« Creatorverse Now Comes With All Kinds of Creative Tutorials | Main | Quan's Travelogues: An Excellent Blog for SL Art Lovers »

Thursday, November 08, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


From what I know Ozimals lost the lawsuit and they have to pay Amaretto for all lawyer cost and damages they did to them

Adeon Writer

Meanwhile, I've been having fun with the many other breedable games in SL that have popped up while these guys were too busy having fun.

Arcadia Codesmith

I'm not a lawyer nor a legal scholar, but I'm not reading broader implications in this case beyond the fact that you can't copyright an idea.

Cube Republic

Wow never knew this was going on. Absolutely sounds like Ozimals are complaining over nothing. The concept of breedable pets does not belong to them. Chickens were here first were they not?

Ajax Manatiso

With this court decision it appears they both have equal rights to lag a sim or bring it to a crawl along with the other sims with which the original sim shares a server. The crapulation continues .....

Pussycat Catnap

You folks in the comments have it backwards.

"Amaretto has not established a reasonable likelihood of facing copyright infringement liability"

Its not Ozimals that failed, but Amaretto seems to have failed to show a reasonable likelihood of infringement by Ozimals.

This ruling is over the counter-suit.

Amaretto was suing Ozimals in this ruling. The case name even says so. Case names are:

plaintiff vs. defendant.
- So that tells you right there that Amaretto was suing Ozimals.
It only flips in things like appeals - when a defendant makes an appeal against the plaintiff, or, as here, a counter-claim.

Going back to Hamlet's original article:

"which started when Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice against Amaretto through Linden Lab, alleging that aspects of the breedable horse were copied from the breedable bunny. This dispute escalated after Amaretto filed a counter DMCA notice and copyright lawsuit."

- Last sentence there.

This means the counter-claim by Amaretto has failed to get a summary judgement. It does not mean the case is over.

Summary judgements are ultra rare. They only occur when the situation is so obvious, the court finds there is no need for a trial. That's something Courts normally cannot Constitutionally do. To get one, the other side has to have essentially conceded the floor.

To get a summary judgement, there cannot be -ANY- material / relevant to the judgement facts in dispute.

Ozimals would have had to agree they were violating Amaretto's copyright for a summary judgement to go through.

Summary judgements can also happen when the question is made moot by the law.

If A sues the government for damages from destroying A's opium fields... the government can get a summary judgement because the law answers the question... A had no right to have those fields.

So what has happened here is that Amaretto's counter of copyright infringement needs to be brought to a full hearing -BEFORE- any action can be taken. The facts for it are in dispute.

Now we turn to the rest, and we find the judge has also ruled Amaretto's case lacks merit to being with:

"not established a reasonable likelihood of facing copyright infringement liability"

This means that whatever evidence was put forth, was deemed worthless. Its not the role of the judge to to decide on the facts of the evidence. But they do rule on the validity.

If you walk into court and say "the devil made me do it" the judge will find that invalid evidence. Likewise if you claim 'their business infringes on mine because its the same industry' without showing any evidence of how they -specifically- infringed.

But if you walk into the court and say "the blood on that knife is not mine nor the victims" the 'fact finder' rules on that - at the end of the case. Likewise if you say 'their business infringes on mine because they copied these scripts here, that texture there, this 3D model, and used the same 'breeding genetics' plan as shown in my charts here.' - then this is real evidence that the fact-finder decides on at the -END- of the trial.

This case failed to get to that stage, because the judge found there simply was no valid evidence.

Pussycat Catnap

(I think I changed a bit of what I was saying up there midway through and forgot to edit upwards all the way. I started writing for an injunction because my mind was on that subject, then realized this was a summary judgement... :) )

Jim Tarber

I think it's a huge win for Amaretto. The judge is throwing out the counterclaim because he's saying Ozimals has no original claim to make. The judge is saying the counterclaim is moot. Not for any of the reasons I expected (you can't copyright a concept) but because he's saying the work for Ozimals was not exclusive anyway. They don't own it. So the whole counter-claim is moot.

Page 6 of the PDF: "Ozimals therefore is not a co-owner, but a non-exclusive licensee without
standing to sue for copyright infringement."

"Here, Amaretto faces no serious prospect of copyright infringement liability" ... "As explained above, Ozimals cannot sue for
infringement." ... "Accordingly, Amaretto has failed to demonstrate that it has standing to bring its declaratory relief claim."

So the counter-claim fails, but it's because Amaretto is completely protected from Ozimals.

