WordPress Removes Screenshot of Second Life Content from WP Blog After Creator Files DMCA Claim

WordPress, one of the world's largest blog/CMS platforms, reportedly removed a screenshot of Second Life content from an SL fashion blog, after the content creator filed a DMCA copyright claim with the company. Canary Beck has the scoop, and I hope every SL blogger, content creator, and legal scholar interested in digital IP rights gives her post a close read. The targeted blog, Mademoiselle, by Eve Kazan (her SL name), is French language-only, but is one of the best and most well-known in the Second Life blog community, often mentioned on New World Notes. However, the content creator (Irene Abbot) claims that Eve posted a screenshot of her Second Life merchandise (robotic arms) which included the logo of a competitor, creating brand confusion. (Image below the break, via Canary and Eve.)

This story raises a number of very thorny implications, many of which I'm not immediately qualified to analyze, but the basic issues seem to be this:

• The mere fact that a company as large as WordPress acquiesced to a DMCA claim over Second Life content, virtual "property" which has been disputed over in numerous court cases, is concerning.
• At the same time, the image in question (above) does introduce brand confusion, because it looks like an ad for the brand in the foreground, when the actual content in the background is reportedly from a competitor.
• On the other hand, if a Second Life blogger depicts products and trademarks from competing vendors in the same screenshot, can either creator claim brand confusion, and file a DMCA?
• For that matter, does this precedent suggest that a Second Life content creator can file a DMCA with WordPress for any reason or none, as long as they can prove their content is featured without their authorization in a screenshot hosted by WordPress?

I put those questions to legal experts with way more expertise than me, because I honestly don't know. But we definitely need more clarity soon.

Please share this post:

Tweet

 

Comments

[Ciaran Laval]

Interesting because the Second Life photography policy basically says everything is fair game. Machinima is a different kettle of fish.

[Selena]

Seems to me that the content creator used the DMCA as a way to make the blog take down a confusing image that could cause loss of sales and or reputation to the content creator... unlike other RL companies who have other legal ways to take down misleading or defaming images, digital designers have little recourse other than to use the DMCA. I doubt the content creator would have an issue with the product being used if there wasn't the competitors logo on the image.

There was a huge conversation about logo use and DMCA at one of the SLRL meet ups where Coke spoke about the use of their logo. In essence any company has control of any use of their product/logo in print or advertising. If they don't like how their product/logo is used they have legal recourse options to make it stop.

This particular action does not worry me in the slightest.

[Amanda Dallin]

My understanding is that the hosting website doesn't have a choice when they receive a DMCA take down notice, they have to remove the item or risk their "safe harbor" under the DMCA law. The person who put up the item in question has to challenge the take down to get it back which is also automatic. The host doesn't make any decisions they just follow the steps mandated under DMCA. I'm not a lawyer but this is how I've seen it explained by people who claimed to be lawyers.

[A.J.]

It seems like this is more of a good learning experience and less of a disaster.

When you look at Eve Kazan's photograph and the surrounding situation and loyalties, it looks like business and art soup.

She may do great art, but she did bad business and was rightly called out on it.

[irihapeti]

if all you had was the pic to go on then the impression is that the stuff was made by the logo creator

+

is bad form to do this. So I agree with the takedown

[Shockwave Yareach]

The problem with this is that anybody on the globe can claim to own something and demand it be removed from the net. No need to prove ownership or even identify oneself. And the only legal protection for the site is to immediately pull it, since the law absolves the site of legal responsibility only if they do so.

My personal thinking is this: if I have a store that sells coke, I can have pictures of my store selling coke. I'm not claiming to own the brand - I'm showing the merchandise. Coca cola cannot demand I take down the picture - the photo is my property and my copyright. Now if my store also sells Pepsi, dr pepper, etc, then I'm still perfectly within my rights to have a picture of ALL of the products on the shelf at once. Again, I took the picture and it belongs to me; not to coca cola or Pepsi or whoever.

Saying any picture of your product is your legal property flies straight in the face of consumer law and copyright law.

[RoblemVR]

This is a very straightforward case of a DMCA being filed in a case of Copyright infringement Re: Brand confusion of an image on a website.

A DMCA was filed by the owner of the content used in the majority of the image. (The robot arms created by Prometheus Creations Studios) They filed the DMCA because the NEUROLAB logo is very prominent, and no effort was made to properly describe the creator of the robot arms. Prometheus even went the extra step of contacting the blogger to give them proper credit, and that request was turned down. This DMCA is a about image content on a website, and it happens all the time.

I am well aware of all the secondary (he said/she said) circumstances and drama regarding this case. It all makes no difference. There is nothing "thorny", or "concerning" about this case because how large WordPress is or that it is related to Second Life or virtual content. If an internet entity wants to keep their Safe Harbor status, they have to respond to all properly filed DMCAs. If the Blogger really feels they are in the right and wants to file a counter DMCA they well within their rights to do so and the content will go right back up. At that point Prometheus Creations Studios will need to take further legal action.

[DD Ra]

I am astounded to see how normal this seems to from a US perspective.
Miss Kazan buyed the things she took a picture of in SL. She publiched it on her own Wordpress and said nothing against anyone.
The creator ot the robotic arms took it bad that it's store name was not mentionned and wrote up a DMCA notice against someone who had buyed the product !!!
I stay whith Miss Kazan on this case, I will boycott Irene Abbot's products and warn people against buying from her shop. If Irene Abbot can legally be a pain in the ass, it still make her a mediocre person, and someone I will not buy anything from !