Name change privacy issues

[Silent Mistwalker]

5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Join me?

 

My head isn't that hard. lol

Meh. There will always be those who didn't do the research but will still die on that hill.

[Noelle Delaunay]

3 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

LL doesn't own a copyright to images taken by other people.

Of course does LL own copyright of images taken of their own software.

But apparently we disagree here and won't get further.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

No, you wrote an interpretation of fair use policy, but my reply was to "fair use only applies to copyrighted material and since screenshots in SL are NOT copyrighted, fair use has no bearing on anything." He says that Screenshots aren't copyrighted in the first place so this would not be about fair use, and I quoted LL saying that they grant copyright permissions as long as they respect the privacy interests.

Maybe try reading the whole thing and not just cherry pick.

Better yet do your own research, unless you are afraid of reality biting you in the butt.

[Lewis Luminos]

Copyright of a screenshot taken within Second Life is owned by the person who took the screenshot. They are legally entitled to do whatever they want with it, and publish it wherever they like, for profit or not. IF you post it on a LL owned platform, such as the forum, you grant Linden Lab the right to display it, post it, share it etc, but they do not own the copyright.

[Silent Mistwalker]

3 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Of course does LL own copyright of images taken of their own software.

But apparently we disagree here and won't get further.

No, LL does not and can not legally own images taken by an individual on computers not owned by Linden Lab without purchasing said images and the copyrights to those images.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Silent Mistwalker

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

No, they can not. LL has no jurisdiction outside of it's own servers. It has no legal jurisdiction outside of its own properties.

LL has no influence with Google either.

Copyright does not apply. LL doesn't own a copyright to images taken by other people.

The only one that can get the info or images purged is the person whose info it is or the person who took the screencaps or digital photographs, as it were.

 

And they ASK you to be respectful.  It's a request and not written specifically into the ToS aside from not posting such things INSIDE LL's properties.  At this point, I can see further discussion is pointless.  Let's go for coffee?

[Noelle Delaunay]

11 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

No, LL does not and can not legally own images taken by an individual on a computers not owned by Linden Lab without purchasing said images and the copyrights to those images.

Sure, they only wrote the paragraph about granting copyright permissions just for the fun of it. "This policy gives broad copyright permissions for snapshots and machinima, but asks that you respect the privacy interests of members of the community. "

Too bad LL hadn't consulted you back then. They make the effort about streamlining a page about granting copyright permissions, and you could have just told them that they don't own the copyright in the first place. They could have saved so much time!

Edited August 11, 2021 by Noelle Delaunay

[MoiraKathleen]

5 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Sure, they only wrote the paragraph about granting copyright permissions just for the fun of it. "This policy gives broad copyright permissions for snapshots and machinima, but asks that you respect the privacy interests of members of the community. "

I thought that was referring to the items being included in the snapshot or machinima - as in being able to include them in the snapshot or machinima, not referring to the resulting snapshot or machinima. 

[Lewis Luminos]

Just now, Noelle Delaunay said:

Sure, they only wrote the paragraph about granting copyright permissions just for the fun of it. "This policy gives broad copyright permissions for snapshots and machinima, but asks that you respect the privacy interests of members of the community. "

Your quote is proving that everyone else here is correct.

This policy (The Terms and Conditions) gives broad (total, complete) copyright permissions (they are giving it to you  - you own it) for snapshots and machinima (video).

The last part about asking to respect the privacy of others is exactly what it says - it's an ASK, not a LEGALLY BINDING COMMITMENT.  They cannot enforce it, except on their own platforms, because they have no jurisdiction on any other platform.

This all means - 

1. The person who took the snapshot is legally entitled to post it wherever they like.

2. If they post it on Linden-owned platforms they must adhere to the SL TOS.

3. If they post it somewhere else, they don't have to adhere to anything except the TOS of the other platform.

 

[Noelle Delaunay]

1 minute ago, Lewis Luminos said:

The last part about asking to respect the privacy of others is exactly what it says - it's an ASK, not a LEGALLY BINDING COMMITMENT.  They cannot enforce it, except on their own platforms, because they have no jurisdiction on any other platform.

So I'm glad, finally we've agreed that there IS in fact a copyright that was granted.

You are saying that it's not "legally binding" to do what LL says, to respect privacy. But it's pretty clear that LL intends to give copyright permissions ONLY if privacy is respected.

[Lewis Luminos]

11 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

So I'm glad, finally we've agreed that there IS in fact a copyright that was granted.

Yes. Linden Lab grants it to the person taking the snapshot

11 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

You are saying that it's not "legally binding" to do what LL says, to respect privacy.

On Linden-owned platforms, it is. Elsewhere, it isn't.

11 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

But it's pretty clear that LL intends to give copyright permissions ONLY if privacy is respected.

On Linden-owned platforms, yes. Elsewhere, they have no say. Any complaint about content posted off of Linden-owned platforms will be ignored. They can't do anything about it even if they want to because they don't own the copyright to that image. 

But the person who owns the screenshot can. If their screenshot is posted somewhere without their permission, they can submit a cease and desist order to the platform hosting it, to get it removed. 

Note, that's the person who took the screenshot, not anyone else who might be included IN the screenshot.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Lewis Luminos

[Rowan Amore]

11 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

So I'm glad, finally we've agreed that there IS in fact a copyright that was granted.

You are saying that it's not "legally binding" to do what LL says, to respect privacy. But it's pretty clear that LL intends to give copyright permissions ONLY if privacy is respected.

Which I posted on page 2 and reposted on page 4.   Whomever took the picture has the right to do.whatever they like with them and LL ASKS that you be respectful.

[Noelle Delaunay]

Just now, Lewis Luminos said:

On Linden-owned platforms, yes. Elsewhere, they have no say.

