texturing a sculpty

shaun Mosswood · November 24, 2011

Please excuse my ignorance but i have just got myself a sculpty fireplace and i want to texture it.

The normal way seems to produce very odd results -i know im doing this all wrong so can someone please tell me how to apply textures to sculpties.

By the way the sculpty has full perms. Thanks **Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://secondlife.i.lithium.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" border="0" alt=":smileyhappy:" title="Smiley Happy" />

Ceera Murakami · November 24, 2011

Your best bet is to ask the maker of the sculpted shape for guidance. For example, I bought some sculpted bed frames. The maker has specific guidelines for the number of repeats each way needed to make a normal seamless texture look good on the wood frame.

With a fireplace, one difficulty you may have is that a single sculpted prim only has one "surface" for texturing. So if they used a single prim for the brick fireplace and the wood mantle, then the texture has to be designed very specificly to have wood in certain places and brick in others, oriented just the right way. This can be very difficult to guess at.

You could try applying a grid pattern to the sculpt, to see what part of the texture ends up where, and use that as a guide for making a special texture to fit it. I have used that trick before for things like adding carpeted stair treads to a sculpted stairway.

shaun Mosswood · November 24, 2011

thank you for that ill try it see what happens

Nefertiti Nefarious · November 24, 2011

I have a self-instructing tutorial in the skybox on my parcel, with supplies and examples on the walls. Take the link from any of my Marketplace listings, or look me up in world and see my picks.

The TP pad is between the stargate and one of the shop pavilions (across from the one with textures).

Kwakkelde Kwak · November 24, 2011

In some cases there's an easier way to texture a sculpted item. If there are no angled or curved faces and you want one fabric for the entire object, simply set the mapping to planar. As I said it only works on a limited number of objects, but you can use a very small texture without parts of it being stretched.

Josh Susanto · November 24, 2011

Or you could just get a suitable picture of a fireplace from Google images and sculpt it out yourself.

OK, then... who wants a free sculpted photosource fireplace?

Any takers at all and I'll start making a few.

Chosen Few · November 24, 2011

Josh Susanto wrote:

Or you could just get a suitable picture of a fireplace from Google images and sculpt it out yourself.

OK, then... who wants a free sculpted photosource fireplace?

Any takers at all and I'll start making a few.

Will you have license to use the photos from which you'll be sourcing the textures?

Chosen Few · November 24, 2011

shaun Mosswood wrote:

Please excuse my ignorance but i have just got myself a sculpty fireplace and i want to texture it.

The normal way seems to produce very odd results -i know im doing this all wrong so can someone please tell me how to apply textures to sculpties.

By the way the sculpty has full perms. Thanks **Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://secondlife.i.lithium.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" border="0" alt=":smileyhappy:" title="Smiley Happy" />

In addition to the other suggestions already posed, it's often a good idea to apply a test pattern to a sculpty, so you can easily see which parts of the surface corrsepond with which parts of the texture canvas. Here is a freebie I made a while back. Feel free to use it:

Each small block corresponds with a 0.01 offset increment in the in-world editor.

Josh Susanto · November 25, 2011

>Will you have license to use the photos from which you'll be sourcing the textures?

I won't use anything that has a copyright notice, watermark, or other indicator to refrain from use.

In addition to that, I will edit the image, adding value to it, and I will distribute the image data at no charge.

Any charge will be just for the sculpt data to which the image is incidentally connected.

Chosen Few · November 25, 2011

Josh Susanto wrote:

I won't use anything that has a copyright notice, watermark, or other indicator to refrain from use.

That's not how it works, Josh. All copyrighted works are equally protected, whether or not there's a copyright notice attached, and every original work is copyrighted, as soon as it is created. So, unless you've obtained specific permission from the creator/owner of a photo, you can't use the image.

There are no gray areas on this. The "indicator to refrain from use" is the fact that the rightful owner has not told you that you may proceed. In the absence of an explicit yes, the answer is no, always. Any and every piece of IP that you do not own is off limits by default, until and unless you've been given permission by the owner. If you don't have permission, you don't have permission, period.

If you don't believe me on this, I invite you to ask any IP lawyer in the civilized world. They'll tell you the same thing.

Josh Susanto wrote:

In addition to that, I will edit the image, adding value to it

This notion of yours that editing someone else's work somehow adds value to it is obviously a matter of opinion. I'm fairly certain that if you were to ask most of the rightful owners whose work you've stolen whether they feel you've added value via your piracy, the answer would be a resounding no.

But either way, the addition or subtraction of value is totally irrelevant if you don't have permission to do anything at all with the work in the first place. It's simply not for you to decide what might or might not add value, unless you're the owner of the work.

My mother happens to be an award winning professional photographer, Josh. The day someone starts messing with my mom's livelihood by using her photos without permission... well, let's just say it's not going to end well for that person.

Josh Susanto wrote:

and I will distribute the image data at no charge.

Charging or not charging is totally irrelevant to the fact of whether or not you have permission to use the work in the first place. Distributing unauthorized copies of someone else's work is illegal in itself, whether you charge money or not. If you were to charge, then you'd simply be adding a second offense on top of the first one.

Again, if you don't believe me on this, I encourage you to consult an attorney. He or she will verify eveyrthing I've said here.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Any charge will be just for the sculpt data to which the image is incidentally connected.

This is just plain laughable. You really expect anyone to swallow that? You can't truthfully claim you're only charging for one component of a work, while including another component for free. There's no such thing as "incidentally connected".

You really think if I were to start selling "comic-sized booklets with Spider-Man pictures and stories just incidentally included on the pages" Marvel wouldn't have my ass in a sling? Or how about if I start selling "rewritable DVD's with Spider-Man movies just incidentally included", you really think that would be OK? Come on, man. Surely you know better than that.

If you truly feel the texture is only incidental to the model, then you shouldn't need the photo in the first place. After all, if it's incidental, it doesn't matter what it is, right? Therefore, you should have no problem substituting an image of your own instead of one that belongs to someone else.

If you want to photosource all your textures, that's fine; just do it legally. Either take the pictures yourself with your own camera, or use pictures to which you've obtained license.

Many popular stock photography sites have prices around a dollar per image, or even less. There are plenty of free ones out there as well. Just make sure you read the licenses for each, because not all allow for unlimited reproduction.

Respect creators' rights, Josh. Don't use any work that don't belong to you, unless you have written permission from the owner.

Josh Susanto · November 25, 2011

Like the court system, itself, I respect the right of people to claim damages if they can show any timely action to protect their work from use without explicit permission. If they don't want images used, they don't have to distribute them without any deterrents to use. It's the same reason that MLK Jr's lawyer stayed up all night hand-writing copyright notices on all printed copies of the "I have a dream" speech.

Above and beyond that, I will comply with any and all efforts to remove anything that anyone can plausibly show harms their own legitimate interests.

So far that has never happened, and I'm confident that it will not happen.

OTOH, if you can find the original image for anything I've used which is not authorized for open use, I'll certainly consider your reasons for asking me to stop using the derivative image on behalf of the 3rd party.

Moreover, I will take any complaint very seriously, which is all Linden Labs does.

Drongle McMahon · November 25, 2011

"MLK Jr's lawyer stayed up all night hand-writing copyright notices on all printed copies of the "I have a dream" speech"

I think that is irrelevant because it was before the USA became a signatory of the Berne Convention in 1998. Before that, copyright had to be explicitly claimed.

Da5id Weatherwax · November 25, 2011

Drongle McMahon wrote:

"MLK Jr's lawyer stayed up all night hand-writing copyright notices on all printed copies of the "I have a dream" speech"

I think that is irrelevant because it was before the USA became a signatory of the Berne Convention in 1998. Before that, copyright had to be explicitly claimed.

IANAL but that is my understanding too: Explicit action to protect your copyright is not required to either retain your copright or to sue for infringement if you discover it at some later date. Under the Berne convention there is no requirement for registration, copyright notice or any other action for you to have full copyright protection for your own creative works.

For the purposes of sourcing from anyone elses creative works, therefore, the above-mentioned logic should be reversed. If there isn't an explicit statement that you CAN use it, you can't unless you get the explicit permission of the copyright owner. Even editing the image to create the texture only makes the texture a "derivative work" of the original which can infringe as easily as a direct copy.

Trademarks on the other hand DO require you to act to protect them if you want to retain their protection under law. Trademark protection is "use it or lose it", copyright protection isn't. That's why businesses are so hair-triggered about going after trademark infringement - they have to or the mark loses it's value.

shaun Mosswood · November 25, 2011

Wowww lots of great advice, thanks to all who helped, much appreciated

Josh Susanto · November 25, 2011

1) I'm not in the U.S., and I have been known to use pictures on servers also outside the U.S. Can you spot which are which?

2) I understand that I nonetheless expose myself to legal action if anyone should decide to take it. But people can also file suit against me for using images which they have explicitly allowed me to use. The case just won't get very far; maybe about as far as what I'd expect with the images I actually use.

In an example like a massively edited image of a rock wall in Machu Picchu, by the time I'm done with it, the photographer may as well skip over the question of whether I used his/her picture and go to straight up claiming to have build the g##d### wall with his/her own hands.

