Not sure if I like the new user-licensed option on marketplace

[adriannesuz McMinnar]

I suppose it makes sense to have it, but I can't help but feel that having a line scratched through the user-licensed option in permissions gives theives the feeling that they are fully entitled to copy and do whatever they like with items. I imagine they felt the same way before...but this just makes me feel more vulnerable.  What would be required to actually license items?  Is it even worth it?  

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

The user license doesn't override the existing permissions system.  If you don't want people to copy something, set it to No Copy.  If you don't want people trading things around, set it to No Transfer.  I know that sounds rather naiieve taking account copybotters.  But, since when did a thief ever pay attention to the rules? (>_<)

Instead, this new feature applies to full perms items not intended for direct resale.  It has always been a very risky position listing an item as full perms and relying on a notecard to spell out the conditions are entailed in the purchase.  Now, this option allows sellers a direct path of information to rely upon to combat losses by lesser scroupulous people simply trying to cut a buck out of their wares. ()

A license will only ever keep the honest people honest.  It is now a third wall of protection from the simplest ways of creators losing their IP rights.  No Copy and No Transfer are no less license conditions and, in fact, inheritly override the user license via the mechanics of the asset/inventory permissions system. ()

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

oops!!!

As for the matter of creating a license, it's all a matter of wording.  Explore CYO's marketplace store to see how they're handling it.  Pretty much everything they sell is full perms with conditions stated at the bottom of each page. ()

My own Avatar Alpha Foot Masks are done with the old notecard method using the legally binding license terms available at http://creativecommons.org/ and once I get off my lazy butt I'll transfer the terms from the notecard to the marketplace page. ()

Basically, you don't have to "get" a license for anything you've created.  The fact that you've created it already grants you All Rights Reserved by default.  (Media that actually states 'All Rights Reserved' are really being redundant.  It's a default and they don't actually have to state it.)  That said, what you say, goes.  You can find examples of end user licenses all around.  They're usually slathered by thick gobs of legalese because they're written by corp staff lawyers.  But, one doesn't need to be a lawyer to say "Don't steal my schzt!!!" ()y

 

 

[adriannesuz McMinnar]

Thanks for your in-depth answer imnotgoing.    I know this won't override the current permissions and I can understand having this option for full perm items, but I sell copy, mod clothing, so where does this license fit in with my items? I don't think a creative commons license would fit my situation.

[Ann Otoole]

The item description is not capable of containing the full legal text of a professionally prepared license. So there is still a problem of yes there is a license but you must buy the product to read the full license. After all we cannot link out to external websites and using PDF files is a risk for the customer.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

adriannesuz McMinnar wrote:

I know this won't override the current permissions and I can understand having this option for full perm items, but I sell copy, mod clothing, so where does this license fit in with my items? I don't think a creative commons license would fit my situation.

---

It doesn't. You can ignore it.

Its for folks making sculpty map and textures, 9 times out of 10.

It just lets people know that if you rip off such content, expect a DMCA coming your way once caught. Any fool should already know that, but we have some pretty thick headed fools out there and I'm sure many of us have had the argument that 'just because its free and full, doesn't mean you can resell it' versus the fool who says 'yes I can & should.'

 

 

 

[GothGirl Demonia]

Oh yes I know what you are talking about with resellers reselling other peoples work. I have seen people reselling Free items for L$ where it be 5, or 10 L$ at freebie markets of other peoples work which is free to give away as a 100% Free item, and hate people profiting like that.

Turbo Squid, People who are illegally importing models of other peoples work from other games, and make a profit off such without the consent of the actual developer.

Dishonest people, might try to resell your work, and Linden Lab might act on a DMCA claim and take down the resell if it is being sold in world, or on the market place.

However do keep in mind that if the full perm textures, or sculpt/mesh are full perms people can and might be dishonest and give it away to other people in SL, and I really do not agree with that either. I mean giving it to one friend to use in a build which you are working on, and destroying the texture after they have finished building a build for you, or on your land and such I can be fine with, but knowingly trying to profit or ruin a developer is wrong. As for DMCA on such, as you are the uploader of the Texture UUID/Sculpt, or Mesh LL really can't blacklist it, and as far as legal actions go it is really hard to take any type of legal action when you gave it away full permissions, and there is no actual signed contract between both parties those little TOS/NoteCard in a box do not mean anything in a court/law and can't even be proven that the person actually read them and they would totally more than likely throw the case out of an actual court unless you had the money to really fight it legally and prove actual damages.

In the end it is really a matter of just respecting creations others make where it be the IP rights of any developer in SL, or another game, movie etc.

