Mesh - what is considered resellable?

[Suki Hirano]

Since most, like 99%, of mesh content are all made from mesh kits now, what is the borderline difference between a pure repackaging and reselling the kit content and a "creation"? In other words what edits must you make in order to resell the mesh model under your own name and profit? I've seen some pretty borderline examples. For example, is a simple recolor (not retexture) considered enough editing to resell the model?

See this:

Compared to the original kit:

It's clear the creator did not make any edits to the skirt other than a VERY minor recolor (in fact I think the color is 99% the same), and yes I've actually rezzed the skirt in-world to check the differences (I own both the mesh kit skirt and the resold one).

So does this mean that I can spend 200L on a mesh kit, bring the texture into photoshop, spend 20 seconds adjusting the color balance, export the texture into SL, paste the texture onto the mesh model, then resell it? Have I been missing all these opportunities to make some quick cash by being overly "ethical" since I thought only complete re-textures count? What are your thoughts?

[Casper Priestman]

Most resell kits clearly state that the only caveat is that you do NOT resell as FULL perm the entire kit or a derivative, what changes you make are entirely up to you as long as you follow that guideline which is interpreted as the user agreement or Terms Of Sale.  I think you're confusing the "what constitutes a derivative or similar work" for people entirely creating an item on their own that LOOKS like someone else's work and not using a kit.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

The terms have to all be in the license. Any restrictions not stated in it are unenforcable.  So on a full perm item, you may do anything except what those things that are specifically restricted by the license

Mesh clothing models are not much differnt from clothing templates.  Some templates are so complete you just hafe to apply the texture to a garment you create.  Of course whether this is wise from a marketing and merchandising point of viewis another question.

 

[Vegro Solari]

Sure you can!  Companies in "first life" constantly do this, rebranding and reselling the same exact product in different ways for different markets.

 

If you can find a way to sell something that actually takes you only a minute to make with photoshop from some template you got, your "artistic ego" may take a blow or two, but you'll have all the consolations of being a financial success to help nurse those deep psychological wounds.

 

In reality though, it's probably going to take a lot of work to build the marketing materials & concepts to sell that quickly made edit of someone's template.

 

PS:  Don't let scary licensing restrictions ('You cannot do this, you cannot do that...") confuse you. Breach of licensing conditions is not something that copyright laws protect, you cannot file a DMCA against someone who breached your licensing conditions if they are not at the same time infringing on copyright.  Licensing is an agreement between parties, and what happens if one of the sides breaches that agreement depends on the agreement, it's not a criminal or even unworthy act to breach a garden-variety legal agreement you happen to have with someone. Maybe it was a bad, or even criminal agreement! Often, the only consequence is that the original agreement just becomes null and void. In some cases, if the breach caused immense financial harm, the other side can try and prove it. But that's a not simple thing by any stretch to legally pull it off. Of course people who stand to benefit from scaremongering (for example such companies as Microsoft, Facebook etc.)  keep trying their best to make it look as though breach of their terms of service is somehow a quasi-criminal offense. According to the current US law, it is not.

Some people who make "kits" for other creators in secondlife have been following suit with really scary Facebook-esque sounding license agreements plastered over everything.  They do it either due to not being well informed, or they're just plain bluffing!

[Paul Norfolk]

You're looking in the wrong places if you think items made from mesh kits equates to 99% of mesh items. Ive seen an increase in these kit items that you mentioned, but equally a rise in original content. I generally stay away from kit resellers, as the after sales support always seems to be lacking in my opinion.

[Casper Priestman]

It's replies like yours Vegro, that help make SL the cesspool that it is as far as creative integrity go. Parasites looking for any loophole to take advantage of someone else's work.

[Vegro Solari]

Casper, I'm sure if a guy said that "Casper Priestman is against taking advantage of others' work"  they'd be dead wrong. I mean, without taking advantage of other's work, the human species would be doomed to die away on the fast.

What you're really against is people not paying those others using United States legal tender for permission (license) to use their work.

