Does LL handle CC BY content appropriately ?

[Gaia Clary]

Yes, it is again this annoying discussion. But now i do not want to ask for opinions but for actions :)

The question is easy:

"Does Linden Lab assure that they treat content appropriately when it is uploaded with a CC BY 4.0 License ?"

Please can you help to find the answer ? Maybe you know someone who knows someone... You could twitter this thread, or facebook it, maybe you know some Linden people who could spread the word. if you live around the corner of LindenLab then maybe it would help to visit them, no idea :)

Here is what i personally have done over the last few days.

I asked in "Content Creation/Mesh Import User Group" (April 14, 2014)

Due to the appearance of the Blender cloud, which is under CC and stipulates attribution, we (the users) must need to know if the import of [CC By 4.0 licensed content] will violate the TOS. In particular: how does LL handle the conflict where a user does due diligence and attributes in their product's accompanying literature ? LL's TOS stipulates "grant the right to use the content without indicating the originator". Since the user does not have the right to waive that, would the upload of CC By 4.0 licensed content then be illegal? Instead of letting every single user in the world clarify this important question on his/her own with the LL legal department, i propose to get an official yes/no answer to this very simple question: Can CC By 4.0 content be legally uploaded to SL ? yes/no ? Best would be to answer this right in the TOS Gaia

This is the slightly edited answer from the mesh meeting chat:

The following chat answer is abbreviated:

Nyx Linden:
I am not an intellectual property lawyer, I am not involved in the creation or enforcement of the TOS,
I cannot interpret the TOS or its implications on a license from an external source to let you know
if they are compatible. I can forward the question on to our governance/legal teams,
if you like, but I cannot guarantee a public, authoritative response.
I can pass on the question, but I'm not in a position to comment on
interpretation of the TOS or licensing questions.

 

I asked in the LindenLab Live Chat (April 10, 2014, 2:53 p.m.)

Gaia Clary: hi. is there any official statement about the usage of products that are under a creative Common license ? especially: Can users import items which are distributed under CC By 4.0 ?

This is the abbreviate  answer from the live chat:

Suppor Agent:
Support wouldn't be able to help you a ton with that. I will find you what information I can.
OK, this would of course be the biggy. http://lindenlab.com/tos
You can try our legal department. They would be the experts.
I don't get to interpret TOS for you. I'm just technical and billing support.

This may help:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Intellectual_Property.

let me get you legal department information:

Linden Research, Inc.
Attn: Legal Department
945 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

And I have a fax number here somewhere.. Let me hunt that down.
Alternatively, fax the document to (415) 520-9660.

 

I asked in the #blendercoders IRC channel on freenode (2014-04-10 16:22:10)

gaia: Is there anybody who could help me to figure out if the Blender Cloud license matches with paragraph 2.3 of the Linden Lab terms of service ? http://lindenlab.com/tos  i just was reminded that this paragraph might make it impossible to use any content from the Blender Cloud or any other content providers...

This is the abbreviated  answer from Ton Roosendaal (Chairman  Blender Foundation):

kaito(Ton):
eh, Linden lab should just give out a statement if their license is compliant with CC
that would help everyone best
their license is far too complex for quick answer
"Waive all moral rights" <---??
let CC and Linden talk

 

I asked Ebbe Altberg (CEO Linden Lab) via Twitter:

@ebbealtberg The Blender Cloud could be a resource for SL creators if the LL TOS allowed uploading CC BY 4.0 content http://goo.gl/kjiyWj

@ebbealtberg Please consider to indicate in the SL TOS if upload of CC BY 4.0 attributed content to SL is legal: http://goo.gl/WsJDmL

So far i got no response from him.

 

I asked in my own chat group:

And i got various answers, thoughts and ideas as usual. I won't put them here but the overall answer was:

"It could be so or so, who knows, even lawyers express only their opinion on that"

 

Final Note

The only way to get a meaningful answer is by asking LindenLab directly. All they need to do in order to clarify this is to answer the above question with a simple "yes" or "no":

"Does Linden Lab assure that they treat content appropriately when it is uploaded with a CC BY 4.0 License ?"

Thanks for your attention.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

Several mesh sites have banned users from uploading to SL for this very reason. Apparently their lawyers thought it was a severe enough issue to warrant this. Perhaps that would give you an answer.

