The SL Armature.

[Rusalka Writer]

Just following up on a topic raised in a mesh beta meeting a few months ago that was of interest to anyone crafting avatars. First, this may have changed. I'm just looking for clarification.

We were told that any avatar rigged using the SL Armature could only be sold if it carried the same modify permissions as the armature. Now, this is where my memory is hazy, because it might have been all the same permissions (MCT) as the armature. Someone with a better memory or access to facts help me here?

I'm asking for clarification since we're getting closer to mesh on the maingrid as a commercial interest. I tried briefly to make my own armature, which the viewer didn't understand at all. I got the right buttons for uploading an avatar, but didn't get the final upload button (a first).

If we want to control permissions on an avatar we make, should we craft our own armature? Can we? Since the new armature has to carry all the same names as the SL Armature, can SL tell the difference between our armature and theirs? Will all new avatars have to go out with modify perms or more?

[Ashasekayi Ra]

Who said that a rigged mesh had to be sold with modify permissions just because it included an armature that matches the SL one?  Even if you did make a rig by hand, it would have to have the exact same parameters if you want it to match the movements of the SL avatar in the case of clothing. As far as non-clothing rigged items, the bone names will still have to match.

[Drongle McMahon]

I though we were going to have someone from the legal department come to a meeting to explain the avatar licensing issues.

[Nyx Linden]

please see the latest license file attached to our clothing templates: http://static.secondlife.com/downloads/textures/fashion/All_Fashion_Design_Templates.zip

you can access this from: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Clothing_Tutorials

If there is still licensing ambiguity, please respond on thsi thread - I'll be keeping an eye on it. I was under the impression that our latest licensing terms clarified the issue for most people.

 

 -Nyx

[Ashasekayi Ra]

Thanks for the links Nyx. However, the license file in that zip doesn't state anything about using the SL avatar's armature in a commercial product. It's my understanding that many people are still confused over how to apply the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 language to SL clothing and rigged  mesh. There are some people that think the license gives other people the right to modify and resell their work (without permission) if it includes the SL armature or part of the SL avatar mesh. Personally, that isn't how I interpret the license. But, it is unclear because an issue like this isn't specifically defined by the generic wording of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. It would be great if we could get some clarity on that.

[Baloo Uriza]

I am not a lawyer, and don't expect the Lindens to answer a legal question for you.  I'm providing some insight based on working with open licenses in the past.  Consult your attorney for a definitive answer.

---

Ashasekayi Ra wrote:

Thanks for the links Nyx. However, the license file in that zip doesn't state anything about using the SL avatar's armature in a commercial product.

---

Actually, it does.  From the LICENSE.txt file included in the fashion template pack:  "For the license summary, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/."   It appears the summary specifically mentions how it applies to commercial products.

---

There are some people that think the license gives other people the right to modify and resell their work (without permission) if it includes the SL armature or part of the SL avatar mesh.

---

Other rights (such as rights over modificatoins) are not affected by this license.  If the Lindens had included the "Share-Alike" clause, which they did not, then the license summary would read more like this one.  All you have to do to satisfy license requirements for fashion made from this kit would be include a notecard giving attribution to the Lindens for the armature and an explianation of what you did that makes it "value added" over the basic armature.

---

Personally, that isn't how I interpret the license. But, it is unclear because an issue like this isn't specifically defined by the generic wording of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. It would be great if we could get some clarity on that.

---

It's pretty specific; you can read the full text of the license the Linden's chose in it's entirety if you're interested.  The Creative Commons folks are generally fairly helpful in answering questions about the licenses they wrote.

[Ashasekayi Ra]

My first point was that the license was for a kit of PSD texture templates. There was no mention of the SL Avatar mesh or armature. And, the files themselves weren't included in that kit. As it stands, a person simply needs to download an XML file to get the mesh and armature for their avatar. So, no license comes with that. But, I just assume the CC 3 applies to it as well.

And yes, many people have read http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. The point is that some people want LL to spell out how it relates to SL clothing and rigged mesh usage. As for me, I've already decided what I think the license means. I was just pointing out the questions that some people want answered from LL legal team since Nyx asked.

[Baloo Uriza]

---

Ashasekayi Ra wrote:

The point is that some people want LL to spell out how it relates to SL clothing and rigged mesh usage.

---

Sounds like a derivative work, to me.

 

 

[Rusalka Writer]

I'm beginning to wonder if the entire legal team was let go in the purge. Whichever Linden(s) are supposed to be providing these answers are oft-rumored but never seen.

[Nyx Linden]

Apologies, I thought the inquiry was about the UV maps of the avatars that were linked on that page.

 

To clarify, could you point to the exact files detailing the avatar mesh & armature that you'd like license clarification on?

Thanks!

 

 -Nyx