Trinity Yazimoto Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Here is the new mail we sent to LL staff on the 12th of november 2013UNITED CONTENT CREATORS OF SL TO: Peter Gray FROM: Kylie Sabra & The UCCSL Council DATE: November 11, 2013 After a meeting of the Council of the UCCSL Noon, Sunday, November 3, 2013, and subsequent vote by membership; below are the issues we find of concern in the current Second Life Terms of Service. We hope to work together to resolve these issues, and in the creation of a new terms of service agreement that grants Linden Lab the license it requires while honoring and protecting the rights of content creators. FROM SECTION 2.3 OF SL TOS Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest’s official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sub license (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content … The problematic terms in the above language are: 1. Unlimited is far too broad We would prefer to see limitations on the license. We are unsure of exactly what is the intention behind the assertion of this right but the purpose that we glean from the context it is to transfer user content to third parties. Accordingly, we would appreciate reports of transfers of content so long as we are present (active account holders) in the Second Life virtual world. We would also appreciate some limitations on transfer of content. For example, those creators who have withdrawn from SL due to the change in ToS as well as those who have not logged in to accept the new Terms should be excluded. Another example of an acceptable limitation would not be a restriction at all but a reporting and attribution requirement. Specifically that all creator content sold or transferred by Linden Lab will be 1) attributed to its original creator and 2) a report of the transfer provided to its creator. 2. Perpetual The perpetuity of the license is somewhat acceptable for member creators as it applies to copies of works already sold and in other inventories until the account associated with that creator is terminated. The perpetuity clause is not acceptable however as it relates to creators’ personal inventories and their original works. We would like a limitation that would reflect that distinction. 3. Sublicense – We would prefer if the license granted to third parties is restricted to the original terms under which the content was originally uploaded i.e. that the third party does not inherit the “unlimited” rights acquired by Linden Lab under the new provision 2.3. 4. Purpose of use needs to be limited The language "for any purpose whatsoever in all formats" is far too broad and unacceptable. We would prefer that language be limited and would appreciate your input in this regard as we are not convinced that the language above adequately recognizes the rights of different categories of content creators, for example visual artists. Finally, I would like to arrange a meeting to discuss the options we present in this letter and to present a few other ideas we believe would result in a more co-operative relationship between Linden Lab and its creator community. Also, please provide an update on Linden Lab's efforts and intention, if any, to modify the current ToS. I look forward to receiving your feedback. Kylie Sabra, Council FacilitatorUnited Content Creators of SL UCCSL Council Council Facilitators Kylie Sabra Trinity Yazimoto Tactical Teams Legal Juris Amat Press Kylie Sabra International Communications Trinity Yazimoto Social Media Thinkerer Melville Special Events Amethyst Jetaime Membership Christy Cobalt Guild Leads Animators Christy Cobalt Artists & Machinimists Dacob Paine & Mater Rhode Builders libtc65 Fashion, Avatars & Accessories Lovecat Thei Musicians Yavanna Llanfair Scribes Farzaneh Eel Scriptmakers Leona Mantarai Sculptmakers & Meshmakers Kitsune Lassiter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothixGrafx Utherwurldly Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 :smileywink: 1 Thumbs Up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Here is the new mail we sent to LL staff on the 12th of november 2013 UNITED CONTENT CREATORS OF SL . . . . Finally, I would like to arrange a meeting to discuss the options we present in this letter and to present a few other ideas we believe would result in a more co-operative relationship between Linden Lab and its creator community. Also, please provide an update on Linden Lab's efforts and intention, if any, to modify the current ToS. Imo, all ideas should have been presented in the letter. Mr. Gray may not grant a tete-a-tete as he nor any other corporate executive want to willingly walk into an ambush (not that an ambush is your intention, but the wording of the letter can be read in such a way.) The last part is, at best, condescending. Mr. Gray already wrote of his intention to modify; the "if any" is a slap-in-his-face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Storm Clarence wrote: The last part is, at best, condescending. Mr. Gray already wrote of his intention to modify; the "if any" is a slap-in-his-face. The new TOS was a "slap-in-the-face" of all content creators. Considering how long LL has dragged this out, I'd say it's another "slap-in-our-faces". 