Jump to content

Does LL handle CC BY content appropriately ?


Gaia Clary
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3626 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Gaia Clary wrote:

So is the question just wrong formulated ? Or just pointless ?

Actually i would be hapy to see a list of licenses in the TOS that would be compliant with the TOS. I would also be happy to get a list of licenses which are not compliant with the TOS. And for all not mentioned licenses i would be happy to clarify that with our lawyer if necessary.

My personal point of interest is if the "CC BGY4.0" is allowed, or will be allowed with an updated version of the TOS.

You can upload whatever you want.. The question is, do you have the ability to grant those same premissions to LL?

ETA: from what i can find a CC BGY 4.0 license states..

You are free to:
  • Share
    — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt
    — remix, transform, and build upon the material
  • for any purpose, even commercially.
  • The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
I don't see where that would be an issue with giving LL free license.

Also from CC BY 4.0...

___________________

Under the following terms:

 

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

___________________
 
 
Many years ago, I investigated using open source software in a product where the code would be deeply embedded. The license terms on the code were pretty much CC BY. I showed the CC license to the company's IP counsel, and inquired how we would show attribution. I was advised NOT to use any such software, as the only ways of showing the required attribution would effectively "deface or defame" the product.
 
By "deface", he meant that we'd have to place attribution somewhere on the product, thereby spoiling the design with superfluous messaging. By "defame" he meant that displaying attribution for something which comprises perhaps 0.001% of the product's value effectively devalues the remaining 99.999% of the product. It would be as if you purchased a shiny new iPhone, and on the back saw "Designed by Apple in California", followed by "And Madelaine McMasters in Wisconsin" because they used my CC BY 4.0 algorithm for abs(x).
 
I then asked if it would be sufficient to print attribution at the back of the owner's manual. Counsel thought that addressed "deface" but not "defame" and recommended steering clear of anything burdened by a license requiring attribution. It did not seem there was any reasonable way to show it.
 
Shortly after getting that annoying opinion, I countered with the observation that only the source code was encumbered by the license, and that I could get around it by compiling the source down to machine code, and ship only the compiled code in the product, which is exactly what happens in most computer systems.
 
Counsel responded with what roughly translates to "Your solution is probably legal and certainly undetectable."
 
Much of the content being brought into SL can't wiggle through the compilation/obfuscation escape hatch. The final form of the content is recognizable, and there is no reasonable way to give attribution. Nobody's going to purchase clothing with attribution and change logs imprinted on the seams. You're not going to provide attribution on your ad copy without potentially defaming your own effort.
 
In the end, I followed counsel's advice and chose not to use content encumbered by licenses that required attribution of any kind.
 
The SL TOS is a problem to be sure, but in this context I wonder if CC BY isn't a bigger problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

Now the uploading of CC and other content that is not COMPLETELY owned by those uploading was not mentioned and I doubt seriously it will be addressed. While it was very hard to stop using CG Texture content, other free graphics used as starting places and included in mesh textures and CC works for some folks not me, that was really a very small problem compared to the rights given away.

Surely you must realize that, while it may be only a small problem for you, it's a rather huge problem for the SL community at large.  I have no idea what percentage of content creators actually create every last aspect of their content from scratch, but I have a feeling that it's rather low compared to those who use components purchased by others.

I was highly perturbed to find out that Ebbe had not addressed this aspect of the ToS in his statement.  Because, frankly, I don't care about LL trying to "steal" content from creators as much as I do the fact that this aspect has the potential to drive creativity into the ground... and would have already done so had everyone who relies on others' content actually stopped going about business as usual and started actually following the ToS as written.

While I may think that Gaia's attempt to get clarification is pretty much a losing battle, I'm rather relieved that someone who has some standing in the community has finally figured out the ramifications of what this means to the SL community and, in turn, SL itself.  The few times I've brought this up before, it was treated as virtually insignificant... very much like the way you refer to it in the sentence which I quoted from your post.  This very aspect of the ToS alone runs completely contrary to the spirit of collaboration upon which SL was founded and badly needs to be seriously addressed.  If she has the means to get this accomplished, I'm behind her all the way.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Chic Aeon wrote:

Now the uploading of CC and other content that is not COMPLETELY owned by those uploading was not mentioned and I doubt seriously it will be addressed. While it was very hard to stop using CG Texture content, other free graphics used as starting places and included in mesh textures and CC works for some folks not me, that was really a very small problem compared to the rights given away.

Surely you must realize that, while it may be only a small problem for you, it's a rather huge problem for the SL community at large.  I have no idea what percentage of content creators actually create every last aspect of their content from scratch, but I have a feeling that it's rather low compared to those who use components purchased by others.

