While many may feel a special affinity to their avatars, some want to make it legal. Alyssa LaRoche runs a design studio called Aimee Weber 3D Content Cration, named after her Second Life avatar. Since the avatar and the brand name are connected in the minds of public, she is seeking legal trademark of the avatar itself.
It’s a general move to protect my brand. We haven’t seen any problems yet, but prior to the trademark, we wouldn’t have been as well protected if somebody wanted to plaster my image all over an unrelated product.
Of course this means that if she wants to protect her brand she can't change the avatar's appearance ever again. In LaRoche's view this isn't much of a sacrifice as Weber is just a character she invented: "Aimee is the Dilbert to my Scott Adams."
Trademarks aren't often enforced in virtual worlds. Speculation on whether Nike would sue someone for the creation and trade of virtual versions of their shoes has been ongoing, but brands like Coke have outright encouraged it as a great way to promote their product. The difference, perhaps, is that the primary focus of these brands is entirely outside of Second Life while the Aimee Weber brand is entirely contained in-world.
Will that make a difference legally? If someone finally gets sued, we'll let you know.
(via Virtually Blind)
My avatar has also not changed in years and is eminently associated with Fate Gardens. However, other than the eyeball textures, it's wholly constructed using the client's appearance sliders. Pending a branded attachment, e.g. Aimee's purple wings, Khamon seems more of product of the world tools than my imagination. We might, if avatar copyrights are precedented, see people claiming rights to reproductions in the same vein as registering well known names on forums, or in games, ahead of the "common owner."