 

"In connection with Content you upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service, you affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have all necessary Intellectual Property Rights, licenses, consents, and permissions to use and authorize Linden Lab and users of Second Life to use the Content in the manner contemplated by the Service and these Terms of Service."

If you can not authorize LL the free reign with mesh you bought and upload to SL, then no, you can not do so without breaking the ToS of the original mesh creator.

[Dresden Ceriano]

Perhaps you're just still trying to wrap your head around the fact that LL has basically screwed any user that doesn't create every component of their contributions to the platform from scratch... otherwise, you'd realize that you already know the answer to your question.  It's all written out plain as day in the ToS and, until that changes, nothing that anyone says matters... not even LL itself.

Since attribution has to be retained for any CC licensed content and the ToS specifically states, "Except as prohibited by law, you hereby waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content," you simply do not have the right to grant LL the permissions which they require in order to upload it into SL.

And this doesn't just apply to outside content.  Say you buy a pack of textures in SL under a limited license which precludes you from sharing it as is or using it outside of SL (which is true of most).  Sure you can use it in SL all you want, but if, as many people do, you save it to disc in order to manipulate it then re-upload it into SL, you would be violating the ToS for the very same reason.

Luckily, if you believe what he says, Ebbe did state recently that they are looking into rewording the ToS.  Until that happens, those of us who actually follow the ToS are SOOL.

...Dres

[Gaia Clary]

I do not expect this forum will answer "my question". I realy would like to see that Linden Lab answers this question. Either with "yes" or "no". So that we can stop discussing but take action based on reliable information.

The best that can happen is that LindenLab will change the TOS and add a list of "compatible licenses" which make it doubtless if certain content can or can not be uploaded. Maybe the TOS will need more changes to accomplish that. But that is only step 2.

[Dresden Ceriano]

My point is that, should you even get an answer from LL, it would be legally meaningless without changes being made to the ToS.

 

---

Gaia Clary wrote:

The best that can happen is that LindenLab will change the TOS and add a list of "compatible licenses" which make it doubtless if certain content can or can not be uploaded. Maybe the TOS will need more changes to accomplish that. But that is only step 2.

---

If you're suggesting that step 1 (whatever that is) hasn't already been taken, then you must not have been paying attention to the uproar this created from the start.  Do you honestly think you were the first one to come up with the idea of asking LL for clarification?  It's been asked, more than once.... never to have been answer in any satisfactory way.

I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else should stop pressuring LL to change the ToS... it clearly needs to be changed.  I'm just saying that no statement from LL on the matter, one way or the other, will make a difference until which time that it is.  Statements are not legally binding.

...Dres

[Scooter Hollow]

Yea, I think we're past the point of asking LL what they mean. It doesn't matter what they do or do not say in chats or forum posts or whatever, the TOS would have to be directly changed.

[Gaia Clary]

Of course the best that could happen is when LindenLab would change the TOS to make it more clear. Not everybody is a native english speaker, so not everybody can read the TOS fluently and see immediately what it means. When even known to be intelligent people tell me "the TOS is too complicated to understand by simple reading" then something seems wrong to me.

However, if LindenLab would make a simple statement about the CC attributed content, then this is already of some value even if it is not legally relevant:

If LindenLab responses "Yes, we accept uploads of CC BY attributed content and we handle it appropriately"

Then i count this as a clarification of their intention. Then they also might go one step further and do something more official to the TOS. But that is step 2, so why bother with that now ?

If LindenLab responses "No, we won't accept CC BY attributed content"

Then obviously there will be no chance to get the TOS changed in a convenient way. And then i agree that uploading content to 3D is potentially dangerous for the uploader.

The challenge is obviously to get LindenLab to answer at all. Of course i can not tell if that will happen or not. Until now obviously it did not happen. But why keeping silent then ? Giving up was never on my todo list, you know

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gaia Clary wrote:

I do not expect this forum will answer "my question". I realy would like to see that Linden Lab answers this question. Either with "yes" or "no". So that we can stop discussing but take action based on reliable information.

