- Related Stories
-
The legal rights to your 'Second Life' avatar
January 5, 2007 -
Virtual magnate shares secrets of success
December 20, 2006
As has been widely reported, that interview, which took place in front of a packed house in CNET Networks' Second Life theater, was sabotaged by a group of "griefers" who attacked Anshe Chung with a 15-minute digital barrage of flying penises and doctored pornographic images.
Shortly afterward, a video of the entire attack, set to a pop music soundtrack, appeared on video-sharing site YouTube, and subsequent articles in The Sydney Morning Herald and on the tech culture blog Boing Boing contained screenshots culled from the video.
Outraged by the video and the collection of images used in the news reports--which spread quickly across the Internet--Ailin Graef's husband and business partner, Guntram Graef, fired off a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint to YouTube, which pulled the video, citing a "copyright infringement" violation.
In the DMCA complaint, the Graefs argued that because Second Life users own the content they create, the video and the photographs used Anshe Chung's image without permission.
But while YouTube acted quickly, legal experts argued that use of the images in the media was protected by fair use doctrine, and that attempts to make the video and photos go away were tantamount to a chill on media freedoms. The DMCA, signed into law in 1998, is intended to extend copyright protection to material published on the Internet.
Late last week, YouTube recast its rationale for deleting the offending video, calling it a "terms of service violation," even as new copies of the video began to populate the service, as well as Google Video. YouTube did not elaborate.
Now, for the first time, Guntram Graef has talked about why he filed the DMCA complaint in the first place and why he eventually repudiated that claim.
In an exclusive interview held in Anshe Chung Studios' new Second Life furniture emporium, Graef explained his reasoning behind those issues and more.
Q: How would you like to start?
Guntram Graef: I think there have been a lot of misperceptions and misunderstandings.
How so?
Graef: First of all I would like to make it clear that I regret filing DMCA claims in this case, because the real issue at hand wasn't at all about copyright. I didn't realize that some people would misunderstand this as a censorship attempt, which it definitely was not. What got lost in the whole coverage of the issue was that initially I had contacted all parties involved and tried to engage them in a dialogue about the inappropriateness of the graphical material they distributed.
The video and pictures are clearly defaming and constitute a sexual assault. What has never been a question was the free flow of information. I think everybody at Anshe Chung Studios believes in how important it is that the press can report on events and facts without censorship. This does not mean that it is appropriate to distribute pornographic material that people created to harm a woman.
How are they defaming? Isn't it just parody? Bad taste, but parody nonetheless?
Graef: I think what many people in the U.S. and Australia have not been aware of is that Ailin is Chinese, and showing photos of her that have been manipulated into hugging huge penises and stuff like that is quite devastating in this culture. But even according to American standards, I think imagery that shows penises forced onto a woman is a gross sexual assault and by far not a parody.
I can appreciate that, but because Anshe Chung is a public figure, the fact that the event happened made it a news event. And the images--at least on Boing Boing and The Sydney Morning Herald--were depictions of a news event.
Graef: I agree. This is why we never tried to hinder news outlets reporting on the event. However, this does not mean that you have to distribute the pornographic images produced by the attackers. Boing Boing and The Sydney Morning Herald used material that the attackers created themselves. The whole event only had the purpose to produce graphical material and distribute it on the Internet to harm Ailin.
(I feel) some media outlets allowed themselves to be (used) for that. But even if you assume that they did not break any laws in Australia, the U.S., Germany or China, it is still very unnecessary and tasteless and discredits the Western media and the whole concept of freedom of speech in many parts of the world.
See more CNET content tagged:
Ailin Graef, Guntram Graef, DMCA, Second Life, YouTube
What a pile of crap. If I held CNET shares, I'd sell them today in protest at this ridiculous use of their tech news journalism web site.
He must not be allowed to get away with this, every response must be met with a truckload of criticism.
He's pissed his wife was defamed. But he has no right to make the world ignore the event and pretend it didn't happen. We must deny his attempts to do so vigorously.
inappropriate use of the DMCA, (a horrifically bad law, by the
way), to prevent the dissemination of what he thought was
unflattering content. There never was any copyright violation
and, unless this person lacks insight or the ability to call a
lawyer, (solicitor), he never should have approached the problem
that way.
