The March ABA Journal has an article (linked below) about lawyers in Second Life, in which I am quoted. Unfortunately, the article incorrectly identifies the in-world bar association I started, the Second Life Bar Association, as the “Linden Bar Association,” [the article initially misidentified the in-world bar association I started -- the Second Life Bar Association -- as the "Linden Bar Association," but after I contacted the author about the problem, the online article was corrected, and a print correction will run in a future edition], and largely focuses on the now somewhat dated dust-up at the Confederation of Democratic Simulators over an attempt to create a formal code of justice.

It’s worth a visit anyway, if you are interested in virtual law. If nothing else, it’s nice to see the mainstream legal press paying a little attention to virtual worlds.

• ABA Journal: “Fantasy Life, Real Law“

In vacation news… surfing is much harder than it looks, and thin-skinned “key limes” are way too sour for most traditional margarita recipes.

Quick note from the road for U.S. readers who make real money in virtual worlds. It’s tax season, and CNNMoney reminds us that “earnings in real U.S. dollars generated within virtual realities are reportable to the IRS.”

What’s interesting is that “[t]ax law is murky when it comes to dealings that occur solely within Second Life or other computer-simulated environments.”

The article makes some reasonable predictions for the future, and provides a fairly solid analysis of the current situation. Link below.

• Article from CNNMoney.com.

Just a quick note to let regular readers know that I’ll be on vacation for most of March and early April.

For those of you jealously keeping track of my whereabouts, yes, I am taking a five week vacation from my sabbatical — life is rough, huh? To my credit, I do plan to do quite a bit of research for the book I’m working on while sitting on the beach, but I also plan to learn to surf and make a perfect margarita, so it definitely is a real vacation.

Though I’ll be checking in from time to time and do plan to post periodically, I don’t plan to track day-to-day developments until I get back in early April. Please do keep sending interesting links and checking in at VB while I’m gone though, as I plan to post at least somewhat regularly. VB will be back to business as usual in April.

The Second Life Herald posted an interesting note today about a Second Life store called “Body Doubles.” Body Doubles (operated by ‘Persia Christensen’) sells avatar skins and shapes that resemble celebrities.

The right at issue is the “right of publicity.” Unlike copyright, trademark, or patent law, there’s no federal framework for the right of publicity — the right of publicity is enforced on a state by state basis. In California, (the most likely venue for enforcement of these rights) there is a well-developed body of law protecting celebrities’ rights to their own images. Other states offer varying degrees of protection, and some states have not formally recognized the right at all. Most of these protections arise from “common law” rather than statutes, meaning that the law comes from judges deciding cases rather than legislative action.

Virtually Blind Commentary

In general, a celebrity does have a right to prevent people from using his or her image. Because Body Doubles is selling “images” of celebrities in world, it is probably treading on those rights. A good example of enforcement is a recent lawsuit by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman against cosmetic retailer Sephora, which allegedly used the celebrity couples’ image without their permission in an advertising campaign.

In the event of a suit, however, Body Doubles would have a potential defense. Body Doubles could claim that the images are sufficiently artistic and interpretative to give them first amendment protection as artistic works.

Though the first amendment does provide some protection, “commercial speech” gets less protection than other kinds of speech. This is an unsettled field of law, but a recent case (Tiger Woods v. Jireh Publishing) helped clarify the interplay between first amendment protection and the right of publicity. In that case, an Ohio District Court held that a painting of Tiger Woods was protected by the first amendment as an artistic work. On appeal, the 6th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s holding.

Notably, Body Doubles’ avatars of dead celebrities are likely no more protected than those of living stars. California’s 1985 Celebrities Rights Act protects the right of publicity for seventy years after the death of a celebrity.