I get my starter images from a service that repeatedly pops up and is repeatedly shut down. Since they're already paying the price for making the images available to me, it would be redundant for me also to pay.

I know this is a bit cynical, sure. But my own policy is essentially parallel to LL's policy; I act on complaints.

So far, no complaints. And it's been a while.

If it will please you, though.... send me an authorized texture you want sculpted out to a fireplace, and I'll use that.

OK?

Chosen Few · November 25, 2011

Josh, you appear to be making up excuses to feel good about having done wrong. Your various misinterpretations of the law, however, do not justify your actions. Let's take this one point at a time.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Like the court system, itself, I respect the right of people to claim damages if they can show any timely action to protect their work from use without explicit permission.

That's not how the court system works, and it's not how copyright law works. There's no requirement whatsoever to "show timely action to protect a work from use without explicit permission". Every original work is so protected, from the moment it is first created.

Again, if you doubt that, please consult an attorney. He or she will verify it for you.

Josh Susanto wrote:

If they don't want images used, they don't have to distribute them without any deterrents to use.

The deterrent to use is the law itself. Every work is automatically protected. Creators do not to do anything extra to make it so. Copyright is an inherent property of every single original work.

If you want to use someone else's property, you must first obtain permission.

Josh Susanto wrote:

It's the same reason that MLK Jr's lawyer stayed up all night hand-writing copyright notices on all printed copies of the "I have a dream" speech.

As others have stated, the laws were different in 1963, when that speech was written. The Copyright Act of 1976 (Title 17 of US Code) removed the burden of notice from creators. Works created prior to 1976 are subject to the older laws, and so do need copyright notices attached to them, but newer works do not.

However, even for older works, you still can't copy them unless you have permission from the owner, regardless of whether or not the copyright notice is there. You don't get free license to take someone else's property just because a label might be missing.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Above and beyond that, I will comply with any and all efforts to remove anything that anyone can plausibly show harms their own legitimate interests.

So what you're saying is you'd rather beg forgiveness than ask permission. What a frighteningly self-serving attitude you seem to have.

Just who decides what's "plausible" and what's "legitimate", Josh, you?

Look, it's not about whether you or anyone else might think it's an owner's argument is plausible, and neither is it about whether or not you or anyone else might think an owner's interests are legitimate. It's about the fact that it belongs to them, and not you. It's for them to decide what happens to it, for any reason, or for no reason. You can't just take it.

Do the right thing, Josh. Stop using other people's works until and unless you've obtained permission.

Josh Susanto wrote:

So far that has never happened, and I'm confident that it will not happen.

Whether it does or it doesn't is irrelevant to the fact that you shouldn't be using anything that isn't yours in the first place. Just because you might not get caught doesn't make it OK.

Josh Susanto wrote:

OTOH, if you can find the original image for anything I've used which is not authorized for open use, I'll certainly consider your reasons for asking me to stop using the derivative image on behalf of the 3rd party.

It's not my job to track down the origin of images you've stolen. It's YOUR job not to steal in the first place. If you don't have permission, don't do it. Don't take what doesn't belong to you, ever. It's that simple.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Moreover, I will take any complaint very seriously, which is all Linden Labs does.

No, Linden Lab does something crucially important, which you have not done, which is they abstain from taking other people's IP without permission. You, in stark contrast, seem to think you have free reign just to take whatever you want, without any regard whatsoever for the real person who created each item you steal. That's an absolutely disgusting attitude, Josh.

Further, LL's role is not the same as yours with respect to this specific situation. They are the service provider, not the content creator. Their job is to respond to complaints within the context of their service. YOUR job is not to do anything that might be worthy of complaint in the first place.

Josh Susanto wrote:

1) I'm not in the U.S.,

The fact that you're not in the US is irrelevant for two reasons:

First, your country is most likely a contracting party of The Berne Convention, and a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Of the 195 internationally recognized countries on this planet, 164 are Berne contracting parties, and 184 are WIPO members. So, the chance that your particular country might not be a participant in either or both is extremely slim. If you'd like to check, the complete listing of Berne contracting parties is at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 , and the complete listing of WIPO member nations is at http://www.wipo.int/members/en/

Assuming your country is indeed a participant, then it has to uphold certain minimum standards for copyright. One provision of Berne, for example, is that no participating nation may require formal registration in order for a work to be copyrighted. Works are automatically protected within all participating nations, regardless of any work's country of origin.

Second, when you signed up for SL, you agreed to abide by the laws of the State of California, without regard to any conflict of law. That means you are bound to follow US copyright law whenever you're using SL, even if your own country is not a Berne/WIPO participant.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I have been known to use pictures on servers also outside the U.S.

The physical location of servers is completely irrelevant. Once again, you're speaking as if data and IP are the same thing. And once again, I have to emphatically repeat that they are not. The physical location in which a piece of data might be stored has nothing to do with the state of the IP the data describes.

As I've said to you before, IP has no physical location, which is why it's called intellectual property, rather than just property. If I take a work that I own here in the US, and bring it to Australia or some place, that doesn't mean I no longer own it. It's still mine, no matter where it is.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Can you spot which are which?

No, but I don't have to. If it's not your work, don't use it. This is not a difficult concept, Josh.

Josh Susanto wrote:

2) I understand that I nonetheless expose myself to legal action if anyone should decide to take it.

Yes, but more fundamentally than whether or not you might get in trouble is the fact that you simply do not have the right to take someone else's property without permission. The possibility that you might get caught is not what makes it wrong. It's wrong because it doesn't belong to you, whether you get away with it or not.

A kindergartener knows not to take what doesn't belong to him or her. Why don't you?

Josh Susanto wrote:

But people can also file suit against me for using images which they have explicitly allowed me to use. The case just won't get very far; maybe about as far as what I'd expect with the images I actually use.

Are you really trying to say that just because you could conceivably get falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit, the crimes you have actually have committed are somehow OK? How in the world doe that possibly make sense?

Again, Josh, it's not about whether you get in trouble or not. It's about respecting the rights of others, about not being a selfish **bleep**, about knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Josh Susanto wrote:

In an example like a massively edited image of a rock wall in Machu Picchu, by the time I'm done with it, the photographer may as well skip over the question of whether I used his/her picture and go to straight up claiming to have build the g##d### wall with his/her own hands.

Once again, irrelevant. While you're of course free to create any representation of an Incan wall that you want, since there's no copyright on that, you can't incorporate someone else's photo into your own work in order to do it. Use your own photo, or use one to which you have license. Don't use anyone else's without permission.

If you're really as good at image manipulation as you seem to be implying here, why not just make your own rock wall texture, from scratch, and avoid the whole problem in the first place? That's certainly what I would do.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I get my starter images from a service that repeatedly pops up and is repeatedly shut down. Since they're already paying the price for making the images available to me, it would be redundant for me also to pay.

Josh, your capacity for inventing self-serving leaps around simple logic is truly astounding. You're saying that because a service provider may have paid for the right to put certain images on their own service, that somehow means you don't have to pay if you want to copy those images and use them somewhere else? You really think that makes sense?

By your reasoning (or lack thereof), I shouldn't have to pay for the groceries I bought yesterday, since the grocer already paid to buy them from the distributor. Woohoo, we all get to shop for free, courtesy of King Josh. Yeah, right.

In any case, where's this notion of "they're already paying the price" even coming from? The service you've repeatedly stated you use is Ramdomaginator, which is nothing more than a scripted means of piggybacking onto existing search engines like Google Images, to spit out random results. I highly doubt the operators of Randomaginator are paying anyone in order to do that.

But again, even if they were somehow paying someone, it wouldn't make any difference to what YOU are or are not allowed to do with the images you find. If you want to use it, YOU need permission from the owner. A search engine can't grant that to you. Only the owner can.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I know this is a bit cynical, sure. But my own policy is essentially parallel to LL's policy; I act on complaints.

No, it's not cynical. It's painfully ignorant at best, and pretentiously self-serving a worst.

If you really think it's OK to take someone else's property as long as they don't find out about it, then I weep for your soul.

Josh Susanto wrote:

So far, no complaints. And it's been a while.

Again, the fact that you might be getting away with it for the moment doesn't mean you're actually allowed to do it. You don't get to just make up your own laws as you go along, Josh.

If someone sneaks into your house in the middle of the night night, hog-ties you, blindfolds you, and beats you senseless, before taking everything you own, would it just make it all OK if the person never gets caught? Are you any less a victim just because you never got to see the perpetrator punished?

When you steal someone else's IP, you are victimizing them, whether they catch you in the act or not. It's simply not your right to take anything that doesn't belong to you. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Josh Susanto wrote:

If it will please you, though.... send me an

authorized

texture you want sculpted out to a fireplace, and I'll use that.

Why would any of us do that? The onus is on you to make sure your work is legitimate. I'm not here to supply you with textures. Either make your own, or legally obtain them from a legitimate source.

For my part, if I want a sculpted fireplace, I'll make it myself. I'm pretty sure the same would be true of everyone who's been involved in this conversation so far. This is the building forum, after all, where people go to learn and/or teach how to make stuff. It's not where people go to look for things made by other people.

Josh Susanto wrote:

OK?

