Jump to content

Name change privacy issues


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 117 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Just now, MoiraKathleen said:

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...     

This whole thing started because someone refuses to admit that their reading of the ToS where Copyright is concerned (and Copyright law in general mind) is quite mistaken - from the entire concept they hold, down to some fanciful enforcement that they believe could be done.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MoiraKathleen said:

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...     

Don't worry about it. She keeps moving her goalposts so it doesn't matter any way.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Don't worry about it. She keeps moving her goalposts so it doesn't matter any way.

I'm NOT moving goalposts when I'm just responding to different arguments brought up by different people.

The arguments that have been brought up were:

- Screenshots aren't copyrighted in the first place

- Screenshots are copyrighted but LL has granted total permission (contradicting even the first argument)

- Fair use policy allows publishing

- LL has no way to enforce anything on other sites

And I've responded to each of the arguments. I haven't shifted goalposts anywhere.

 

 

Edited by Noelle Delaunay
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LL only "granted" that permission because of the wording of legislation, not because they actually own the images taken by their customers.

You keep shifting your goalposts back and forth. From one extreme to the other. Copyright laws and privacy laws are not the same thing and they do not work they way you have convinced yourself they work.

So, please, do shut up, Emily.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

LL only "granted" that permission

I already responded to this, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

8 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Copyright laws and privacy laws are not the same thing

I'm not even sure who said that copyright laws and privacy laws are the same thing but implying that I said this is just dishonest.

 

9 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

So, please, do shut up, Emily.

I'm not sure which Emily you're trying to intimidate.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Screenshots are copyrighted but LL has granted total permission (contradicting even the first argument)

They grant license/fair use to the person taking the picture.  LL.doesn't have copyright.  So, as was said, if a picture I took was used by someone else on some other site, the only one who can cry foul is me.  They also grant me the right to use my picture however I want.  They ASK me to be respectful.  The picture I take of an IM with all.of YOUR personal information in it, is mine.  I can post it on Facebook, Twitter, VS.  It's not nice and could potentially get me in legal trouble but not in any trouble from LL.

Now, if you still don't understand that or as I suspect, just do not want to admit you are mistaken, there isn't anything more anyone can say.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

They grant license/fair use to the person taking the picture.  LL.doesn't have copyright.

You're saying that LL doesn't own the copyright ANYMORE because they granted it to someone else. You had said this before. And I will keep saying, as before, that the clause "but asks that you respect the privacy interests of members of the community." invalidates this granting of permission in my opinion. Now you CLAIM to be right about this, I don't claim to be right about this but I believe that my interpretation is more likely to be true. To make this a matter of understanding is false, it's a matter of interpretation. As it's the case with most legal issues. So feel free to continue to claim that you're right, if that's your understanding of a discussion.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LL never owned the copyright to begin with. 

 

Quote

Online photos and graphics are protected by copyright law, just like any other original work. The photographer owns the copyright in the images from the moment she creates them, unless she is working for hire with an agency or other employer. In that case, the agency or employer owns the copyright. 

https://dunnerlaw.com/using-online-images-without-violating-copyright/

Even lawyers agree with us and not you. Wonder why that is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Online photos and graphics are protected by copyright law, just like any other original work. The photographer owns the copyright in the images from the moment she creates them,

That refers to images posted online. If you shoot a picture of somebody IRL you have the copyright. If you pass them a copy, they could even be disallowed to publish it. I am fully aware of this. But This is about photos taken of LL software. This is different.

And I have to say this, but as you try to keep lecturing.. the fact that you're mixing these two up shows that you aren't a lawyer either.

Edited by Noelle Delaunay
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, copyright and copyright licensing are 2 different things.

Only the copyright owner (me) can enter into a copyright license.  Any picture I take is mine.  LL is granting me the right to use it however I want within their ToS since it originate from their server.  Outside their domain, I can do as I please.  Like it says.  Back on pages 2 and 4.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

That refers to images posted online. If you shoot a picture of somebody IRL you have the copyright. If you pass them a copy, they could even be disallowed to publish it. I am fully aware of this. But This is about photos taken of LL software. This is different.

And I have to say this, but as you try to keep lecturing.. the fact that you're mixing these two up shows that you aren't a lawyer either.

No, by law, it is not different. That is what we are all telling you. There is no difference between a photo taken on a computer via software (screen capture) and a photograph taken with a Nikon 35mm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

No, by law, it is not different. 