1 thing to never forget is that we are the customers. We promote this platform for free. We help the users. By taking this long to revise the TOS, they are showing just how important we are to them. I will adjust my time management accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Medhue Simoni wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: The last part is, at best, condescending. Mr. Gray already wrote of his intention to modify; the "if any" is a slap-in-his-face. The new TOS was a "slap-in-the-face" of all content creators. Considering how long LL has dragged this out, I'd say it's another "slap-in-our-faces". 1 thing to never forget is that we are the customers. We promote this platform for free. We help the users. By taking this long to revise the TOS, they are showing just how important we are to them. I will adjust my time management accordingly. I understand the frustration, Medhue, but UCCSL slapping back is emotional; and this is business! It is not a victory for UCCSL. Mr. Gray responded on Nov. 1st. Today is the 14th. "We are currently reviewing what changes could be made to resolve the concerns of SL content creators ... We are optimistic that we will be able to arrive at a mutually agreeable and beneficial way forward, and ask for your group's continued patience as we work to do so." In the new letter to Mr. Gray the statement "other ideas" is superfluous until the main objective of having the TOS wording changes is achieved. Do you not agree with that? The statement "if any" is a direct and emotionally spun challenge to Mr. Gray. PS If the wording doesn't change I will probably be looking at other options, too, but, until then... PPS If you show corporate America emotional weakness *they* will squeeze your nuts even harder. That, Medhue, is a fact. It is a money game, period. Keep the emotional responses within the group and at meetings, but not in open letters and on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Ceawlin Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Trinity Yazimoto wrote: 2. Perpetual The perpetuity of the license is somewhat acceptable for member creators as it applies to copies of works already sold and in other inventories until the account associated with that creator is terminated. If you license your content to me when I transfer L$s to you, I still retain license and use rights even if you delete every copy that you have and delete your account. You acknowledge that this termination will not apply to any other copies or instances of the same Content that you have not specifically deleted from the Service, including without limitation those that may be displayed elsewhere In-World and those that may be in the Account inventories of other users to whom you transferred copies. So what exactly was the purpose of including that? The UCCSL actually has attorneys advising them on these letters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Storm Clarence wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: The last part is, at best, condescending. Mr. Gray already wrote of his intention to modify; the "if any" is a slap-in-his-face. The new TOS was a "slap-in-the-face" of all content creators. Considering how long LL has dragged this out, I'd say it's another "slap-in-our-faces". 1 thing to never forget is that we are the customers. We promote this platform for free. We help the users. By taking this long to revise the TOS, they are showing just how important we are to them. I will adjust my time management accordingly. I understand the frustration, Medhue, but UCCSL slapping back is emotional; and this is business! It is not a victory for UCCSL. Mr. Gray responded on Nov. 1st. Today is the 14th. "We are currently reviewing what changes could be made to resolve the concerns of SL content creators ... We are optimistic that we will be able to arrive at a mutually agreeable and beneficial way forward, and ask for your group's continued patience as we work to do so." In the new letter to Mr. Gray the statement "other ideas" is superfluous until the main objective of having the TOS wording changes is achieved. Do you not agree with that? The statement "if any" is a direct and emotionally spun challenge to Mr. Gray. PS If the wording doesn't change I will probably be looking at other options, too, but, until then... PPS If you show corporate America emotional weakness *they* will squeeze your nuts even harder. That, Medhue, is a fact. It is a money game, period. Keep the emotional responses within the group and at meetings, but not in open letters and on this forum. The actual date that Mr Gray responsed was Oct 24, not Nov 1. It does seem to be much longer tho. I probably haven't unloaded anything in about 3 months now. I can only guess, but I think this message to LL is a response to Mr Gray's letter. I'm sure that most of us are worried that LL will just release another unexceptable TOS, and we'll have to do this long process all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: 2. Perpetual The perpetuity of the license is somewhat acceptable for member creators as it applies to copies of works already sold and in other inventories until the account associated with that creator is terminated. If you license your content to me when I transfer L$s to you, I still retain license and use rights even if you delete every copy that you have and delete your account. You acknowledge that this termination