Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Yes, but that law as I show above protects the architectural design itself and a photo has nothing to do with that unless one is using the photo to help them re-create an older homes non-copyrightable design not necessary sell that photo.  And, no, it's not VARA.  I think VARA is to prevent others from defaming an artist or their work and representing it in a defaming way or something like that.  (I'll post a bit below).  However, back to this SL and the Wiki from Linden Lab, it's a you can but there are stipulations kind of thing, and it's like that in real life too and it's complicated.  In my photography school we learned about model releases and property releases as well as you'd better ask permission before even taking a photo.   I carried model releases with me as they are very inexpensive and asked prior to taking a photograph.   In the LL Wiki, I see LL has built on the real world here a bit about permission, and without being here forever discussing this forever, it's best to read the TOS regarding NFT's as the TOS also says it's up to your own risk you want to take.  Attorneys could be expensive not to mention for fair use an attorney would have to see every single artwork.  I have read the TOS also of some of these NFT's and they want to be sure it is copyrightable artwork one is selling because a legal contract will be recorded into the blockchain upon sale and a legal copyright created into the blockchain to put it simply because that is complicated too.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

ARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights

  • right to claim authorship
  • right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
  • right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
  • right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing. To date, "recognized stature" has managed to elude a precise definition. VARA allows authors to waive their rights, something generally not permitted in France and many European countries whose laws were the originators of the moral rights of artists concept.[2]

Yes the model release you sited only applies to commercial use. Like in ads or commercials and branding. The act of selling a photo is not commercial use in terms of copyright law. In a dictionary yes but its not how it's defined in law. Judge's determine the definition of words and terms in law. Not dictionaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Listen you.. I did Google it.. i got a bunch of answers about bitcoin.. I dont do any of that stuff.. Kids these days.. No respect i tell ya. And for a family member even!

I really wouldn't any of my tokens to have fungi. That's disgusting. No wonder why people pay so much for them. I don't understand what copyright has to do with it. How do you copyright mushrooms? The

Hi Everyone,  I would guess I'm not the first person to ask this question, but I can't find any threads or other info about this: Is it possible for an SL photographer to sell their digital photo

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Finite said:

Yes the model release you sited only applies to commercial use. Like in ads or commercials and branding. The act of selling a photo is not commercial use in terms of copyright law. In a dictionary yes but its not how it's defined in law. Judge's determine the definition of words and terms in law. Not dictionaries.

That's not what we were told.   Private/commercial use is often the words used to say how one might or might not use a photo.   

So, we agree to disagree.

I already believe everyone better decide this TOS for themselves as the risk is their own, or make sure they get a professionals opinion prior.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

That's not what we were told.   Private/commercial use is often the words used to say how one might or might not use a photo.   

So, we agree to disagree.

I already believe everyone better decide this TOS for themselves as the risk is their own, or make sure they get a professionals opinion prior.  

I'm fine with that. However just think of a freelance photographer for a news company. He doesn't and has never needed permission from everyone in his photos to sell it to a News company for use in a News article or News segment on a show. If he used the photos commercially he would need permission but the act of selling said photo is not commercial use. And the use of the News company on their show or in an article is also not commercial use.

I mean if this were the case they would need to ret-con some of the back story of Spiderman xD.

Edited by Finite
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Finite said:

never needed permission from everyone

Yeah, but still the news reporter needs it from some people.  And, there we'd go 'round and 'round again.  

I could use an example of a photo I took.  Now I do not remember who designed the build now and put it in Editor's Picks.  But, it got me thinking there are many people involved here more than just me snapping the picture I will put below.  Besides me, there is the person who designed this whole surreal fantasy sim, and then there are the designers who made all the items in the photo, and then there is me - the one who snapped the photo.  Now I wonder do I have full rights to sell this?  Well, we know if a sim owner says no I shouldn't have been able to snap pics at all but it was in Editor's Picks so I didn't think Editor's Picks would have people build stuff not photographable but it's still my fault that I didn't check on the rights to photograph it...to photograph they'd probably be okay...but to sell it?  Don't you think they deserve some credit for this build?  How should I view this photo?  Is it mine alone?  (You can click on the photo to enlarge it.)

Snapshot_831.jpg

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Yeah, but still the news reporter needs it from some people.  And, there we'd go 'round and 'round again.  

I could use an example of a photo I took.  Now I do not remember who designed the build now and put it in Editor's Picks.  But, it got me thinking there are many people involved here more than just me snapping the picture I will put below.  Besides me, there is the person who designed this whole surreal fantasy sim, and then there are the designers who made all the items in the photo, and then there is me - the one who snapped the photo.  Now I wonder do I have full rights to sell this?  Well, we know if a sim owner says no I shouldn't have been able to snap pics at all but it was in Editor's Picks so I didn't think Editor's Picks would have people build stuff not photographable but it's still my fault that I didn't check on the rights to photograph it...to photograph they'd probably be okay...but to sell it?  Don't you think they deserve some credit for this build?  How should I view this photo?  Is it mine alone?  (You can click on the photo to enlarge it.)

Snapshot_831.jpg

Yes totally understand your perspective and a lot of it probably hasn't been determined yet in courts I don't think in terms of photos taken in a virtual realm. Like are those still considered "photos" per se in a legal sense? We can only really go on current precedent really.

When I first started paying attention to SL photography I initially considered it illustration in my mind and I think that rubbed some photographers the wrong way but after having done some photography in SL for the past year I feel as though it is actually photography. So who knows really.

Edited by Finite
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Finite said:

hasn't been determined yet in courts I don't think in terms of photos taken in a virtual realm

This is where I am at with plus I think LL isn't quite sure either since they referred the OP to the TOS.

I had once wanted to do a book through FLICKR, now I don't know.

I feel similar to the OP, unsure, and I'll leave it at that.

I'm not completely sure.  It's part mine...all mine...I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

This is where I am at with plus I think LL isn't quite sure either since they referred the OP to the TOS.

I had once wanted to do a book through FLICKR, now I don't know.

I feel similar to the OP, unsure, and I'll leave it at that.

I'm not completely sure.  It's part mine...all mine...I don't know.

I think an interesting counterargument to the post you made with the picture of the sim is that even though that sim is private and owned privately, anything being displayed on it could be considered public since we do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy over the internet. It's all public according to law. ToS is another thing. Like I can take a picture of someone's avatar in their private SL home and sell it if someone was inclined to buy it and not break any privacy laws in the process. However I am sure I'd be breaking some ToS lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...