Not even close. The only thing you can do to make this right, Josh, is to immediately take down every single image that doesn't belong to you, and pledge to never do it again. Until and unless you do that, you remain nothing more than a pirate, an IP thief, a false excuse for an artist, a selfish exploiter of other people's talents.

If that sounds harsh, it should. If anything, it's under-stated. What you've done is serious, and you need to recognize it as such. That you don't yet seem to understand this is the only reason I'm even still speaking to you, as I have no tolerance whatsoever for deliberate and decided piracy. You seem to be more confused than deliberate, so I'm trying my best to contain the things I'd otherwise have to say. I'd like to think you can learn from this, and end up doing better. I hope you'll step up to prove me right on that.

Josh Susanto · November 26, 2011

>Josh, you appear to be making up excuses to feel good about having done wrong.

Now I think I might be even more confused. Are you concerned about what the law says about my feelings?

>Every original work is so protected, from the moment it is first created.

In principle, I understand that this is correct. OTOH, if multiple images can't be reliably distingusihed by the people who independently produced them (for example), such as 1000 pictures of an egyptian pyramid all taken from the same position on different dates by different people, the photographers are essentially taking credit for the existence of the pyramid, itself, by trying to assert copyright over their work as "original".

I think I'm pretty clear on the fact that the law conspicuously does not treat this problem, and thus also provides a slippery slope that could be used to prevent practically anyone from using practically any photo taken in a public place, even if they have produced it themselves.

>The deterrent to use is the law itself.

The threat of enforcement is the deterrent.

>Every work is automatically protected.

Or, every work is automatically open to protection.

>Creators do not to do anything extra to make it so.

There is no obligation to do so. But total failure to do so for works intentionally made globally available is an invitation to their use in any place where such law might not apply.

>Copyright is an inherent property of every single original work.

Yes. If I write a one-word poem consisting of a word that has never existed before, it is automatically under my copyright. So if I just publish millions of such one-word poems, someone will eventually use one of them in some other text by means of typographic error, and that text will infringe my copyright; thus making me a "victim".

>If you want to use someone else's property, you must first obtain permission.

Not "must"; "should". To say that we all must die is not the same thing as to say that we all should die.

>However, even for older works, you still can't copy them unless you have permission from the owner, regardless of whether or not the copyright notice is there.

Which is a perfect example of ex post facto legislation; technically unconsititutional in the U.S.

>You don't get free license to take someone else's property just because a label might be missing.

One gets to if one gets to. To put it more cynically, it's effectively legal if nothing will be done about it.

>So what you're saying is you'd rather beg forgiveness than ask permission.

I prefer to say that I will compensate people for any harm that I may do or cause to be done to them. Getting explicit permission from thousands of people who don't even care to put up copyright notices would make my work cost-prohibitive in terms of time. Moreover, whenever I have asked for explicit permission, it has been granted, eagerly.

>What a frighteningly self-serving attitude you seem to have.

Thanks for noticing. I've been this way basically since I realized who else has been looking out for my interests all these years, and how. Maybe if industry and government would set better examples for me, I would try harder to follow them. In the meantime, criticizing me for my current work is like giving a speeding ticket like the slowest driver at the Indy 500.

In cases where I have been provided explicit permission, I have taken efforts (also with permission) to put data into the products that will direct buyers to see the original data and products pertaining to it. I want everyone to win. That doesn't mean my work is necessarily 100% compliant to every possible legal consideration in every example, but I do take exception to the suggestion that I would make the stuff I make if I that, by making it, I were interfering with someone's opportunity to accomplish something.

>Just who decides what's "plausible" and what's "legitimate", Josh, you?

I simply meant to understate my own propensity to try to help people. Sorry.

>Look, it's not about whether you or anyone else might think it's an owner's argument is plausible, and neither is it about whether or not you or anyone else might think an owner's interests are legitimate. It's about the fact that it belongs to them, and not you. It's for them to decide what happens to it, for any reason, or for no reason. You can't just take it.

I understand that it may seem like it's just that simple. But is just isn't.

Can you tell me from what national flag the below image is derived?

>Do the right thing, Josh.

Doing the right thing means taking reasonable precautions and necessary risks.

This additional income stream, however small, is my only known chance at this point of eventually getting out of debt, ever.

I am aware that there are people in the world who would begrudge me the use an unrecognizable image for a product they would never have produced which does not compete with their products, and who would make a point of never mentioning this until after the fact. I am also aware that the law sometimes enables such people. I get it. I may have to deal with one of them eventually. I may also have to deal with one or more people who have nothing in the way of law behind them when they decide to mess with me for some other reason. I've had plenty of other kinds of hassles and I have dealt with them. When approached, I am really very cooperative.

>Stop using other people's works until and unless you've obtained permission.

I will continue to consider your advice. But, from a practical standpoint, I just don't see how there's really anything in it for me, or even for the people producing the images.

>Whether it does or it doesn't is irrelevant to the fact that you shouldn't be using anything that isn't yours in the first place. Just because you might not get caught doesn't make it OK.

If I start criticizing people for things they shouldn't do in principle, but which, as yet, have no practical consequences, I won't even have time to make any new stuff. It doesn't have to be OK. It has to be a good bet that anything I have to pay out to anyone who complains will add up to less than what I earn by keeping the wheels of the assembly line rolling.

>It's not my job to track down the origin of images you've stolen.

If you do not have a specific accusation to make, why are you bothering to accuse me at all?

>It's YOUR job not to steal in the first place.

No one is paying me to proactively police copyrights for people who don't post copyright notices.

>If you don't have permission, don't do it. Don't take what doesn't belong to you, ever. It's that simple.

I don't necessarily assert my own copyright over the images I derive. If anyone wants to come forward and claim copyright over them as derivative works, I'll be very receptive to this with very few exceptions. If they also want the less than 8000 Linden dollars of revenue consequent to use of the derivative image, I expect I can also give them that. And more.

>No, Linden Lab does something crucially important, which you have not done, which is they abstain from taking other people's IP without permission.

Yes and no. Maybe I could just set up some kind of image archive where I use images provided to me by other people while they agree to retain the copyrights. LL finds that to be convenient, so I suppose I would also find that to be convenient.

>You, in stark contrast, seem to think you have free reign just to take whatever you want, without any regard whatsoever for the real person who created each item you steal.

Not just anything. Not even close. And I care about the people who produce the images every bit as much as they care about the possible utility of a posted copyright notice. And more. Much more. People who ask for my help with almost anything usually get it.

>That's an absolutely disgusting attitude, Josh.

What we do is not justifiable by what's been done to us, of course. But I wasn't born with this attitude, either. I had help developing it. Lots of help. Some of it from LL.

>Further, LL's role is not the same as yours with respect to this specific situation. They are the service provider, not the content creator. Their job is to respond to complaints within the context of their service. YOUR job is not to do anything that might be worthy of complaint in the first place.

I am not an LL employee, and there have been no complaints.

Again, if you have a specific accusation, please feel free to make it here.

Josh Susanto · November 26, 2011

(continued)

First I'll try to load, again, the image I don't see loaded above. You can tell me upon whom it infriges:

>The fact that you're not in the US is irrelevant for two reasons:

>First, your country is most likely a contracting party of The Berne Convention, and a member of the World Intellectual >Property Organization (WIPO). Of the 195 internationally recognized countries on this planet, 164 are Berne contracting parties, and 184 are WIPO members. So, the chance that your particular country might not be a participant in either or both is extremely slim. If you'd like to check, the complete listing of Berne contracting parties is at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 , and the complete listing of WIPO member nations is at http://www.wipo.int/members/en/

That's nice. I live in a country where I can walk about 2 blocks away from the Justice Ministry and, for about $5 US, but a DVD of a US TV show that hasn't even aired yet. This is called "deviant globalization". If my fellow Americans and other people in the Global North don't want me to participate in it, maybe they shouldn't have constructively deported me to the Global South.

>Assuming your country is indeed a participant, then it has to uphold certain minimum standards for copyright. One provision of Berne, for example, is that no participating nation may require formal registration in order for a work to be copyrighted. Works are automatically protected within all participating nations, regardless of any work's country of origin.

They uphold either nothing or close to nothing, apparently.

>Second, when you signed up for SL, you agreed to abide by the laws of the State of California, without regard to any conflict of law. That means you are bound to follow US copyright law whenever you're using SL, even if your own country is not a Berne/WIPO participant.

That does give me something to consider. But, at this rate, if I eventually get extradited to the US, it will more likely be for defaulting on student loans. Meanwhile, all I have for anyone to seize in the US would pretty much be in my Second Life account.

>The physical location of servers is completely irrelevant. Once again, you're speaking as if data and IP are the same thing. And once again, I have to emphatically repeat that they are not. The physical location in which a piece of data might be stored has nothing to do with the state of the IP the data describes.

If LL does not hold the copyright, then they assume the copyright is held elswhere. What if it isn't?

>Can you spot which are which?

>No, but I don't have to. If it's not your work, don't use it. This is not a difficult concept, Josh.

I use my own work, but do not assert copyright over it. If someone wants to claim that it's subject to their copyright due to its derivative nature, I'm all ears. Have you spotted anything that I've derived from your work?

>Yes, but more fundamentally than whether or not you might get in trouble is the fact that you simply do not have the right to take someone else's property without permission. The possibility that you might get caught is not what makes it wrong. It's wrong because it doesn't belong to you, whether you get away with it or not.