will not apply to any other copies or instances of the same Content that you have not specifically deleted from the Service, including without limitation those that may be displayed elsewhere In-World and those that may be in the Account inventories of other users to whom you transferred copies. So what exactly was the purpose of including that? The UCCSL actually has attorneys advising them on these letters? The letter has been writen by Juris Amat our attorney, so its a bit legal wording. i reassure you none of us want the copy we sold to you or anyone else deleted even after we delete our account. Take the all section : "The perpetuity of the license is somewhat acceptable for member creators as it applies to copies of works already sold and in other inventories until the account associated with that creator is terminated. The perpetuity clause is not acceptable however as it relates to creators’ personal inventories and their original works. We would like a limitation that would reflect that distinction." We talk about a "distinction" between copy sold and our original. The copy sold can remain till the holder of the account delete also their account. Its licenced and not an original, so often has limited perms. our original, is different and its always full perm. We ask LL they delete and stop their licence on our original if we close our account. the first sentence says the perpetuity of the licence is acceptable as it applies to copy. Its not acceptable for our personal inventory and our original works. We just ask them they do the distinction between both kind of items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Ceawlin Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 I get the distinction. What I don't get is... why the "until the account associated with that creator is terminated." That's a distinction of its own. P.S. I've read plenty of boilerplate and legalese in my lifetime. The inclusion of the above distinction would make me worry about counsel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Trinity Yazimoto wrote: our original, is different and its always full perm. We ask LL they delete and stop their licence on our original if we close our account. This doesn't sound accurate, to me. 'The original' is a difficult statement to understand from a database administration standpoint - remember that all prims, mesh, sculpts are reduced to records of information within the Asset database. There is no 'difference' between original and copy - all are assets. In my mind (and unless LL are capable of some pretty unique database wizardry) it would be impossible to create a distinction these two types of object. Our own built prims are not "always full perm" - as the creator of them we have all permissions enabled, but anyone else would not be able to modify them (if they had Modify permissions over your prims, changes could be made to it while keeping you as the creator). If I created a bundle of cubes, set them for sale (as original) and then sold them to another user - there would be no original (under your definition), and the cubes would not [necessarily] be full-perm to the recipient of the bundle. There are other instances where detecting 'original' status would be difficult. Note also that even when an account is cancelled, often a large quantity of the associated asset data remains behind, and can be reclaimed by the same user, if they choose to re-open their previously cancelled account. Termination of assets may not be in the interest of the typical SL user (I don't claim to know, but your group should). All of this (and more) makes the addition of this term to your interest-groups cause problematic - either you're drifting from your original goal or your group seems to imagine you can now demand not only legal changes, but also infrastructure changes. I would consider that unrealistic, and muddying the issue. Aside from these technical issues, I have to side with Storm (for literally the first time ever) - this doesn't read well. ETA: Definitions: Original - an object created from scratch, either rezzed from null (using Build > Create) or the first save-to-disk of an uploaded asset (incl. Notecards, Scripts). Full Perm/Full Permission - an object that has Copy, Modify and Transfer permissions enabled for the Next Owner (and optionally, has inherited Next Owner status as a result of transfer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 when i talk about "original" versus "copy", im talking about the item from what copies are done : the origin of the copies. We are ok for the perpetuity of the licence in the copies we have sold bec they have included the perms we wanted to give to them. But we would like the asset from the origin, as a full perm asset, disappear with us if we happen to delete our account. The copies will of course remain in the inventories of the ppl who bought it, in the exact same conditions than before. But noone, and precisely here, LL, will be licenced for using the asset outside the perms we choosed to give. Of course, in the case, we have sold copies that are full perms (like it happens when it s about materials for builders but not only), the copies will remain having the same perms. We certainly do not want to cause damages to our customers, but we also do not want LL can use our creations, if we happen to leave SL, for their advertising or whatever else purpose, like they state now in their TOS. Thus we would like to make a distinction on the licence we give on the asset from the origin and the licence we give on the copies we give away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Trinity Yazimoto wrote: when i talk about "original" versus "copy", im talking about the item from what copies are done : the origin of the copies. Okay, but how do you go about detecting 'original' vs. 