Okay, so here's the thing: if you were running a Global Kids program, and went all out to document it, you would ask the GK Leaders (and their parents, since they are underage) to sign consent forms allowing us to take their photo or include them in a video.
In other words, we would need to get consent to capture a) what they look like and b) what they said.
So... let's translate this into Second Life.
a) what they look like
When we take photos or video (without sound) in Second Life, we are REALLY saying "photos," using the word as a metaphor. A more common and precise term would be "screen shot," as we are telling the Second Life software to show me everything I can see in Second Life ("I" being the user of the computer, not "I" as a metaphor for my in-world avatar). In which case, what we are calling a photo is really a computer rendered image. Now, if one were being difficult, they could argue one could take a still camera and photograph my computer screen. That would indeed be a photo - but still a photo of a computer rendered image.
So, who controls this computer rendered image? First, we need an example to work with. Let's use this one:
Let's say we have a "photo" taken during a workshop (for the sake of argument, I took the photo, not a resident, so as not to confuse the issue with who owns the "photo" itself). There are about 15 TSL avatars in the photo, plus myself, and we are sitting in chairs on GK Island. Let's also say that each chair was made by the person who is sitting in it.
At first, I thought that Linden Labs, in whose world we are operating, owned all the images. I asked Blue Linden. Not the case. They don't own any of it. In fact, anything created by a resident of Second Life is owned by that resident and considered as Creative Work. And in their terms of agreement, no one may repurpose images of someone else's Creative Work without their permission.
So let's break downs whose creative work here is in question. Each resident owns the right to their image, not just their clothing and hair design but the virtual body within the avatar design as well. Each resident also owns the rights to their chair, or rather, a visual depiction of their chair. I own the rights to the image of my own avatar which, for the sake of argument, is owned by Global Kids, who employees me to be there.
But that's not all. We are not sitting in chairs floating in space. In fact, we are sitting on Global Kids Island. The land has been both terraformed and textured; the former decides the height of the land at each location of the island and the texture defines the land color at the various heights. In the distance there are trees, a piece of molten lava and, behind them all, the base of the volcano. In the foreground you can also see a wooden box. All of these were created by someone who, at the time of creation, owned its IP.
Many many people have constructed Global Kids Island: the Magicians, volunteers on the main grid before it was moved, and numerous teens (some with permission, many without). So who owns what?
I figure that every item we contracted for from the Magicians (the terraformed land, the trees, rocks and volcano) is owned or, at least, co-owned by the Magicians. It was work for hire. Simple enough. The volunteers explicitly gave their items to GK Island, so we can presume we own the rights to their images as well.
And the wooden box, mostly likely created without our permission, was just abandoned by a passing teen. Do we need permission for something that was abandoned on the island? And what if the item was so generic, created without any modification by the resident?
Essentially my photo, which I own, is a collage of other people's intellectual property.
It would appear that the IP rights to the non-humanoid components are owned by either Global Kids or the teens in the workshop. The same is true for each avatar.
I am not my couch, but in Second Life, when it comes to IP rights, they seem to be the same. There appears to be no difference between the image of my avatar or the virtual seat upon which I sit.
But when does one give up the rights to their image? If I was in Time Square, and my photo was taken in a crowd, I would give up my right by simply being in public. Is Global Kids Island a public space or a private space? And if it were public, would it make a difference if the subject at hand is now regarding the concept of Creative Work?
Clearly there are more issues involved with a simple image from Second Life that we might prefer. To be cautious, we should add some language when residents visit the island that states that by entering the island they release the right of any Creative Work presented on Global Kids Island.
b) what they said
There is no audio in Second Life, at least not yet. Everything “said” is communicated through text - whether in a public chat or a private IM. So by definition, anyone who "hears" what another is saying has copied it, otherwise it could not appear on their computer screen. But Linden Labs, in the terms of services, does not permit any user to repurpose text communicated by another resident without their permission. So if we want to run Global Kids workshops and re-use excerpts from the discussion on a place like this blog, do we need to get permission in advance?
This situation is much clearer than the one regarding photos, but in a similar manner it challenges traditional notions of privacy rights and intellectual property.
I'm no lawyer, but it is certainly interesting to think about. And even harder to plan for.
