New Feature: Scripted Agent Estate Access Discussion

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But if you are in a "business" with an "expectation of privacy" and plan to publish pictures / information, you need to let users / patrons know.  (Not to argue, just pointing it out.)

"Pictures" are different from other "information" in the Terms and Conditions. Regarding snapshots and machinima, the license grant is potentially restrictive regarding privately owned land:

Quote

(a) Land Owner Consent for Snapshots and Machinima

If you wish to take a snapshot or capture machinima of content on another Resident’s land, then:

1. For Snapshots, check whether the covenant for the land prohibits snapshots. If it does, then you need special permission from the land owner to take the snapshot. If it allows snapshots or doesn’t address them, then you do not need special permission from the land owner as long as you comply with any terms that may be in the covenant.
2. For Machinima, check whether the covenant for the land allows machinima. If it does not or doesn’t address machinima, then you need special permission from the land owner to capture machinima. If it allows machinima, then you do not need special permission from the land owner as long as you comply with any terms that may be in the covenant.

For Mainland or Linden Homes parcels where Linden Lab is the estate owner, you do not need land owner consent to take snapshots, but you do need special permission from the land owner to capture machinima. The “land owner” is not the estate owner, but the Resident identified as the land owner in the “General” tab under “About Land.” For private islands where Residents are estate owners, you must check the covenant for the private island as provided above.

and of avatars as models:

Quote

(b) Avatar Consent for Machinima

For machinima, you must have the consent of all Residents whose avatars or Second Life names are featured or recognizable in the machinima. This includes avatars who are featured in a shot, avatars whose names are legible, and avatars whose appearance is sufficiently distinctive that they are recognizable by members of the Second Life community. Consent is not required if an avatar is not recognizable and is merely part of a crowd scene or shown in a fleeting background. Consent is not required for any snapshots.

(FWIW, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with "privacy" which should never, ever be confused with intellectual property. The concepts simply have nothing to do with each other.)
 

[EliseAnne85]

8 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

A new TOS For SL?  I don't believe we've had a new one in a little bit.. There is a new update in the official viewer. But not any update for the TOS.. Not unless it came in the last few hours..

I think the last one was maybe over the summer or last spring.

 

I put "tos" in quotes because it was late and couldn't think of what to call it.  It's a new term or something, Rowan posted it, here it is:  Now where do I find that?

Privacy Preference Integrity

Second Life provides a set of privacy controls, such as limiting who can communicate with a Resident, who can see another Resident’s online status, who can discover their location within Second Life, and whether profiles are published on publicly visible web pages. Scripted Agents may not circumvent these privacy controls.

Edited April 8, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

FWIW, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with "privacy" which should never, ever be confused with intellectual property. The concepts simply have nothing to do with each other.

Interesting that none of the posts with concerns seem to be about IP. So, at least the thread is consistent.

[EliseAnne85]

2 hours ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

 

Wrong! In the US you have a right to photograph anything you can see from a place where you have a right to be and to publish it. 

I disagree that a photographer has carte blanche to do whatever they want just because it's public.  There are also celebrity laws for the U.S. you may want to look up.  In the U.S. it is also known there are also peoples who feel if you take their photo, you steal their soul which could create legal problems.  Blackmail is also against the law - that's why it says "legitimate" purposes.  

Here is what ChatGpt has to say about it:

As an AI language model, I can provide information on a general level, but I am not a substitute for legal advice. Laws regarding photography and privacy vary by jurisdiction, and it's important to consult the laws of your specific region or country for accurate and up-to-date legal guidance.

In many countries, photographers have the right to take pictures of people in public places without obtaining their consent, as long as the photos are taken for legitimate purposes, such as news reporting, editorial, artistic, or educational purposes. This is because public spaces are generally considered to be areas where individuals have a lower expectation of privacy.

However, there are some important considerations to keep in mind. While photographers may have the right to take pictures of people in public, they may not have the right to publish or use those photos for certain purposes without obtaining consent, depending on the circumstances and the laws of the jurisdiction. For example, using someone's image for commercial purposes, implying endorsement, or using the image in a way that could be considered defamatory or harmful may require obtaining consent from the individuals

Edited April 8, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Rowan Amore]

13 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

I put "tos" in quotes because it was late and couldn't think of what to call it.  It's a new term or something, Rowan posted it, here it is:  Now where do I find that?

Privacy Preference Integrity

Second Life provides a set of privacy controls, such as limiting who can communicate with a Resident, who can see another Resident’s online status, who can discover their location within Second Life, and whether profiles are published on publicly visible web pages. Scripted Agents may not circumvent these privacy controls.