That's not the current standard applied by US industry and government. The current standard is tha it's wrong if you get caught. And maybe not even then.

>A kindergartener knows not to take what doesn't belong to him or her. Why don't you?

"Attractive nuisance". Music that is broadcast into the air via radio, I also consider to be fair game for recording out of the air, itself, if it is audible in public space. And I'm trained as a composer.

>Are you really trying to say that just because you could conceivably get falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit, the crimes you have actually have committed are somehow OK? How in the world doe that possibly make sense?

I'm saying that the process from my end might not be appreciably dissimilar. I would either have the resources to efficiently defend myself or I wouldn't.

>Again, Josh, it's not about whether you get in trouble or not. It's about respecting the rights of others, about not being a selfish **bleep**, about knowing the difference between right and wrong.

This seems to be more of a moral argument than a legal argument. You seem to be confused about this, too.

>Once again, irrelevant. While you're of course free to create any representation of an Incan wall that you want, since there's no copyright on that, you can't incorporate someone else's photo into your own work in order to do it. Use your own photo, or use one to which you have license. Don't use anyone else's without permission.

You haven't really provided me with a compelling incentive to refrain from doing so. Not yet. An actual copyright notice would be plenty, but I guess that's just too much extra effort for someone who has hiked up the Andes to take the same picture that thousands of other people have already taken.

>If you're really as good at image manipulation as you seem to be implying here, why not just make your own rock wall texture, from scratch, and avoid the whole problem in the first place? That's certainly what I would do.

I'm getting there, and I'd actually prefer that. Of course, I'd have to do it with pirated Photoshop on what I understand is probably a pirated operating system on a computer of spurious production origins; all completely normal in the country.

>Josh, your capacity for inventing self-serving leaps around simple logic is truly astounding. You're saying that because a service provider may have paid for the right to put certain images on their own service, that somehow means you don't have to pay if you want to copy those images and use them somewhere else? You really think that makes sense?

The principle is double indemnity. If someone else is already paying for what is determined to be an abuse, it's redundant for me to also pay for the same abuse.

>By your reasoning (or lack thereof), I shouldn't have to pay for the groceries I bought yesterday, since the grocer already paid to buy them from the distributor. Woohoo, we all get to shop for free, courtesy of King Josh. Yeah, right.

I'm saying that if the grocer steals some percentage of his stock and then offers everything to you for free, indiscriminately in exchange for the opportunity to advertise something to you, it's between him and some 3rd party.

>In any case, where's this notion of "they're already paying the price" even coming from? The service you've repeatedly stated you use is Ramdomaginator, which is nothing more than a scripted means of piggybacking onto existing search engines like Google Images, to spit out random results. I highly doubt the operators of Randomaginator are paying anyone in order to do that.

I'm not going to reveal everything that I use or how I use it. Randimaginator is one of the things I have used. They are one of several things that gets repeatedly disabled and then appears elsewhere, functional again. Just one.

>But again, even if they were somehow paying someone, it wouldn't make any difference to what YOU are or are not allowed to do with the images you find. If you want to use it, YOU need permission from the owner. A search engine can't grant that to you. Only the owner can.

SL also lets me load out images that may or may not be pirated, and SL makes money by creating a larger online medium that includes this un-explicit option.

>No, it's not cynical. It's painfully ignorant at best, and pretentiously self-serving a worst.

Probably the second.

>If you really think it's OK to take someone else's property as long as they don't find out about it, then I weep for your soul.

I'm saying that when you rely on such an impotent law to protect copyright when there is an easy option that is better, you're inviting 6 billion people to consider using your image first and wait for questions to be asked later. Surf without shark repellant if you like, but don't blame the sharks.

>Again, the fact that you might be getting away with it for the moment doesn't mean you're actually allowed to do it. You don't get to just make up your own laws as you go along, Josh.

I don't claim to legislate.

Chosen Few · November 26, 2011

...continued from previous post

Josh Susanto wrote:

I simply meant to understate my own propensity to try to help people. Sorry.

What?! Just who the heck do you believe you are helping by stealing their work? You really think that token gestures toward compliance AFTER you've already stolen someone else's work amount to help? What the hell is wrong with you?

Josh Susanto wrote:

I understand that it may seem like it's just that simple. But is just isn't.

Yes, it absolutely is that simple. If something isn't yours, don't take it.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Can you tell me from what national flag the below image is derived?

A bunch of blank lines of text are not a derivative of any national flag, not by any definition. But even if you had created a derivative of a flag, so what? National flags are common property, and are not copyrightable.

The US has does have a set of regulations called the Flag Code, which restricts what the government can do with the flag, but it has nothing to do with copyright. There are no such regulations at all for private citizens with respect to the flag.

I do not know what analogous flag laws might exist within other countries, but I'm fairly certain none of them have to do with copyright. If you can cite an example of a law which copyrights the flag of any country, I'd love to read it.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Doing the right thing means taking reasonable precautions and necessary risks.

No, doing the right thing in this context means respecting the rights of other content creators. Don't take anything that doesn't belong to you.

Right and wrong isn't about precautions or risks. Right and wrong is about right and wrong.

Josh Susanto wrote:

This additional income stream, however small, is my only known chance at this point of eventually getting out of debt, ever.

That's a heck of a sob story, but it's completely irrelevant. If it's really true that the only way you can get out of debt is by stealing from other people, then the right thing for you to do is to remain in debt. Your problems are your own, no one else's.

But you and I both know, as does everyone else reading this, that there's no way in the world your only option for debt reduction is to steal other people's images and slap them on objects in SL. I don't pretend to know anything about your personal situation, but I do know that no matter who you are, no mater where you are, and no matter the particulars, there's ALWAYS a choice.

If you're bound and determined that SL content creation is the answer for you, then there's absolutely no reason you couldn't spend your time creating wholly original works, without stealing anything from anyone else at all. If nothing else, if you've got the time and resources to create works from stolen photos, then you've obviously got the time and resources to create works from legitimately licensed photos in their stead.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I am aware that there are people in the world who would begrudge me the use an unrecognizable image for a product they would never have produced which does not compete with their products, and who would make a point of never mentioning this until after the fact.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unrecognizable image" in this context. Weren't we talking about photosourced objects and textures?

I also don't understand what you mean by "never mentioning this until after the fact". How exactly is anyone supposed to know what your plans are in advance?

Josh Susanto wrote:

I am also aware that the law sometimes enables such people. I get it.

You really don't seem to get it at all. All appearances are that you think of the law as this annoying periphery thing that occasionally gets in your way. At no time have you even so much as hinted that you recognize it for what it actually is, a system of protections for all of us.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I may have to deal with one of them eventually. I may also have to deal with one or more people who have nothing in the way of law behind them when they decide to mess with me for some other reason. I've had plenty of other kinds of hassles and I have dealt with them.

And once again, you're attempting to deflect the issue, painting yourself as the victim, instead of owning up to the fact that you're the antagonist here. You're the one taking other people's property. You're the one breaking the law. You're the one in the wrong.

If people hassle you about other things, that's unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. You are the one creating a hassle for others when you steal their work.

Josh Susanto wrote:

When approached, I am really very cooperative.

I've approached you right here, and you've been decidedly uncooperative about the whole thing. First you tried to falsely claim the law was on your side. When it was proven that that wasn't the case, you tried to pretend you didn't understand. When you were called out on that, you tried to justify your wrongdoing by blaming your victims instead of taking any responsibility yourself for your wrongdoings. And round and round we keep going.

Josh, if you want to be cooperative, then cooperate right from the start. Until and unless someone expressly tells you it's OK for you to copy their work, they're saying it's not OK. Cooperate with that, always.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I will continue to consider your advice. But, from a practical standpoint, I just don't see how there's really anything in it for me, or even for the people producing the images.

If you can't see that not stealing is inherently the right thing to do, and that there shouldn't need to be anything in it for you beyond that, then I truly feel sorry for you. You also disgust me, if that's indeed the case.

I could list tangible benefits like not risking that you'll be sued, or the fact that by learning to make textures from scratch will give you marketable skills from which you could earn far more money than you could ever make just by selling your "crazy cheap" trinkets in SL, or even the simple satisfaction that comes from knowing you did the work yourself,. But I really shouldn't have to. The fact that stealing is wrong really aught to be enough.

As for what the people producing the images might or might not get out of not having their work stolen, that's none of your business, and it's not for you to even attempt to judge. The rightful owners are the ones who get to determine what's in it for them, not you.

Josh Susanto wrote:

If I start criticizing people for things they shouldn't do in principle, but which, as yet, have no practical consequences, I won't even have time to make any new stuff. It doesn't have to be OK. It has to be a good bet that anything I have to pay out to anyone who complains will add up to less than what I earn by keeping the wheels of the assembly line rolling.

Have you no scruples at all?

Josh Susanto wrote:

If you do not have a specific accusation to make, why are you bothering to accuse me at all?

I didn't accuse you of a thing. You volunteered the information that you take other people's property without permission.

Josh Susanto wrote:

No one is paying me to proactively police copyrights for people who don't post copyright notices.