The best that can happen is that LindenLab will change the TOS and add a list of "compatible licenses" which make it doubtless if certain content can or can not be uploaded. Maybe the TOS will need more changes to accomplish that. But that is only step 2.

---

Your right, none of us are authorized to speak for Linden Lab.  All that any of us can do is express our arm chair quarteback opinion.  So here is mine.

First off, if you are trying to find out if content with a CC BY 4.0 is lawful in SL your question as asked doesn't make sense.

"Does Linden Lab assure that they treat content appropriately when it is uploaded with a CC BY 4.0 License ?"

There is only one appropriate thing Linden Lab can do.  If a DMCA is filed they must follow the letter of the Law.

Beyond that Linden Lab doesn't give Legal Advice.  Well, actually they have already given it.  In the TOS and CS they have already told us we need to have the rights to any content we upload.  So if they answer you directly that is the answer you will get.

Perhaps it would be a good thing if LL provided a list of various licences and told us whether we can upload the content under those licences and be in compliance with the TOS.  I can see a good point in them doing it.  But with all the variations out there it could get nuts.  And knowing how some people are, some people would take the absence of a licence from that list as 'permission.'

 

eta:damn homonyms

 

 

[Gaia Clary]

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.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Gaia,

the 2.30 section of the TOS tells clearly you have to grant LL of a full licence when you upload smth on their platform.

It clearly means you give them the exact same rights than yours on your work (except the copyright, that noone can take you off, but in that case that wont get you too far since anyway, they will have the same rights than you on this work). Thus, you grant them the right to exploit your work in whatever way they want, without credit you, without remunerate you, and even without being forced to keep the integrity of that work. In short, they can do whatever they want, except claim they have a copyright on it.

Moreover, this licence is perpetual and irrevocable.

While such TOS can be understandable for the needs of the service, the latest update of the TOS in august 2013 extended these ones to whatever purposes. That means not forcelly for the needs of the service and Peter Gray told us in one of his rare mails that the purpose behind that was to be able to act as our agent on Desura plateform. While, i dont trust a lot this version, i cant avoid the fact that the purpose is probably for outside SL and thus far away dangerous.

Now the question you have to ask to yourself is : "when i m granted a CC licence, do i have a full licence on the item ?" . The answer is no. CC licences are limited.

The other question that comes after is "When im granted a CC licence, is my licence enough for i can grant to LL the licence they ask, in other words a full licence " ?

Now since a CC licence is not a full licence and you are supposed to be able to give LL a full licence, by what miracle do you expect be in conformity with the TOS when you upload smth you have with a CC licence ?

LL cant treat items uploaded differently. So it s everything in the same bag. They ask you a full licence on what you upload, and for being able to grant a full licence to someone you need to have yourself a full licence. Thus it works for everything you created by yourself, or everything you got with a full licence, or everything that is not licenced or in public domain. 

So CC licences doesnt apply to that.

 

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

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.

[Gaia Clary]

well i have expressed now often enough that i actually do not want to get answers from here, but from LindenLab. I meanwhile understand that this is my own wish, so i will go on trying by myself regardless if i get help from others, in which form ever, or not.

Having said that, as you seem to want to discuss and explain to me why the TOS is so clear, then you also are surely able to explain to me, what this means:

You retain any and all Intellectual Property Rights you already hold under applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or through the Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to the rights, licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any underlying rights of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use or modify.

and how this matches up with:

Except as prohibited by law, you hereby waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content, even if it is altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you.

So what does law prohibit here ? And what is "waiving any moral rights" and how does that relate to attribution and integrity ?

You know what problem i have now ? That is i can step around the corner and get total opposite answers from the fraction of people who actually think, the TOS does allow CC BY content. And when i express my doubts those people point at me as well and tell me i do not understand the text. And in this i not even have mentioned what i think about it. And i won't do that still, because my opinion to this topic is 100% pointless.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

well if that can help you, and maybe you know already that link, but Inara Pey posted a transcript of the legal panel about the TOS that happened some monthes ago. 

http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/tos-changes-legal-panel-discussion-transcripts/

If you are interested i can put you in contact with one of those lawyers. Just drop me an im inworld.

