Virtual worlds wind up in real world's courts

Intellectual property in the virtual realm
A more recent case involves Marvel Comics, owners of "Spider-Man" and "The X-Men" franchises. Concerned that players in the critically acclaimed online game "City of Heroes" were using the game's character building tools to outfit themselves as Marvel-owned heroes, the company sued the game's maker, South Korean online gaming giant NCsoft. It was up to NCsoft, Marvel charged, to prevent its players from infringing on its trademarks.

"There's this larger question concerning virtual worlds on the legal treatment of the people who create and provide this service," said Noveck.  "Should they be protected as an ISP or should they be responsible like Napster."  

Internet service providers are not legally responsible for the content of Web sites, that responsibility lies with the owner of the Web site. Napster, on the other hand -- well, everyone knows what happened with Napster. The Feds went after both the company and its customers.

The case is still in the courts. Meanwhile, there's an interesting theoretical parallel.

After all, a Marvel comic character is protected by the law in every medium. But what if a player in "City of Heroes" created his own virtual character and that character was promptly used in a Marvel comic book. Would that be illegal?

"The laws haven't approached that yet," said Noveck. "But it wasn't too long ago that we were talking about whether" trademarks and brands could be protected on the Web.

Creating an item in a virtual world worthy of branded status will depend, in the future, on whether the player is allowed ownership of the object created in a virtual world owned by a private company. Most virtual world designers maintain that anything created in the world belong to the company.

But already one virtual world, "Second Life," cedes intellectual property rights over player creations to players themselves. That position, combined with "Second Life's" robust tools and scripting, has led to some fantastical creations.

"Right now there's this intense disagreement over intellectual property," Noveck said. "Some say recognizing property is good because it enhances creativity, others say, 'Come on! People create things in virtual worlds for the love of it.'"

Should virtual worlds be regulated by law at all?
Of course all this talk about the law and virtual worlds may sound silly to most people; conjuring up images of tiny digitized courtrooms with a seventh-level dwarf pleading his case.

But as the virtual world and the real world grow more alike, the legal questions will mount.

Noveck played host to a number of cyber-philosophers and virtual world creators at State of Play II, a conference on virtual worlds in New York last fall.

There were no Merlin hats in sight. Instead, discussion centered on the future potential of virtual world technology, according to Noveck, "as not just a place to play, but also a place to work or create culture." 

TOM LOFTUS ON GAMES & GAMERS Pocket-sized psychedelia for the Nintendo DS 12 days of video gaming Picking the right game New Harry Potter game aims for mass appeal Xbox 360 has star potential 'King Kong' game raises emotional stakes The golden years of video-game movies? Going beyond the gaming ghetto

In other words, the same technology and multiplayer cooperation that has fostered many-a-dragon-quest in the past could some day be applied to more practical applications like encouraging political participation or fostering a collaborative environment for real world decision-making.

Already, some players use virtual worlds as a sort-of public square, voicing their opinion on everything from real-world presidential politics to the problems they have with the game creators. And this brings up another potential legal issue: Using a privately run space to voice public opinions.

"If this is a place where people are socializing than one of the questions is, should we be thinking of virtual worlds as something different, like a company town" said Noveck.

Company towns are often mentioned as a possible legal precedent for the legal status of virtual worlds. A 1946 Supreme Court ruling found that towns created and run by companies could not restrict the First Amendment right of free expression. Despite their private origin, the court found, the towns served a public function.

Applying the Constitution like a sledgehammer to online arenas originally created for escape may sound like the ultimate bad trip -- going against the "we're in this together" camaraderie that has sparked many a virtual world quest.  

But if virtual worlds are to reach the full potential that Noveck and like-minded scholars and enthusiasts espouse -- as a not just a place to play, but to work and create -- they will need people who understand both the strengths of real world law and virtual world collaboration.

"We now have this technology that allows people to create their own place, their own rules," said Noveck. "We need to preserve it."

MORE FROM GAMES

Games Section Front

10 best Xbox 360 games of 2009 10 best PlayStation 3 games of 2009 Dungeons & Dragons fight: Hasbro vs. Atari Top 5 reasons to keep playing your PS2   'The Saboteur' is stylish but not strong 10 best Wii games of 2009   Game designers take aim at Tiger Fitness video games are reshaping medium November video game sales slump at retail   Harry Potter is back, with a LEGO update Games Section Front   Add Games headlines to your news reader: