Bryn Oh Resigns from LEA over LL TOS

[Toysoldier Thor]

This news had already been mentioned by the newly created United Content Creators of SL (UCCSL), but now she has formally announced it in her own blog with a full explanation of her decision.  This is another MAJOR BLOW to LL's credibility on their recent TOS Change that hi-Jacks IP content rights of all creators and artists of SecondLife.

Bryn Oh, one of SecondLife's most notable and famous Artists and a huge supporter of the art community in SecondLife has decided to resign from the Linden Endowment for the Arts (LEA) committee as a direct result of LL's recent TOS changes on Aug 16.

http://brynoh.blogspot.ca/2013/10/farewell-lea.html

 

 

[Storm Clarence]

Will she be a missed at her position? Probably so. As she writes, most of the other original members left some time ago and for various reasons.  Over time many advisors have come and left, but their positions are filled by other willing and able people: "a nice mix of artists, academics, bloggers/media, planners and tech people."  I think she is comfortable enough to understand that the group is dynamic enough to evolve, even without her.  I am sure she will still be consulted for her expertise and experience.  I don't think this was an easy decision for her, but perhaps she feels her time has come.  

The interesting part is that she is not leaving SL.  She is not packing her bags and taking all her stuff out.  She writes that she will continue to participate, but that she can not continue to advocate for LL.    

Bryn also writes that "Content creators in general appreciate what Linden Lab have created for us, and they don't demand much. The population appreciates them."  This is in stark contrast to your words in your OP:  "This is another MAJOR BLOW to LL's credibility on their recent TOS Change that hi-Jacks IP content rights of all creators and artists of SecondLife."  
Bryn did not write these words, you did.   Imo, you tarnish her words with interpretations of your own.

This is all brand new to everyone, including Bryn. And she even writes - let's see what time will bring.

[Awe Thor]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

  This is another MAJOR BLOW to LL's credibility

---

You mean they had any in the first place?

[Toysoldier Thor]

Yes Storm, you are correct that this was a difficult decision for her to make and not one she made lightly.  Also, as she stated, where many of the founding LEA members have left, she has endured through all the challenges that have caused others to leave.

As such, please do not water down her statement to be just a matter of "shrugs I guess she felt it was time for her to move on" and that others will fill her spot.  If that is what you read from her resignation posting then you should read it again.  It also IMHO is a bit of an insult to Bryn and her decision.  Bryn Oh is with little doubt one of the most notable and respected artists in SecondLife... so much so that it was a reason why LL reached out to her as one of the founding members of LEA.

She left her role as a direct result of the Linden Lab Aug 16ht TOS changes and how it was violating and disrespecting the rights of the Artist / creators of SL.  She did not say she was sorta planning on leaving anyway and this was the final straw because she has better things to do.

Her departure is a clear and strong public statement against LL's TOS Changes.  Posting to interpret that it was for other reasons to me is a disrespect to her.

 

As for you pointing out that we all will have to wait and see.  If you read it again... she is meaning that lets all wait and see if LL will correct the TOS.

Sorry if I sound a bit annoyed by your posted interpretation of her announcement but it did annoy me.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

  This is another MAJOR BLOW to LL's credibility

---

You mean they had any in the first place?

---

Yesterday's announcements from AVASTAR and Gaea Clary where they are distancing themselves from the SecondLife branding and focusing now on a more generic level of service in direct response to the TOS.  Not to mention the blows from two major external sources of content to SL early ... CG Textures and Renderosity whom have both banned their content from entering SL.

Do you not think those would all be considered major blows?  If you are not aware of any of these announcements then you are out of the loop on the entire LL TOS Content Creators Hi-Jacking issue.  I would advise read all the forum threads on this issue - if you are a creator and uploader of content into SL.

[Awe Thor]

Oh dear.

(Makes note to remind oneself not to express support in future for those whose comprehension of English lags considerably behind their understanding of technical matters.)

[Storm Clarence]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 

Sorry if I sound a bit annoyed by your posted interpretation of her announcement but it did annoy me.

---

Both LL and I will survive you bothering yourself with annoyance, too. 

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 Also, as

she stated

,

where many of the founding LEA members have left

,

she has endured through all the challenges that have caused others to leave.

.

---

Bryn did NOT write this... you just did.

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 

As such, please

do not water down

her statement to be just a matter of...

---

Your steroid injections ain't 'helping' either. 

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

  Bryn Oh is

with little doubt one of the most notable and respected artists in SecondLife

... so much so that it was a reason why LL reached out to her as one of the founding members of LEA..

---

You elevate Bryn's status more so than does Bryn.  Good for you, but unfair to all other artists, creators, and overall kind people.... the LEA.    It is my opinion that Bryn would never utter such words.

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote: 

It also IMHO is a bit of an insult to Bryn and her decision. 

---

 

And in my opinion it is you that insults Bryn and Bryn's decision.  Go figure.

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

 

 

She left her role as a direct result of the Linden Lab Aug 16ht TOS changes and

how it was violating and disrespecting the rights of the Artist / creators of SL.

 

She did not say

she was sorta planning on leaving anyway and this was the final straw because she has better things to do.

---

Again, words that were not written by Bryn, but written by you... and just now.

 PS  "She did not say" is what I keep writing about your posts, not mine. 

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Jjccc, you should read the section 2.3 of the TOS for more info. It states clearly that LL force us to give them a FULL licence on our creation even for resell and not only for the needs of the service.

i give you the link for the united content creators in SL groupe's blog, that host a lot of posts from other blogs on the same topic, that will maybe give you more infos on the topic.

This is of course not the only source for infos about this but well, this is a useful link anyway :http://unitedcontentcreatorsofsl.wordpress.com/

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

jjccc Coronet wrote:

ok read it and sorta understand what all the fuss is about. Only thing is what i dont get is why would Linden labs take the trouble to take a low rez image of a bunch of artists in second life then set up an art gallery and start selling the images as there own. Like ive seen alot of art in second life and most of it is crap but some of it is really cool and unique but the quaulity for transfering it into real life and making a high rez image from it, in my opinion isnt worth the effort

---

So to answer your first question on WHY LL would go through all this trouble and squat on this new IP Rights hi-jacking TOS and allow the entire creator community to explode in anger, shut down uploading, move content to other grids, 3rd party sites banning them, major supporters walkin away from them?  Once you figure it out maybe you can tell all of us because LL refuses to explain it officially.

As for wonderng why LL would cause themselves so much grief for as you refer to it as mostly crap....  I guess you can compare your question to ....  Why would oil companies want to have land mineral right.....  most of what is under the grass is gophers dirt bugs rocks and crap.  Right?

But as you are asking yourself these questions of...  Why would LL want to cause so much trouble for having full unrestricted rights to "crap"?  Does that not in its own right raise red flag to you?  It sure as heck raises major flags to me and countless others.

[A3123]

You guys do realize this is just a video game, right? No one's art is getting stolen because all the art is already accessible to anyone with an internet connection and a computer.

or is it no ones'? or noones. no, that looks like noons. Where's a Pie when I need one?

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

A3123 wrote:

You guys do realize this is just a video game, right? No one's art is getting stolen because all the art is already accessible to anyone with an internet connection and a computer.

or is it no ones'? or noones. no, that looks like noons. Where's a Pie when I need one?

---

And you realize that your naive insulting comments toward the SL creators not only damages your own reputation as a poster with zero value to offer the thread... but you are actually doing the cause that you are trying so hard to disrupt a HUGE service. 

If you are a fanboy of LL and sent here to help LL out on thier mission to hi-jack our IP rights, you are doing a terrible job for them.  By making your posts, you are allowing these threads in the forums to stay on the top as well as showing how immature the LL position is.

So, on behalf of all the Creators of SL that are fighting to see LL fix their Aug 16th TOS change....

THANK YOU !!

Please make your similar postings on all the other TOS related threads for us!

[Madeline Blackbart]

---

A3123 wrote:

You guys do realize this is just a video game, right? No one's art is getting stolen because all the art is already accessible to anyone with an internet connection and a computer.

or is it no ones'? or noones. no, that looks like noons. Where's a Pie when I need one?

---

It is a video game true. But even video games have legal rights to there property. All those game models you see in game? Yeah the game company owns them. You may have access to them as there stored on your computer but that doesn't give you the right to use them anyway you want. That's not how IP works. I may be more sharing with my own work...and disagree with the majority of creators desire to hoard there work like an animal preparing for winter but I do think they have the right to do so. LL  IP grab is just wrong.

[Masami Kuramoto]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

So to answer your first question on WHY LL would go through all this trouble and squat on this new IP Rights hi-jacking TOS and allow the entire creator community to explode in anger, shut down uploading, move content to other grids, 3rd party sites banning them, major supporters walkin away from them?  Once you figure it out maybe you can tell all of us because LL refuses to explain it officially.

---

Saying that "the entire creator community exploded in anger" is quite an exaggeration. So far, none of the big names has pulled out of SL. Bryn hasn't pulled out either; her leaving the LEA group is merely a symbolic act. She and her content will stay in SL.

Of course, part of the reason why few people seriously consider leaving is because there is no other place to go. You can't be a famous virtual world artist in OpenSim, because OpenSim doesn't attract enough eyeballs. Contrary to what Bryn wrote in her blog, exposure is everything. For artists it is the precursor to business.

Why did Linden Lab change the TOS, you ask?

Two words: consumer protection.

Few people so far have been looking at it from that angle, but it makes perfect sense if you consider that Second Life is basically a shopping mall where you can buy many things but aren't allowed to take them out of the building. The only party who can make sure that your purchased goods are still in your inventory tomorrow is the mall owner, Linden Lab.

In order to do so, they need a license. Consider the following example:

"A" and "B" are Second Life merchants. They sell avatar skins. One day "A" finds out that "B" has ripped and re-uploaded a few of "A's" skins and is now selling them under the brand name of "B". "A" files a DMCA takedown notice against "B".

"B", being a non-U.S. citizen, does something unexpected: She files a counter-notice against "A", claiming that it was actually "A" who stole the skins from "B" in the first place.

Now "A" would have to file a lawsuit against "B" in order to defend her IP rights, but she decides not to do it (due to cost etc.). As a consequence of "B's" now uncontested counter-notice, Linden Lab is required by law to take down "A's" assets rather than "B's", in spite of overwhelming evidence that "A" is the original creator!

I won't mention any names here, but it's a true story. Some of our fellow readers may remember it.

It's a well-known fact that most copyright disputes in SL occur between residents. Although there is plenty of stolen content coming from outside sources (e.g. other games), those outside parties rarely care enough about it to take action. Most of the time Linden Lab is dealing with residents stealing from other residents.

The problem with DMCA takedowns is that they may also affect innocent consumers. In the example above, "A's" customers were at risk of losing items they legally purchased from her. To protect consumers from the fallout of merchant-vs.-merchant disputes, Linden Lab needs a license that allows them to leave purchased copies of stolen content on the grid, no matter if "A" stole from "B" or vice versa. Under the new TOS, Linden Lab gets that license from either "A" or "B". They could even allow "A" to continue her business despite the false accusations by "B".

[Toysoldier Thor]

OK Masami.... lets go through your posting...  shall we?  My responses are in Red.

 

---

Masami Kuramoto wrote:

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

So to answer your first question on WHY LL would go through all this trouble and squat on this new IP Rights hi-jacking TOS and allow the entire creator community to explode in anger, shut down uploading, move content to other grids, 3rd party sites banning them, major supporters walkin away from them?  Once you figure it out maybe you can tell all of us because LL refuses to explain it officially.

---

Saying that "the entire creator community exploded in anger" is quite an exaggeration. So far, none of the big names has pulled out of SL. Bryn hasn't pulled out either; her leaving the LEA group is merely a symbolic act. She and her content will stay in SL.

If you are going to be litereal on my statement then fine... technically not "THE ENTIRE" but if you are going to make a stand that generally no one but a few whiners are angry about the LL TOS, you might do a bit more reading outside of one thread related to one community.  I will challenge you to find 5 people that are happy or completely ok with this. Because for each 1 you find I will show you 10 that are furious.  

So to make you happy... metaphorically speaking "the entire creator community is angry" but so far all evidence has clearly sided toward VERY ANGRY and Disappointed.  I have posted a survery from the creator community on their feelings on the TOS about 2 weeks ago (I am sure you missed that too).  Within 24 hours over 132 creators responded.  I will let you review the results yourself....

http://toytalks.weebly.com/1/post/2013/09/secondlife-content-creators-survey-on-linden-lab-tos-issue.html

 

I know you will say... "but that is just one survey". So like i said, try reading more about the tos from the countless source related to the LL TOS fiasco... the external parties that banned LL, the big names like Bryn and Gaia and several others that have taken direct decisive actions directly in response to the TOS... countless creators that have stopped all uploading until the TOS is fixed... boycotts being planned against LL revenue streams...etc.