 

beside, its a bit weird to me you say you dont want to discuss the topic but just ask your question to LL since you do here in the forum (where we rarely see ppl from LL staff), and after you get some answers to your question, you seems to say noone wants to help you. Maybe we've (at least me) misunderstood what you are asking here and what kind of help you would like to get. idk.

[Gaia Clary]

I apologize that i used a wrong wording. I see now that i made a mistake when i mentioned "can you help me to find the answer", i meant GET the answer. That was sloppy, i agree on that and i apologize.

However having said that, i can only repeat that i asked for help to get LindenLab to react. And i have the impression that most of you think that is not doable or pointless and won't happen "because so many have tried and failed".

On the other side i see that you all try to explain to me the TOS and its implications. I appreciate that as well although that is not what i have asked for initially. So in my previous post i asked about the implications of the TOS and what you think that might mean and how it has to be read as i have difficulties to match these informations together (due to my lack of understanding law texts in a foreign language).

Regarding getting into contact with lawyers, i have my own lawyer and she already expressed her dedicated opinion to me. And her opinion made me do all the actions i listed in my initial post.

But well, this thread is moving into a direction that i have not forseen at all. we could also agree in me just doing my thing in silence and when i succeed then you will find the results anyways

[Trinity Yazimoto]

no pb Gaia, that was just disconcerting me.

so if your aim is to get an answer from LL ,and from the experience i got from UCCSL; its pretty hard to get anything from them on that topic.

You still can try to send an email (certified mail works better) to Peter Gray (althought i dont think hes the right person), i can find the email adress for you, if needed. But im afraid you get the same kind of "non-answer" or "empty answer" we got.

That was under Rodvik so maybe this will change with Ebbe. But i can tell you that after Ebbe arrived as CEO at LL, he came in the forum to say hi. I called out to him about this precise topic and it took me 3 posts for finally geting an answer while he was answering fast to other questions. His answer was in short "its complicated, i understand you are worried but you need to trust us"

Here is the link : http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Hello-from-Linden-Lab-s-New-CEO/m-p/2500681#M157464

i was not asking exactly the same question than you, but it seemed that the tos topic is not his favorite one.

So well, maybe it will be different than with Rodvik, idk. i really hope ull be more lucky than we did.

[Gaia Clary]

Just do not forget that i am also involved with Blender Foundation and i still am responsible for keeping the Collada exporter working in Blender for Second Life related purposes. And i have the slight hope that this can make a little difference when talking towards LindenLab. well, hope... at least that, although it did not help a lot until today.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

arf i havent seen your whole post before answering.

i dont think your request is pointless bec so many have tried and failed. Its a fact so many have tired and failed. Noone can ignore that. But i think this doesnt have to stop you. The only thing i could advice to you, is to not ignore the fails of others bec maybe this could help you to avoid some of the errors made before and also to waste energy in things that havent worked and maybe use this energy to try some other things never tried.

If ive been a bit disapointed by the lack of enthusiasm to answer my question about the tos in the forum from Ebbe, i still think hes a person more open to discussion, and certainely more reachable. 

so id say of course, dont give up.

 

[Gaia Clary]

I miss the ability to give up

[Trinity Yazimoto]

---

Gaia Clary wrote:

I miss the ability to give up

---

lol that's a good thing. im likely to encourage that :smileyhappy:

and i think noone here ignore who you are. But that has been so painful to see we had a wall in front of us in latest autumn when we tried to have a discussion with LL that we lost somewhat a lot of our hopes on that topic. 

But as i said, that's not a reason for not trying again (im an incorrigible optimist :smileywink:)

[Dresden Ceriano]

I don't know what you expect us to say or do, Gaia... you asked what we thought about the implications of the ToS and we told you. If you want to send LL yet another letter asking them for clarification, then go right ahead... there's always a slim chance that you will succeed where so many others have failed.

Personally, I'm past the point of wanting any sort of non-committal clarifications... the only thing I want to hear is that LL has changed their ToS to a more user friendly text.  Anything short of that is meaningless to me.

I wish you luck ...Dres

[Perrie Juran]

---

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.

---

I understand how frustrating it is, I really do understand that.  We all want to be in compliance.

It would certainly help all of us if LL could give us guidance.  But honestly I don't think they can.