'copy'? All the Linden staff have is the database records of the items. As I've stated it's not a simple case, you can't just use all prims that have been created from scratch - you also can't use all scripts as they were first saved. LL don't know the difference between "Object" and "Finished Product v1.0", ditto the difference between "New Script" and "Finished Script v1.0" or even "Finished Script v1.1-Modded by Simon". Unless LL can determine an 'original' from a 'copy' efficiently, 100% of the time, this is new operating procedure that forces LL to do impossible work - which your group has to justify. You also haven't addressed the UCCSL's position on Account Recovery - LL would clearly need to keep the original assets (beyond the lifetime of the account) to provide this service. Are you also suggesting that bans whose appeals fail (i.e., those who are unable to reclaim a banned account), should also have their original assets (if they could be determined) erased? The UCCSL is welcome to 'want' whatever it chooses, but imaginary, unenforceable whimsy isn't going to lead to action on LL's part. Adding complex 'wants' without offering solutions at this stage takes energy away from the central [still unresolved] issue and risks dividing support for your cause. ETA: Skip the 'sold copies' things, I understand what you're saying about copies in other peoples' inventories once sold via traditional methods. What you're not explaining is how LL should handle this requirement of yours 'gridwide' - selling, Marketplace, etc is not the only way to transfer ownership. The ToS concerns the entireity of SL, not just the commercial/consumer elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Freya Mokusei wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: when i talk about "original" versus "copy", im talking about the item from what copies are done : the origin of the copies. Okay, but how do you go about detecting 'original' vs. 'copy'? All the Linden staff have is the database records of the items. As I've stated it's not a simple case, you can't just use all prims that have been created from scratch - you also can't use all scripts as they were first saved. Unless LL can determine an 'original' from a 'copy' efficiently, 100% of the time, this is new operating procedure that forces LL to do impossible work - which your group has to justify. The UCCSL is welcome to 'want' whatever it chooses, but imaginary, unenforceable whimsy isn't going to lead to action on LL's part. Adding complex 'wants' without offering solutions at this stage takes energy away from the central [still unresolved] issue and risks dividing support for your cause. ETA: Skip the 'sold copies' things, I understand what you're saying about copies in other peoples' inventories once sold via traditional methods. What you're not explaining is how LL should handle this requirement of yours 'gridwide' - selling, Marketplace, etc is not the only way to transfer ownership. The ToS concerns the entireity of SL, not just the commercial/consumer elements. we are not asking the impossible but just we want to take back our total licence (whenever its the one from the TOS prior to the 15th of august what was already a large licence or the current licence asked to us by the current TOS) in case we want to leave SL. This is not about the copies but about the licence we have to give to LL on our creations. We want to give some limits to this licence and here, about the perpetuity of the licence. Its a limit on the licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 I'm familiar with this issue, there's no need to repeat yourself. I know what 'perpetuity' means. I'm asking for clarification. The UCCSL's position is this:- Trinity Yazimoto wrote: This is not about the copies but about the licence we have to give to LL on our creations. We want to give some limits to this licence and here, about the perpetuity of the licence. LL's position (according to their comments on New World Notes and from Peter Gray) is that they need this licence (as it is currently written) to offer their services. The limits you seem to be advocating will, at best, complicate the process. The limits might even specifically prevent LL from offering services that they currently provide, especially in the case of Account Recovery. How does limiting the Second Life platform (and tying up Linden staff time, determining Original vs. Copy) help us, as residents? Saying that it's 'not impossible' doesn't really help either. I don't see how you plan to make this 'not impossible'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 The mail has been adressed to LL staff. We will wait for their answer. They are the right ones who can say if it's possible or impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 You're welcome to do as you please. I'm not associated