The Content Conundrum

Player-generated content is popular with those who design it, aspirational for those who see it being designed, inexpensive for developers, and it satisfies a perceived need (that is, a constant flow on new content to prevent a virtual world from becoming stale). Arrayed against it are concerns about quality, which, although legitimate, can to some extent be alleviated by the provision of design tools, documentation, testing facilities, and a person to act as content editor. Given the advantages, why aren’t more virtual worlds looking at this as an option?

It’s because of intellectual property (IP). People who create content can claim certain rights over it. For in-context creations (for example, planting differently-colored virtual flowers in such a way that they grow to show a picture) this isn’t a problem ¹ because all works can be considered to be transient; you can no more complain that someone dug up your virtual flowers than a pavement artist can complain that the rain washed away their chalk masterpiece. If the context of the virtual world allows it, then by creating within that context you have no redress.

It gets much, much trickier when out-of-context creation is considered. Different laws apply in different countries and different states, but basically:

• If work is done honestly and for hire (that is, they were contracted to do it) then you get the most rights. They can ask that their name be taken off the credits, but that’s about it. The downside is that individuals must be paid whatever minimum wages apply for work to be considered for hire, and “a free account” is below this level.

• If work is bought when complete (as you might buy a painting from a gallery), the artist retains more rights. They could, for example, object if you used it in such a way as to affect their reputation adversely. A photographer might have grounds for complaint were you to display his or her amusing images of clothed farm animals in an exhibition about bestiality.

• Paid-for licensed content (for example, a Star Wars franchise) will typically state the boundaries within which content must operate. It may also give the license-holder a veto over aspects of the virtual world’s design (for example, no one gets to kill Luke Skywalker), but as long as it operates within these formal constraints the developer still has a reasonably high degree of freedom.

• If work is donated for free, the artists may have even more rights. You might have to ask their permission before you make any changes affecting it; in extreme cases, this could mean all patches to the virtual world, on the grounds that they alter the context of the work and therefore its meaning. Also, just because they gave it to you for free, that doesn’t mean it’s not an asset—you can still be taxed on it.

• Content with sufficient creative input from the developer can be considered to have joint copyright. This means you ought to be able to do whatever you like with it, whether the other copyright holder objects or not. However, so can they. Disrespect them and you could come heavily to regret it.

• Content created without any formal signing over of ownership gives you very few rights. You can throw it out if you don’t like it, but provided that you invited its creation there’s little else you can do. If I put up a sign saying that passers-by can create sculptures in my garden, I don’t get to alter—or even necessarily move—them. All I can do is demand that the sculptor take their work away. A sledgehammer is not a legal option.

• Virtual worlds that are paid to show content have least control over it; this is effectively sponsorship. If the Brown Fizzy Drink Company pays you to put cans of virtual Brown Fizzy Drink in your virtual world, it can claim copyright abuse when the players buy those cans and arrange them to look like cartoons of suggestive parts of the human anatomy.

For non-commercial virtual worlds, none of this is normally much of an issue (basically because they have no money and are therefore not worth beating on ²). For commercial virtual worlds, many of whose players could well be lawyers themselves, it’s frightening. The legal situation is by no means clear, and nobody wants to be the one who has to empty the bank paying lawyers’ fees to determine the precedents. Consequently, developers are very keen not to dilute their IP with anyone else’s ³.

Chapter 6 has more on the new legal issues that virtual worlds are raising. Chapter 7 looks at some of the effects of player-created content on storytelling within virtual worlds.