TOS on sculptie maps make it impossible to use

Madeliefste Oh · February 6, 2012

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Veronika Garzo wrote:

You really are a victim ya know, now some other site has gone and ripped off the finials and tassles!!! Must be ye olde photoshopper!!!

http://medievalwalltapestry.com/la-belle-dame-sans-merci.html

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Both of you have no clue what you are talking about on this topic and these images of old public domain art.

This is an interesting case, seen in copyright light.

The creator of the art work has died more then 75 years ago, so the art work falls into the public domain.

Still this website that Veronika points to claims copyright since 2002. What is this copyright about, when it is not about the art work?

Veronika Garzo · February 6, 2012

Zanara clearly pointed out to you that the imagery contained in the old tapestries may no longer be subject to copyright, but these are tapestries created by a manufacturer taking advantage of that situation. For example one image you have used and less than eloquently described as 'Lady Floating' [from a man professing an interest in the arts] is in fact the The Lady of Shallot by John William Waterhouse in 1888 and hangs in the Tate Gallery in London. This masterpiece did not come with a patterned woven border and mounted on a pole with finials and tassles. The pictorial imagery you have used is creation of a recent manufacturer taking advantage of the public domain permissions of the original artwork. They created the item, photographed it and put it up for sale. Therefore the copyright of that item belongs to them, not to you. Then you went further to allude to the fact that you added the finials and tassles yourself!!! Its strange that the tapestry company seems to use the exact same imagery that you claim to have created. This being the case, why aren't you incensed at their blatant use of your photoshop imagery? Why aren't you contacting them to spit vitriole at them as you have others in this forum?

I would like to advise you to back out gracefully and hang your head in shame for your bigotry and shamefully abusive manner. However, you won't be able to, so dig yourself in even deeper. You seem hell bent on destroying yourself in public.

Just so you know the company state this at the bottom of their website, so they are definitely laying claim to this imagery, the very same used in your self-proclaimed work. You might want to have a word with them about this

Toysoldier Thor · February 6, 2012

I am glad you find my SL Tapestries so interesting as to have completely derailed all attention from the OP and of your silly suggestion of LL Regualtions against full perms sculpty creators which after all your anger you openly admitted my FIRST suggestions to you were right afterall.

But if you want o keep talking about my old tapestries... why dont you keep violating Community Standard TOS (since its clear that the LL Moderators are taking a blind eye to your continued attacks of my business in SL) and expand your attacks to all the other SL Merchants that seems to have violated the exact same Public Domain content....

You have spent so much time deep drilling through each of my MP Store products in your witch hunt to get revenge upon me because you hate that my suggestions were valid afterall. You should be able to just as easy continue your witch hunt and point out all the countless other SL Merchants that are using the exact same tapestry images of public domain art as me.

And... if you are so convinced to acuse me of theft.... (again... posted acusations of violating a LL TOS is a violation of TOS), then file a DMCA. Do the right thing. Have me and the dozens of other SL Merchants that you are convinced are violating copyright account for our sins. If you are right... force us all to remove our whopping 20L to 56L content. Do the right thing as you sit here violating LL TOS.

LOL so funny ... how you started this whole attack with your demands that LL take measures to strengthen TOS and force all us evil sculpty creators from ripping you off..... and yet here you are - post after post - violating LL TOS.

You are just lucky that LL Moderators are selecting of whom they punish and dont punish in the forums.

PS... and the more you post... the more business you are generating to my tapestries.... And to think a long time ago I was going to remove them from the MP as they didnt fit my SL business anymore and made almost no revenue. Thanks for bringing these old old listings back to life.

Veronika Garzo · February 6, 2012

The whole ethos of this thread was a matter of copyright and usage, permissions and protecting IP. You yourself made it clear that this was not just about sculpt makers, but many other creations that are traded within the 3d environment of SL and on SLX. It is not therefore unreasonable to scrutinise the topic and illustrate some of the issues that might be found for the unwitting customer, who might be fooled into thinking a purchase is reasonable and legitimate. The problem is that many are not and this is the very ethos of this thread. As a paying customer, I expect to recieve what I purchased and I do not expect to find myself wound up in copyright issues as a result of unscrupulous sellers either witholding pertinent information or knowingly selling me items they know they do not hold the copyright to.

