[19:11] Richard Posner: real world architectural work into SL--probably infringement, on the theory that the SL counterpart is a derivative work, hence the property of the copyright holder.

[19:11] Ludwig Swain shouts: But what about 17 USC 120(a)?

[19:12] Ludwig Swain: Sorry . . . 120(a) is the exception for pictorial representations of architectural works

[19:12] Pandora Obviate: the fact that one may be brick and the other virtual doesnt hold any value? is painting a picture of a RL picture infringement too?
...

[19:13] Pandora Obviate: RL building rather

[19:13] lawrenceindyk Ah: Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

[19:13] Little Gray: er governed

[19:13] Richard Posner: I didn't know there was such an exception. The general rule is that the picture of an object, such as a sculpture, is a derivative work. Of coure it could be argued that a building in SL is a uilding, not a picture, since it can entered.

[19:14] Pandora Obviate: cant be physically entered though

[19:14] Richard Posner: a building, not a picture, since it can entered.

[19:14] Ludwig Swain: On the other hand, a "building" in Sl is not "habitable" . . .

[19:14] Oppenheimer Gontermann: but how would an SL copy of a RL building endanger the market of the original (architect, building owner, etc)???

[19:14] Thunderclap Morgridge shouts: Is the photgraphic image of a piece of clothing a derivative work ?

[19:14] Richard Posner: Does it have to be physically entered? A locked building can't be physically entered either, without violence.

[19:14] Ben Solomon: It can only be entered as a virtual construct.

[19:14] Skadi Nordwind: architects often render their plans in a similar fashion to the way we do here

[19:15] Ben Solomon: That is, it stays a picture, even when your avtar "enters " it.

[19:15] Richard Posner: But that's true of most derivative works--they're not substitutes. There is an argument against giving the ownership of the derivatei work copyright to the original copyright holder. Landes and i argue however

[19:15] Skadi Nordwind: I believe some architectural programs and firms even use SL as a building area for "real" projects

[19:15] Ben Solomon: Fashion works are generally considered functional in the US. Pictures of same aren't infringing.

[19:15] lawrenceindyk Ah: you can only represent the aspects of the buildings that are visible publically
...

[19:15] Ludwig Swain: Yes, but the touchstone of what is considered a "building" (according to the copyright office" is whether a building is habitable . . .

[19:15] Richard Posner: that it is efficient to concentrate all the related rights in one owner, as
...

[19:16] Richard Posner: otherwise it is difficult to know what is being copied.

[19:16] Richard Posner: Why does the Copyright Office think habitability is important?

[19:16] Richard Posner: Are the pyramids habitable?

[19:16] Falk Bergman: The pyramids are not Copyrighted

[19:17] Richard Posner: If I built a new pyramid, I could copyright it.

[19:17] Basman Kepler: but if they were built today, I suspect that would have been

...

[19:17] Ludwig Swain: The idea is that bridges, etc. are not "buildings" under the AWCPA, because they are not habitable, even though they are works of architecture

[19:17] Skadi Nordwind: So if an architecture plans a building, but it is never built, can he still copyright his design?

[19:17] Richard Posner: A simple pyramid, yes.

[19:18] Richard Posner: I thought building plans could be copyrighted, but ask Patry.