How do i know if textures are copybotted?

[Dylon Blackheart]

Just wondering if some of those "free" textures are really free and legal, or if there are some of them were copybotted.

I love to build, but i want to use only "legal" textures. And theres alot of free textures which are full perm. I have a texture organizer with more than 10,000 textures in it too.Most of them are very useful, but theres some "bad quality" textures as well.

But... How will i know if a texture is copybotted or not?

[WADE1 Jya]

My rule of thumb is if I make the texture myself, then I know it is not copybotted. That might be the only way to know for sure :matte-motes-stress:

[DanielRavenNest Noe]

First, the proper term is "infringe copyright".  Copybot was a modified Second Life client that allowed copying assets within the SL system, including textures, and which no longer works.

Every image, including textures, created after 1916 is likely copyrighted under international law.  Therefore the copyright owner gets to say who can do what with it.  If someone snarfs a texture from Google images and uploads it to Second Life, and puts it in a freebie texture pack, then no illicit step within SL was done to make it full permission.  But taking it from the web source without permission still infringes the original copyright, so the texture would be "illegal".

This is also possible if you buy a box of textures that comes with a notecard claiming ownership and giving permission to use in builds within SL.  There is no way to know for sure that the person listed as the creator on the texture actually made it and didn't copy it from some source without permission.  But in that case you have a defense against being sued by the original owner.  At most the texture would be deleted.

So, to answer your original question, it is highly likely any large collection of textures you got cheap or free contains some textures which were uploaded without permission.  Most people have no clue about copyright law, and the Second Life software lets you upload any image in the right format without checking who owns it. Once it gets into a big texture pack, legally or not, it will continue to get passed around. The only way to be reasonably sure is to make the texture yourself, or to buy the textures (either inside SL or outside) from established texture makers directly.

Even the big music companies have been caught selling songs which they no longer had rights to from the original songwriter, and at least one movie company tried to sue people sharing the movie online, but no longer owned the movie rights.  That case got dismissed, of course.  So if you make an honest effort to use legitimate textures, don't feel bad if it turns out a few were not.

[Void Singer]

---

DanielRavenNest Noe wrote:

[...] Copybot was a modified Second Life client that allowed copying assets within the SL system, including textures, and which no longer works.[...]

---

sadly untrue

[Josh Susanto]

First let me say that actual copybotting is bad, and that I oppose it.

With that said...

I grab textures from Google all the time.

But I avoid things with copyright notices, and I normally modify the texture before it enters SL, so there is some addition (or loss?) of value in the process of producing the SL texture.

For example, if something is a photograph of a wall surface built by someone who has been dead for 1000 years or more, I consider that trying to later assert copyright over derivative textures of the photo, itself in no way protected by code or marked as copyrighted, is not very different from trying to assert copyright over the actual wall surface (which is bullsh##).

The objects I make derive shape data from image data, but the images, themselves, I make available to SL users at no charge if they ask me. That is: the image is free and I charge a user fee only for a completed object that includes other data. If I'm competing with someone else selling the exact same images, I have never been contacted about it. At some point, failure to take action would likely have to be construed as a form of complicity.

I'm no lawyer, but I understand that there is a principle called the "deminimus" principle, in which failure to take any effort whatsoever to protect intellectual property prior to use by others tends to amount to abandonment or vacation of the right to exercise copyright after the fact. That is; the "owner" at least needs to do SOMETHING (basically, anything) to discourage others from using the data, or they're tacitly soliciting further use by putting it in a place where anyone can grab a copy for free.

Or maybe I'm wrong?

Any right that cannot be exercised would seem to be no right at all.

 

[Poenald Palen]

I don't think there is a way, until we get image match searching and companies that will hunt these images down in supplied databases. Lawyers might one day do this, just hunt and find the images then tell the companies about it!

I think it is better to look at anything that produces an image you can legally use and try those! The texture programs listed on teh wiki (last I saw) where pretty inclusive. But I am not sure if they also include 3D renderers that render from 3D models. You can build 3D objects and make materials and then render and image and use that image! I know some 3D tools have materials made from procedural math, which basically means they create swirls, noise, wriggly bits or whatever. You use this with hand draw or 2D tool work..heck, any scans you can legally make might work to. With these layers you work on the object and then when it is done, you can photo the bits of it in orthoganal camera view (or not, depends) and paint, cut and past, or stretch them to work on prims!

