1. From the SL TOS
5.3 All data on Linden Lab's servers are subject to deletion, alteration or transfer. When using the Service, you may accumulate Content, Currency, objects, items, scripts, equipment, or other value or status indicators that reside as data on Linden Lab's servers. THESE DATA, AND ANY OTHER DATA, ACCOUNT HISTORY AND ACCOUNT NAMES RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS, MAY BE DELETED, ALTERED, MOVED OR TRANSFERRED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IN LINDEN LAB'S SOLE DISCRETION.

In other words contrary to popular belief you have no rights and you dont own anything we do and we'll do what we want when we want for any reason at all.

Posted at 9:00PM on Jan 4th 2007 by Brian Weaver

2. I recently re-clarified this very issue with Robin Linden.

Linden Lab does not extend its jurisdiction outside of SL. They don't attempt to police content outside of their servers. They don't have, like some MMORPGs, a TOS rule that says if you engage in expression or commentary or art about their game outside of their servers you may be subject to discipline. And thank God for it.

They do not punish people for their publication of chat logs or screenshots or films, taken with or without permission, outside of their servers. And that's a good thing.

All that Catherine Linden has done here is say "it is not advised". But she has no power to legislate that morality outside of the LL servers.

While you can yammer on about how nothing is owned anyway such as to have the rights to it, what's operable here is that no paranoid dweebus in SL can harangue you for taking and publishing his picture outside of SL.

Posted at 10:18PM on Jan 4th 2007 by Prokofy Neva

3. It's fine for Catherine Linden to state that she "like[s] to say that filming in SL is like filming in NYC", and it would be nice to think that a "common sense approach" can be applied. However, the TOS state that creators own the copyright of their creations in Second Life. Showing pictures or video of that content without permission could therefore be a copyright violation.
It seems to me that whether anything in SL counts as "public property", is a legal issue which may need to be resolved by courts, unless LL provides some clearer definitions in their TOS.

If I'm allowed to take a picture or video of a building and use it in my own work, because it is in a public place, am I also allowed to take an image of the texture of that building and use it in my work?

Posted at 11:13AM on Jan 5th 2007 by Jonas Karlsson

4. If it's clearly a picture of the texture, used as a picture of the texture, and you didn't profit from it, sure. If you took a picture and ripped the texture from it to be used as a texture in your own work, I would consider it copyright infringement. As with many other gray-area legal matters, infringement is determined by a combination of amount of usage and the intent behind it.

Which is why the Anshe Chung situation is ridiculous.

She and her husband are going after sites that post pictures of the penis attack during her recent public appearance, claiming that since her avatar is her own creation, photos of it are violations of her copyright.

However, her avatar is also a public figure. News organizations can't take shots of individuals without permission, but they can shoot public figures without it, especially when that figure is appearing in a function open to the public. I'd argue that people should not take pictures of her in general without her permission, but once she gets up on a stage and starts talking all bets are off. If she wants to remain private, she'll need to stay in private.

Posted at 1:40PM on Jan 5th 2007 by C.A. Bridges

5. My understanding of copyright is that the intent and whether or not you profit from the copy has no bearing on whether it is infringement or not. The author of http://www.llrx.com/features/bloggersbeware.htm agrees.

Posted at 7:31PM on Jan 5th 2007 by Jonas Karlsson

6. The U.S Copyright office disagrees.

From section 107 of the copyright act, the first factor to be considered when deciding whether a usage falls under Fair Use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;".

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

There are other factors, and even with the best of intentions you can't just more than a very small portion of a copyrighted work without permission, but intent does make a difference.

Posted at 8:19PM on Jan 5th 2007 by Cabridges Fanwood

7. Yes, you are right, and I was wrong. Intent does matter as you point out, and even the article I cited only states that:

The issue of whether money is changing hands may play a role in whether a particular use is "fair," but it does not itself constitute fair use.

Posted at 9:35PM on Jan 5th 2007 by Jonas Karlsson

8. Well said, and thank you. I didn't mean to imply that even the best intentions permitted wholesale copyright infringement, and I suspect we weren't that far apart.

Posted at 10:16PM on Jan 5th 2007 by Cabridges Fanwood