I was highly perturbed to find out that Ebbe had not addressed this aspect of the ToS in his statement.  Because, frankly, I don't care about LL trying to "steal" content from creators as much as I do the fact that this aspect has the potential to drive creativity into the ground... and would have already done so had everyone who relies on others' content actually stopped going about business as usual and started actually following the ToS as written.

While I may think that Gaia's attempt to get clarification is pretty much a losing battle, I'm rather relieved that someone who has some standing in the community has finally figured out the ramifications of what this means to the SL community and, in turn, SL itself.  The few times I've brought this up before, it was treated as virtually insignificant... very much like the way you refer to it in the sentence which I quoted from your post.  This very aspect of the ToS alone runs completely contrary to the spirit of collaboration upon which SL was founded and badly needs to be seriously addressed.  If she has the means to get this accomplished, I'm behind her all the way.

...Dres

That is very well said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote I added after typing:

"Surely you must realize that, while it may be only a small problem for you, it's a rather huge problem for the SL community at large.  I have no idea what percentage of content creators actually create every last aspect of their content from scratch, but I have a feeling that it's rather low compared to those who use components purchased by others."

 

So you guys are saying that BECAUSE you can no longer use "free textures" from the web or creative content items that others have made and let you use -- you can no longer CREATE?

Sorry, but I am sad for you. I am not in The Lab's camp on this, most anyone that knows me knows that.  BUT, I do feel that they have a right to determine what can legally be uploaded to their servers. If that means ONLY content made completely by creators -- then so be it.

The ISSUE for me is that even though they have made this rule and many of us are complying -- there are just as many blatantly stolen items up on the Marketplace and fraud is rampant.

I didn't upload ANYTHING for eight months. I am again as I simply got tired of not working here (no big kudos for me there but that is how I felt).   Am I limited in what I can do? Not so much. I have just learned how to make my own textures. I never used Creative Commons other than music for my videos which is not covered under the TOS as they are never uploaded here.

Let's get a little creative here folks instead of beating our chests.  LEARN how to do some stuff you count on other doing. You will be a better content provider because of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is also another aspect:

So what if i wanted to set up a Gooseberry SIM for example ? With the characters from the film, with avatars, props, maybe even landscapes that are used in the film ? The Blender Foundation welcomes such projects and it is absolutely legal to make such a project. That is what CC BY is good for.

But now our hosting service (yes, LindenLab is actually just our 3D internet provider, so to speak) seems to highly discourage (if not even forbid) the upload of the content that is actually attributed as "do what you want with it, just tell the world its from us" . So, people from LindenLab ...

Will you concider to handle CC BY 4.0 content properly ? yes or no ? The question is simple enough and i have nothing else to ask.

And while we talk about hosting providers... If your internet provider would tell you, they will do whatever they want with your content,  and its up to you to only upload content that you own, well... then wouldn't we have to close the internt right away ? But please don't take me serious here. its late by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

So you guys are saying that BECAUSE you can no longer use "free textures" from the web or creative content items that others have made and let you use -- you can no longer CREATE?

Sorry, but I am sad for you.

How very condescending of you.  I, like many others, am not very good at creating textures from scratch.  I buy textures inworld because I want to support those in SL who are actually good at it.  I only use outside content those rare times when I can't find something suitable in SL and I always pay for its use when I do.  So, I take a texture from here and a texture from there, a sculpt map from here and a mesh component from there, and put them together to create something which I, and hopefully others, will enjoy... so what?  I'm sorry if you find my doing so distasteful, but spare me your backhanded pity.

Perhaps you would prefer that content for SL be made by only the most talented, most learned portion of creators who can do it all, in which case I believe that it's more than just me for whom you should be feeling sorry.  Should ever that come to fruition, I'm pretty sure SL would become a much more generic, boring place.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gaia Clary wrote:

And while we talk about hosting providers... If your internet provider would tell you, they will do whatever they want with your content,  and its up to you to only upload content that you own, well... then wouldn't we have to close the internt right away ? But please don't take me serious here. its late by now.

It wouldn't have to be closed, but it would certainly be a much less dynamic, enjoyable place.  And such is the fate of SL, should this ToS stand as it is.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL.

Honestly I don't see how you could set up a Gooseberry sim at this point in time with the current TOS LEGALLY. The bottom line here really IS legally. There is SO MUCH that is still so very blatantly illegal and that The Lab just ignores -- I am guessing nothing would really happen.

But are you willing to lose your avatar over that? I am certainly not.

