Content Theft, Copying and the Next Step: ES and Glitterati

Update on the recent posemaker case:

Glitterati & ES. Now renamed ES vs Glitterati

A Glitterati customer says there is an ES pose like one of yours.
Glitterati responds with 'they must have copied the Glitterati pose" - and shares this publicly despite clear evidence to the contrary.

This action was not only unreasonable and proved to be lacking in fact but marked the beginning of the corner into which Glitterati had placed themselves.

The poses in question were in fact clearly evidenced as having been developed and up-loaded to SL by ES prior to not only Glitterati's, but also prior to the Glitterati pictures placed on their Flickr site. It is hard to copy something someone made AFTER your creation!!

The latter fact still seems not to have permeated the minds behind Glitterati.

Perhaps Glitterati is a little confused and thinks that ES really means ESP?

Now the reasonable person would would engage the brain rather than the mouth at this stage, but not katy. In what could only be considered either a desperate face-saving exercise or an adolescent temper tanty, she embarks on a very public ES witchunt to the extent of calling on others to join her in this flaming and bullying of ES. This is rather like the yell of 'fight' or 'rumble' behind the bike sheds at school - you all know the type. The crowd forms, the bully blusters but sometimes, the 'reasonable' kid has had enough and bites back.

When this katy-led witchunt evolved into defamation and libel and republication of such on several sites on the world wide web. ES has no option but to defend its reputation.

Being reasonable people ES undertook this through the procedures set in place for dispute resolution.

Recent update:

Katy of Glitterati has not yet responded in a counter claim on the poses that Glitterati ( note: NOT ES!) was asked to decommission. The decommissioning was based on a Linden Labs (LL) investigation in which it was claimed that the Glitterati poses in question were in fact produced AFTER the ES poses. Glitterati claims that they did not defend in the appropriate manner as they wanted to continue to hide their 'real' identities - presumably from legal action arising from their actions.

However, katy and Glitterati did lodge their own claim with LL citing that 10 ES poses were copies of Glitterati's. This claim was also taken seriously by ES and LL. The poses subject to this claim were decommissioned as the claim was investigated, The cited poses were compared, found not to be copied and ES owners lodged a counter-claim, citing evidence to counter the Glitterati claims in accordance with proper procedures

Notice the difference in behaviours here. One party hides behind an avatar name and uses the web and the false sense of anonymity to mischievously flame, harass and defame in a baseless manner.

The party subjected to this behaviour takes appropriate action using proper grievance resolution procedures.

At this point the status is as follows:

ES has:

1. Provided evidence to LL in response to the mischievous Glitterati claims,
2. ES has filed a counter suit in response to the mischievous Glitterati claims (NOTE: no hiding behind false identities here!),
3. ES has engaged legal representation to undertake the counter suit.

One wonders when katy and her 'family' at Glitterati will work out that far from teen high jinx, their behaviour has stepped firmly into the realm of law. No wonder they seek to hide their 'real' identities. A writ served may well cause some questions around the dinner table.