Skins to texture

[babynonoone]

Hi, is there anyway if i could extract a texture from a skin from a classic avatar?? Or just the texture from a mesh clothing 

[OptimoMaximo]

What you define as "extract" is actually called "theft". If the product is not provided along with textures, "extracting" them is not legal as those are IP property of the creator

[Alwin Alcott]

7 hours ago, babynonoone said:

Hi, is there anyway if i could extract a texture from a skin from a classic avatar?? Or just the texture from a mesh clothing 

yes there is a way, but only can use this on your own textures that you lost by accident.
What you plan is illegal and theft.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Alwin Alcott

[Alyona Su]

6 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

yes there is a way, but only can use this on your own textures that you lost by accident.
What you plan is illegal and theft.

I don't think the OP mentioned their plans, did they? (Perhaps they did and edited after you replied and before I saw it?) It also is useful for *fixing* the annoying bits on a skin you've purchased. It's what I did. Though I also am not stupid enough to sell or give it away. LOL

Edited January 13, 2020 by Alyona Su

[Alwin Alcott]

1 minute ago, Alyona Su said:

I don't think the OP mentioned their plans, did they? (Perhaps they did and edited after you replied and before I saw it?) It also is useful for *fixing( the annoying bits on a skin you've purchased. It's what I did. Though I also am not stupid enough to sell or give it away. LOL

if the skin is sold no mod, you breach the agreement of use between you and the creator. So it's illegal.

Concerning the question, it's not edited, but asking it, is answering the question about the plans.

[Alyona Su]

20 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

if the skin is sold no mod, you breach the agreement of use between you and the creator. So it's illegal.

Concerning the question, it's not edited, but asking it, is answering the question about the plans.

Perhaps. So they should AR me for that. Until then, I'll do whatever I want with what I own, a.k.a. First Sale Doctrine. (It's a legal term in the U.S.) - and as long as I don't share it in any way, it's perfectly legal. The only possible argument anyone could have is with the "reverse engineering" aspect of the DMCA, but since the viewer did that for me... ~shrugs~

[OptimoMaximo]

1 hour ago, Alyona Su said:

I'll do whatever I want with what I own, a.k.a. First Sale Doctrine. (It's a legal term in the U.S.) - and as long as I don't share it in any way, it's perfectly legal.

Wrong, as it is not a physical item, what you purchase is license to use a digital asset, which you agreed upon purchase to not have access to modify ability, and you not only breached the agreement with the asset creator, you also force reinstate full permissions on a digital asset you don't own IP over with a new uuid, falsely marking it as your own by doing so. Until an AR or dmca is filed against you all is fine, nonetheless ethically and morally that still is theft, and that marks you for what you are in your entitlement. 

[Alyona Su]

11 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Wrong, as it is not a physical item, what you purchase is license to use a digital asset, which you agreed upon purchase to not have access to modify ability, and you not only breached the agreement with the asset creator, you also force reinstate full permissions on a digital asset you don't own IP over with a new uuid, falsely marking it as your own by doing so. Until an AR or dmca is filed against you all is fine, nonetheless ethically and morally that still is theft, and that marks you for what you are in your entitlement. 

Like I said - they can report me.

[MaxMare]

@Alyona, you do not own skin texture, you own the rights to use it according to the TOS which means you can apply it to your avatar and maybe tint it if it`s modifiable..Owning in terms of digital art would mean you purchased the rights/original artwork  in which case the price would not be 2-5 bucks...

 

[Alyona Su]

7 hours ago, MaxMare said:

@Alyona, you do not own skin texture, you own the rights to use it according to the TOS which means you can apply it to your avatar and maybe tint it if it`s modifiable..Owning in terms of digital art would mean you purchased the rights/original artwork  in which case the price would not be 2-5 bucks...

 

Until I modify it sufficiently to create a transformative derivative. This is according to U.S. Copyright law, where I and Linden Lab are located. Furthermore, first sale doctrine (it's a legal thing) says I can do anything whatsoever with anything I have paid for on a single-purchase as long as I do not redistribute it in its original form and any modified form whatsoever unless it is covered by the Fair Use doctrine of the same copyright law.

I deal with copyright law every day in my RL work, it is my job to understand it clearly. As for what you are describing: it only applies on a recurring payment system (a.k.a. renewable licensing) or redistribution. Any and all licensing has no function beyond those scenarios; licensing can only apply to access.

Edit to add: By the way, I was never presented with, have never seen posted, nor agreed to any "licensing" when I purchased that skin. Therefore, there is no licensing agreement. I only mention this for people who like to get into nitty-gritty details about things.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Alyona Su

[MaxMare]

I know my rights as a creator so no, purchasing a mesh  in my store does not give you the right to download, resell or use any part for derivative work. In order to get access to those files you need to use questionable tools which are definitively not provided or supported by Linden Labs or my self (or any other creator for that matter). 

If we agree to custom work, then sure, your rights would be whatever we agree upon, but again, price would not be 2 bucks.

When it comes to real world goods, let`s say you buy a dress I made, then sure, you can do whatever you want with it, however we are talking about intellectual property here. 

intellectual-property-infringement

you really don`t need to read past the 2nd sentence to see what you described is indeed illegal...and if that is not enough, please refer to the link bellow

DMCA

more about the digital millennium copyright act; copyright ownership, copyright owner`s rights (derivative work, distribution, take down, ownership of work vs ownership of a copy etc etc)

[Alyona Su]

19 minutes ago, MaxMare said:

I know my rights as a creator so no, purchasing a mesh  in my store does not give you the right to download, resell or use any part for derivative work. In order to get access to those files you need to use questionable tools which are definitively not provided or supported by Linden Labs or my self (or any other creator for that matter). 

We weren't talking about mesh anything. Context is your friend. But knee-jerk reactions are okay, you point about *mesh* is a good one and I concur because mesh is a different beast altogether than a texture, even if jumping the gun and shooting from the hip. 

As for copyright and DMCA: I live in those for my RL work. I know precisely what they say and how they work (and I am always amazed at the ignorance a lot of people have about them.)

Edited January 23, 2020 by Alyona Su

[Wulfie Reanimator]

14 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

We weren't talking about mesh anything. Context is your friend. But knee-jerk reactions are okay, you point about *mesh* is a good one and I concur because mesh is a different beast altogether than a texture, even if jumping the gun and shooting from the hip. 

Can you explain the difference between ripping a texture and ripping a mesh?

[OptimoMaximo]

13 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

We weren't talking about mesh anything

Doesn't make a difference. It's still an IP you're infringing, and your sentence about you not seeing an agreement of non derivative work, it's implied in the TOS and in the permissions system, so you keep being wrong. As @MaxMare pointed out, you can definitely do whatever you like on a PHYSICAL item you purchase, a design of any sort is not included within that definition, you can't remake a design from Versace just because you bought that same dress for yourself, they sold the item to you, not the design.

17 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

and I am always amazed at the ignorance a lot of people have about them

Amazing, you're amazed by yourself then. 

[OptimoMaximo]

18 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Edit to add: By the way, I was never presented with, have never seen posted, nor agreed to any "licensing" when I purchased that skin. Therefore, there is no licensing agreement. I only mention this for people who like to get into nitty-gritty details about things

The permissions system is a license agreement. A skin is a compound asset as in the system skin, even if modifiable, doesn't imply access to the components, it implies modify permissions of the skin asset, the wearable, to change tint or whatever, but the way the asset is designed doesn't grant you access to the component asset, aka the textures, unless purposely provided in a suitable form (no restricted permissions) for such purpose. No mod no purchase, as you often say? Don't buy then. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by OptimoMaximo

[Alyona Su]

16 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Can you explain the difference between ripping a texture and ripping a mesh?

Ripping mesh will require some method to get it out of second life in a way that can be used locally. Ripping a texture is as simple as pointing my web browser into my viewer cache directory.

 

16 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Doesn't make a difference. It's still an IP you're infringing,

It's only an infringement when (not that you could, but only after the fact that) you redistribute it. It is impossible to license or in any way control private use. If you think you can, well, good luck with that. If I buy commercial software then change the interface in a way the developer never intended, there is nothing they can do unless I try to redistribute that. It is 100% legal.

16 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

Amazing, you're amazed by yourself then. 

Apparently not as much as you are. You like to tag comments with the laugh emoji a lot. I understand why, but if it makes you happy do so then never stop.

16 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

The permissions system is a license agreement.

The permissions system is specifically a permissions system. it is not a license. Perhaps a dictionary to better understand word definitions would be something for you to consider.

For everyone: your arguments are valid when it comes to redistribution of third-party intellectual property, but absolutely moot otherwise. It is the same ridiculous argument the EU makes when they attempt to pass a law that says if you take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, you have infringed on that intellectual property. Convince me that that is true then I may even consider some of your arguments here worth evaluating. Nevertheless, it's okay, I know that facts can be such annoying things.