As much as you joke, there are MANY MANY TOS contracts that say very much the same as the current TOS. This came to late when we were all huffing and puffing (I mean that in a good way; huffing and puffing is an important part of being human :D) many months ago. I have several friends who have discarded their Yahoo accounts for example. I have let some "memberships" disappear by NOT OKing the "new" terms of service. I CAREFULLY NOW READ THE TOS before I opt in on anything. Lessons learned.

So the problem is WAY more than Second Life.

Most folks complain and then say, (and I quote) "I just CAN'T give up my ***** page; all my friends are there".  We are sheep for the most part. I have opted out of what I can. But I cannot give up my Flickr account and keep blogging. I cannot give up my YouTube account and keep making machinima (well publishing it anyway would be difficult as most of my views come from YT).

So we are all stuck between a rock and a hard place. While I PERSONALLY do not agree with using other people's work in order to make products to SELL, I do understand that many people use other works. I am in a mall in another land where my neighbor seems to be uploading "legal" content and selling it. Did he do the work? Not so much. He uploaded and aligned the premade texture. Personally, I do NOT call that "content creation". I would not buy any of his products.

 

This is not new news for me. I was a loud proponent when texture templates came onto the fashion scene. Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish. To me this is not content creation. I admit that I am softer in my judgement on mesh "templates" as learning mesh is a whole 'nother world. I DO give big kudos to the designers who make their own products. You betcha.

I think the BEST part of Gooseberry (and I did go to the site and read all about it) is that you can LEARN. Let's putting learning ahead of using other people's content. That's pretty much my position.

So my answer to your question is that "I" personally would not use CC by 4.0 on THIS grid. Others? I would at least consider it legal. I prefer to make my own goods and not move forward on the backs of others. :D

Now before anyone jumps on me about using CC music in my machinina, I WHOLLY support that. Firstly, I make machinima for love, not profit. I mean twenty hours to make a short film has GOT to be for love. I don't work for others. I don't sell my works.  Secondly I ALWAYS give credit to the wonderful music makers who share -- both in the film credits and on the info page.

 

There IS a difference for me -- in my mind. Others may not see the difference. I understand that.

 

Phone call so I may come back and edit this later - LOL. Hitting that post key though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

I was a loud proponent when texture templates came onto the fashion scene. Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish. To me this is
not
content creation. I admit that I am softer in my judgement on mesh "templates" as learning mesh is a whole 'nother world. I DO give big kudos to the designers who make their own products. You betcha.

I also give kudos to those who make their own content and, in fact, prefer buying from those who do.  But I would never go as far as to suggest that those who use templates are not creating content and are therefore not content creators.  In fact, some who do just that come up with some really nice products, depending on their level of creativity... regardless of the fact that they had a little help along the way.

But then, I understand that giving kudos to one type of creator doesn't mean that I need to belittle the contribution made by those of another.  I simply don't see how that type of attitude can do any of us any good.

...Dres

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn’t that hard to figure out…

 Drake1 Nightfire and I see things pretty much the same way. You cannot legally upload Creative Commons content if it has ANY reserved right or stipulated condition(s).

The details and reasoning, quoting pertinent parts of TOS, are here: http://blog.nalates.net/2014/04/14/linden-lab-tos-and-creative-commons/

If anyone thinks Lab employees are going to chase down CC attribution information or even bother to check whether it is needed, they are dreaming. They have a TOS that says we do that for them before we upload. Plus we guarantee to hold the Lab harmless (we’ll pay any damages) for anything resulting from something we uploaded.

Since the TOS requires we have all the rights needed to allow the Lab to use the items as the TOS implies they might, meaning do whatever they want without payment, attribution, etc., the Lab’s employees are within reason to assume we complied with the TOS. Thus they can reasonably assume they have all the rights needed to use whatever in any way they choose without any need to check.

 

Not gonna happen…

Your idea to get a ‘statement’ from LL about CC is impractical.

If the Lab answers your questionyes or no they risk taking on liability. Their attorney(s) has no doubt warned them not to comment on TOS in any way that might be construed to be an interpretation of the TOS.

Also, a verbal answer from the Lab is no use. So, only a formal written response would help. That is not going to happen until an attorney reviews it or writes it and they are, hopefully, busy re-writing the TOS.

 

The Answer

Dresden Ceriano has the idea I do. I want to see the TOS changed. When that happens I will have something concrete that is binding on the LAB. Nothing else matters.

 

What You Want

You seem to want the Lab to provide attribution for CC content that we upload or at least tell you if they will. Dresden Ceriano points out that would require they create a system to track what items have CC restrictions, author names, and what items it is associated with. That costs them time and money so we can use free content. You really think they might do that? I think the very obvious answer is NO.

