who feels that avatar merchants should provide atleast a link to the original license release if they bought as resell/usage license to upload a model to SL

[Hunter Stern]

I will clarify the title:

You see many super detailed mesh avatars on the marketplace, some infact that are blatant takes from various other media. The DMCA and Copyright policy clearly states that only the Copyright holder or Registered Agent can file a complaint with LL should they find one. I for one love detailed avatars, but I'm not a big fan on re-usage of assets for which the seller may not be authorized. There are also many detailed works out there that are fully vetted.

I propose that Linden Research expand on this policy for all mesh products that fall under scrutiny or should fall under a more watchful eye, to require said creators and sellers to provide a link and/or proof of release from the originating Copyright holder or Registered Agent or authorized party proving the SL seller/Creator has rights to act on that behalf of the product.

I know many are going to scream "But then all our cool stuffs will go away!". Well, just maybe they should. The Copyright policy around the net is quite clear and tangible or not , intellectual property is not negotiable even int a court of law, should it come to that.

How would any you feel if I took your exact likeness (RL or SL based) or something based only on you and uploaded it to SL and then loosely placed it on the marketplace with ambiguous explanations asto said rights other than the current permssion system in place and made a profit? 

I know in the past many persons would try to employ No Mod so that items could be inspected further for the very reason of concealing shady upload practices.

I would like to see a LOT more transparency on this front personally whereas I do make my models and UV map, materials and textures on my own. What ever happened to the 'crediting' of parties, if not the residual system or royalties of said products from other parties?

Do people feel this current policy and practice on selling works from other media is transparent and fair? Do you think the current practice on uploads and selling/distribution could be improved upon? Do you think a more thorough policy would help SL and its being as a platform, be taken more seriously?

[ChinRey]

I'm enough of an academic to take it for granted that you give credit to your sources so in principle I agree with you. I think it shold even apply to CC0 content.

But I don't think we can insist on it. Maybe if Linden Lab had set that policy right from the start but not now, it's 14 years too late so it's up to each merchant's conscience.

[Hunter Stern]

sure we can, atleast I do, infact i don't buy most of the stuff that is a blatant rip of content or intellectual property unless it has specific credits and licensing. But yes if others are complacent with such practices then it is to be as such. There are a few rl creators out there that do keep tabs on content in SL too and in some cases only after it was pointed out to them by some people that their content was being used on this platform.

[Zoxin UwU]

This is something that needs a serious backing behind it - it's been mentioned before that LL itself simply does not have the resources to start manually pulling content. I've reported many of the ripped mesh items to a few of the companies myself but little has been said or done, so I can only assume they don't particularly care or aren't aware of how to handle the situation.

Amongst the obvious moral issues, another problem is it gets in the way of original content created and designed for native use in secondlife. Baiting customers into poor quality content is bad, but baiting them into poor quality content you didn't even create is much, much worse. 

[ChinRey]

2 hours ago, Zoxin said:

Amongst the obvious moral issues, another problem is it gets in the way of original content created and designed for native use in secondlife. Baiting customers into poor quality content is bad, but baiting them into poor quality content you didn't even create is much, much worse. 

Well, I have selfish reasons to agree with you of course, since I've made all the meshes and scripts I sell myself. (A few of my items are closely based on prim, sculpt or RL designs by others but then they are always clearly marked as such.)

But even so, to me the quality aspect is far more important than originality. If somebody has something they can legally sell in SL and they understand how to make SL friendly content and how to handle the uploader - by far the most difficult of all mesh related programs - it's ok as far as I'm concerned. Optimizing a mesh model for Second Life is usually much more difficult than making the mesh in the first place and anybody who does that well, deserves credit for what they've done. But they should be honest about it. Even if they may want to keep their source a trade secret, they shouldn't pretend they made what they sell from scratch themselves.

But of course, well made adaptations are even rarer than well made original content. I actually only know of two people who do that. (Possibly three but the boats the third one sells are so closely based on RL models it may be just a coincidence they looke exactly like meshes for sale on Turbosquid.)

Edited January 30, 2018 by ChinRey

[Love Zhaoying]

I don’t know, who? That was the OP’s question.