It seems to me, if this avatar "Anshe Chung," (I have a life, I don't
need Second Life, so I am not familiar with anything other than
what has been in the press), thought there was a copyright
violation, good business practice would have demanded that the
avatar send a cease and desist letter to YouTube allegeding a
copyright violation. Otherwise, one could argue that this "avatar"
had abandoned the copyright claim because of improper
attempts to protect it.
How can you defame an avatar, anyway? We already live in a
litigious society, do we really want to extend the right to assert a
cause of action for defamation, et ceter to non-entities like
avatars? How can one "sexually assault" an avatar?
This was an attempt at censorship, plain and simple, and he
should just admit what it really was and try and move on and
rebuild his reputation. Fortunately, for both parties to this
silliness, being petty and dumb is not actionable or illegal...
To the naysayers: Pretend someone posted digitally-made "videos" of your mother being raped. Would that be funny? Is that freedom of expression? Is that protected speech? If you don't answer "no, no, and no" then I feel sorry for you.
If someone is a well-known figure, they are fair game for satire, even the tasteless, pornographic kind. Suck it up and remember that we live in the land of the free. Sadly, those who live in China, like Chung or whatever his name is, probably don't understand that since censorship is a way of life for them.
But this is not that. This is like your grandmothers *video game character* being digitally altered to appear in an embarrassing situation.
Second Life is a video game, it is not Reality. Any "land baron" in a video game deserves the same respect as your average gold farmer in Everquest or WoW.
If I play Sid Meiers' 'Railroads' and become a land baron in that game, can I give YouTube DMCA takedown notices for any videos that show my character in a bad light?
I also can't believe Guntram can talk about freedom of speech, a topic he does seem to know the first thing about. If c|net is going to continue to give PR thinly veiled as interviews, at least try to ask some actual tough questions.
"Graef: Maybe the griefers used an exploit. My expectation
would be that Linden Lab swiftly research that problem and
close that loophole. Otherwise it would raise questions about
how ready Second Life actually is for professional use."
Uh, maybe someone should tell this guy that Second Life is
actually a GAME and not intended for "professional" use. Unless
I'm missing the point of Second Life, I have enough trouble
keeping up with my first life to think of indulging in a second
one.
Of course, if you see this as a game (as I do), then it takes most
of the air out of his arguments doesn't it. It starts to look pretty
silly when you start making claims of "sexual assult" from
pixelated ******* against a cartoon image.
I just did a quick search, and found American Apparel, W Hotels, Toyota, Adidas, Sun Micro Systems.
Harvard Law School Is now using Second Life to teach distance learning classes. It all sounds silly to me, however I have not used it yet, so I don't have the right to that opinion.
Many talented people are making a great deal of real life money in Second Life. Many people who are some what less talented than they think are spending quite a bit trying.
the pictures that were the cause of all this consternation (still
and forevermore available here: http://
www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4336) I would like to
say that Guntram lied when he said this:
"What got lost in the whole coverage of the issue was that
initially I had contacted all parties involved and tried to engage
them in a dialogue about the inappropriateness of the graphical
material they distributed."
Because he never contacted me. Never made the effort. And
from what I hear from other people, his original messages to
them were brusque demands, not engagements.
No matter. I can see why Anshe Chung Studios would be
concerned with burnishing the public image of their figurehead,
who, if I may remind everyone, started out in Second Life as a
virtual *****.
Daniel was the teporter in the interview. Now he is trying to turn some griefer bugging him online into some kind of major freedom of speech thing for the sake of his own personal gain.
Daniel, Wikipedia decided not to delete you, it is time to let this go.
The people who don't have accounts on SL don't care.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/terdiman_rosedale_resume/
- Ailin Graef is another Paris Hilton
- by minonda January 19, 2007 9:30 AM PST
- Worthless, famous but with no actual worthwhile talent or merit. So she has amassed a large real-world sum of money for playing a game online? She's a powerful dictator and landlord in an imaginary place? She is crafty and conniving and has become successful because of it. Wow, what a contribution to humanity and the quality of all our lives. Please, why is someone like her worth anyone's attention?
- Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)