Your desire for a statement to allow your use of CC content or deny it is on the impractical side. Since a ‘OK to use’ statement means lots of work and risk for the Lab, their answer has to be no. Save yourself some time and just believe, like LepreKhaun, what the TOS says: “you gotta have all the rights SL wants before uploading.” So, use of CC is currently forbidden in SL.

 

What they are doing…

The Lab has said they are looking at the problem and planning to re-word the TOS. While the rewrite is in the works, like anything the Lab is working on, they won’t talk about it.

At this point all we can do is wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so to summarize what we have until now:

 

  • Most of you are sure that the TOS forbids CC content
  • Most of you believe that LL can not comment on the TOS because they would take liability for what they say which is dangerous for them. (a very interesting statement actually :matte-motes-evil: )
  • Furthermore most of you believe that the only way to improve the situation is to change the TOS.
  • However most of you believe that a change of the TOS will not happen.
  • Some of you think that a change of the TOS can not happen because even if they wanted to do , LindenLab can not provide the necessary attribution for CC content due to technical and practical reasons.
  • A few of you think the TOS allows CC content
  • And finally a few of you see CC content is no good base for creative work at least regarding reselling.
  • And others see the usage of CC content as a basis for creative work is important and apreciated part of their creations.

Is that more or less what the situation is from user point of view ?

From some posts i read that LindenLab might plan to change the wording of the TOS to clarify what they realy mean. So obviously there is some ambigeous information in the TOS right now that makes it hard to understand for some people.

My own conclusion to all of this so far (including all my experience with previous attempt to clarify this topic) is simple:

 

  1. Do only upload content that was made by yourself from every bit to avoid potential breaking of the laws.
  2. Keep trying to get a statement from LindenLab about what the real problem is on their side.

 

Thank you for helping me to summarize this. And now i will go and see what my step will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dres, 

about the textures you buy in SL. LL has already a full licence on them, from the day the original creator uploaded them.

By purchasing them, you are given a full perm SL licence (if they are full perm of course), that mean you can copy them to infinite, you can modify them and you can transfer them. Generally, you cant transfer them as standalone, or with full perms but still, you can use them on your items and sell or share your items. The licence you have there is for use in SL only, and except if its said explicitely you cant use them outside SL.

And you are not forced to give credits for the texture, except for some rare exceptions.

This is not a CC licence. 

Now if you download them on your hard drive and you modify them. And then reupload them.

Till here its fine, you can do this, since you have a licence that allows you to modify (and you can't do this within SL since there are no tools for that).

So now you have the texture that you modified. Your texture modified is NOT the original texture. It's the original texture + YOUR modifications. you have created a derivative work.

Now you will upload it in SL. You dont have to worry about the full licence you maybe dont have for the original texture because LL has this licence already since the day the original creator of the texture uploaded it in SL. 

Instead, you should worry to know if you want to give LL a full licence on the derivative work you made. This is the only thing LL is aking a licence from you. They dont care about the licence on the original work, bec they have it already. And the modifications are yours. You are the only one who can decide you want or not give the full licence to LL on that.

For anything bought within SL (as long you are ok with the licence you have been given) there is no problem. LL has already a full licence on them, they wont ask a second time. Since the licence is clear and it says they wont give any credit, it doesnt the matter the name of who is uploading. what matters is that they can have a full licence, so at least one person uploading must have a copyright for being able to grant this licence to LL. If that's done, they consider they have already this licence and its fine.

@Gaia

i think you should maybe ask yourself if the Goosberry project ppl are ok to give such licence to LL. I think you take the problem from the wrong side.

if Goosberry project ppl are willing to give only a CC licence, then LL is not the right place (with the current TOS). 

 

@Chic

you made my day girl !

i so agree with most of the things you said, and you said it so better than i ever could do :smileyhappy:. Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

LOL.

Honestly I don't see how you could set up a Gooseberry sim at this point in time with the current TOS LEGALLY. The bottom line here really IS legally. There is SO MUCH that is still so very blatantly illegal and that The Lab just ignores -- I am guessing nothing would really happen.

But are you willing to lose your avatar over that? I am certainly not.

As much as you joke, there are MANY MANY TOS contracts that say very much the same as the current TOS. This came to late when we were all huffing and puffing (I mean that in a good way; huffing and puffing is an important part of being human
:D
) many months ago. I have several friends who have discarded their Yahoo accounts for example. I have let some "memberships" disappear by NOT OKing the "new" terms of service. I CAREFULLY NOW READ THE TOS before I opt in on anything. Lessons learned.

So the problem is WAY more than Second Life.