You have been extremely vocal on this topic and advised that customers should be a bit sharper and more savvy when out shopping, so don't blame me for doing just that!!! It's not my fault that there is a query over the ownership of copyright on 19 items you sell is it? I am merely asking what anyone would when faced with the very same imagery in two locations, both claiming IP rights. One of you is the owner and you certainly don't seem too keen on allaying my fears or those of anyone who has spent good money buying items from you. Where are your assurances that this is your copyright and that those who purchased from you in good faith can rest easy that the items are legitimate?

Nefertiti Nefarious · February 6, 2012

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

What you fail to grasp is that in order to be a victim one first has to be victimized. Do yourself a favor and get the name of any one of my 19 tapestries and search for that name in either MP or even in Google. See how many responses you get on any one of these medieval artworks. WOW... surprising how many 1000's of supposed victims there are in both MP and the Internet.

Here's the thing about ancient tapestries ... while the tapestry itself may be in the public domain because of its age, the picture from http://medievalwalltapestry.com/la-belle-dame-sans-merci.html (the one that you edited into an SL product) is copyrightable.

If you are going to use medieval tapestries and ancient statues, at least don't take the images, tassels and all, from a commercial company who holds the copyright on that image of their tapestry, hanging on their rod with their tassels. PS it's not centuries old. It's based on a painting by John william Waterhouse from the late 1800s or early 1900s.

Take a public domain image, such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La_Belle_Dame_Sans_Merci2.jpg and do the work to turn it into a tapestry. Add the fabric texture, draw the rods, draw the tassels!

Nefertiti Nefarious · February 6, 2012

Madeliefste Oh wrote:

This is an interesting case, seen in copyright light.

The creator of the art work has died more then 75 years ago, so the art work falls into the public domain.

Still this website that Veronika points to claims copyright since 2002. What is this copyright about, when it is not about the art work?

They can claim copyright on their tapestry derivative work, and the photo in the advertisement of their derivative work. That's what ToySoldier infringed on: not the dead painter's copyright, but the companies derivative and the photo of it.

If I were to nab that picture and make and sell a tapestry, Toysoldier would not be able to claim I infringed his copyright: we both used the same source.

******************

Adding ... many of my products are made from photos of old objects. I am very careful to find pictures that are either in the public domain, photos from websites where the photographers premit derivative use, or to get permission from the photographer before I start making chickens or naked Greek women.

Toysoldier Thor · February 7, 2012

Well I guess LL Moderators are allowing witch hunting and accusations of fellow Merchants.

Always thought - and clearly I thought wrong - that forum discussions of a merchant's business was not tolerated. I guess this is not true.

Soooo since LL allows Merchants to discredit each other's business... its time to start doing some of my own investigations. Of course Veronika is not even a merchant just a forum poster that doesnt like to be proven wrong in a forum thread.

As for the others in this trhead... yup.... a pretty sas situation how low ppl stoop in this thread.

And that LL condones this... well they sure as heck better be ready for more of this on the theads. Publicly attacking a merchant's business is OK in the SL threads!

Right on! Like you all said... careful throwing stones... LL allows them to be flung on the forum threads.

Toysoldier Thor · February 7, 2012

Nefertiti Nefarious wrote:

Madeliefste Oh wrote:

This is an interesting case, seen in copyright light.

The creator of the art work has died more then 75 years ago, so the art work falls into the public domain.

Still this website that Veronika points to claims copyright since 2002. What is this copyright about, when it is not about the art work?

They can claim copyright on their tapestry derivative work, and the photo in the advertisement of their derivative work. That's what ToySoldier infringed on: not the dead painter's copyright, but the companies derivative and the photo of it.

If I were to nab that picture and make and sell a tapestry, Toysoldier would not be able to claim I infringed his copyright: we both used the same source.

******************

Adding ... many of my products are made from photos of old objects. I am very careful to find pictures that are either in the public domain, photos from websites where the photographers premit derivative use, or to get permission from the photographer before I start making chickens or naked Greek women.

Since you brought up the added comment Nef and since Veronika has stated that the topic in this thread is to talk about Merchants true rights to copyright on content....

What proof does Veronika have Nef that the pages and pages of all those 1 prim cheapies photos on your MP site ... that you are the copyright owner? Are we all suppose to take your word for it Nef? As Veronika says, you cannot prove the source of where YOU or I got textures to all your random statues and my old tapestries I made back in 2008. Prove to us all an especially Veronika who wants to be 100% sure you are not snagging images off obscure Internet websites, clipping them and slamming the dozens of pages as cheapies on MP for a quick buck.