As for DMCA anything: that law is for one purpose: Takedowns and legal action afterward. It is literally impossible to file a DMCA against anything I've done. There is nothing to "take down". As for a "license" - those are a set of rules one must agree to before any transaction regarding them is made. As for permissions: the texture I purchased had only one restriction: "No Transfer" - I have not transferred it to anyone. So what imaginary license have I offended? How am I breaking I.P., then? I'd love to see that one argued in any authoritative governance hearing.

Your arguments regarding my chosen use (including the changing) of something I have purchased are not based on logic, they are laughably based on "win the debate at all costs". Okay, fine: you all win. Feel better?

Edited January 24, 2020 by Alyona Su

[Wulfie Reanimator]

29 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Ripping mesh will require some method to get it out of second life in a way that can be used locally. Ripping a texture is as simple as pointing my web browser into my viewer cache directory.

I can't believe I knew what you were going to say. 😂 Your logic is flawless.

I would literally have much more respect for you if you just said "I don't care if it's stealing," but what you're saying is "it's not stealing because it's so easy."

Following your logic, it's not stealing or trespassing if you try to open someone's front door and it's unlocked. Clearly the lack of protection implies you're free to just walk in.

I don't even understand what you mean by "locally." When you "point your web browser into your viewer cache directory," that is "done locally," you're never accessing anything online. The distinction of local vs remote doesn't make sense to begin with. Everything you see on your computer is local.

• Watching youtube? The video exists locally on your computer so go ahead and find those files and upload it back on Youtube. It's yours!
• Playing a video game? All of those textures, models, animations, sounds, etc. are yours to use since you installed it on your computer, no worries!

Edited January 24, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Alyona Su]

8 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I would literally have much more respect for you if you just said "I don't care if it's stealing," but what you're saying is "it's not stealing because it's so easy."

Wow. Why would I ever admit to "stealing" IF I PURCHASED IT?

This is the problem with debates like this. The fact that I PURCHASED SOMETHING then DEFILED MY OWN PURCHASE FOR MY OWN USE is totally lost on you people. No wonder the whole world is so screwed up and wars happen.

So, how the F*K is it "stealing," again?

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Alyona Su

[Wulfie Reanimator]

14 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Wow. Why would I ever admit to "stealing" IF I PURCHASED IT?

This is the problem with debates like this. The fact that I PURCHASED SOMETHING then DEFILED MY PURCHSSE FOR MY OWN USE is totally lost on you people.

So, how the F*K is it "stealing" again?

Because you're too daft to understand what you've purchased. Hint: It's not the texture.

Can you explain the difference between you buying an applier and extracting the actual texture, and me buying a video game and extracting the textures from that? Let me guess, is it something along the lines of "games cost more or are bigger than just appliers?"

Or a more relevant example again, when you buy yourself a mesh body, why do you think it's not okay to extract the model and make adjustments to it? I guess you already explained that "you have to do it locally," but you have to do that with textures as well so that doesn't count. What gives? Could it be because people can easily tell when you've re-uploaded an edited model?

Edited January 24, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Alyona Su]

8 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Can you explain the difference between you buying an applier and extracting the actual texture, and me buying a video game and extracting the textures from that?

There's nothing wrong with this as long as you do not redistribute it to anyone else. This is called first-sale doctrine of copyright law in the United States. United States law is what applies to me because it's where I live. If you don't live in the United States then your ideas of what theft is (as daft as it may be) is moot. 

You edification is lacking; your forum title is appropriate.

steal | stēl |
verb (past stole | stōl | ; past participle stolen | ˈstōlən | )
1 [with object] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: thieves stole her bicycle | (as adjective stolen) : stolen goods | [no object] : she was found guilty of stealing from her employers.
• dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own: accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

31 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

There's nothing wrong with this as long as you do not redistribute it to anyone else. This is called first-sale doctrine of copyright law in the United States. United States law is what applies to me because it's where I live. If you don't live in the United States then your ideas of what theft is (as daft as it may be) is moot. 

You edification is lacking; your forum title is appropriate.

steal | stēl |
verb (past stole | stōl | ; past participle stolen | ˈstōlən | )
1 [with object] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: thieves stole her bicycle | (as adjective stolen) : stolen goods | [no object] : she was found guilty of stealing from her employers.
• dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own: accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying.