Most folks complain and then say, (and I quote) "I just CAN'T give up my ***** page; all my friends are there".  We are sheep for the most part. I have opted out of what I can. But I cannot give up my Flickr account and keep blogging. I cannot give up my YouTube account and keep making machinima (well publishing it anyway would be difficult as most of my views come from YT).

So we are all stuck between a rock and a hard place. While I PERSONALLY do not agree with using other people's work in order to make products to SELL, I do understand that many people use other works. I am in a mall in another land where my neighbor seems to be uploading "legal" content and selling it. Did he do the work? Not so much. He uploaded and aligned the premade texture. Personally, I do NOT call that "content creation". I would not buy any of his products.

 
So, every texture in every single one of your builds was made by you? Not a single one was a stock texture from a texture creation engine like Genetica?

This is not new news for me. I was a loud proponent when texture templates came onto the fashion scene. Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish. To me this is
not
content creation. I admit that I am softer in my judgement on mesh "templates" as learning mesh is a whole 'nother world. I DO give big kudos to the designers who make their own products. You betcha.

Right, they bought a template, opened it in PS or Gimp, added layers, shadows, seams, wrinkles, buttons, zippers, and an assortment of other things but they created nothing, right? Unlike some of the mesh creators who can buy premade textures for the full perm mesh.

I think the BEST part of Gooseberry (and I did go to the site and read all about it) is that you can LEARN
. Let's putting learning ahead of using other people's content. That's pretty much my position.

So my answer to your question is that "I" personally would not use CC by 4.0 on THIS grid. Others? I would at least consider it legal. I prefer to make my own goods and not move forward on the backs of others.
:D

Now before anyone jumps on me about using CC music in my machinina, I WHOLLY support that. Firstly, I make machinima for love, not profit. I mean twenty hours to make a short film has GOT to be for love. I don't work for others. I don't sell my works.  Secondly I ALWAYS give credit to the wonderful music makers who share -- both in the film credits and on the info page.

 
What is the difference? CC music or CC mesh/textures? It is still not your work. How hard can it be, grab a synthesizer and push a few buttons, right? It can't be any harder than making system layer clothing that looks real, right? 

There IS a difference for me -- in my mind. Others may not see the difference. I understand that.

 

Phone call so I may come back and edit this later - LOL. Hitting that post key though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Chic Aeon wrote:

 

So we are all stuck between a rock and a hard place. While I PERSONALLY do not agree with using other people's work in order to make products to SELL, I do understand that many people use other works. I am in a mall in another land where my neighbor seems to be uploading "legal" content and selling it. Did he do the work? Not so much. He uploaded and aligned the premade texture. Personally, I do NOT call that "content creation". I would not buy any of his products.

 So, every texture in every single one of your builds was made by you? Not a single one was a stock texture from a texture creation engine like Genetica?

This is not new news for me. I was a loud proponent when texture templates came onto the fashion scene. Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish. To me this is not content creation. I admit that I am softer in my judgement on mesh "templates" as learning mesh is a whole 'nother world. I DO give big kudos to the designers who make their own products. You betcha.

Right, they bought a template, opened it in PS or Gimp, added layers, shadows, seams, wrinkles, buttons, zippers, and an assortment of other things but they created nothing, right? Unlike some of the mesh creators who can buy premade textures for the full perm mesh.

 

 

 

I dont read this like you Drake "Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish" is not same as what you discribed.

using a fabric texture as a "component" of a whole design is not same imho than just what Chic said. if you draw the path yourself, draw the wrinkles, the shadows, the seams or whatever you will draw on your design, your design remain your creation and the fabric will remain only one component among the others.

Now if you just assembled pre existing components, you still created an assembled texture. That is not really same as an original texture created from scratch but still, you created the assembly.

There is room for everything in SL imho, but they are different words for every of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

 

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Chic Aeon wrote:

 

So we are all stuck between a rock and a hard place. While I PERSONALLY do not agree with using other people's work in order to make products to SELL, I do understand that many people use other works. I am in a mall in another land where my neighbor seems to be uploading "legal" content and selling it. Did he do the work? Not so much. He uploaded and aligned the premade texture. Personally, I do NOT call that "content creation". I would not buy any of his products.

 
So, every texture in every single one of your builds was made by you? Not a single one was a stock texture from a texture creation engine like Genetica?

This is not new news for me. I was a loud proponent when texture templates came onto the fashion scene. Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish. To me this is
not
content creation. I admit that I am softer in my judgement on mesh "templates" as learning mesh is a whole 'nother world. I DO give big kudos to the designers who make their own products. You betcha.