How many times do we need to go over and over this simple point? The copyright notice is the law itself. Copyright protection is inherent to every original work. The presence or absence of notices is completely irrelevant.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I don't necessarily assert my own copyright over the images I derive.

That's irrelevant. You couldn't do it anyway. Derivative works belong to the original creator.

Josh Susanto wrote:

If anyone wants to come forward and claim copyright over them as derivative works, I'll be very receptive to this with very few exceptions.

They shouldn't have to come forward, because you simply be stealing anyone else's work in the first place. Why are you so afraid to create your own original works?

And what exactly do you mean by "very few exceptions"? There shouldn't be any exceptions at all. If something doesn't belong to you, it's not yours, end of story.

Josh Susanto wrote:

If they also want the less than 8000 Linden dollars of revenue consequent to use of the derivative image, I expect I can also give them that. And more.

I can guarantee you if you ever steal one of my images, or anything else of mine, I'll be coming after you for a hell of a lot more than L$8000.

Why don't you do yourself a favor, and just start buying images instead of stealing them? As I mentioned before, there are many stock photography sites from which you can buy texture-size images for about a dollar or less. If you're really averaging around L$8000 in sales on each of your products, you'd be earning around 30 times the amount you're spending. That's a win-win for everyone. Nobody's work gets stolen, stock photographers make a little money, and you make a bunch of money. I can't think of any reason why anyone in their right mind wouldn't do that.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Yes and no.

There's no "yes and no" about it. Linden Lab doesn't do anything you don't give them permission to do. It's all right there in black and white, as we've already discussed, ad nauseum. When you upload an item, you grant LL certain rights to it. You're the one giving the permission. Until and unless you give it, they won't take it.

That's markedly different from how you've been operating. You've just been taking whatever you want, without regard to permission. And that is wrong.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Maybe I could just set up some kind of image archive where I use images provided to me by other people while they agree to retain the copyrights. LL finds that to be convenient, so I suppose I would also find that to be convenient.

If you think you can make that fly, go for it. Just be aware that you'll need a heck of a lot more legal understanding than you've demonstrated so far in order to pull it off.

I do have to wonder why you keep comparing yourself to LL in this context. Their role in this as service provider is completely different from yours and mine as users.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Not just anything. Not even close. And I care about the people who produce the images every bit as much as they care about the possible utility of a posted copyright notice. And more. Much more. People who ask for my help with almost anything usually get it

Sorry, but I simply do cannot believe you when you say you care about the people whose work you've stolen. If you cared, you wouldn't be stealing.

As for copyright notice, get this through your thick skull already, man: COPYRIGHT NOTICE IS NOT

WHAT PROTECTS THE WORK. The reason copyright holders don't tend to attach notices is not because they don't want their works protected. It's because the notices are completely unnecessary. All original works are protected inherently, as soon as they are created, under the law. The presence or absence of a notice doesn't change that in any way, shape, or form.

Notices haven't been common practice in over 30 years.

Josh Susanto wrote:

What we do is not justifiable by what's been done to us, of course.

No. Just no.

That's all kinds of sick and wrong.

If someone rapes your sister, does that make it justifiable for you to rape everybody else's sister? If someone stabs you, does that mean it's justifiable for you to go around stabbing other people?

What started out in appearance as mere confusion over legalities has now turned sharply toward the sociopathic. Are you truly that incapable of determining right from wrong, or are you just throwing up whatever words pop into your head that you think might somehow fit your argument?

Josh Susanto wrote:

But I wasn't born with this attitude, either. I had help developing it. Lots of help.

We've all had wrong done to us, Josh. That's just part of what it is to be human. Not all of us turn out with such little regard for the rights of others as you apparently have. Seems to me you developed this attitude of yours all on your own.

Once again, I have to repeat, this "woe is me, I'm the victim" stuff is really pathetic. Take responsibility for yourself.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Some of it from LL.

You've repeatedly demonstrated here that you have absolutely no understanding of what LL has or hasn't done to you or for you, with regard to your IP. So how can you expect anyone to believe LL had any hand at all in shaping your attitude? If anything, it was your own misinterpretations of what they do, and what you agreed to, that led to any bitterness you might be feeling toward them. And that's no one's fault but your own.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I am not an LL employee

Of course your not. That was precisely why I said their role is different from yours. So what was your point?

Josh Susanto wrote:

and there have been no complaints

There's certainly one now. I'm making it. You said in no uncertain terms that you routinely take other people's images without permission for your own ends, and I'm telling you that that's illegal and wrong. So far, you've chosen not to respond to my complaint with anything more than excuses and self-justifications, which is really sad.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Again, if you have a specific accusation, please feel free to make it here.

I don't need to make any accusation at all. You've already volunteered the information.

Chosen Few · November 26, 2011

Josh Susanto wrote:

First I'll try to load, again, the image I don't see loaded above. You can tell me upon whom it infriges:

Once again, it's impossible to infringe upon the copyright to an non-copyrightable item such as a national flag.

As to the image you've now posted, it looks to be simply a smattering of digital clouds, nothing more. I'm guessing you took an existing image, and redistributed the colors to the point of unrecognizably, in some kind of bizarre attempt to somehow prove that you can't always be caught for your infringing actions. Well, guess what? If that's what you did in this particular case, it's not infringement. The image isn't a copy of anything, if my assumption was correct. It doesn't matter what it started out as if it's no longer at all recognizable.

That's a far cry from what you offered to do with the fireplace example, though, which is the kind of thing we've been talking about this whole time.

Josh Susanto wrote:

That's nice. I live in a country where I can walk about 2 blocks away from the Justice Ministry and, for about $5 US, but a DVD of a US TV show that hasn't even aired yet.

So there are criminals in your country, and your justice ministry isn't particularly effective. What does that have to do with what YOU choose to do yourself?

Josh Susanto wrote:

This is called "deviant globalization".

Yes, and it's a term meant to describe criminal behavior. Is that really what you want to be associated with?

Josh Susanto wrote:

If my fellow Americans and other people in the Global North don't want me to participate in it, maybe they shouldn't have constructively deported me to the Global South.

There you go again, blaming everybody else for your own actions. Deporting you somehow forces you to go into those stores and buy those pirated DVD's? Sure.

By the way, if I were to play the semantics game that you seem to love so much, I might point out that If you were indeed deported, then you were never a US citizen, which means you don't have "fellow Americans".

Josh Susanto wrote:

They uphold either nothing or close to nothing, apparently.

Sorry to hear that. But what your government does or doesn't choose to uphold has no bearing on what you as an individual choose to do. Nobody's forcing you to be a pirate. You made that choice entirely yourself. You can just as easily choose not to be one.

Josh Susanto wrote:

That does give me something to consider. But, at this rate, if I eventually get extradited to the US, it will more likely be for defaulting on student loans. Meanwhile, all I have for anyone to seize in the US would pretty much be in my Second Life account.

Again, you're focusing on potential consequences instead of on the rights of the people whose work you've stolen. I sincerely hope that one day you grow more of a conscience.

As for your student loans, do you realize that by not paying them back you're not only stealing from the lender who helped you get your education, but also from every other student who will now have a harder time getting a loan because of you? Does that not bother you at all?

Josh Susanto wrote:

If LL does not hold the copyright, then they assume the copyright is held elswhere. What if it isn't?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If there's no copyright, then the whole thing is a non-issue, as anyone can do whatever they want with the work.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I use my own work, but do not assert copyright over it. If someone wants to claim that it's subject to their copyright due to its derivative nature, I'm all ears.

Derivatives are not your own work. By definition, they're the property of the owner of the original.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Have you spotted anything that I've derived from your work?

No, but if I do, you can be sure I'll pursue the matter to the fullest extent of the law.

Josh Susanto wrote:

That's not the current standard applied by US industry and government. The current standard is tha it's wrong if you get caught. And maybe not even then.

I'm sorry for you that you choose see it that way. Governments and industries are made up of people, and people are complicated. Some, like you, believe "wrong" means getting caught. People who are better than that (and there are more of us than you might want to imagine) understand that it's far more fundamental than that. Getting caught has nothing to do with it. Wrong is wrong, whether you get caught or not.

Josh Susanto wrote:

"Attractive nuisance". Music that is broadcast into the air via radio, I also consider to be fair game for recording out of the air, itself, if it is audible in public space. And I'm trained as a composer.

So again, if you want it, you just take it, with no regard for the rights of the real owner.

For what it's worth, I'm a classically trained musician and composer, myself, and so is my younger brother. I chose to go into business after my father died, so that my brother could more easily pursue his dreams. It wasn't until 10 years later that I got the chance to go back to school, and become a professional artist.

My brother's band was signed three years ago. They've toured the world twice, been interviewed on MTV, third album is about to come out, the whole nine yards. Yes, my kid brother is an honest to goodness rock star. But he's flat broke, just like most "successful" musicians these days. It's all they can do to make ends meet, living on Ramen noodles, largely because of people like you, who think it's OK to just take their music without paying for it.

You're not exactly helping your case here, man. I hate music pirates even more than I hate art pirates.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I'm saying that the process from my end might not be appreciably dissimilar. I would either have the resources to efficiently defend myself or I wouldn't.

How is that at all relevant to the fact that you just shouldn't be stealing in the first place?

