Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Intellectual Property Replacement

I was asked to blog on this pressing matter. It is in the public interest to do so mainly so we have a central repository of information and experiences to share with each other, so please comment of your experiences and add to my list, any vendors not listed, that you've experienced IP replacements for.

IP Replacement

If you search your inventory using "IP Replacement" as a search criteria, you may find many of your animations replaced with what you see above.

IP stands for "Intellectual Property". So when an item in your inventory is replaced, it is because someone felt that their creation was "stolen by another, in essence". Linden Lab follows the procedures described in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) . 

If a legally sufficient DMCA notice is submitted, Linden Lab will then remove the identified materials as appropriate. Repeated copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property violations by a Resident may result in their accounts being suspended or terminated.

Here is a link to Linden Labs policy on the IP complaint process.


This means the that someone filed the equivalent of a web-centric DMCA Takedown. 

According to LL, the process for correcting a wrongful IP takes about 10 days. It has to go thru legal channels. 

The following vendors appear to have had IP's filed against them in recent days. Well to be more clear, these are the vendors who people have reported to have had items they bought, replaced in their inventory.

Vista, Akeyo, 4DStudio, Henmations, SineWave

Replacement Behaviors

Animations that are boxed will work when you replace them into your inventory but only until they do another IP run, which appears they do nightly??. I am only speculating.

Also, it appears that animations redelivered by vendors in good conscious were again IPed last night. I can attest to the fact that I had Akeyo animations re-IPed last night.

What can you do?

You are supposed to be notified by email as to which animations were IPed. So far I have not received any emails associated with this latest wave of IPs. So, playing by the rules and acting in good faith and conscious, I feel you would be within your rights to unpack animations you have boxed up and put them back in your inventory. Just know that they will be good only until there is another "animation raid" later that night.

It appears that animations in HUDs still work and were not affected by the mass IP run. That maybe an alternative to safeguard against inflammatory IP filings, as we can act with an "innocent until proven guilty" in parallel with the DMCA process which seems to warrant a take-action-based-on "guilty until proven innocent"

Filings in Error

It appears that there has been either an error or an intent to defraud by someone real or by someone falsely represented. Here is a recent statement  found and posted from Linden Lab.


Due to a recent internal error, some Residents may have noticed a few items were recently replaced within their inventories. We are working to reverse the process and hope to have the original items restored quickly. 

If you believe that your items were affected, please keep an eye on your inventory - you should see the original items restored soon.

In addition to restoring the original items as quickly as possible, we are also taking steps to resolve the issue that caused the error so that we can avoid repeating it in the future. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

How to handle erroneosly filed IPs

An IP complaint was submitted about my content, and I believe that the complaint was in error. What can I do? 
If you've been notified of a copyright complaint about your content, and you believe in good faith that your content is not copyright infringing, or that its removal was by mistake or misidentification, you may have the content reinstated by submitting a sworn counter-notification. To be effective, a counter-notification must be in writing and contain the information identified in our DMCA Policy under the heading “To File A Counter-Notification”.

Please be aware that this is a legal process, and if you submit a valid counter-notification, the law provides that a copy of your counter-notification, including the real world contact information you provide, is to be forwarded to the person who submitted the copyright complaint. Your removed content may then be reinstated in ten (10) business days unless we receive notice that the complaining party has filed a court action seeking an order to restrain you from engaging in infringing activity related to the content."


"When content is removed from a website at the request of the owner of the content or the owner of the copyright of the content"
Note: although the DMCA is part of US Copyright law, a DMCA Takedown does not require the content to be copyrighted in order to process the takedown OR for the request to have the content taken down acted upon by the website owner or ISP.

In other words the fact the content is yours, or in the case of a photo or video the subject is you can be sufficient enough to request a takedown.

Please see this link for more information on a DMCA Takedown

 DMCA Takedown


If you have more time than money, then here is some bathroom reading on the legalese with regards to DMCA.

DMCA Legislation

-Lat "Yummy" Lovenkraft-


  1. I'm sick and tired of the whole process. DMCA assumes you are guilty until proven innocent, which flies in the face of our whole legal process. That said, LL did not make the law - so contact your local politicians if you want to have any hope of making changes.
    As for me, I will wait for the furor to die down. I've heard through the rumour mill that it was a LL error, but since dances were ip'd again last night, who knows?
    Luckily for me, most of the stuff that was taken were items I don't use often.
    Although I will add that I have NEVER EVER EVER gotten an email from LL about anything that was ip replaced in my entire time in SL. NEVER.
    Without that, good luck figuring out what they took.

  2. In all fairness Linden Lab and for those of you born after meteors struck the earth and killed off the dinosaurs, here is what an email from Linden Lab looked like back in the day:

    Hi Lat Lovenkraft,

    We are writing to let you know that we removed some content you had in Second Life under our Intellectual Property Policy. For a list of the specific content we removed, please see the "IP Complaint Details" below at the bottom of this email.

    When we receive an intellectual property complaint, we investigate it and look for copies of the content identified in the complaint. Our investigation found that you had some of this content. We replaced the content with generic placeholder item(s), as described in our FAQs on our Intellectual Property Complaint Process.