We are just carrying on Veronika's supposed topic of concern that she wants to get LL to make her feel better that merchants like all those products you post on MP are legal.

As for me.... my old tapestry prims were the first things I ever created back in 2008... even I dont remember the source of them .... and their sales (except over the past couple days) have almsot no sales nor long since not my business in SL... I only kept them there for nostalgia. Not worth keeping them up for the few lindens they make to allowed all your witch hunts and that LL allows on the forums.

Madeliefste Oh · February 7, 2012

Nefertiti Nefarious wrote:

They can claim copyright on their tapestry derivative work, and the photo in the advertisement of their derivative work. That's what ToySoldier infringed on: not the dead painter's copyright, but the companies derivative and the photo of it.

If I were to nab that picture and make and sell a tapestry, Toysoldier would not be able to claim I infringed his copyright: we both used the same source.

******************

Thanks for clearing that up, though it became also clear to me in the comment by Veronika a few posts above.

Nefertiti Nefarious wrote:

Adding ... many of my products are made from photos of old objects. I am very careful to find pictures that are either in the public domain, photos from websites where the photographers premit derivative use, or to get permission from the photographer before I start making chickens or naked Greek women.

I'm also very careful with the use of my source materials. I too use public domain images or copyleft images. I also use photos shot by myself. Or I ask permission, but not always before I start working. Often I'm still too much busy with how I want the design to be, to be sure if I actually want to use a certain image or not. Often it is allowed to use images for own use but not for commercial use. In those cases I take the freedom to play around with this material, sometimes I decide I don't want to use it after all. Sometimes, when it is not too hard to make my own 'look-somewhat-alike' in Photoshop I choose to do that, and sometimes I decide that I really need this particulair texture and then I ask permission for commercial use in SL, before I upload.

I mainly use textures for sculpts or meshes. What has worked fine for me so far is that I take a picture (a render) of my design in the 3D program. When I mail the texture creator or photographer to ask for permission, I include this picture, to show what my intentions are for the use of his work. Some ask for credits, some want a percentage of sales, but sofar nobody has refused

Toysoldier Thor · February 7, 2012

Nef said...

They can claim copyright on their tapestry derivative work, and the photo in the advertisement of their derivative work. That's what ToySoldier infringed on: not the dead painter's copyright, but the companies derivative and the photo of it.

,,,

A TAPESTRY derivative can only be copyright 3D to 3D - not 3d to 2D. i.e. a tapestry is a 3 dimensional object similar to all the statues and every other random object you claim you have taken photos of.

Anyone can take a photo of a actual hanging tapestry or a statue or a tombstone or 3d artpeice and use the resulting photo of the hanging Tapestry or 3D object free of any copyright claims.

I was not selling a competing 3D RL hanging tapestry that I hand weaved nor are you selling a mock up of a hand chiselled white lion or the dozens of pages of other images you are selling on MP.

The best legal case example of this is the Charging Bull on Wallstreet when the artist tried to sue two large commercial operations - a retailer and a bank - for copyright infringement by using photos of his raging bull. The courts sided against the artist that copyright is not violated on a 2D capture of a 3D copyrighted object or artwork.

Innula Zenovka · February 7, 2012

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Nef said...

They can

claim copyright on their tapestry derivative work

, and the photo in the advertisement of their derivative work. That's what ToySoldier infringed on: not the dead painter's copyright, but the companies derivative and the photo of it.

,,,

A TAPESTRY derivative can only be copyright 3D to 3D - not 3d to 2D. i.e. a tapestry is a 3 dimensional object similar to all the statues and every other random object you claim you have taken photos of.

Anyone can take a photo of a actual hanging tapestry or a statue or a tombstone or 3d artpeice and use the resulting photo of the hanging Tapestry or 3D object free of any copyright claims.

I was not selling a competing 3D RL hanging tapestry that I hand weaved nor are you selling a mock up of a hand chiselled white lion or the dozens of pages of other images you are selling on MP.

The best legal case example of this is the Charging Bull on Wallstreet when the artist tried to sue two large commercial operations - a retailer and a bank - for copyright infringement by using photos of his raging bull. The courts sided against the artist that copyright is not violated on a 2D capture of a 3D copyrighted object or artwork.