Josh Susanto wrote:

This seems to be more of a moral argument than a legal argument. You seem to be confused about this, too.

You've been flat out wrong about virtually every legal point you've described, yet I'm the one who's somehow confused? Project much, do ya?

It's both a moral argument and a legal argument. There's no need to draw a distinction between the two when they both say the same thing, which they absolutely do in this case.

Josh Susanto wrote:

You haven't really provided me with a compelling incentive to refrain from doing so. Not yet. An actual copyright notice would be plenty, but I guess that's just too much extra effort for someone who has hiked up the Andes to take the same picture that thousands of other people have already taken.

Why do you keep harping on this copyright notice BS? Notices like that haven't been in common use for over three decades now. The law itself is all the notice you need. Read it.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I'm getting there, and I'd actually prefer that. Of course, I'd have to do it with pirated Photoshop on what I understand is probably a pirated operating system on a computer of spurious production origins; all completely normal in the country.

You'd have to, huh? No other option, right? You'd be shot at sunrise if you used GIMP, and burned at the stake if you used Linux?

If it's truly out of the question in your country to obtain legal copies of free software, and it's absolutely positively the case that they only way to go is to use pirated programs on a pirated OS because you simply have no access whatsoever to anything else, then you can hardly be held accountable for what is beyond your control. What imagery you choose to use IS always within your control, though. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

Josh Susanto wrote:

The principle is double indemnity. If someone else is already paying for what is determined to be an abuse, it's redundant for me to also pay for the same abuse.

No, it's not redundant. You're talking about two separate acts, not just one. You're individually responsible for your own actions, just as the other party is individually responsible for theirs.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I'm saying that if the grocer steals some percentage of his stock and then offers everything to you for free, indiscriminately in exchange for the opportunity to advertise something to you, it's between him and some 3rd party.

No, if you knowingly receive stolen goods, you're guilty of a crime, yourself. It doesn't stop just with the person who stole them.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I'm not going to reveal everything that I use or how I use it. Randimaginator is one of the things I have used. They are one of several things that gets repeatedly disabled and then appears elsewhere, functional again. Just one.

So not only do you routinely steal images from other people, you deliberately use nefarious methods in order to do it. This just gets worse and worse. Whatever respect I might have had for you a few days ago is completely gone now, Josh. I hate to have to say that, but it is what it is.

Josh Susanto wrote:

SL also lets me load out images that may or may not be pirated, and SL makes money by creating a larger online medium that includes this un-explicit option.

If it were technically possible to stop it, they would. But it's not, so they can't. They employ every reasonable means at their disposal to keep their system free of piracy. People like you don't exactly help in that effort.

Your display of hypocrisy here is pretty amazing. You admit that you steal other people's photos, and upload them to SL as textures, and then you have the gall to chastise LL for unknowingly and very indirectly profiting from your actions. Once again, you appear to be trying to skirt responsibility by shifting blame to those around you instead of squarely onto yourself where it belongs.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Probably the second.

All signs are it's quite a bit of both.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I'm saying that when you rely on such an impotent law to protect copyright when there is an easy option that is better, you're inviting 6 billion people to consider using your image first and wait for questions to be asked later.

What's this easy option that is so much better? You really think a notice will stop anyone who wants to steal? If every image in the world had notices attached, I have no doubt you'd be doing the same thing you're doing now. You just wouldn't be able to feign ignorance quite as easily.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I don't claim to legislate.

And again, we have the semantics game. I never said you were actully legislating, and you know it.

What you have been doing throughout almost this entire thread (and others) is making up your own interpretations of the law, which have little if anything to do with what the law actually says, or with any existing case rulings. It's hardly a misuse of wording to refer to that as making up your own laws as you go along.

Jennifer Boyle · November 26, 2011

Chosen Few wrote:

... every original work is copyrighted, as soon as it is created. So, unless you've obtained specific permission from the creator/owner of a photo, you can't use the image.

Wrong. There is a huge amount of material that is in the public domain, notably all US Government publications.

Da5id Weatherwax · November 26, 2011

Jennifer Boyle wrote:

Chosen Few wrote:

... every original work is copyrighted, as soon as it is created. So, unless you've obtained specific permission from the creator/owner of a photo, you can't use the image.

Wrong. There is a huge amount of material that is in the public domain, notably all US Government publications.

Work being placed in the public domain, either by the expiry of its copyright or by the excpicit placing of it in the public domain by the copyright holder IS such specific permissoin.

Josh Susanto · November 26, 2011

(continued)

>If someone sneaks into your house in the middle of the night night, hog-ties you, blindfolds you, and beats you senseless, before taking everything you own, would it just make it all OK if the person never gets caught? Are you any less a victim just because you never got to see the perpetrator punished?

With this kind of analogy, I wonder why you didn't just compare me to Hitler, ordering the death of millions of innocents.

From my end, I don't leave the door unlocked, much less wide open. There's nothing I've done that is analogous to hog-tying anyone, blindoflding them, or beating them. Moreover, if I ask a few people whether I can hogtie them and beat them senseless, I expect them to say no. With the images about which I have bothered to ask, I have only ever heard "yes".

OTOH, I once made a VHS recording of a baseball game without express written consent and tore the tag off of a mattress, so I guess I'm a total badass, huh. It has been rumored that I may have smoked a joint at some point.

In order to avoid a collision, you have to stay with the flow of traffic, even if that may mean exceeding the posted speed limit. You might get a ticket, though.

In my own case, the collision is bankruptcy and the traffic is the global market for skills such as I seem to have. A ticket, eventually, may be one of the basic costs of using the roadway, whether one is actually speeding, or if some cop just has a quota to meet.

>It's simply not your right to take anything that doesn't belong to you. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

What constitutes the content of the image is ambiguous. If you take a photo of the Mona Lisa and I use it without asking you, I consider that I haven't taken anything if your photo is indistinguishable from someone else's, in which case, anyway, you would seem to be infringing on their picture if it's at least as similar to yours as to what I eventually load to SL. Either way, you'd be obliquely assering copyright over the painting itself. I don't see any reason to accommodate that. Stonehenge wasn't built by photographers, either. If you want your photo to become an original work, you can put a copyright notice inside the frame, and it will be an original work. Problem solved.

J>If it will please you, though.... send me an authorized texture you want sculpted out to a fireplace, and I'll use that.

>Why would any of us do that? The onus is on you to make sure your work is legitimate. I'm not here to supply you with textures. Either make your own, or legally obtain them from a legitimate source.

So even if I agree to comply, you're not inetrested? Let me make a not of that. OK. Suppose, then, that I sculpt out a fireplace using an authorized texture, such as one I draw with a black crayon and put onto a scanner... still no interest?

>For my part, if I want a sculpted fireplace, I'll make it myself. I'm pretty sure the same would be true of everyone who's been involved in this conversation so far. This is the building forum, after all, where people go to learn and/or teach how to make stuff. It's not where people go to look for things made by other people.

My sculpt would be full perm. Posting it here would allow people to play with it all they want. Normally, that's how I participate here.

>Not even close. The only thing you can do to make this right, Josh, is to immediately take down every single image that doesn't belong to you, and pledge to never do it again.

Which are they?

>Until and unless you do that, you remain nothing more than a pirate, an IP thief, a false excuse for an artist, a selfish exploiter of other people's talents.

Let me know which they are and how you know they're not authorized, and I'll take them down.

>If that sounds harsh, it should. If anything, it's under-stated. What you've done is serious, and you need to recognize it as such. That you don't yet seem to understand this is the only reason I'm even still speaking to you, as I have no tolerance whatsoever for deliberate and decided piracy. You seem to be more confused than deliberate, so I'm trying my best to contain the things I'd otherwise have to say. I'd like to think you can learn from this, and end up doing better. I hope you'll step up to prove me right on that.

It's not that I don't appreciate what you're saying. I just think you're failing to distinguish between harmful use and innocuous use. There's no zero-tolerance policy for radiation leakage or for practically anything else which is bad in principle. I'm just asking you to understand why no one is bothering to try to get blood from a stone on this issue.

Moreover, if I were empowered to exercise as much intolerance as you seemingly would like to see exercised in my case, I wouldn't have time to do anything else. FEMA would not have an incinerator large enough to process in a single shift the bodies of people who have f###ed with me in ways much more serious than you're concerned with here. I have become a veritable zen master at the art of just letting $hit go, at least in terms of doing or not doing anything. I did not learn this easily, either.

Josh Susanto · November 26, 2011

>Great. Then you should have no problem continuing to ask.

Too many images. Too many languages. Too much waiting.

>I must say, though, I find it hard to believe that everybody you've asked has said yes. You've already stated over and over again that you're not in the habit of asking, so I have to wonder if you've really ever even asked anyone at all. But assuming you have, simple statistics dictate that at least SOME of the owners would have said no, even if the no came in the form of no response. You do realize that if you don't get a response, that's the same thing as a no, right?

I ask if there's a special reason to ask. Although no one yet has, someone might object, sure. People object to all kinds of things. Sometimes they might be right to object. Sometimes, they might object only because they have massive egos and think that they own the rights to the appearance of 1,000 year old stone wall because they're the most recent person to take a picture of it.