with your interest group, and will look for solutions to my concerns as a SL content creator elsewhere. Thanks & bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 No problem. you are welcome aswell :smileyhappy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Medhue Simoni wrote: The actual date that Mr Gray responsed was Oct 24, not Nov 1. It does seem to be much longer tho. I probably haven't unloaded anything in about 3 months now. I can only guess, but I think this message to LL is a response to Mr Gray's letter. I'm sure that most of us are worried that LL will just release another unexceptable TOS, and we'll have to do this long process all over again. Medhue, I'm sure it seems like a lifetime to some. I am not trying to beat up on you here; I actually agree with you. I can not speak to the legalese in the letter because IMNAL. But I can speak to the ancillary stuff written in the letter ... and I did. UCCSL did their job by submitting 'their' understanding, the other couple of lines in the letter just don't fit. Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse, I just can't see tripping over yourself as LL seems to have done. The legalese in the new TOS is a cut and paste (probably from Mattel.) Thinkerer started an excellent blog posting on this, and asked for discussion. Imo, It will take LL lawyers a long time to come up with some original verbiage--wording that really addresses the issues presented by the UCCSL. They are lawyers for crying out loud; how much more pathetic can it get. PS And if the UCCSL lawyers signed off on: 'if any' and 'other ideas' then I would fire their asses in a hot minute--even if they are pro bono. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Freya Mokusei wrote: You're welcome to do as you please. I'm not associated with your interest group, and will look for solutions to my concerns as a SL content creator elsewhere. Thanks & bye. It's almost like talking to yourself, isn't it? Rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 It's only cyclic because you're semantically making it so, which seems very hmm, emotional to me. The gist of it is that under the current ToS, LL has no effective expiration on the massive rights that they're asking. Copies, original, not copies ... blah. This ToS doesn't end their license that we granted properly upon the only termination of license that the ToS allows. While you're busy nitpicking, some people, lawyers and certainly LL's lawyers are capable of getting the gist of it without turning into more fodder for semantic nitpickery on your part. It's really not that difficult. And it wasn't offered to them as replacement language, that part seemed to escape you completely. Troll on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Dartagan Shepherd wrote: It's only cyclic because you're semantically making it so, which seems very hmm, emotional to me. The gist of it is that under the current ToS, LL has no effective expiration on the massive rights that they're asking. Copies, original, not copies ... blah. This ToS doesn't end their license that we granted properly upon the only termination of license that the ToS allows. While you're busy nitpicking, some people, lawyers and certainly LL's lawyers are capable of getting the gist of it without turning into more fodder for semantic nitpickery on your part. It's really not that difficult. And it wasn't offered to them as replacement language, that part seemed to escape you completely. Troll on. Hey Dart, aim the other way... here's an emotion for you: LOL PS When I pick your nits you will know it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Dartagan Shepherd wrote: It's only cyclic because you're semantically making it so, which seems very hmm, emotional to me. The gist of it is that under the current ToS, LL has no effective expiration on the massive rights that they're asking. Copies, original, not copies ... blah. This ToS doesn't end their license that we granted properly upon the only termination of license that the ToS allows. While you're busy nitpicking, some people, lawyers and certainly LL's lawyers are capable of getting the gist of it without turning into more fodder for semantic nitpickery on your part. It's really not that difficult. And it wasn't offered to them as replacement language, that part seemed to escape you completely. Troll on. And just to add if you can't read my posts correctly, how can you be expected to understand the TOS correctly? PS And thank you for feeding this troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Oh, I read them correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Do you really want me to pick nits? If I was seeking a meeting I would invite Mr. Gray to a round of golf. And, of course, the 19th hole. I would make him laugh and have some fun. Then I would give him the letter. Perhaps, if she golfs, Lee Senderov would be a good third. Foursome anyone? PS As today is Friday and a beautiful day in SF, that's probably where Mr. Gray is at this very moment; playing an early round. Fore left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Here is another nit -- just throwing it out there: All these wonderful graphic artists and not one could create a UCCSL letter head? Where is the professionalism, man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now