Have you taken competent professional legal advice on this matter, or is this your lay opinion of what you think the relevant case law is, based on your reading?

Toysoldier Thor · February 7, 2012

Made,

Back in 2009 when I got into Sculpties (making and selling 60L cheapies on xstreet was going no where), I decided to initially use and include a few seamless rock texture (5 or 6 diferent tock textures) from a cool texture artist that allows full use of his seamless textures - even without attribution. But I gave the texture artist attribution anyway and even mention his name on the label of my packs where his textures are in the pack.

For my raging rivers sculpty pack with is rough raging rivers, waterfalls, rapids, I decided to take my own photos and make them seamless. They turned out so well that I decided to sell them as actual texture packs. I really loved making seamless textures... and have since made rock, stone, and even snow texture packs to be sold independently and with my packs.

Then in 2010 I got full addicted into creating art.... first manipulations of SL photography and then mixed media manipulation. And if you want to learn about copyright... be digital artist. Not only do you have to worry about the main image - which is mine - but also the copyright rules for the countless enhancement / blending textures and even photoshop brushes. Since I quickly decided that I wanted to sell my art (which only started out as a hobby), I knew I had to find textures from artists that would allow their textures for commercial use - often this is not the case.

So I found another awesome texture artist on Flickr that I contacted and asked if I could use her textures for commercial use. Again, although I was allowed to use her textures without attribution... I so appreciate her works as part of my works that I give credit to all her textures in my art to this day.

In fact, even though LL TOS allows SL photographers to take photos of any SL sim whereby the sim owner has not stated any restrictions on photography of content on the sim, I still give attribution to any sim owners where I took the photo in my artworks. To be sure to protect myself and my art I even take an image snapshot of the sim's covenance on the day I took the photo and keep it just in case the sim owner decides to change his/her terms of photo restrictions.

Finally, since enhancement / blending textures are so important to my artworks, in 2010 I started a serious compaign to take my own high resolution photos (bought a $1500 DSLR with the profits from SL) and have built up a large personal library of my own textures where I am in full control of my copyrights. So I use my own textures wherever possible and the use my other texture artist's work for anything else. It keep my copyright control tight.

My new high rez textures have even had a side benefit as they are starting to sell RL to commercial artists - which was not planned but an amazing bonus. I recently sold one of my seamless snowflake textures for $65US for non-exclusive without attribution for single commercial deriviative.

Forget about understanding copyrights on MP .... try operating on art sites like Deviant Art where everything has to be stated and even attributed ... often with links to the copyright owner.

Now my artworks themselves are moving to RL sales onto canvas.

.... all said... my 3.5 year old cheapies tapestries... for me has long been ancient history. And if they are going to be used as a source for a witch hunt by follow merchants and bitter immature forum posters that dont like being proven wrong.... its not worth keep them for the few hundred Linden they generate a year. Even I dont know where I got the texture way back when and none of you can prove where I got them from either. Just unfounded non provable accusations.

Now.... Veronika and Zanara and Nef.... maybe you should open up a new thread called "MERCHANT WITCH HUNTS" and start digging through each merchant's content... As you all already know - the tapestries I had are used by dozens of merchants for the same reason I used them way back when. Public Domain.

Toysoldier Thor · February 7, 2012

OK if I am wrong on this point.... which I am pretty sure I am not based on the research I did on it... then NEF had better do some MASSIVE deletes of almost all her MP Store.... since you are suggesting that if I am wrong... almost ALL of Nef's photos of the countless other artist's 3D artworks (statues, sculptures, bronzes, building architectures, etc.) are in violation of copyright. Those white lions and tombstones and statues and building 3d stoneworks....

OHHHHH Nef...... Start deleting !! You entire MP store will be wiped out if Innula''s fear is correct.

Ohh and Innula.... I sure hope you dont own a camera and used it to take any photos other than of your family and home.... because then you have just been violating copyright for every 3D statue or artwork you took a photo of during your vacation.

uhmmmm... yes I am pretty sure Innula lol.... but please... prove me wrong and then I guess we can start looking combing thru all the content in all the merchant's of MP.

obviously you cant take photos of 3D content that was not released or sold or deemed for public viewing (i.e. breaking in somewhere etc.) and I am sure there are limits exceptions... but generally.