As for your argument that no one is mad because they haven't pulled out of SL completely... REALLY?  This is your logic to determine if someone is mad at LL? WOW.  I guess you don't operate a business.  First of all, just because they haven't yet taken any radical knee-jerk reaction to LL's bonehead TOS doesnt mean they arent mad.  It means they are assessing the situation and determining their next steps.  Many are also hoping that LL will come to their senses and bow to the growing pressure and fix the TOS.  So do you think its a wise move to pull up all stakes and leave a virtual world you love simply because you are angry a opposed to trying to convince LL to fix their bonehead move?  Most of us have common sense.

As for other people leaving the LEA... maybe do some more inquiries as I have heard one of the LEA sim builders has already decided to stop his build because continuing his build with the new TOS would violate other's rights.  But since you seem to know more about LEA than I, I am sure you can investigate this further.

Of course, part of the reason why few people seriously consider leaving is because there is no other place to go. You can't be a famous virtual world artist in OpenSim, because OpenSim doesn't attract enough eyeballs. Contrary to what Bryn wrote in her blog, exposure is everything. For artists it is the precursor to business.

Lets just say, regarding SecondLife is a creator's only option... we completely disagree.  Maybe you might be an Artist who only does what you do for art in the name of FAME... many others are not.  But good for you.  There are other options to SL at far lower costs to build their creation.  Many Merchant and Artist creators have and are already taking advantage of it.  SL's largest competitor has already notice a significant increase in new residents in the past month - thanks directly because of LL's new TOS.  But you keep believing what you believe.

Why did Linden Lab change the TOS, you ask?

Two words: consumer protection.

So, you have called me out on technicalities... now its my turn.  So you are saying that unlike everyone else that is only guessing why LL made and is standing by their bonehead move which has angered the majority of the creator community and has had their grid banned by external content providers, YOU know the reason??  And isnt it funny that your confident reason of "Consumer Protection" is not even mentioned by LL themselves when they made their one and only informal explanation of their new TOS.  You must be an LL insider since they didnt even mention this as a reason they are angering their entire creator community.

BTW... I hate to tell you... but your entire logic of Consumer Protection is Flawed and this was already talked about as to why your logic is flawed in the other threads which I have to assume you havent followed. Or else you would not have come to this logic.

Few people so far have been looking at it from that angle, but it makes perfect sense if you consider that Second Life is basically a shopping mall where you can buy many things but aren't allowed to take them out of the building. The only party who can make sure that your purchased goods are still in your inventory tomorrow is the mall owner, Linden Lab.

In order to do so, they need a license. Consider the following example:

Maybe you have never read the past LL TOS versions... but LL has always had these rights to management, operate, and promote the SL grid.  The recent Aug 16th TOS did not JUST give them this power.... but lets continue...

"A" and "B" are Second Life merchants. They sell avatar skins. One day "A" finds out that "B" has ripped and re-uploaded a few of "A's" skins and is now selling them under the brand name of "B". "A" files a DMCA takedown notice against "B".

OK... has been happening all the time in SL....

"B", being a non-U.S. citizen, does something unexpected: She files a counter-notice against "A", claiming that it was actually "A" who stole the skins from "B" in the first place.

OK... again... this is not new and has been happening in SL all the time....

Now "A" would have to file a lawsuit against "B" in order to defend her IP rights, but she decides not to do it (due to cost etc.). As a consequence of "B's" now uncontested counter-notice, Linden Lab is required by law to take down "A's" assets rather than "B's", in spite of overwhelming evidence that "A" is the original creator!

YES you are correct since LL must abide by the DMCA instructions... soo what?

I won't mention any names here, but it's a true story. Some of our fellow readers may remember it.

It's a well-known fact that most copyright disputes in SL occur between residents. Although there is plenty of stolen content coming from outside sources (e.g. other games), those outside parties rarely care enough about it to take action. Most of the time Linden Lab is dealing with residents stealing from other residents.

Yes... this is also true.  As a Merchant myself and one that has been HEAVILY involved with the Merchant community and Merchant forums since 2009... I have heard it all...  soo??  Still no correlation to LL's new IP Rights hi-jacking... 