Right, they bought a template, opened it in PS or Gimp, added layers, shadows, seams, wrinkles, buttons, zippers, and an assortment of other things but they created nothing, right? Unlike some of the mesh creators who can buy premade textures for the full perm mesh.

 

 

 

I dont read this like you Drake "
Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish
" is not same as what you discribed.

using a fabric texture as a "component" of a whole design is not same imho than just what Chic said. if you draw the path yourself, draw the wrinkles, the shadows, the seams or whatever you will draw on your design, your design remain your creation and the fabric will remain only one component among the others.

Now if you just assembled pre existing components, you still created an assembled texture. That is not really same as an original texture created from scratch but still, you created the assembly.

There is room for everything in SL imho, but they are different words for every of them.

You missed my point, love. I don't know of anyone that just buys a system layer template and tosses on a texture. You have to do all of the other work to make clothing, you can't simply sell a texture made into clothing, it will look like crap. That is what Chic was describing, tossing on a texture to a template. It sounds very much like she thinks it is so easy to do. Trust me, it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is uploading rigged mesh legal ?

...

Here is why rigged mesh violates the TOS when taken by word:

 

  • All rigged mesh is based on the SL Avatar's bone structure
  • If you want to make a rigged mesh then at some point you have to rig it to a skeleton that is compatible with the SL Avatar
  • The joints information has been provided to the public under a CC license
  • You may also use the default Avatar mesh as reference for your garments. this is also an indirect usage of CC attributed content for derivative work and must be attributed.
  • Finally you might even reuse the SL Avatar meshes to derive your own meshes from there. this is direct usage of CC attributed content and must be attributed.
  • Once you upload your work, you accept to:

    ... waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content...

  • You can not do that, because the content has been licensed to you as CC, which makes attribution mandatory, not only for you but also for the receiving party (LindenLab in this case), so you can not wave this right, nor can LindenLab change that license, even if they are the original creators of the SL Avatar. CC attribution, once given, can never be reverted.

Hence... Upload of rigged mesh violates the TOS. :matte-motes-evil:

Well, i am sure i am wrong :) ... Am i ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

Dres, 

about the textures you buy in SL. LL has already a full licence on them, from the day the original creator uploaded them.

By purchasing them, you are given a full perm SL licence (if they are full perm of course), that mean you can copy them to infinite, you can modify them and you can transfer them. Generally, you cant transfer them as standalone, or with full perms but still, you can use them on your items and sell or share your items. The licence you have there is for use in SL only, and except if its said explicitely you cant use them outside SL.

And you are not forced to give credits for the texture, except for some rare exceptions.

This is not a CC licence. 

Now if you download them on your hard drive and you modify them. And then reupload them.

Till here its fine, you can do this, since you have a licence that allows you to modify (and you can't do this within SL since there are no tools for that).

So now you have the texture that you modified. Your texture modified is NOT the original texture. It's the original texture + YOUR modifications. you have created a derivative work.

Now you will upload it in SL. You dont have to worry about the full licence you maybe dont have for the original texture because LL has this licence already since the day the original creator of the texture uploaded it in SL. 

Instead, you should worry to know if you want to give LL a full licence on the derivative work you made. This is the only thing LL is aking a licence from you. They dont care about the licence on the original work, bec they have it already. And the modifications are yours. You are the only one who can decide you want or not give the full licence to LL on that.

For anything bought within SL (as long you are ok with the licence you have been given) there is no problem. LL has already a full licence on them, they wont ask a second time. Since the licence is clear and it says they wont give any credit, it doesnt the matter the name of who is uploading. what matters is that they can have a full licence, so at least one person uploading must have a copyright for being able to grant this licence to LL. If that's done, they consider they have already this licence and its fine.

Thank you, Trin.  I hadn't considered the fact that LL would already have unlimited rights to the original texture and therefore would not require me to grant rights for those textures which I myself am not able to grant.  This does put my mind at ease as far as inworld textures are concerned.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gaia Clary wrote:

So is uploading rigged mesh legal ?

...

Here is why rigged mesh violates the TOS when taken by word:

 
  • All rigged mesh is based on the SL Avatar's bone structure
  • If you want to make a rigged mesh then at some point you have to rig it to a skeleton that is compatible with the SL Avatar
  • The joints information has been provided to the public under a CC license
  • You may also use the default Avatar mesh as reference for your garments. this is also an indirect usage of CC attributed content for derivative work and must be attributed.
  • Finally you might even reuse the SL Avatar meshes to derive your own meshes from there. this is direct usage of CC attributed content and must be attributed.
  • Once you upload your work, you accept to:

     

    ... waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content...