I admit I would like to have Avatars from other RPG Games in SL like World OF Warcraft, or other copyrighted content in mesh form, true who wouldn't, however people should not attempt to make a profit off of their original IP rights such as snatching mesh and just uploading it originally, if they are going to do that they should get permission from the creator/company of that content to use it as a fan basee without any profit from it unless they are going to create some mesh or content themself and make something like it but 100% their own work just using an idea but their own version of such then they have rights to it.

As for Pirates, or Thieves they will always try to steal content, can't really stop the free flow of information even when one DMCA claim is acted on, another priated copy is already going around.

[Qie Niangao]

---

GothGirl Demonia wrote in part:

As for DMCA on such, as you are the uploader of the Texture UUID/Sculpt, or Mesh LL really can't blacklist it, and as far as legal actions go it is really hard to take any type of legal action when you gave it away full permissions, and there is no actual signed contract between both parties those little TOS/NoteCard in a box do not mean anything in a court/law and can't even be proven that the person actually read them and they would totally more than likely throw the case out of an actual court unless you had the money to really fight it legally and prove actual damages.

---

Ummm.  Anybody planning to act on this advice might be well advised to consult their own lawyer first.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

 If your statement "a user license does not override the existing permission system" and "No Copy and No Transfer are no less license conditions and, in fact, inheritly override the user license via the mechanics of the asset/inventory permissions system.', were true, then a user license for full perm items would be useless too. You can't have it both ways.   The TOS states "You retain any and all Intellectual Property Rights in Content you submit to the Service." but no where does it state in the TOS the the existing permission system overrrides the user license a creator chooses to grant to buyers other than the exceptions specifically stated in regards to LL, machinima and snapshots.

The permission system is only a tool to help content creators enforce the user license you choose to grant.  For example, If you choose sell something as transferable, so people can give it as a gift, you also may choose to restrict a buyer from reselling the item in a user license that states this.  I have bought items that has this restriction in a written user license.  In fact more and more I have seen content creators include a user license on items that are not full perm that more specifically states the terms of use that refines restrictions indicated by the permission system. Of course it is up to the content creator to enforce the terms of their user license through legal channels.

The user license option is a good idea, as it informs the consumer that there may be other terms other than the simple mod copy transfer status.  If the full license is not stated in the description, the potential buyer may then ask to see the user license prior to purchase if they desire.  So this protects the consumer as much as it protects the seller.

[Jeanette Doobie]

All very good points.  My issue with the new implementation is not so much with the way it is supposed to work, but with the confusion it causes and how sellers are not using it appropriately.  Many (MANY) sellers are listing their full-perms items on the SL Marketplace with their user license spelled out in the item description.  Yet, the user license option in the permissions fields is stricken-through.

 

I performed a brief search on the SL Marketplace for an example and the very first listing I pulled up clearly shows the problem:

 

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Himekos-Business-in-a-pack-3-18-High-Detailed-Mini-Skirts-with-Petticoats-and-a-Guide-to-modify-them/628984

 

As you can see from the above listing, the user license indicator implies that the buyer does not have permission to use these products in any resale capacity.  However, if you read the description, it clearly states that the buyer does have permission to use the items in their own products and resell those derivative goods.

 

If the seller intends to allow derivative works and some sort of user license, having the user license field stricken-through is a great way to inhibit potential sales as honest users are not going to want to take the chance that that indicator might override anything that appears in the description.  Why take that chance?

 

Although I believe the new implementation is a generally good idea for conveying information to potential buyers efficiently, it is only good when all (or even most) sellers use it properly.  I find that too many do not and a brand new cloud of uncertainty is looming over the market.

 

The bottom line is, I agree that it is not useful against dishonesty - but the issue I have is that it has added an element of inhibition and confusion for those who are honest - and is hurting sellers who may not know how to properly use the indicator.

[Maudie Goldshark]

There is a contract that doesn't have to be signed for a seller and buyer. I read this on the internet but knew that we entered into a contract when we make a purchase even though most don't realise it. Whenever you pay money for something you the purchaser enter into a contract.

(I read this) Every day you enter into contracts without realising it. Every time you buy an ice-cream from the dairy, or a coffee from a café, you are entering into a contract. For the contract to exist, something of value has to be exchanged, and the contract may exist if you agree to pay the money in the future. A contract is when you offer to buy something and the seller accepts your offer.

I've only just seen the User Licensed on Marketplace and was interested in everyone's comments. I include a texture in my packs that lays out a few simple points and includes an appeal to the customer to help me keep my business intact.

There are always going to be those that abuse the goods we create and sell.  Btw I wanted to mention that I began using a texture for my license because I can make it no modify rather that a notecard which I don't think you can transfer to the pack without it being full perm. I didn't want my wording changed. 

Thanks for all the great information!