>I can't help but suspect it's the other way around, Josh. Most likely, the reason you feel no one is looking out for you is because you are not predisposed toward looking out for others yourself. That's how these things usually tend to go.

You're not a very competent biographer in my case.

>Even if it's true that you don't have another living soul in your corner, that's no excuse for doing wrong, or for becoming a bad person. You are the only one responsible for your own actions.

I have some moral support now. For example, a guy whose textbooks have been pirated and made millions of dollars for other people while he's occasionally had some trouble paying his own bills. I care what he thinks.

>In any case, whether you choose to recognize it or not, I'm looking out for you, as are plenty of other people. I look out for all content creators, and that includes you.

Thanks, but that's pretty pointless. My solution to the threat of copybotting has been to just make copymods. If you want to resell everything I make, the worst I will do is subject you to some kind of ridicule, as I have rather effectively done with others. You're welcome to ridicule me for my own actions if you consider them to be ridiculous. I'm a good sport.

>That's the whole reason I get involved in these copyright discussions in the first place. Do legitimate original work, without stealing from anyone else, and I'll be right there to defend you, just as I'm trying to defend all of your victims right now. And I'm hardly the only one. The world is full of like minded people.

Your world is full of like-minded people. yes. The majority of the world's population that will be living in squatter cities by 2040 thinks differently.

>Again, you are the only one responsible for your actions.

I haven't said that I'm not. I just think that there will always be bigger fish to fry, assuming I qualify for frying in the first place.

>You do yourself, and the rest of us, a tremendous disservice by trying to assign blame elsewhere. No industry and no government put a gun to your head and forced you to steal other people's work. You did that all by yourself.

My situation has been brighter in recent years. But when you're digging through dumpsters at the end of an 80-hour work week and you get a wage garnishment notice, we'll see if it doesn't feel to you like there's a bullet with your name on it. I'm not going back to that if I have a choice. Sorry.

>So, you can drop the "woe is me" act. No one's buying it. You're not the victim in this story. You're the one victimizing others.

I'm not a victim. I'm a survivor. I can't aplogize for that.

>Are you now trying to say that because there are other people in the world who steal, it's somehow OK that you steal, too? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm saying that priorities are way out of whack if you're expecting me to do the work of policing other people's copyrights for them, which, in many cases, are already dubious, themselves.

>That's all well and good, but clearly you don't want EVERYONE to win, or you wouldn't be taking anyone's work without permission. That you might occasionally perform a nice service for one person here or there doesn't make it OK for you to do wrong by any others.

People who want to win either protect their own work or they don't. The in-between stuff is futile, with or without my involvement.

>All human beings do good things, even criminals. But that doesn't excuse those who also do bad things. Al Capone was a noted philanthropist, but that didn't make him any less of a murderer and a thief. James Brown was a positive inspiration to millions, a champion of the civil rights movement, but that didn't excuse him for being a car thief, a drug abuser, a carrier of illegal weapons, and a wife beater. Richard Nixon ended segregation in classrooms, created the EPA, opened relations with China and the USSR, ended the Viet Nam war, and accomplished many other great things during his brief presidency, but none of that made it OK that he was also a liar of epic proportion, an world class abuser of power, and a criminal conspirator. Acts of right do not justify or excuse acts of wrong.

You have a much higher opinion of humanity than I do. If that's consistent with your experience, please allow me to congratulate you.

Josh Susanto wrote:

That doesn't mean my work is necessarily 100% compliant to every possible legal consideration in every example, but I do take exception to the suggestion that I would make the stuff I make if I that, by making it, I were interfering with someone's opportunity to accomplish something.

>You lost me after "take exception". I'm not following your wording.

I'll boil it down. If someone sends me a message indicating that, by using an image they produced, I've specifically reduced their ability to offer a similar product in SL without my competition, THAT would trouble me plenty. If this turned out to be at all easy for me to believe, my response would have to be to turn all the related data over to that person and offer them an additional amount of settlement., agree to post a public apology, and to ask what else they need in order to consider the matter closed. I've got grease waiting for the squeaky wheel.

Increasingly, though, I process images in such a way that even the photographer would not recognize them as the same subject matter. More and more, metal, wood, clay, and other materials become each other. Tops become bottoms. Protrusions become recesses. When I have enough such work to sustain 2% per annum of the principal on my student loans, it's my intention to shut down production and distribution of anything less totally removed from recognition.

>I notice you are at least admitting now that your work is illegal.

I would guess that some of it might potentially be determined to be illegal, somewhere. I'm not certain that any of it would, much less which specific pieces.

>That's some progress for the sake of truth, at least. Before, you seemed to be trying to claim your backward interpretation of the law meant you were in the clear. But this new stance of yours is even worse than the original one. You now seem to be saying that even though you know it's illegal, you're perfectly comfortable doing it anyway. That's deeply disturbing, Josh.

I'm not comfortable with legal ambiguity. I have just learned that it's something I need to embrace if I intend to survive in a world where impeccably clean hands are not an option for people of my social station.

Josh Susanto · November 26, 2011

>What?! Just who the heck do you believe you are helping by stealing their work? You really think that token gestures toward compliance AFTER you've already stolen someone else's work amount to help? What the hell is wrong with you?

I will help people who fail to mention to anyone that they don't want their images used. Yes.

>Yes, it absolutely is that simple. If something isn't yours, don't take it.

It's not a question of whether something is mine. It's a question of whether what I'm doing is taking at all, and whether there is necessarily an owner from whom to take it.

> But even if you had created a derivative of a flag, so what? National flags are common property, and are not copyrightable.

OK. The flag example was a bad example.

Try this one. It's very definitely derivative of a copyrighted image. If you could identify it as anything at all, you'd know exactly what it is. If someone should spot it and figure out how to prove that it is what it is, I'll be in pretty deep $hit. Technically, this is not impossible.

If you don't think this qualifies as derivative work, then I guess we're really not arguing about copyright, itself, but about what criteria are to be applied to determine whether a derivative work infringes copyright. Although, they would like be in greater agreement than you and I seem to be, I'm not certain that any two judges or jurors would agree on an adequate degree of similarity between every possible pair of images. If you believe yourself to be the rightful arbiter of what infringes and what does not, please feel free to give me a list of products with which you believe I have infringed, and an explanation of each instance, and I'll earnestly consider removing them from distribution.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Doing the right thing means taking reasonable precautions and necessary risks.

>No, doing the right thing in this context means respecting the rights of other content creators. Don't take anything that doesn't belong to you.

I respect rights I believe exist in the first place. If the law says they technically may exist, that's an additional thing to consider.

>Right and wrong isn't about precautions or risks. Right and wrong is about right and wrong.

Have you considered quoting the Bible?

Josh Susanto wrote:

This additional income stream, however small, is my only known chance at this point of eventually getting out of debt, ever.

>That's a heck of a sob story, but it's completely irrelevant. If it's really true that the only way you can get out of debt is by stealing from other people, then the right thing for you to do is to remain in debt. Your problems are your own, no one else's.

I was fraudulently induced to incur the debt. But since I don't run a financial corporation subsidized by your tax money, I'm unable to do much about it.

>But you and I both know, as does everyone else reading this, that there's no way in the world your only option for debt reduction is to steal other people's images and slap them on objects in SL.

I'm not in total agreement with the way you use the word "steal" here.

I continue to look for more efficient options, but they're pretty sketchy at this point. If you think there's anything specific for me, I'd be happy to hear it. But options that you may assume exist, in my experience, probably do not.

>I don't pretend to know anything about your personal situation, but I do know that no matter who you are, no mater where you are, and no matter the particulars, there's ALWAYS a choice.

Maybe. But invisible choices are as good as none at all.

>If you're bound and determined that SL content creation is the answer for you, then there's absolutely no reason you couldn't spend your time creating wholly original works, without stealing anything from anyone else at all. If nothing else, if you've got the time and resources to create works from stolen photos, then you've obviously got the time and resources to create works from legitimately licensed photos in their stead.

I have no clear way to make 100% non-derivative work profitable in the foreseaable future. Please don't think I haven't considered the angle, though.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I am aware that there are people in the world who would begrudge me the use an unrecognizable image for a product they would never have produced which does not compete with their products, and who would make a point of never mentioning this until after the fact.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "unrecognizable image" in this context. Weren't we talking about photosourced objects and textures?

I mean, if you show 8 pictures of a cylinder to a photographer and it doesn't at all occur to him that the surface image is a photo he took - that is - if even he does not understand the data as derivative, and has to be told that his copyright has been infringed, then has it? Really?

>I also don't understand what you mean by "never mentioning this until after the fact". How exactly is anyone supposed to know what your plans are in advance?

If you make almost any large image available to Google without connecting it to a copyright notice, it's a statistical given that someone, somewhere in cyberspace will more than likely try to make some use of it, with or without your cooperation. Helping you maintain you denial about that can't possibly be the intended purpose of copyright law.

>You really don't seem to get it at all. All appearances are that you think of the law as this annoying periphery thing that occasionally gets in your way. At no time have you even so much as hinted that you recognize it for what it actually is, a system of protections for all of us.

The law protects the people who pay to have it written. And, incidentally, sometimes, others.

>And once again, you're attempting to deflect the issue, painting yourself as the victim, instead of owning up to the fact that you're the antagonist here. You're the one taking other people's property. You're the one breaking the law. You're the one in the wrong.