[Pamela Galli]

2 hours ago, Zoxin said:

This is something that needs a serious backing behind it - it's been mentioned before that LL itself simply does not have the resources to start manually pulling content. I've reported many of the ripped mesh items to a few of the companies myself but little has been said or done, so I can only assume they don't particularly care or aren't aware of how to handle the situation.

Amongst the obvious moral issues, another problem is it gets in the way of original content created and designed for native use in secondlife. Baiting customers into poor quality content is bad, but baiting them into poor quality content you didn't even create is much, much worse. 

Game companies don’t have the resources to track down infringing content, even when it is reported to them. Writing a DMCA takes too much time, and LL only deletes what it finds at a location, not in inventory where it could have any name. 

[iamyourneighbour]

IMVU does actively hunt copyrighted contents down. They only do it when someone tries to cash out. I know a mesh thief who tried to cash out a sweet $5K USD, plot twist, he didn't. 

Consider banning someone cashing out $1000  (250k L$which is easily earned on a moderate shop) they should just do a quick check before someone cashed out, $1000 they don't have to cash out is enough to pay whoever they have preying on the catalog. (Keep in mind a facebook moderator gets paid merely $15/hr, double that they can get someone better and still walk away with that 1K) 

 

Having said that, you do get gated when you try to cash out. For me it was around the $1K USD range which prompted LL to ask for full ID. They don't merely suggest neither, if you don't provide ID you are awarded with a permanent ban instead. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by iamyourneighbour

[iamyourneighbour]

13 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

Game companies don’t have the resources to track down infringing content, even when it is reported to them. Writing a DMCA takes too much time, and LL only deletes what it finds at a location, not in inventory where it could have any name. 

Unless you are the developer of Camp Santo which uses DMCA to silence critics lol ?

[Callum Meriman]

On 1/30/2018 at 5:15 PM, Hunter Stern said:

I know many are going to scream "But then all our cool stuffs will go away!". Well, just maybe they should. The Copyright policy around the net is quite clear and tangible or not , intellectual property is not negotiable even int a court of law, should it come to that.

Outside a few animes who seem to revel in stolen/dubious content I don't think many would complain at all.

Copyright is copyright, sadly the USA system is quite broken with that DMCA business y'all have over there, and only the original person can make a complaint. The Lab happily safe harbours behind this. If they become more proactive, then they open a whole new can of worms when one day (c) disney comes along and says "why didn't you protect our IP like you did XYZ corporation?

[Hunter Stern]

2 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

disney comes along and says "why didn't you protect our IP like you did XYZ corporation?

That is  another huge problem. Protecting ones claim and property. It is a known fact that if you do not make an effort to post and protect your copyright or IP or what have you, this will dilute the effectiveness of your hold to some degree and in a court of law, so I suggest when you make stuff that you include your copyright notice and pertinent info (if that's a link to a legal page outlining your permissions on usuage, then great).

[Callum Meriman]

9 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

It is a known fact that if you do not make an effort to post and protect your copyright or IP or what have you, this will dilute the effectiveness of your hold to some degree and in a court of law

While this happens with trademarks and trade dress this shouldn't happen with copyright. Surely?

If so, and copyright in the USA actually does need to be actively policed by the owner or it's lost, then it's a unique USA only problem. The system of copyright there must be terribly broken.

Edit, in fact, you are slightly wrong Hunter, it doesnt affect the validity of the copyright, just how much you can sue for. From https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/: 

 

Quote

 

If You Don’t Protect Your Copyright, You Lose It

Copyright is not like trademark. Copyright has a set period of time for which it is valid and, unless you take some kind of action, you do not give up those rights.

To be fair, the level of enforcement or protection you’ve provided a work can be a factor in how much damages are awarded. For example, if a photo you took has been circulating widely for years with no action and you sue one user of the work, that would mitigate the market value of the work, the damage the infringement could have done and how the court feels about the infringement itself. All of these things can affect the final judgment.

However, unlike trademarks, which do have to be defended, there is nothing the precludes you from enforcing your copyrights at a later date.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Callum Meriman