Root prim/Creator debate.

[Arron Rainfall]

Hi all. :matte-motes-smile:

I was having a disussion with a friend via IM about this item that I wanted to sell on the marketplace and it ended up turning into a debate because of something I was wanting to sell on the marketplace. What I have purchased is a full perm linkset. The creator of the linkset has given permission to use the linkset in a build to sell so long as it's not given away, resold as-is, and not sold full perm. The linkset is not scripted and provides no functionality at all, but it's a very good looking linkset, which is why I wanted to use it.

What I have done is created a script which gives the linkset its appropriate functionality. The build itself was complete so I was going to list it on the marketplace and then I realized that the creator would show up as the creator of the linkset, not me. So what I did was create a new prim, linked it to the linkset with my prim as the root prim and moved the script over to my prim. That way I would show as the creator.

My friend told me I shouldn't do that because I would be claiming authorship of the linkset, in effect, I would be stealing another person's creation. However, I was not convinced that this was true. What I have created is a product in and of itself. If someone saw this product in world and decided they wanted to buy it themselves, they would look up the creator. If the linkset creator is shown as creator, the person would be led to a product that provides no functionality at all. If I set myself as the creator, as I did with the root prim, they would be able to find the actual product they were looking at.

Another thing I mentioned to her was the issue of customer support. Leaving the linkset creator as creator could result in customers contacting the linkset creator for support of a product they didn't even create.

I just wanted to get some public opinion on the matter before I took any further action. I was even thinking of mentioning the creator of the linkset on the product page, and maybe even give them a distribution. I don't know. I just want to do what's right.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

If the maker licenced it for resale, sell it.  Just changing the root prim won't affect anything.  When inspected, each prim will be listed with a maker for each.  Your root prim  will be the only one in the list made by you.  But, even in doing so, you're likely to be well within the permissions granted by the maker and shouldn't have any legitimate problems. ()

If you really want to look like the maker, seek out a "Prim mirror" script.  It'll duplicate the build using prims created by you using legitimate inworld capabilities. ()y

 

 

[Morgaine Christensen]

Isn't that more or less copybotting the item from the original creator to put your name on it; thus, opening yourself up for a DMCA to be filed if you claim the creation yours and is not?

[Amethyst Jetaime]

I think you need to be guided by the license. People who create full perm items for builders are aware that this is done.

Full permissions means that you can do anything you want with it UNLESS there is a user license that specifically prohibits certain things.  Therefore,it is up to the linkset's creator to put in their license that they must be shown as the creator if that is what they want.  I've seen licenses where the license states you cannot use or do anything to change the name of the creator.  I've also seen licenses that specifically state you have to make it clear you are the creator so that they are not asked for support.

 

 

[DMom2K Darwin]

You could put a notecard in your root prim explaining who made what and who to contact if there is an issue. You might also contact the creator of the linkset to see if this way would be ok with them or if what you originally did with your root prim was ok. Would be worth the peace of mind.... 

[Arron Rainfall]

Thanks for all the input so far.

I've always been more of a TOS and permissions system advocate when it comes to determining if someone is legitimately selling/reselling something(hence the debate with my friend), however* I will respect a creator's own terms of use . From what I understand, unless the creator specifies their own license, the TOS and permissions system govern what's acceptable and what's not acceptable for you to do, so long as you too are in compliance with the TOS and permissions system. I know that there are copyright laws that take it deeper than that, but so long as no copyright laws apply and you don't specify your own license, then by default the TOS and permissions system apply, which means that if you sell something full perms and you don't specify any terms of use, they can copy it until their inventory explodes, modify it until their  hands fall off, and give it away or sell it for millions and millions of dollars - and it's all set out in the TOS, specifically section 7.3 of the TOS. Really, I believe if you don't want something distributed, you should make it either copy or transfer, but not both.

[Jenni Darkwatch]

If you want to just use the permission system, "builder packs" aren't possible.

[Arron Rainfall]

---

Jenni Darkwatch wrote:

If you want to just use the permission system, "builder packs" aren't possible.

---

I personally don't go by just the permission system. I go by: the TOS, the permission system, and the creator's own terms of use. However, a lot of people disregard the creator's terms of use. Quite frankly, I'm glad builder packs are available because I'm a much better scripter than I am a builder.

[Jenni Darkwatch]

Agreed. Same here

[Innula Zenovka]

Depends a bit on the precise circumstances, I think.

But what I'd do, rather than worry about IP law, is simply contact the creator, explain what I wanted to do, and ask if that was OK.   If it wasn't, then I'd accept that,  write it off to experience, find someone else who sold something similar who would let me do what I wanted, and not buy from the first creator again.