Yes it is, that is why posting screenshots of games is usually covered by fair use policy. You're taking a photo of someone else's (LL) game (unless you're implying that you take a photo of SL with the Nikon in which case it of course would be the same, but where would be the sense?? The game itself is copyrighted material and you can't just take a photo of it and do with the photo what you want, or as stated, can't let it exceed fair use policy)

Edited by Noelle Delaunay
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Yes it is, that is why posting screenshots of games is usually covered by fair use policy. You're taking a photo of someone else's (LL) game.

No. 

Even a professional photographer will tell you, you are mistaken.

I suggest you take it up with an attorney that specializes in Intellectual Property since you know more about it than the people who have dealt with copyright laws.

image.png.81eec361fe1ba8c1ed139a6c90d2966d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Yes it is, that is why posting screenshots of games is usually covered by fair use policy. You're taking a photo of someone else's (LL) game (unless you're implying that you take a photo of SL with the Nikon in which case it of course would be the same, but where would be the sense?? The game itself is copyrighted material and you can't just take a photo of it and do with the photo what you want, or as stated, can't let it exceed fair use policy)

You can't use their logo, Second Life or any of their branding.  That is under trademark and copyright.  The picture you take is owned by you.  LL is granting you the license to use your picture of their content in perpetuity.  To do with as you wish.  Attention to this under Terms and conditions.  Specifically 1.3.which again refers you back to the ToS and snapshots.

1.1. Linden Lab owns Intellectual Property Rights in Second Life.

In addition to Linden Lab's ownership of the Intellectual Property Rights set forth in the Terms of Service, you understand and agree that without a license agreement with Linden Lab, we do not authorize you to make use of the Linden Marks. Use of the Linden Marks in whole or in part, including without limitation "Second Life," "SL," and the Eye-in-Hand logo, is subject to the guidelines and terms of any applicable license provided in the Second Life Trademark Guidelines and Second Life Brand Center.

With respect to the source code for certain Software that has been released by Linden Lab under an open source license (such as the Second Life Viewer), such software code must be used in accordance with the applicable open source license terms and conditions.

1.2. Linden Lab grants you certain licenses to access and use Second Life while you are in compliance with the Agreements.

Linden Lab is thrilled to support the amazing creativity of the artists who take snapshots and make machinima in Second Life. Subject to compliance with all applicable terms and conditions, Linden Lab grants you certain copyright licenses as provided in the Second Life Snapshot and Machinima Policy.

1.3. You also grant Linden Lab and other users of Second Life a license to use in snapshots and machinima your Content that is displayed in publicly accessible areas of the Second Life.

In addition to the rights granted in Section 2.5 of the Terms of Service, you agree to the restrictions and requirements of our Snapshot and Machinima Policy. The foregoing license is referred to as the "Snapshot and Machinima Content License."

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you two please not all the time bring up two contradicting arguments and claim they both prove me wrong? Silent is saying that the person taking the photo owns the copyright by law, and Rowen says that LL grants the user a license (but they can only grant a license of something they own). It becomes exhausting.

Edited by Noelle Delaunay
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Are you blind?

Please stop using stupid things like this as an insult meant to hurt others. It makes you sound like an ignorant, bigoted ableist.

 

Signed,

An almost completely blind person

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s important to remember that the Licenses are only copyright licenses

1 minute ago, Noelle Delaunay said:

Would you two please not all the time bring up two contradicting arguments and claim they both prove me wrong? Silent is saying that the person taking the photo owns the copyright by law, and Rowen says that LL grants the user a license (but they can only grant a license of something they own). It becomes exhausting.

They do not include any permission to use the trademarks of Linden Lab or Residents, and they do not give any copyright permission to use music or sound recordings that may be performed in-world. They also do not give any copyright permission to use any website or video content that may be streamed from outside the Second Life virtual world environment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

Please stop using stupid things like this as an insult meant to hurt others.

Sorry for having let myself down on their level and responding to polemics like "They always find ways of dancing around the truth without ever admitting to being incorrect. "

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you're not understanding the difference and how it is applied to SL photographs.  In essence, every last thing inside the server is property of LL.  If they shut down tomorrow, they owe you nothing for any content you made or.purchased.  

They are granting you the right to take pictures of their content.  To do with as you please.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 117 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...