It's in the new Scripted Agent Policy which is linked in the OP and what this thread is about.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 hours ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

 

Wrong! In the US you have a right to photograph anything you can see from a place where you have a right to be and to publish it. 

And the people you did not get permission from have the legal right to sue in a court of law.

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Caeruleiae said:

This thread-like much of the internet-has only proven that people fail to read tos and other such things more often than they actually succeed

It also proves that many of those who do read the ToS don't really understand what they read.

[EliseAnne85]

24 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

(FWIW, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with "privacy" which should never, ever be confused with intellectual property. The concepts simply have nothing to do with each other.)

I'm beginning to think differently, after seeing all the Second Life "art" photography that our SL photographs should be intellectual property and that we should have some say in how those photographs are used.  People spend an awful lot of time and money taking art photographs, why shouldn't they be considered intellectual property and not the property of anyone to do with as they please just because they saw it.

And, take another example:  People use SL for the main photograph but then transform it into an original work of art through Photoshop.  I'd think that should be their intellectual property and not the property of anyone just because they saw it.  

Edited April 8, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Rowan Amore]

17 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

And the people you did not get permission from have the legal right to sue in a court of law.

If you photograph someone in a public place where they have no expectation of privacy (such as in SL, IMO), you can post those photographs.  You need consent if the photo is to be used commercially and you cannot post/publish if the photo is used to harass or defame a person.  The latter is a whole other can of worms. 

If I take photos at the zoo and post that pic on my Facebook page, I do not need consent from the strangers in the photo to do so.

[Arielle Popstar]

27 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

If you photograph someone in a public place where they have no expectation of privacy (such as in SL, IMO), you can post those photographs.  You need consent if the photo is to be used commercially and you cannot post/publish if the photo is used to harass or defame a person.  The latter is a whole other can of worms. 

If I take photos at the zoo and post that pic on my Facebook page, I do not need consent from the strangers in the photo to do so.

If the picture identifies the people in it, I think it does or at the very least Facebook will notify the ones in it and give them the option of removing their names from it. That was at least how it was a few years ago when I was notified of someone posting a picture of me with a party of other people dancing at an event.

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If the picture identifies the people in it, I think it does or at the very least Facebook will notify the ones in it and give them the option of removing their names from it. That was at least how it was a few years ago when I was notified of someone posting a picture of me with a party of other people dancing at an event.

I'm sure that's probably the case since FB has had their own privacy issues.  I know on Flickr, you can set your own preferences so you can not be tagged in someone else's photo.  I no longer have a FB account so I can't check to see if tagging in photos or not is an option.

[benchthis]

I noticed this recently interview with Philip Rosedale regarding AI. It's awesome leaders are taking this seriously. 

 

[Ayashe Ninetails]

Just a quick note on this - this is all very location/country-specific. Photographic and publishing consent varies widely across the world, and since SL is operating internationally, it's just best to follow the guidelines set out in the official SL policy with regards to avatar photographs and machinima, which was linked a ways back.

 

51 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

I'm beginning to think differently, after seeing all the Second Life "art" photography that our SL photographs should be intellectual property and that we should have some say in how those photographs are used. 

If your original photos/artwork/writing/etc. get bot scraped and are being hosted outside of SL on an external website somewheres, you can request the website owner take it down. That said, IP in general is a hot mess that often requires teams of attorneys chugging triple shot espressos to make sense of at times, so no guarantee how that will turn out.

[EliseAnne85]

2 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

If your original photos/artwork/writing/etc. get bot scraped and are being hosted outside of SL on an external website somewheres, you can request the website owner take it down. 

Yes, I know.  And, I also believe that that certain recent website was DMCA'd by someone.  Or someone got a lawyer and that certain recent website was mostly taken down, or so I hear it was.  

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

Yes, I know.  And, I also believe that that certain recent website was DMCA'd by someone.  Or someone got a lawyer and that certain recent website was mostly taken down, or so I hear it was.  

Don't know, but attorneys are super expensive and unless you can prove some financial harm/damages, that seems a bit much. 

Either way, though, if profile scraping is a concern for someone, the best way to avoid all that mess is to keep your latest novel out of your Picks and save it for Kindle Direct. 😄 Probably doesn't need to be said, but you never know!

[EliseAnne85]

53 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

they have no expectation of privacy (such as in SL, IMO)

There are people where it's against their religion to have their photograph taken.  I think for the Amish and certain other religions, it's against their religion because of vanity.  Plus, other cultures believe if you take their photograph, you steal their soul.  Or, you could have accidentally photographed someone who didn't want to be photographed and it's defaming.  So, trouble could still ensue.  