But, how will you know? You can't really know unless you made it!

I am not sure, but there might be a post in here somewhere that has links in it. Uh, off the top of my head:

 Public domain sites (always check the persons signed bit on there, some of them actually say otherwise than public domain and the word PB or public domain is NOT valid, they should change thier website name!) can help ou, there are a few with some neat works.

 Then there are free 3D texture and image source websites just for 3D artists. CGTextures.com is one of hte better ones, then there is like...is mayang.com/textures...uh, this is off the top of my head. I think there are 3-4 more that guys run that seem to have been around a while and they seem to know what they are doing. The one issue is, some of htem in my links are submit websites...I don't use those, but never found them again and culled them from the list. Sharecg might have some for commercial use or personal with attirbution and so on. They have an advanced search function BUT...they are a user submit website so keep the links and dont be surprised if anything is taken down. They are pretty serious about usage and have a advanced search with all the check boxes so you can find stuff that fits your usage....well, at least you can TRY to find stuff lol.

But you are dealing with trust here, so it is very veryhard to deal with for some. If you make it (in genetica, 3D programs with renders or baked texturing, digital painting, vector art programs, paint sim programs, scans from hand created art or whatever can make images with!) then you have made it and reading the progs user license is all you need to be worried about. Most allow usage, but obviously some are restricted to personal or have a watermark you must leave. 

[Chelsea Malibu]

---

I'm no lawyer, but I understand that there is a principle called the "deminimus" principle, in which failure to take any effort whatsoever to protect intellectual property prior to use by others tends to amount to abandonment or vacation of the right to exercise copyright after the fact. That is; the "owner" at least needs to do SOMETHING (basically, anything) to discourage others from using the data, or they're tacitly soliciting further use by putting it in a place where anyone can grab a copy for free.

Or maybe I'm wrong?

Any right that cannot be exercised would seem to be no right at all.

---

LOL, as you know Josh, I am therefore, let me jump in with regard to US Law.

Where this was once the truth, it is not as of the DMCA act in 1994.  Any digitally created works are inherently copyrighted from the day they created.  You may submit them to the Library of Congress for Copyright and in doing so, you are eligible for treble damages (up to 3 times the damages).

However, as I see these threads often, one point to make clear is that in damages. You can only litigate for damages and nothing more therefore, you must prove the financial impact that the violation of said copy right caused.  As in many cases, the violation of the copyright is below the cost of litigation, the action becomes "deminimus".  Or not of any value by comparison.

 

[Josh Susanto]

Thanks for the clarification.

For the record, I intend to cooperate fully with the complaint of anyone who sincerely believes they can show some kind of damage done to their interests by my own actions.

I just don't expect that's going to happen. 

My next project is a set of sculpted cylinders derivative of faux ivory jewelry images posted on Etsy by the artist Selena Wells. In this case, the images will be deskewed, cropped and color normalized before they become sculpts, so there is some change in the images anyway. Nonetheless, I'm making sure that she knows exactly what I'm doing and that she's OK with it; I'm actually going to put the Etsy link on the description line in the prim.

I decided to be proactive in this case because of the larger number of images from a single source, and because it's easy for me to imagine Wells or some other authorized person being pretty upsed should they try to sell something similar in SL and find my own products already there, cheaper, and with more permissions.

With images created by artists in order to sell their own products, it seems to me that this is a more serious matter than with geology or archaeology sites, for example. In legal defense, I expect it's fair to ask when the image was intended to be used as I have used it and why had that not been done before I did it.

To reitierate on the other point, though: Copybotting? BAD!

 

[Poenald Palen]

If she had a photographer make these and he still owns copyrights (he gave her rights to use them, yeah, some even keep your wedding photo negatives and sell usage of them to magazines, news papers ect. ....well, I heard this a while back) and this is one of those cases where people really get confsued.