     

  • You can not do that, because the content has been licensed to you as CC, which makes attribution mandatory, not only for you but also for the receiving party (LindenLab in this case), so you can not wave this right, nor can LindenLab change that license, even if they are the original creators of the SL Avatar. CC attribution, once given, can never be reverted.

Hence... Upload of rigged mesh violates the TOS. :matte-motes-evil:

Well, i am sure i am wrong
:)
... Am i ?

who provided the joint information ? LL ? 

then they dont need i give them a full licence on smth they have already a full licence on since its their properties.

They give me a CC licence on the tool. They dont give me anything on what i will build with that tool, bec its not their business.

I have to respect their licence if i want to give away the tool as standalone. 

its just like i had to give credit to photoshop for every single artwork i create with it, or Microsoft, for every document i write with Word and that i could publish or sale.

And why not giving credit to the creator of my comp processor too while we are at it, since i used smth they bought me to create everything i create on my comp ?

I know all Adobe, microsoft and Asus didnt gave me a CC licence, but still. The joints informations are a tool. 

So yep, i think you are wrong :smileytongue: But i may be wrong myself.. bec all the rigging thing is still a deep blur for me lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

I dont read this like you Drake "
Buy a texture, add a layer of "free" graphic fabric, and publish
" is not same as what you discribed.

using a fabric texture as a "component" of a whole design is not same imho than just what Chic said. if you draw the path yourself, draw the wrinkles, the shadows, the seams or whatever you will draw on your design, your design remain your creation and the fabric will remain only one component among the others.

Now if you just assembled pre existing components, you still created an assembled texture. That is not really same as an original texture created from scratch but still, you created the assembly.

There is room for everything in SL imho, but they are different words for every of them.

You missed my point, love. I don't know of anyone that just buys a system layer template and tosses on a texture. You have to do all of the other work to make clothing, you can't simply sell a texture made into clothing, it will look like crap. That is what Chic was describing, tossing on a texture to a template. It sounds very much like she thinks it is so easy to do. Trust me, it isn't.

Exactly.  It's actually more akin to someone who goes into a junkyard, pulls out a bunch of junk, then combines and manipulates it into a work of art.  Sure, they're working with things that other people have created, but the outcome can be no less artistic than the work of someone who starts off with a lump of clay.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gaia Clary wrote:
  • Some of you think that a change of the TOS can not happen because even if they wanted to do , LindenLab can not provide the necessary attribution for CC content due to technical and practical reasons.


If they changed the TOS back to what it used to be, LL wouldn't be in a position where they needed to worry about attribution anymore. They would no longer be claiming the right to take the content and re-distribute and re-sell it elsewhere and everything else. Attribution for in-world exchanges would be handled by the uploader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

Quote I added after typing:

"Surely you must realize that, while it may be only a small problem for you, it's a rather huge problem for the SL community at large.  I have no idea what percentage of content creators actually create every last aspect of their content from scratch, but I have a feeling that it's rather low compared to those who use components purchased by others."

 

So you guys are saying that BECAUSE you can no longer use "free textures" from the web or creative content items that others have made and let you use -- you can no longer CREATE?

 

No.  No one is saying that they can no longer create.  What they are saying is that in some cases it makes creation more difficult if you need something that is outside of your ability to create. (More on that later in this post)

 


Chic Aeon wrote:

 

Sorry, but I am sad for you. I am not in The Lab's camp on this, most anyone that knows me knows that.  BUT, I do feel that they have a 
legal
right to determine what can
legally
be uploaded to their servers. If that means ONLY content made completely by creators -- then so be it.


I've straightened this sentence out a little.  What can be legally uploaded is determined by law, not LL.  Then LL decides what they will allow, the licence they will accept. 

 

 

 


Chic Aeon wrote:

 

The ISSUE for me is that even though they have made this rule and many of us are complying -- there are just as many blatantly stolen items up on the Marketplace and fraud is rampant.
 

Agreed, and it is a huge problem.  And it goes beyond the blatant.  Especially textures.  Now, I am not a Merchant:  I don't sell anything.  But I do build.  And looking back, while I haven't uploaded very much, I can't vouch that everything I've ever used I had a right to.  But I am more diligent today about it then I was when I started and didn't understand these things.

 


Chic Aeon wrote:

 

I didn't upload ANYTHING for eight months. I am again as I simply got tired of not working here (no big kudos for me there but that is how I felt).   Am I limited in what I can do? Not so much. I have just learned how to make my own textures. I never used Creative Commons other than music for my videos which is not covered under the TOS as they are never uploaded here.

 

I noticed that you are providing a link rather than "inserting" your videos here.  Really that should not be a concern to you.  When you "insert" the video it does not upload to LL's servers:  It does not get hosted there.  Similar to how a Google Image Search works.  All that is created is a link between the user and YouTube and how it gets displayed in the browser.  It's a direct link between the user and the host.

