising complaint the Foundation aimed at us was the erroneous assumption that items on the SL Marketplace which were being sold under the name Frank Lloyd Wright (and of course not approved by the Foundation) were somehow the responsibility of the FLWVM/VMI.

And indeed, searching for "Frank LLoyd Wright" in the Second Life Marketplace brings up a number of items with his name in the marketing. So ironically, the rights-respecting, non-commercial group seems to be the one being punished in this case.

All that said, be sure to visit the Frank Lloyd Wright site before it becomes unofficial, and gone. It's impressive: Direct SLurl teleport at this link.

Comments

[Loraan Fierrens]

Well, this is a damn shame. I just visited their sim a few weeks ago and thought they had done an excellent job in building it, and that it would be a great resource for anyone trying to get a feel for Mr. Wright's buildings. Of course, it doesn't compare to being in the physical buildings, but it is a very good rendition for those who can't see a Wright building in person or who wants to be able to compare buildings that are distant from each other in reality.

I hope the Wright Foundation will reconsider their decision, especially since I am sure it won't do a thing to deal with this unauthorized content.

[Ignatius Onomatopoeia]

Just pitiful, especially when folks who abide by the terms of a written agreement in-hand get punished for actions of those with whom they have no legal or financial association.

It makes about as much sense as Ford Motors revoking Mattel's license to make Hot Wheels Mustangs after finding folks at a local flea market selling similar toys from a no-name toymaker in China.

The FLW Foundation has the management savvy of Linden Lab, it seems.

[Harper Ganesvoort]

I'd ask, does the Foundation consider it VMI's responsibility to pursue and stop anybody who's selling Wright-originated/inspired items outside of their license? If that's their belief, has anybody at this place ever given serious consideration to the nature of the Internet? Once something's published on the net or scanned from a book into a computer, the genie's out of the bottle and the cork's been burned to ashes behind it. This is a reality that other "protectors of intellectual property," such as the RIAA, have yet to fully appreciate.

I point out and insist that I don't advocate the practice of IP theft. It is simply a fact of life in the age of the Internet. Actions like this on the FLLW Foundation's part won't end the practice, and just punish the innocent in this case. VMI was trying to play by the rules.

[c3]

aw.. fish rotten from head down in relation to IP value and responsibiies and finally after 7 years of trying to get rich on others IP, the SL DCMA hide me system , is being met with the hard glare of reality.

everyone thought that there were no laws in vegas.. but guess what...? casinos dont like being stolen from either....

welcome to the betterverse of LL taos.

c3
now can we please get on with the business of media.

[Phaustus]

Frank Lloyd Wright has been dead since 1959. How do these IP laws help to motivate Frank Lloyd Wright to create new, marvelous buildings, when he's been dead for 51 years? These ludicrous IP protection laws have the effect of stifling culture. It makes no sense to "respect" these silly "rights" to "property" that isn't material and that these "rights-holders" did nothing to earn.

Why is everyone being so "respectful" of laws that are so poisonous to the arts, sciences, and culture broadly?

[Ignatius Onomatopoeia]

@c3, did you read the post carefully? The Museum in SL acted within the law, and, in fact, under the provisions of the written permission given them by the Foundation. The Foundation's board acted like a bunch of old geezers who don't know that the Internet is, except a bunch of tubes.

Now the Museum is being punished for something they didn't do...it was wankers at SL Marketplace selling FLW stuff that got the FLW Foundation so upset.

But, yeah, you are correct that it may the end of copyright infringement on the scale that we have seen in SL for so long. Lawyers do not need an SL account to do searches at SL Marketplace. I'd wager they are lining up even now, because LL can hardly afford a costly court-battle, and if you need a scapegoat for legal precedent, you pick one that can't fight back.

[Little Lost Linden]

Holy Moly!

[c3]

ive read multiple posts on multiples blogs all published by all sorts of "hidden" avatars and pundits and etc etc... and a few who finally are coming to see the business, like I and others have for 20 years.

i also see way to many assuming that the FLW foundation UNDERVALUES their IP. I offer that it's POSSIBLE that they finally now- do not.

But Since they havent asked for my opinion, offer one about them;)

back to your show.;)

[IntLibber]

I think the Foundations proper argument is that the inworld operations responsibility, under their License Agreement, was to police the use of their trademark in SL by others, and to pursue DMCA complaints with LL against such violators. This argument is entirely appropriate.

[a concerned SL citizen]

this is the museum's response, I think both sides of this need to be read, as the museum has entirely controlled the spin on this

http://iggyo.blogspot.com/2010/12/reply-from-frank-lloyd-wright.html