I rememer the statue that someone/company wanted to make that was composed based off a photo found in newspapers. The photographers company went after them, they copied the photo to close. Why is this an issue? He created the image by choosing the time and so on, and they could have made thier statue from seconds before or after the moment. They choose the photo because of it's high visability...so they ended up in court! They where trying to make money and win a proposal or whatever using this guys image, the moment and elements he angled himself  and a time he choose to capture it. Strange huh? Not sure who won though. Wow, now I want to look this one up. I have to run again though.

But yeah, adding your work has nothing to do with it really, though you are not competing in some ways. But, if you ask the person...well, they might not care. But the image, the pixel arrangement...that might not even be hers, if she used a commercial photographer that held the rights to it! Heck, she might have even signed a model release and he can sell them to you and might have a more from other ventures...so, contact and communication can lead to more than you will get from grabbing and never saying anything to them? Not sure, I don' tbother so much with this and can model the bits i need. It is a skill I figure is worth learning, and I could always do photography in real life, it is not so hard to learn lighting and you can DIY the lighting these days with soft LED's and so on. A few cameras on the market also come in handy for motion images for reference for animations, all for under like 200USD for the kit. Just wish I could make 200 to spare!

[Josh Susanto]

Thanks again. Due to my sculpting technique, I'm very acutely aware of the possibility of a photo of a statue being distinguishable by specific lighting conditions and viewing angles. That is the only thing that makes me think twice about using images that have no clear notice attached to them. 

In the Selena Wells matter, nothing is going to roll onto the grid until she has said yes to every step in the process. I can't very easily argue that the photos are other than those specifically posted on Etsy, because that would require someone else to have access to all the items photographed, and to photograph them in an almost identical manner. The question of whether she took the images herself is a good one. Given how little she's asking for the jewelry, I should think that hiring someone else to take the pictures would be an excessive cost, but I will ask.

With Mayan walls (for example), OTOH, a legal defense could come down to simply showing a few other images by other photographers processed in the same way and asking "which of this images is derived from your image". It's not clear what a photographer is protecting if he can't even identify it himself. Maybe he can also sue everyone else who took a photo of the same thing under similar light conditions and viewing position? Why not just sue the sculptors posthumously?

[Nefertiti Nefarious]

 Josh - I've been meaning to ask you this: How DO you make your stuff?  I have no plans to compete with you, it's just my overwhelming curiosity working here.

 

PM me in-world if you don't want to blab all. Although YOu could blab all and 99.999% of the readers would think it's too much work.

[Josh Susanto]

I'm actually not at all worried about legitimate competition, and I have no secrets. In fact I'm eager to explain my crude-but-effective methods to anyone who is willing to try to make sense of my explanations.

For about 99% of everything I do, I use Randimaginator, Lunapic, and the old 092 version of Sculptypaint. 

I look for images that want to be sculpted, help them want to be sculpted some more, and then I sculpt them. Making them seamless is one way to help them want to be sculpted, but not the only way.

Inside an image that wants to be sculpted is some RGB data that wants to become positive contour data, some that wants to become negative contour data, and some that does not care.

The most stupidly easy and ironically most profitable thing that I keep making because people keep buying it is the simple plane relief with the beveled rear edges.

Usually I can do that by loading a green layer onto a default plane directly from the surface image, reducing the green dimension of the edge verts to a flat square, pulling them back so that the indent points don't push through a sphere seam surface, hold the frame in place while I smooth the thing about 8 times, then pull the frame slightly inward on the red and blue axes.

Almost half the time, getting a better effect is possible by rotating the whole default plane 2 large to the left on blue, loading the red layer and rotating the plane back to where red positive has become green positive . Then I rotate another default plane 2 large left on red to load blue and rotate back making blue positive into green negative. Then I morph the two green reliefs to a point where the advanced and recessed areas best correspond to what I think is implied by the surface image. This process helps to flatten down shine and highlights and other blue-rich material in an image that has a prevailing incandescent spectrum (most of the stuff I'm likely to use is brownish). Sometimes the walls and rock slabs and such get slightly more complicated, but not often.