 

 


Chic Aeon wrote:

 

Let's get a little creative here folks instead of beating our chests. 
LEARN how to do some stuff you count on other doing. You will be a better content provider because of it.

 

 

The problem affects more than just content providers (and I think in this case you mainly mean Merchants).  It affects ALL users. 

As I said above I do a little bit of building for my own pleasure.  But whether it is for commerce or for personal pleasure not everyone has the time and/or ability to learn everything, much less become expert at it.  And some things there is a huge world of difference.  There is a huge difference between making a texture in MS Paint and scripting a door rotation.   Making your own sounds is a completely different art.  Need a guitar riff?  What if you don't play the guitar?

So while I do continue to learn, I am going to bleat about it.  If you are going to say "tough on me" because I don't have the time or ability to learn everything I'm going to say you are barking up the wrong tree here and that your view of SL is narrow minded.  And I will reiterate that what Dresden said above is very well said.

Sorry if I seem a little blunt here.  I really do have a lot of respect for people who have the ability to create and I don't want to infer otherwise.  But I also believe there is a much larger picture here that we need to see.

 

eta:shpelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Chic Aeon wrote:

 

Let's get a little creative here folks instead of beating our chests. 
LEARN how to do some stuff you count on other doing. You will be a better content provider because of it.

 

Do you know how to fix your car, tv, computer, install carpeting, fix your plumbing, or any other job you can think of?  Thats a bit elitist of you.

Some of us can't figure out how to make mesh, or textures. Some of us don't have the time to spend hours making mesh or 20 hours to make a machinima video. If everyone could do everything, no one would need to buy a single thing in SL.. ever. Way to want to destroy the economy in SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gaia Clary wrote:

So is uploading rigged mesh legal ?

...

Here is why rigged mesh violates the TOS when taken by word:

 
  • All rigged mesh is based on the SL Avatar's bone structure
  • If you want to make a rigged mesh then at some point you have to rig it to a skeleton that is compatible with the SL Avatar
  • The joints information has been provided to the public under a CC license
  • You may also use the default Avatar mesh as reference for your garments. this is also an indirect usage of CC attributed content for derivative work and must be attributed.
  • Finally you might even reuse the SL Avatar meshes to derive your own meshes from there. this is direct usage of CC attributed content and must be attributed.
  • Once you upload your work, you accept to:

     

    ... waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content...

     

  • You can not do that, because the content has been licensed to you as CC, which makes attribution mandatory, not only for you but also for the receiving party (LindenLab in this case), so you can not wave this right, nor can LindenLab change that license, even if they are the original creators of the SL Avatar. CC attribution, once given, can never be reverted.

Hence... Upload of rigged mesh violates the TOS. :matte-motes-evil:

Well, i am sure i am wrong
:)
... Am i ?

Wow!   What an interesting thought.  I had no idea that the SL avatar was CC. Is it?  I thought I remembered some text from the TOS and looked it up. As part of section 2.2 it is stated:

 

"To be clear, and without limiting the foregoing, you may not use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display or perform any Linden In-World Content, whether modified by you or not, outside the virtual world environment of the Service except as provided in the Snapshot and Machinima Policy or as expressly agreed upon in a written agreement with Linden Lab."

 

There are many parts of the TOS that seemingly contradict each other; this has been pointed out in many panel discussions. So this may just be another one of those instances.

 

An interesting cognitive exercise though :D

 

Edit:  Some thoughts while tubbing.

 

I don't see that USING an item (in this case the SL avatar if it is indeed CC) in the production of a product is against the TOS, since you are not UPLOADING IT. It is more like using software while making your textures for example.  Just how "I" see it. Now folks that actually UPLOAD the avatar for usage as a model or in art (I have seen a lot of that) are most likely against the TOS.

 

And so far as not being able to create (nope, didn't really read the replies as things seemed to be going off on a tangent so this is not a response) when you can only upload YOUR work -- why not BUY things from people inworld that can make them? So you need  a texture? There are some very good texture artists in SL that make original work. Even if the texture is not original, YOU didn't upload it so YOU are in compliance and you don't need to worry (just in case you were).

In the real world when we need something to complete a product or project we purchase it :D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ISSUE for me is that even though they have made this rule and many of us are complying -- there are just as many blatantly stolen items up on the Marketplace and fraud is rampant.

Indeed. Does the ToS really absolve them of all liability if they step beyond the scope of protection by DMCA? Would it really be plausible for them to claim ignorance of the extent of violations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3626 days.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...