Public or no, I think we should have a basic right to privacy regarding photographs of our person and loved ones.  

It was interesting to note, that digging further into ChatGPT, that the AI brought up ethics in regards to photographing others without their consent, saying it's just not the right thing to do.

[EliseAnne85]

13 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

Don't know, but attorneys are super expensive and unless you can prove some financial harm/damages, that seems a bit much. 

Either way, though, if profile scraping is a concern for someone, the best way to avoid all that mess is to keep your latest novel out of your Picks and save it for Kindle Direct. 😄 Probably doesn't need to be said, but you never know!

Sure, they are expensive but some people have them in their family.  Remember this harvesting involved all of SL.  I bet there were quite a few free attorneys available in that scenario.  

Edited April 8, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Rowan Amore]

12 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

There are people where it's against their religion to have their photograph taken.  I think for the Amish and certain other religions, it's against their religion because of vanity.  Plus, other cultures believe if you take their photograph, you steal their soul.  Or, you could have accidentally photographed someone who didn't want to be photographed and it's defaming.  So, trouble could still ensue.  

Public or no, I think we should have a basic right to privacy regarding photographs of our person and loved ones.  

It was interesting to note, that digging further into ChatGPT, that the AI brought up ethics in regards to photographing others without their consent, saying it's just not the right thing to do.

Which is all well and good except legally you can photograph them.   The laws don't necessarily follow ethics and the law prevails in most cases.   As long as one isn't posting said picture with the intent to cause harm, I think you're safe.

Your ethics, my ethics and someone else's ethics might be very different and have no bearing on what is legal in most cases.

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, EliseAnne85 said:

And, take another example:  People use SL for the main photograph but then transform it into an original work of art through Photoshop.  I'd think that should be their intellectual property and not the property of anyone just because they saw it.  

Not only do I agree with you, but it's actually true. A person's artwork is that person's intellectual property. If the person displays it in public, such as in an SL profile or inworld, then the artwork is in the public domain, and there can be no expectation of privacy concerning it, and no expectation that it must remain in SL. It's not LL's responsibility.

If someone else publishes an image of the artwork, then its creator can take legal action over it. 

[EliseAnne85]

8 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Which is all well and good except legally you can photograph them.   The laws don't necessarily follow ethics and the law prevails in most cases.   As long as one isn't posting said picture with the intent to cause harm, I think you're safe.

Your ethics, my ethics and someone else's ethics might be very different and have no bearing on what is legal in most cases.

I think ChatGPT said the laws vary by jurisdiction.  

As far as religious beliefs, this is a complicated "ethical" one, especially if governments need photographs for identification but there are workarounds for that where the person doesn't even have to have their photograph taken for I.D., they can use something else.

But, anyway, it's the harvesting and the taking of said photographs from profiles where I think it should not be tolerated by a third party A.I. system to publish outside of SL.  I think we should have to give consent as many profiles, I think, do contain intellectual property.

[EliseAnne85]

5 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

It's not LL's responsibility.

I don't really see the harm in LL amending the TOS to something like, let's say - First of all, declaring their template to make SL profiles a Trade Marked copyright (not to be copied without permission), but to also give users the right to have to give consent if a third party wants to use the photographs, poems or lyrics contained in their personal profile and publish them on a third party website.  It would just be a formality to declare those IP, but the individual would still have to take care of it on their own.  

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

If you photograph someone in a public place where they have no expectation of privacy (such as in SL, IMO), you can post those photographs.  You need consent if the photo is to be used commercially and you cannot post/publish if the photo is used to harass or defame a person.  The latter is a whole other can of worms. 

If I take photos at the zoo and post that pic on my Facebook page, I do not need consent from the strangers in the photo to do so.

None of that prevents someone from filing a civil lawsuit.

[Rowan Amore]

25 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

None of that prevents someone from filing a civil lawsuit.

Yep, people can file all kinds of frivolous lawsuits.

[Caeruleiae]

4 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

It also proves that many of those who do read the ToS don't really understand what they read.

That's also very true-and happens pretty often. 

[Katherine Heartsong]

2 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Not only do I agree with you, but it's actually true. A person's artwork is that person's intellectual property. If the person displays it in public, such as in an SL profile or inworld, then the artwork is in the public domain, and there can be no expectation of privacy concerning it, and no expectation that it must remain in SL. It's not LL's responsibility.

If someone else publishes an image of the artwork, then its creator can take legal action over it. 

This is precisely why I don't share any of my RL art in SL. I have no expectation that someone won't simply snap the pic of it on my gallery wall and make their own version (though for $1.25 in RL money is sell them for, their time isn't worth much if they do).