For cylinders, blocks, and spheroids, I do a different thing where I use surface RGB data to produce a partial gray layer corresponding to recessed areas and lay it over a template that gets the green layer rectified, then it gets morphed with the original and then smoothed, possibly with the edges held in place for some part of that process. My templates are things like the default cylinder with the ends cut off to avoid wasting verts on surfaces that won't usually get much exposure, the arch cube similarly de-ended (I tend to like the seam at the corner for reasons I can explain if they are not obvious), and a sphere in which the edges of the map have been pulled to a single point. 

I also have done a few things with sculpts and alphas, but usually that doesn't work out. What you may have seen of that kind of thing from me is the exception. Sculpts will duplicate themselves inside-out in the same space if you mirror-and-copy the map and reload. That's the basis for concave shapes and for 2-sided alphas; if the sculpt and the alpha both mirror on the same axis, the alpha will have a front and a back in exactly the same position.  Occasionally, this will be e decent effect. Occasionally.

One reason Cel Edman doesn't continue to promote the 092 version of Sculptypaint is that it's quirky. I hesitate to say buggy, because it's very predictable when you know what to predict. Surface images have to be loaded flipped horizontally or they map reversed left to right. I need 092 in order to load color layers, and I also prefer it because it loads out at 128, which is better if you want to preserve more data for possible later modification.

In a lot of cases, I can see that an image does not want to become seamless, or I determine that by trying anyway. Most of my products are not seamless, but that's essentially irrelevant to the planes and spheroids. Round and square columns will most often have a seam because I have simply recycled an image that has sold well enough as a plane and/or sphere.  I consider that some objects are useful enough with a visible seam that there's not necessarily any point in refusing to make such things, especially if the surface texture just doesn't want to become a seamless texture. 

Some images want to become fully seamless and some only on one axis. I have tried several different approaches to get difficult images to work as seamless. Fortunately, I mostly work with pretty messed-up images that still adequately qualify as seamless when they have portions of curved kludge line running over them where my edge corrosion methods were not magical enough to do better.

My standard method for kludging seamless images assumes that the main point is just to get rid of any obvious, continuous line in the texture where the sculpt seam is. Eliminating the other edge, too (if I can), just seems like a good idea in case I'm going to recycle the texture later, rotated 90 degrees etc. I tend to do that (eliminate both potential seams) by creating 2 image layers from one image. In one, the image has been duplicated 50% in both axes and then cropped so that the edges of the image now form a cross in the center of the image. The other layer is a circular cut-out that will be used to cover the cross. I try to make the edges less circular while preserving (or almost preserving) the vertical and horizontal extremes in order to completely cover the cross on the other image. I do that by successively putting several color borders around the circle and using Lunapic's magic wand tool to eat away at those colors from the outside of the circle, taking parts of the circle away with them. By doing this while the circle is in both positive and negative, I can corrode (usually in this order): gray (first, not later), white, black, red, cyan, green, magenta, blue, yellow. The end result tends to be a tiling image that duplicates itself at a 50% diagonal offset, but does not duplicate exactly because of the very irregular approximation of a diamond-shaped overlay by a corroded circle. The reason I use the same image for both background for background and foreground images is really just so that the colors will be similar enough to make the transition between background and foreground not at all clear at at least some points. Corroding from extreme color types also leaves an edge that at least somewhat approaches grayness, for a statistically greater color similarity between foreground and background pixels.

Does that help?

[Nefertiti Nefarious]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

I'm actually not at all worried about legitimate competition, and I have no secrets. In fact I'm eager to explain my crude-but-effective methods to anyone who is willing to try to make sense of my explanations.

For about 99% of everything I do, I use Randimaginator, Lunapic, and the old 092 version of Sculptypaint. 

I look for images that want to be sculpted, help them want to be sculpted some more, and then I sculpt them. Making them seamless is one way to help them want to be sculpted, but not the only way.

(snip)

 

Does that help?

---

Yes. I can spend a bazillion hours with Sculpty Paint getting good at your method or spend a few lindens a week buying your stuff.

Lemme think here, what's the best use of my time

[Josh Susanto]

It's not really a method for me. It's more of an expanding collection of simple technical procedures.

Usually, I first try everything the easiest possible way I know how and, if I am not satisfied, continue to add steps to the process until I am satisfied, or until I run out of steps to add. 

If I run out of steps, I'll try to come up with new ones, but it's rare that I succeed with that.