 

But here's the problem. What if the people involved don't have the means to pay?  Should that then mean they absolutely cannot take advantage?  See the first paragraph as to what that leads to.

[Casper Priestman]

Vegro, I stand by what I say, it seems you clearly missed the boat or have no concept of conducting yourself with integrity. Let me elaborate. You said " Licensing is an agreement between parties, and what happens if one of the sides breaches that agreement depends on the agreement, it's not a criminal or even unworthy act to breach a garden-variety legal agreement you happen to have with someone." Unworthy? So for example, if a content creator residing in a country where this "United States Legal Tender" provides for their family and makes a huge difference in the quality of life for them, would I be justified in "breaching" the terms and possibly harming their income and quality of life? Woudl that be worthy? Two things come into play, morals and social behaviour. By agreeing to the terms set out we are morally and socially bound to abide by what is set out for us. If we wish to negotiate a different set of governing rules over licensing then we do so, but blatantly Taking the same material created by one person and reselling it as full perm is not something you'd find in real life companies as you said was done all the time, so your point is moot. Digital goods are clearly the only avenue where this happens. In real life, products are reverse engineered and altered and if they don't breach patent or copyright, are brought to market.

 

When you encourage others to do what they wish with full perm kits because you view the terms as unenforceable, it should be prefaced with that being YOUR OPINION and not verbatim fact and law. Just because you're morally bankrupt doesn't mean you have the right to preach or encourage others to do it. Welcome to Secondlife, we are a community where creativity and respect for one another is not only encouraged but is the company mantra. If you do not like the terms set out by someone, don't buy or use their product...

[Vegro Solari]

 "By agreeing to the terms set out we are morally and socially bound to abide by what is set out for us", says Casper.

 

Here, I would not be so hasty, and perhaps rather answer more in the negative.   Arbitrary contracts magically made at time-of-purchase are a shady legal area, in many cases questions have been raised about both the legality and enforceability of such contracts.

I beg to differ, Casper - and hopefully contribute a point of view without silly accusations about moral corruption. Sometimes it's tempting to judge from "the high bridge" all moralities & ways of life which differ from our own,  but how disappointing would it be if their ways turned out to be far richer and more ecologically sound than our own in the final accounting? And we had blindly rejected them? This is why it's better to learn from each other instead of outright rejecting everything that does not fit in a predefined way into "the community boat". 

Regardless of the size and cuteness of "the creators" mythical real life family (perhaps this factor should be regulated & clearly advertised along with each shop's wares), I do not feel that any independently thinking person would ever permit themselves to be automatically guilted into following along with the oftentimes ridiculously concieved policies of virtual product licensing.

 

[Ashasekayi Ra]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

Regardless of the size and cuteness of "the creators" mythical real life family (perhaps this factor should be regulated & clearly advertised along with each shop's wares), I do not feel that any independently thinking person would ever permit themselves to be automatically guilted into following along with the oftentimes ridiculously concieved policies of virtual product licensing.

 

---

 If you don't agree with the creator's terms, don't buy the product. It's pretty simple.

[Vegro Solari]

" If you don't agree with the creator's terms, don't buy the product. It's pretty simple." -Ashasekayi Ra

If that's just a little bit of advice for everyone, then it's pretty simple. More problematic, if it's an ultimatum, though. Imagine I were a farmer about to sell you some wheat. My wheat comes with a 22 paragraph license agreement in tiny print and all caps.

- You can make bread with this wheat, but not bagels, and not buns.

- Flour you make from this wheat must not be sold separately under any circumstances.

- If you take the wheat, make flour, and bake a famous type of bread with it ("French Bread"), you have to notify the French embassy first and get their permission.

- You agree my farmer family is cute

 

And so on, and so on, and here's the kicker. what if, as this farmer in this example I had absolutely no legal standing at all to be giving you ultimatums about that wheat?

Let's just wake up a little bit from the dream/nightmare of the almighty "intellectual property", to face reality again.