    If you weren't aware of an intellectual property issue, don't panic or take it personally! Just take steps to avoid content that may have intellectual property issues. Here are some tips to protect yourself and keep your inworld shopping safe and fun.

    Many thanks for your interest in Second Life.

    -- The IP Team at Linden Lab


    Content Removed:
    Item: Animation named "dance =" Location: Inventory of Lat Lovenkraft
    Item: Animation named "cool dance shuffle" Location: Inventory of Lat Lovenkraft
    *If animations were removed, the replacement animation may be in your HUD or animation override (AO). [c:8330]

  3. False DMCA filings arenot to be taken lightly. They come at a cost of risking serious civil damages and/or serious criminal punishments because violations fall under the auspices of "perjury".

    However, some people abuse the DMCA system. Despite not having a valid claim of copyright infringement, a person who wants content taken down may send a takedown notice anyway, in order to have material they find offensive, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable removed, or simply to harass the person responsible for the account which will be affected by the DMCA notice. What many who abuse the DMCA system do not realize is that they can be sued and held civilly liable for the havoc they wreak by sending these fake notices.
    A perfect example of this is the case of Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated. Diebold made voting machines used in US elections. Online Policy Group was critical of Diebold’s machines, and released e-mail correspondence from the company that they had obtained onto the Internet. Diebold sent DMCA takedown requests to have access to the e-mails that Online Policy Group had posted online removed.
    Online Policy Group sued Diebold over the takedown requests, arguing that the Group had the legal right to publish the e-mails. A California court agreed with the Group and granted a request for summary judgment, after which Diebold settled with the Group to pay $125,000 for their monetary losses and legal fees.
    The case was just one of many which have been fought over unsubstantiated DMCA takedown requests. Another case was that of Michael Crook, a controversial public speaker who appeared on Fox News and was subsequently criticized on a website which used a thumbnail image of him on their site. Not only was a thumbnail image fair use, but since it was Fox that made the show, Crook could not even claim to be the owner of the broadcast. The case was settled and Crook agreed to a number of embarrassing conditions, including being required to take courses on copyright law, to never again file a Cease & Desist request regarding the image of him on Fox News, to publish a public apology, and other inconvenient conditions for him. He was not required to pay monetary damages because he was indigent.
    With these cases in mind, and considering the enormous hassle that a false DMCA takedown request can result in, it is important for people to refrain from sending unsubstantiated takedown requests lest they face monetary damages and other court orders. It is also important to remember that, even if someone is willing to risk these civil damages, there are also criminal sanctions available for false DMCA takedown request senders since the requests are sent under the penalty of perjury."

  4. The problems can arise if the false filer is outside of Americaland. Are the animation companies going to be able to extradite someone to America and have the charged if the DMCA was filed from an anonymous mobile phone in Eastern Estonia?

    The problem is its so easy for anyone to file a DMCA from anywhere, and the continued damage it does while everyone waits for it to be resolved.

  5. They have to be verifiable. They must provide RL infor. I think that may be what LL will add to the process before taking future action. i.e. contacting the filer by phone. Usually false filers give false info about who they are. Like in one recent filing, they used someone else's name, who, upon contact, claimed they had no knowledge of any filings on their behalf.

  6. Verifying a fake is quite easy even with a phone number. In the UK we still get sim cards with no address or I'd needed to top up. So we can get any old phone number. I know of three American companies that supposedly go the extra mile for identifying people in the UK. You need to provide scans of 3 bills or letters with your name and address on and a mobile phone number. So with my free sim card and 3 letters pulled out of my neighbours recycling bin, I have a different name, address, paper to provide it and a phone number they can speak to me on.

    It's an unfortunate case of it being easy to fake things, and when international, hard for less well off Americans to chase down.

  7. Auto correct and mobile phone typing spazz my post it. Faking a verification is easy, is what the first line should read.

  8. I am curious. Would the fake filer, stand by his fake phone, and reply,"yes it was me and here is a link to my original animations". Fakes like griefers like to remain anonymous and spend zero resources when pressed, I think. Most I feel are hit and run artists. Few want to actually follow thru with the hoax. That's too much like work. They know they're done when they've forced someones content to be removed. I think that's enough satisfaction for them. Why risk exposure and fines and prosecution? You've won already. Why go double or nothing? Nothing more to gain and everything to lose.

  9. I totally agree it would never been seen through but that is never the intention. The intention is to delay and abuse and cost time and money and on occasion causing enough grief to make a competitor close. 'See WowMeh'

  10. Yes I read sadly. Should the faulty perpetrator turn out to be the same one that filed against Belleza, then perhaps they have some recourse without needing to expend resources they don't have, since it appears Belleza had success with a counter-complaint.

  11. Thank you Yummy for this wealth of information, I know it took a lot of time and work to put this information together. It is such a frustrating situation and is so unfair. I know I bought my Henmations anims that were stolen at the Hen main store, so I know they are legit. Oddly, all of mine that were IP stolen were copy ones so I still had them in my HUD and stored in a box on my land. But it is still infuriating.