What would happen if LL told us a certain licence was ok but later on a Court said, "Sorry you are wrong here.  Now pay the penalties."  Who is responsible? 

So Linden Lab has to remain a neutral party.  As a company, the risks may out weigh the benefits.  What would happen if a Court granted an injunction and shut down SL?  It may seem extreme but it actually happens.  Companies have been put on hold while law suits, etc. were being decided.  Even if you win you still lose. 

[Gaia Clary]

I see that point as well. However i believe  that Linden Lab could simply (realy) agree to handle some popular licenses properly. For example in CC BY 4.0 all  they realy need to do is to attribute the content properly.

When you look from another viewpoint:

 

• assume i had some CC BY attributed content and send that to you. In first place, nothing wrong with this, i can do that without violating the license. As long as i attribute and you do nothing with the content, all remains well.
• Now you take the content and "do whatever you want with it" on your own, no publishing. Still all is well, no license violation.
• Now you publish your modified content. If you do the proper attribution, all remains well. If you remove the attribution, then you broke the license.

Now you are clever and tell me 3 rules:

 

1. You will do whatever you like with the content, including publishing without attributing
2. You do not intend to mess with my content, realy, the content remains entirely mine, you don't plan to hurt me.
3. You ask me to ensure that you can do what you want. If that is wrong, then i have lied at you and its my responsibility to fix that (go to court instead of you).

Now you lazy bone have pushed all responsibility back to me. However you still could make exceptions like "I agree to conform to this and that license", in the case of CC BY 4.0 i agree to do the attribution as needed. then all is well again.

Maybe it is more complicated than that, but essentially i believe that Linden Lab would be and should be able to do that for the benefit of all involved parties.

Disclaimer: This is my naive idea only, it could be entirely wrong, and i certainly am not trying to advise advocats or any other better informed parties about license policies and related questions.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Hum, althought i dont think its technically possible to make a segregation between items and their licence. i would find that really unfair, if they say "ok, we respect the terms of CC licence, and we wont use them for whatever purpose, thus no risk we steal them" but still state "oh but for all your original contents, its ok, we dont change, we will still do whatever we want we them and if we want to steal them we will"...

im not sure i have understood well your post, so i apoligize in advance if i havent, but by reading you (english is not my native language either), i just read you want an exception for CC licence while all original items are still exposed to be stolen by LL. 

[LepreKhaun]

Though your efforts to get an explicit clarification from LL is laudable, I feel it misses the mark.

 

The ToS, copyrights and content licensing all fall under contract law and, lacking ambiguity in their construction, the Four Corners Rule will always be used in disputes. In other words, it matters not whether an employee of LL said "Yes" or "No", if the ToS lacks ambiguity, the ToS would stand as written.

 

The current ToS reads plainly to me. I see no ambiguity there and I see no ambiguity in CC BY 4.0 either. By the same token, I do see a square peg and a round hole- I fail to see any compatibility between the two outside of an explicit CC0 (see Section 2a.5 for what I base my belief on).

 

So, since the current Terms of Service for Second Life plainly states the intention of Linden Lab to claim  "the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same." and it is generally recognized that this is an overly broad and unfair claim to our creative contributions, I feel efforts should be made to have Linden Lab roll back their ToS to a much friendlier construction than to ask for any "clarification" which would stand outside of the Four Corners of the contract.

[Chic Aeon]

I know how frustating it can be to realize how BAD the August TOS was -- and is.

Many of us (and most of the folks that have commented on this thread) have been very vocal about it since at least September when CG Textures banned use of their textures in ANY form (even when layered with an ambient map) in SL and pretty much opened our eyes.

 

The ONLY positive thing that I can say is that on Friday April 11th, Ebbe Altberg, Linden Lab’s CEO, spoke at this year's Virtual Worlds Best Practice in Education (VWBPE) conference in Second Life. He did address the wording of the TOS and stated that he is working with his legal counsel to hopefully reword the TOS so that it is obvious they are not planning on stealing content.

 

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.

 

Personally I cannot see any way by any stretch that the current TOS can incorporate CC work. I said that in September and I have not changed my mind.

 

[edit] I have also never heard any legal argument that it could be used (this from attorneys).

 

And I just found the new spell check toggle LOL. So I will be more "literate" in the future now. Funny.