I just saw a post on the Second Life forum (part of the thread I mentioned earlier) which claims to quote a “Notecard” handed out by Linden Lab employees giving direction to residents/customers on intellectual property. This is the part I found astounding:
TRADEMARKED MATERIAL
All Lindens are required to remove all content utlizing trademarked materials, with or without notice. This includes all RL corporate logos and name brands. Understand that certain objects to look like a RL item is not the same and utilizing trademarked names or logos. So one can create a car in SL, make it look like a Mercedes Benz SL, but cannot use the name “Mercedes Benz SL” in it’s description or textures, nor can one use their trademarked emblems or logos. The mere shape of the car that was created is NOT trademarked (but making shapes to replicate actual trademarked logos is NOT acceptable) . Use of designer logos like those of Gucci, Nike, Louis Vuiton…etc. are also not acceptable. Any resident may file an abuse report if they see any other resident violating trademarked material usage on in-world content in SL.
{emphasis is mine}
Wow. Did Linden Lab have a real, honest-to-god lawyer write up this thing? Here’s my comment on the forum (I won’t put the entire thing in quotes to make it easier to read):
—
Interesting.
The mere shape of the car that was created is NOT trademarked (but making shapes to replicate actual trademarked logos is NOT acceptable).
Tell that to Coca-Cola. The bottle’s SHAPE is trademarked. There are other examples of SHAPES being trademarked. I thought they had lawyers helping them with this stuff. Did a lawyer write that notecard?
Reference (Link):
This “bottle-shaped concept” was patented in Alexander Samuelson’s name on November 16, 1915. The bottle was one of the first glass containers to be patented solely on its distinctive shape. When it expired, a successor patent was issued to the Root Company in 1923 and under this license the company received a 5 cents per gross royalty until 1937 when Coca-Cola acquired the rights.
More reference (Link):
Finally, in an effort to safeguard the contour bottle design indefinitely, The Coca-Cola Company requested that the US Patent Office grant a trademark on the bottle. The Company argued that the bottle had become so well known that it had taken on trademark status. On April 12, 1960, the trademark was granted, indefinitely, protecting the unique design.
More reference (Link ):
Under some circumstances, trademark protection can extend beyond words, symbols, and phrases to include other aspects of a product, such as its color or its packaging. For example, the pink color of Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation or the unique shape of a Coca-Cola bottle might serve as identifying features. Such features fall generally under the term “trade dress,” and may be protected if consumers associate that feature with a particular manufacturer rather than the product in general.
Some here might recall that in an older thread I pointed out that a uniquely-shaped car like the VW Bug might be trademarked. The obvious difficulty here is that the tools in SL are probably insufficient for shape alone to violate any trademark VW might have. However, mapping ripped photographic textures of the real vehicle on a close facsimile might be enough to start a legal conversation. Beyond SL, there are issues of game engines that can use simple, non-infringing shapes enhanced using techniques like displacement mapping which gives – after processing – the appearance of the actual object. I suspect that in the end the word “shape” will give way to “the appearance of shape”.
I’d be interested in hearing a Linden explain the apparent inaccuracies in their notecard.
—
Based on everything I’ve seen, it’s no wonder their policy strikes me as being utterly screwed up. Now will Linden Lab openly explain themselves? I’d like to think they will, but based on previous responses I won’t even bother asking them directly.