We're all victims. Whatever. I choose to use what resources are at my disposal to do better than let myself continue to be victimized when I don't have to.

>If people hassle you about other things, that's unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. You are the one creating a hassle for others when you steal their work.

No one has reported a hassle.

>I've approached you right here, and you've been decidedly uncooperative about the whole thing. First you tried to falsely claim the law was on your side.

If there's a specific item you believe to be illegal, I would be interested to remove that on the basis of your explanation of it. Otherwise, we're talking about a hypothetical scenario in which I should do something, should there be any reason to do it.

>If you can't see that not stealing is inherently the right thing to do, and that there shouldn't need to be anything in it for you beyond that, then I truly feel sorry for you. You also disgust me, if that's indeed the case.

I can't steal what someone doesn't actually own. If someone actually owns something, let me know and I'll make a point of removing it.

>I could list tangible benefits like not risking that you'll be sued, or the fact that by learning to make textures from scratch

With what software? What operating system? What computer? Nothing much of anything in the world would meet your standard of authentic if you really looked at it. Have you ever considered what a US dollar bill really is?

>will give you marketable skills from which you could earn far more money than you could ever make

Unproven. People who make more money than me have access to better resources. That's the pattern.

>just by selling your "crazy cheap" trinkets in SL, or even the simple satisfaction that comes from knowing you did the work yourself,.

I came to build, and discovered that building is basically a racket. I thought I could offer consumers more value per price than a lot of what I was seeing. And I do. That is satisfying. I'm aware that not everyone is happy about this kind of competition.Too bad. They are welcome to push me out of the market if they can really do that much better. Meanwhile, you should know as well as I do that a lot of the system has been compromised by someone with a sense of fairness that should make me look like Solomon. If I'm corrupt at all, SLM as a whole is so corrupt that I wonder why you even care about anything I might be able to do. By chosing to participate in it, you're chosing to support the corruption that infects the SLM on a very fundamental basis.

Josh Susanto wrote:

If I start criticizing people for things they shouldn't do in principle, but which, as yet, have no practical consequences, I won't even have time to make any new stuff. It doesn't have to be OK. It has to be a good bet that anything I have to pay out to anyone who complains will add up to less than what I earn by keeping the wheels of the assembly line rolling.

>Have you no scruples at all?

I have personal limits, as do you. We simply have different limits. Probably because we have different priorities.

Josh Susanto wrote:

If you do not have a specific accusation to make, why are you bothering to accuse me at all?

>I didn't accuse you of a thing. You volunteered the information that you take other people's property without permission.

Which items did I mention?

Josh Susanto wrote:

>No one is paying me to proactively police copyrights for people who don't post copyright notices.

>How many times do we need to go over and over this simple point? The copyright notice is the law itself. Copyright protection is inherent to every original work. The presence or absence of notices is completely irrelevant.

Then why include them at all?

Josh Susanto wrote:

I don't necessarily assert my own copyright over the images I derive.

>That's irrelevant. You couldn't do it anyway. Derivative works belong to the original creator.

It's not irrelevant. My own claim to copyright does not conflict with a prior claim to copyright, because I make no such claim.

Josh Susanto wrote:

If anyone wants to come forward and claim copyright over them as derivative works, I'll be very receptive to this with very few exceptions.

>They shouldn't have to come forward, because you simply be stealing anyone else's work in the first place. Why are you so afraid to create your own original works?

I don't have the resources to do much of that. And the main selling point for my products seems to be a realstic relationship between shape and texture. I do try to sculpt out images that people send to me, but most people seem to have no idea how to select such an image, even if I am going to further edit it, and they have very unrealistic ideas about what to expect for a result.

>And what exactly do you mean by "very few exceptions"? There shouldn't be any exceptions at all. If something doesn't belong to you, it's not yours, end of story.

An exception might be that, for example, there are 3 or more photos of the same wall on the internet and the one that I actually used is not the one that the accuser assumes that I used. Since no one has made any accusation about any specific item yet, I don't know that such a thing would ever happen, but I would be wrong not to acknowledge this as a possible exception.

>I can guarantee you if you ever steal one of my images, or anything else of mine, I'll be coming after you for a hell of a lot more than L$8000.

OK. Thanks for telling me.

>Why don't you do yourself a favor, and just start buying images instead of stealing them?

For one thing, I have no way to buy them.

>As I mentioned before, there are many stock photography sites from which you can buy texture-size images for about a dollar or less.

I have no active debit, credit, or other accounts. I have someone else cash out for me and then wire me the money.

>If you're really averaging around L$8000 in sales on each of your products, you'd be earning around 30 times the amount you're spending.

The L$8000 figure reflects more than the most I've made so far on any individual item. Mine is a real nickel-and-dime kind of operation. But since my time doesn't seem to be of much value anywhere else, either, finding ways to accumulate another 1 or 2 cents every night while I sleep is a decent way of maintaining some semblance of a profitable creative outlet.

>That's a win-win for everyone. Nobody's work gets stolen, stock photographers make a little money, and you make a bunch of money. I can't think of any reason why anyone in their right mind wouldn't do that.

Except that's not viable in my case. The only way I'm able to compete at all is by producing things my competitors don't know how to produce. It's not simply a question of what images are used, but that's one of the important variables. I can make a sheet of plant leaf alpha out of stained cancer cells on a microscope slide. But I need that slide.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Yes and no.

>There's no "yes and no" about it. Linden Lab doesn't do anything you don't give them permission to do.

There's a difference between permission and enabling.

>It's all right there in black and white, as we've already discussed, ad nauseum. When you upload an item, you grant LL certain rights to it. You're the one giving the permission. Until and unless you give it, they won't take it.

I understand that's all the legal reponsibility they want, yes.

>That's markedly different from how you've been operating. You've just been taking whatever you want, without regard to permission.

That's an exaggeration. I actually have links saved for stuff I might like to use with permission if there should turn out to be much demand for similar items. Stuff with copyright notices.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Maybe I could just set up some kind of image archive where I use images provided to me by other people while they agree to retain the copyrights. LL finds that to be convenient, so I suppose I would also find that to be convenient.

>If you think you can make that fly, go for it. Just be aware that you'll need a heck of a lot more legal understanding than you've demonstrated so far in order to pull it off.

I suppose I could do it inside SL. Then it becomes LL's problem.

>I do have to wonder why you keep comparing yourself to LL in this context. Their role in this as service provider is completely different from yours and mine as users.

Good point. I just need to get in on their action under their rules. Noted.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Not just anything. Not even close. And I care about the people who produce the images every bit as much as they care about the possible utility of a posted copyright notice. And more. Much more. People who ask for my help with almost anything usually get it

>Sorry, but I simply do cannot believe you when you say you care about the people whose work you've stolen.

We each care in our own way. Disagreeing with my decisions is one thing, but telling me how I feel is something else.

> The reason copyright holders don't tend to attach notices is not because they don't want their works protected. It's because the notices are completely unnecessary. All original works are protected inherently, as soon as they are created, under the law. The presence or absence of a notice doesn't change that in any way, shape, or form.

>Notices haven't been common practice in over 30 years.

Then why use them at all? I see plenty of them, and I steer clear.

>If someone rapes your sister, does that make it justifiable for you to rape everybody else's sister? If someone stabs you, does that mean it's justifiable for you to go around stabbing other people?

I don't necessarily justify all my actions.

>What started out in appearance as mere confusion over legalities has now turned sharply toward the sociopathic.

That seems to me to be a argument with at least some merit.

>Are you truly that incapable of determining right from wrong, or are you just throwing up whatever words pop into your head that you think might somehow fit your argument?

I had to stomp my own moral compass into the pavement at one point just to avoid taking a dirt nap.

Getting past that has been a bit of a process. Mostly, it has been a daily lesson in the hypocrisy of others.

If something should change, I'll let you know.

>Take responsibility for yourself.

I take responsibility for correcting harms.

>You've repeatedly demonstrated here that you have absolutely no understanding of what LL has or hasn't done to you or for you, with regard to your IP. So how can you expect anyone to believe LL had any hand at all in shaping your attitude? If anything, it was your own misinterpretations of what they do, and what you agreed to, that led to any bitterness you might be feeling toward them. And that's no one's fault but your own.

Someone at LL is systematically stealing from merchants, and is being allowed to do it.

Josh Susanto wrote:

I am not an LL employee

>Of course your not. That was precisely why I said their role is different from yours. So what was your point?

Because you keep telling me what my job is. As a merchant on SL, I'm my own boss.

Josh Susanto wrote:

and there have been no complaints

>There's certainly one now. I'm making it. You said in no uncertain terms that you routinely take other people's images without permission for your own ends, and I'm telling you that that's illegal and wrong. So far, you've chosen not to respond to my complaint with anything more than excuses and self-justifications, which is really sad.

I will give further consideration to your complaint. I don't need extra enemies.

Josh Susanto wrote:

Again, if you have a specific accusation, please feel free to make it here.

>I don't need to make any accusation at all. You've already volunteered the information.

Which item did I say was illegal?

texturing a sculpty

Recommended Posts

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

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

Linden Lab

Tilia

Second Life

Connect With Us

Partner With Us