What Rights An Avatar? (Updated)

Update: In catching up on my reading, I came across Second Life Sketches: Two Worlds - Fame and Infamy which covers the same topics in a similar perspective - published yesterday.

While the comments are meandering around differing and differed from opinions over at Clickable Culture's Anshe Chung Courts ‘Streisand Effect’, there are a few things that really are important to ask. For example, is the avatar likeness of Anshe Chung something which actually falls under her copyright, and if so - where does that copyright start and end? Anyone can make an avatar look like someone else's avatar. But if I were to copy an avatar and then, let us say, change the ears slightly - is it the same avatar? Have I violated some 'copyright'?

Reuters reported that Anshe's real life husband sent a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald:

...“Unfortunately I have to point out to you that you, most likely by accident, posted an image that contains artwork copyrighted by my wife Ailin Graef and by Anshe Chung Studios, Ltd. and without obtaining our permission to do so. … We can not authorize the use of this image and the replication of the artwork and textures of the Anshe Chung avatar in this context.”...

and Catherine Linden gives the position of Linden Lab:

...“Linden Lab does not give permission to anyone to film in Second Life because we don’t own the content. However, I do like to say that filming in Second Life is like filming in NYC. Generic street scenes and landscapes can be considered ‘fair use’ but filming individuals without their permission is not advised, just like in real life.”...

And yet - how 'individual' are avatars? And what is the difference between real world and SecondLife Paparazzi? Where is that line? As for myself, I typically ask permission before taking an image of an avatar in SecondLife.

There are some serious questions here to consider. I don't support the griefing, but I worry about the legal stance of Anshe Chung on this since it seems to support that she has some rights which... aren't necessarily her rights, which exist in a very grey area, and which can set very damaging precedents. Also, it may just drive the video and images underground, to become an even more subversive joke.

Should sites have the images and video up? Maybe not, but I think it should probably be a matter of 'good taste' rather than 'claiming rights' which... may well begin to infringe on the rights of others. What is also amusing is that the same people who wrap themselves in First Amendment are unwittingly siding with something which could adversely affect the same spirit which fires the First Amendment.

There are deeper issues here. What rights does your avatar actually have? Do we put copyright licenses on the foreheads of our avatars? Do I need a Creative Commons license on the beak of my penguin avatar? What if I don't want to see the copyrighted work of others, and wish to only see things which I can use?

The international courts are in for a rude awakening, methinks.