The problem with DMCA takedowns is that they may also affect innocent consumers. In the example above, "A's" customers were at risk of losing items they legally purchased from her. To protect consumers from the fallout of merchant-vs.-merchant disputes, Linden Lab needs a license that allows them to leave purchased copies of stolen content on the grid, no matter if "A" stole from "B" or vice versa. Under the new TOS, Linden Lab gets that license from either "A" or "B". They could even allow "A" to continue her business despite the false accusations by "B".

And here is where you logic is flawed.... LL has ALWAYS had the right to delete or not delete content on the grid within the stated intent that was in ALL the previous TOS versions.  So the new TOS gives LL no additional power they didnt already have.  

Secondly, LL MUST execute the DMCA as instructed to them by what the state IP Owner (as this person has convinced DMCA they are) has instructed LL to do.  LL is not the IP owner.  They never were and with the new TOS they still are not.  So if the DMCA tells LL to take remedial action... they still must comply.

In addition... LL has always and still now has the right to remove all of an owners content off its grid on its own accord outside the IP Owners scope of control.  Its their grid, their servers and the content on their servers they can do what they wanted as long as it was to operate or promote the SL grid. 

So, maybe do some more research and come up with another reason why LL standing strong and quiet on this TOS that is angering the "entire" creator community.  

[Masami Kuramoto]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Secondly, LL MUST execute the DMCA as instructed to them by what the state IP Owner (as this person has convinced DMCA they are) has instructed LL to do.  LL is not the IP owner.  They never were and with the new TOS they still are not.  So if the DMCA tells LL to take remedial action... they still must comply.

---

A takedown notice is only valid if the content to be taken down is infringing.

A takedown notice that misrepresents properly licensed content as infringing is actually illegal.

The license that creators grant to LL by agreeing to the new TOS is so broad, it's almost impossible to imagine situations where LL's use of uploaded content would be infringing. It's an irrevocable license that even allows sublicensing "for any purpose whatsoever". If LL decided to put full-perm copies of all your stuff into every resident's inventory, this license would allow them to do so. If someone copybotted all your stuff and sold it on the marketplace, LL could grant them a sublicense and make it legal. If you DMCA'ed them for doing so, they could even charge you with misrepresentation according to Section 512(f). That's how broad this license is.

LL has to comply only in cases of unlicensed content, i.e. if the IP owner never agreed to the new TOS or never agreed to upload the content. But then again, these cases are rare, and for most SL merchants that ship has already sailed.

I don't expect LL to abuse their new license, but it will give them some wiggle room where the regular DMCA takedown process would clearly punish the wrong party (as it did in C. vs. H.).

[Perrie Juran]

This post really is meant more in general terms to all the issues.  I keep hearing of people who are taking a wait and see attitude or saying there is no need to act until LL actually does try to use or sell someones content under the new TOS.  The following was a reply I wrote to someone who felt this way:

----------------------------

 

I am going to disagree sharply with this.

While it may be true that this is a "boiler plate" TOS that SL has chose to use, that still does not justify it.

Among other things we do not know how many contributors to those services pulled their content or stopped contributing to those services when those TOS's were instituted.

This whole concept of "all your base belongs" to us is bad for growth.

While there may be a few points in the new TOS that give added security to content creators, this one concept, that LL can do anything that they damn well please with your creations, that they can use them in any way that they want up to and including selling them without remuneration to you is bad.

When I started this thread, The Technically Marvelous, it was one of the things I had in mind.  What "Artist" would want to devote the the time, money and other resources necessary to build something like those Builds in SL knowing full well that under the new terms LL can do as they fool please with the content. They will take their talents elsewhere.

How many Creators have already left SL or stopped creating because of content theft?  How many are already avoiding it because of the problems.  To some and possibly many this new TOS is theft to the nth degree.

When Rezzables (Greenies) left SL it was over a TOS update dispute.  As I recall, Rezzables felt that at the time of that update that LL was claiming more rights than they were entitled to.  Now at that time it really was a question of "interpretation" of the rules and I think Rezzables interpretation was wrong.

But with the new TOS there is no question about "Interpretation."  It undeniably says "all your base belongs to us."   The only question left is "Intent."  And the only safety valve a Creator has right now is a Public Relations Letter sent to some bloggers that was full of half truths and lies stating "it isn't our intent."  Good luck with that.

Now is the time to take action.