Innula Zenovka · February 7, 2012

The point isn't about taking a photograph of an item. Obviously, you and I can both take photographs of the same object -- the Eiffel Tower, for example -- and sell them. What would be problematic, though, is if you took a photograph of the Eiffel Tower and started selling it, and I copied your photograph -- rather than going to Paris and taking my own -- and started selling that, and pocketing the proceeds, without reference to you.

That certainly wouldn't be legal in the UK, where I live, but it may well be that the law in the USA -- which is the jurisdiction that matters in this context -- is different. I don't know. Being naturally prudent in such matters, I'd want to take professional advice on the question from someone specialising in that area before taking the chance.

But it's a simple enough question -- have you taken competent legal advice on this, or not?

Toysoldier Thor · February 7, 2012

First of all we were talking about a person taking a 2D photo of a 3D structure or artwork. Your first paragraph was not on topic. I wasnt talking a 2D of a 2D - photo of photo.

So...example.. if I went and bought a tapestry and brought it home or I saw a statue of a white marble lion at the front of a neighbours driveway or a statue of a bronzed work in a park.... and I took a photo of it.... no copyright restrictions of my 2D photo of that 3D structure or statue or work.

Yes the UK is a bit more picky about this ruling but I dont live in europe.

Anyway.... this thread has completely come off the OP and its more of a witch hunt of which LL doesnt seem to care. So you all can stay in the thread and maybe you all can attack another poster that enters and disagrees with you. This thread is so far off topic and poisonous.

Enjoy ladies....

Madeliefste Oh · February 7, 2012

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Made,

Forget about understanding copyrights on MP .... try operating on art sites like Deviant Art where everything has to be stated and even attributed ... often with links to the copyright owner.

Why do you advise me to forget about understanding copyrights on the MP? I sell there.

Copyrights are no different on the marketplace then anywhere else. It are your RL rights (or someone elses).

I use Deviant Art as a source sometimes, because indeed, it is easy to approach the copyright owner via DA. But I don't feel like putting my own work there.

And for the rest: it is always risky not to remember where you take something from. Don't expect something to be open source when there is no license attached that grands you all rights.

It is well possible that you think different about IP rights now then 3,5 years ago. We all learn a lot in SL about several things. When your merchandise doesn't fit your standard for proper IP right management anymore, you might better get rid of that stuf.

Innula Zenovka · February 7, 2012

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Yes the UK is a bit more picky about this ruling but I dont live in europe.

And have you taken compent legal advice on the matter from a professional in either the jurisdiction where you do live or (if it's different) the USA? It's a perfectly simple question -- have you or haven't you?

Veronika Garzo · February 7, 2012

This is not an applicable argument to the case in point, as the tapestry in question is not hanging in a public place on permanent display. If it was, it is neither over 75 years in age or copyright free as its creator only registered it in 2002. It's a product on a website photographed by the manufacturer or someone employed by them to create imagery for the purpose of marketing. By his own admission, he cannot even recall the source, indicating clearly that he did not take the photographs himself and that the copyright of the derivitive product and photographic representations are not his own.

Whilst I thank him for the copious volumes of advice he has given to me, to protect myself from the minority of less than scrupulous marketers that sell on SLX, I am not entirely sure it would be wise to heed it, given his complete lack of understanding of how IP is protected or indeed what actually constitutes copyright.

It seems he has now taken down the 19 items in question and that speaks volumes!!!

Zanara Zenovka · February 7, 2012

Veronika Garzo wrote:

It is quite extraordinary how a challenge to bombastic ramblings reduces its author to vitriole and abuse. Generally indicative of a lack of anything of substance to impart!!! Then resorting to repeat the episode in order to hammer home a point that has already been taken apart and shown for the lack of value it contains.

\o/

Nice one Veronica

Someone should make a stamp!

Dartagan Shepherd · February 7, 2012

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Anyway.... this thread has completely come off the OP and its more of a witch hunt of which LL doesnt seem to care. So you all can stay in the thread and maybe you all can attack another poster that enters and disagrees with you. This thread is so far off topic and poisonous.

Enjoy ladies....

When you find one that can fill your behind with buckshot at that distance, in the dark, in bare feet, the best thing to do is propose marriage.

Done that and haven't looked back.

Problem here is that you found 3 and you can only ask once.

Veronika Garzo · February 7, 2012

Ah, a man with insight We have however recently upgraded to AK47's!

TOS on sculptie maps make it impossible to use

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements

Linden Lab

Tilia

Second Life

Connect With Us

Partner With Us