And he even says the previously agreed settlement might be discarded too. Top of page 5: "That settlement agreement may or may not have any force at all. A later agreement in the same case expressly stated that it “supersede[d] and replace[d] any previous” agreement in the case, and the new agreement made no mention whatsoever of the ‘661 copyright or joint ownership. See Ex. B to Kearns Reply Decl. (dkt. 131). The Court need not rely on either agreement or treat one as operative over the other, because the outcome would be the same under either (or if no agreement had been made at all)."

Whoa. So not only does he say, very clearly that the counter-suit is moot because "Ozimals cannot sue for infringement", but also that the original settlement might not "have any force at all". Looks like the Amaretto lawyers really screwed up with their interpretation of the law.

He's refusing the Amaretto counter-claim because "the plaintiff must have 'a real and reasonable apprehension that he will be subject to liability if he continues' the allegedly infringing conduct." And that fails completely, only because Amaretto need not fear Ozimals legal action at all because they cannot sue because they have no claim at all. Whoa.


Bunneh wins! yay! =)

(afterwards, bunneh & horsey talking....)

Bunneh: yay I win! so horsey, why the long face? :P

Horsey: Doh! it's wabbit season! fire!

Wraithlin Constantine

Hamlet, don't you think your post is a little biased? You point to Amaretto not having a case as the core of the judgement, however you neglect to note the reasons why the claim is moot. Your omission causes many who might not have bothered reading the document to simply assume 'Ozimals won' and 'Amaretto lost', when that's not the whole story.

Jim Tarber gets it right - it's moot because Ozimals has no right to file a DMCA claim on something they don't own 100%.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Making a Metaverse That Matters Wagner James Au ad
Please buy my book!
Thumb Wagner James Au Metaverse book
Wagner James "Hamlet" Au
Wagner James Au Patreon
Equimake 3D virtual world web real time creation
Bad-Unicorn SL builds holdables HUD
Dutchie Evergreen Slideshow 2024
Juicybomb_EEP ad
My book on Goodreads!
Wagner James Au AAE Speakers Metaverse
Request me as a speaker!
Making of Second Life 20th anniversary Wagner James Au Thumb
PC for SL
Recommended PC for SL
Macbook Second Life
Recommended Mac for SL

Classic New World Notes stories:

Woman With Parkinson's Reports Significant Physical Recovery After Using Second Life - Academics Researching (2013)

We're Not Ready For An Era Where People Prefer Virtual Experiences To Real Ones -- But That Era Seems To Be Here (2012)

Sander's Villa: The Man Who Gave His Father A Second Life (2011)

What Rebecca Learned By Being A Second Life Man (2010)

Charles Bristol's Metaverse Blues: 87 Year Old Bluesman Becomes Avatar-Based Musician In Second Life (2009)

Linden Limit Libertarianism: Metaverse community management illustrates the problems with laissez faire governance (2008)

The Husband That Eshi Made: Metaverse artist, grieving for her dead husband, recreates him as an avatar (2008)

Labor Union Protesters Converge On IBM's Metaverse Campus: Leaders Claim Success, 1850 Total Attendees (Including Giant Banana & Talking Triangle) (2007)

All About My Avatar: The story behind amazing strange avatars (2007)

Fighting the Front: When fascists open an HQ in Second Life, chaos and exploding pigs ensue (2007)

Copying a Controversy: Copyright concerns come to the Metaverse via... the CopyBot! (2006)

The Penguin & the Zookeeper: Just another unlikely friendship formed in The Metaverse (2006)

"—And He Rezzed a Crooked House—": Mathematician makes a tesseract in the Metaverse — watch the videos! (2006)

Guarding Darfur: Virtual super heroes rally to protect a real world activist site (2006)

The Skin You're In: How virtual world avatar options expose real world racism (2006)

Making Love: When virtual sex gets real (2005)

Watching the Detectives: How to honeytrap a cheater in the Metaverse (2005)

The Freeform Identity of Eboni Khan: First-hand account of the Black user experience in virtual worlds (2005)

Man on Man and Woman on Woman: Just another gender-bending avatar love story, with a twist (2005)

The Nine Souls of Wilde Cunningham: A collective of severely disabled people share the same avatar (2004)

Falling for Eddie: Two shy artists divided by an ocean literally create a new life for each other (2004)

War of the Jessie Wall: Battle over virtual borders -- and real war in Iraq (2003)

Home for the Homeless: Creating a virtual mansion despite the most challenging circumstances (2003)

Newstex_Author_Badge-Color 240px
JuicyBomb_NWN5 SL blog
Ava Delaney SL Blog
my site ... ... ...