There are two things brought together that don't belong together. The matter of copyright ownership of the screenshot, and the matter of enforcement. If LL says they grant you copyright permission but ask you to respect the privacy, it's pretty clear that they say that they ONLY grant permission if you respect the privacy. Means, if you don't respect privacy, the permission wasn't granted in the first place. You can be of a different opinion here, that is fine.

Enforcement... As I stated earlier, there is little chance to take down content on shady servers. However, with a copyright claim, LL could purge sites from google search results. That is EASILY possible. And as no copyright permission was granted, there is the copyright claim. Now you can argument about fair use policy. According to my interpretation the malicious intent to disclose private information wouldn't fall under fair use policy, but I'm not a lawyer, and so is nobody else in this thread.

[Solar Legion]

4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Which I posted on page 2 and reposted on page 4.   Whomever took the picture has the right to do.whatever they like with them and LL ASKS that you be respectful.

Selective reading, confirmation bias and twisting of reality are quite the thing to try to confront, aren't they?

[Noelle Delaunay]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Selective reading, confirmation bias and twisting of reality are quite the thing to try to confront, aren't they?

Sorry but you're just a troll. You're not contributing anything but your posts and reactions are about stirring up like "LOLZ ARE YOU STILL DISCUSSIONG THIS WITH THEM" "LOLZ TWISTING OF REALITY"... seriously, get a hobby.

[Solar Legion]

No, I am simply not interested in "discussing" or "debating" anything with those who are unable to stick to reality.

You have had everything laid out for you, repeatedly. You have had explanation after explanation given, as well as a challenge issued. All of it was ignored and you persisted.

So yes, outside of my last response and this one ... all you're getting are reactions. There's only one "troll" here. Look in the mirror.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Solar Legion
Softening the response

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

 If LL says they grant you copyright permission but ask you to respect the privacy, it's pretty clear that they say that they ONLY grant permission if you respect the privacy. Means, if you don't respect privacy, the permission wasn't granted in the first place. You can be of a different opinion here, that is fine.

 

If that were the case, which it is not, they would have written it as a clause in the ToS and not politely ask.  Your interpretation is where your argument fails.  Respecting privacy is written into the ToS yet still only applies to LL owned sites.  Period.  That is not up to any other interpretation.  Post it on an LL site, there will be consequences.

There really is no discussion.  You are wrong.  I know it's hard to admit.  

Tilt on.

 

[Noelle Delaunay]

Just now, Solar Legion said:

I am simply not interested in "discussing"

I've noticed. That's what your posts showed.

[Noelle Delaunay]

4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

they would have written it as a clause in the ToS and not politely ask. 

Just because you ask somebody politely to do or not to do something does not mean that you depend on the other's goodwill. If a club owner in SL comes to you and says "I would like to politely ask you to leave"... you're gone.

[MoiraKathleen]

Noelle, I have no idea what site you were referring to when you started this part of the conversation, so it's hard for me to even figure out what type of personal information or privacy violation you're talking about.  For me, it seems like the take-away is to not share personal information in-world that you want to be sure isn't inappropriately shared with others. 

 

 

[Solar Legion]

Just now, MoiraKathleen said:

Noelle, I have no idea what site you were referring to when you started this part of the conversation, so it's hard for me to even figure out what type of personal information or privacy violation you're talking about.  For me, it seems like the take-away is to not share personal information in-world that you want to be sure isn't inappropriately shared with others. 

Not that it matters. Privacy issues are not the same as Copyright issues.

[Lewis Luminos]

21 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

 If LL says they grant you copyright permission but ask you to respect the privacy, it's pretty clear that they say that they ONLY grant permission if you respect the privacy. Means, if you don't respect privacy, the permission wasn't granted in the first place. 

 

No. Not at all.

And this is because of the word ASK.

In a legal contract, there is no place for that word. It is non-enforcable. It does not mean that they withdraw copyright if you don't do as they ask. They're just suggesting that it's nice to be nice, that's all.

To emphasise - Linden Lab has GIVEN copyright to the person taking the screenshot. Withdrawing it at a later date is a physical and legal impossibility. The only recourse they would have is to offer to buy back the copyright from the owner. That would entail a legal contract signed by both parties.

[Silent Mistwalker]

54 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Sure, they only wrote the paragraph about granting copyright permissions just for the fun of it. "This policy gives broad copyright permissions for snapshots and machinima, but asks that you respect the privacy interests of members of the community. "

Too bad LL hadn't consulted you back then. They make the effort about streamlining a page about granting copyright permissions, and you could have just told them that they don't own the copyright in the first place. They could have saved so much time!

 

You're not talking about the same thing that is addressed in LL's ToS or the Community Standards.

You don't understand how copyright works. I get that. What I don't get is why you aren't listening and it makes me wonder are you even hearing what is being said.

Opening the mind and ears and closing the mouth usually works when you genuinely want to learn something. In your case, I doubt you want to learn anything. You simply want to argue. No, thank you.

[Noelle Delaunay]

2 minutes ago, Lewis Luminos said:

They're just suggesting that it's nice to be nice, that's all.

What you're saying is that LL says "please respect privacy but we don't really care if you do or don't." If that is your interpretation, that is fine, as I said. To me it doesn't make sense. It's fine to disagree here.

[MoiraKathleen]

2 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Not that it matters. Privacy issues are not the same as Copyright issues.

True, but this down-the-rabbit-whole started because of snapshots being shared that violated privacy (?) and this whole part of the thread discussion has nothing to do with name change privacy issues, either, which was the original complaint. 

I just can't imagine what would be so terrible that LL would need to contact Google (and presumably all the other search engines) regarding having something taken out of search results (if I'm understanding the copyright issue as she brought it up here initially).   

I need to do something else than read this thread...