Thanks, my forum title is very deliberate. It was given to me years ago on another forum and I quite like it.

I know the textbook definition of stealing. The one you've given me doesn't even cover piracy because you can't "steal" a game, you're just creating a new copy of it without deriving someone else of anything. Obviously piracy is considered stealing, but you need to use better definitions if you're going to start copy-pasting literary to me.

I also understand the first-sale thing and it makes perfect sense. However, it's not absolute and it can be overridden. Video games -- besides the physical disk (or technically even the disk I think?) -- aren't covered by it because of End-User License Agreements. They specifically say you aren't paying for the code required to run the game, and you aren't paying for the assets required to represent the game on your screen. Linden Lab has this stipulation too (terms and conditions):

Quote

1.5. You may grant certain Content licenses to other users through the Second Life permissions system.

Your interactions with Second Life may include use of the Second Life permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings for indicating how other users may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform your Content in Second Life subject to the Agreements.

As @OptimoMaximo pointed out, Second Life's agreement specifically states that the permission system is used to define the license to use the content you buy. You aren't buying the content itself.

P.S. Answer the other example in my previous post above yours.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Alyona Su]

15 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I also understand the first-sale thing and it makes perfect sense. However, it's not absolute and it can be overridden. Video games -- besides the physical disk (or technically even the disk I think?) -- aren't covered by it because of End-User License Agreements.

Precisely: license agreement.

15 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Second Life's agreement specifically states that the permission system is used to define the license to use the content you buy.

Precisely. I bought it and I'm using it. Beyond the default license of Second Life (which applies primarily to the use of Second Life proper) - there is no agreement between myself, the purchaser, and the creator that I cannot do with my purchase as I choose for my own use.

This entire debate is 100% moot and you know it: You are absolutely correct in particular circumstance and you know very well I am correct in particular circumstance, which happens to be the circumstance I am in right now. Would you like it if I tell you from who I bought the skin. Then you can go tell them about what I've done and we'll see if they can (or are even willing to bother with) AR me about it. Then we can let Linden Lab decide? That's how confident I am in my position.

So, go ahead and take the last word. You're going to believe what you believe and neither of us will change each others' minds (and neither am I attempting to). I've made my points, neither you nor anyone else can change things about it, save for a governance action, which I firmly believe will side with my position.

Of course you can hate me for petty artificial reasons like a philosophical position, but that's okay. Just step to the back of the line. LOL

[Wulfie Reanimator]

14 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Would you like it if I tell you from who I bought the skin. Then you can go tell them about what I've done and we'll see if they can (or are even willing to bother with) AR me about it.

Of course you can hate me for petty artificial reasons like a philosophical position, but that's okay.

Oh, no, I don't care what you actually do. Copybot all you want, whatever you want. It's no skin off my back whatever you do.

I'm just baffled by the mental gymnastics you're (not?) doing to justify it.

17 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

there is no agreement between myself, the purchaser, and the creator that I cannot do with my purchase as I choose for my own use.

There is. The permission system. I've shown you the part of LL's terms and conditions that specifically says "the permission system is a license," meaning that when a merchant sells you a HUD with a script (and just those) and sets them no-modify, that means that:

1. You haven't bought textures, only an applier. You have no rights to the textures being applied to your avatar.
2. What you have bought is no-modify, meaning you cannot make modifications to them without breaking the license.
3. Even if the applier was modifiable, you would only have the license to edit the HUD/script itself, not the textures.
4. Only when the textures are provided and modifiable could you make the argument that bypassing the permission system (going into your cache, if they aren't full-perm) to make personal modifications to the textures is fine.

But you don't seem to agree, because apparently you're not understanding what the terms and conditions actually say.

[OptimoMaximo]

21 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

But you don't seem to agree, because apparently you're not understanding what the terms and conditions actually say.

That is called "entitlement" in my book. It generates the line of thinking for which as long as *I* do it, it's fine because of how *I* do it. You could show all the links to all the laws of every single country in the world about that subject proving her wrong, she'd still be the only one right and everything taken as proof would either be wrong, or you just misinterpreted it. 

That's why after a couple of comments debating with her I just stop replying and mark a nice "laugh" reaction. I laugh at the huge entitlement-based or ignorance-based BS she comes up with. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by OptimoMaximo

[Kyrah Abattoir]

I'd like to add that the DRM circumvention clause of the DMCA kicks in regardless of the complexity of the protection scheme.