FairreLilette
-
Posts
4,197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Everything posted by FairreLilette
-
This thread is about NFT's though and NFT's make a copyright from buyer to seller which you seem to keep forgetting and it's contracted into the blockchain. So, what and how can we copyright in our photos we take in SL? It seems to me the below is saying one needs a license. However, I don't agree with your paparazzi statement either as paparazzi work outside the realms of ethics and they are stalkers and harassers and they should be sued. Linden Lab provides access to Linden Content and hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited, personal, revocable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Linden Content solely as permitted through the normal functionality of the Service and under these Terms, except that photographs, images, films, and videos of Linden Content may be used in other areas of and outside the Service only as may be set forth in an applicable Product Policy. To be clear, and without limiting the foregoing, you may not use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display or perform any Linden Content, whether modified by you or not, outside the virtual environment of the Service except as provided in an applicable Product Policy or as expressly agreed upon in a written agreement with Linden Lab. The foregoing license is referred to as a "Linden Content License." You acknowledge that when you receive a Linden Content License you do not acquire ownership of any copies of the Content, or transfer of any copyright or other intellectual property rights in the Content. https://www.lindenlab.com/tos -
Fair use is okay. Land owners can set their land as no photos and no macinemas that's why I say in my post I didn't check for that right so I don't know. But, think of going to a build in Editor's Picks in SL, aren't those sort of a 3D work of art in and of themselves? I am wondering this but if the person allows photos and macinemas, then they are allowed. As far as content created here in SL that is stuff that is made not by ourselves...I am not sure. Here's a bit from LL TOS 1.6. You agree to respect the Intellectual Property Rights of other users, Linden Lab, and third parties. You agree that you will not copy, transfer, or distribute outside of Second Life any Content that contains any Linden Content, in whole or in part or in modified or unmodified form, except as allowed by the Snapshot and Machinima Policy, or that infringes or violates any Intellectual Property Rights of Linden Lab, other Content Providers, or any third parties.
-
This is true for many and some you just have to experiment with other heads and lots of other shapes. Some BOM don't fit around the nose or the mouth. I prefer the look of the applier skins. BOM can take a long time to find one you fall in love with. I haven't - yet. I like them okay. I've never been much of a make-up user in SL. I am a female/female but I like a natural lipstick in SL even though I may wear more make-up in real life. The heavy BOM lipsticks I cannot stand. I need sheer color on my lips and with the Catwa HD, I cannot figure out how to sheer the lipstick. I want sheering BOM lipsticks only. I'm not a fan of BOM either but I have some. Honestly, I just felt the applier skins were more artistically crafted and prettier and fit better too. And, I don't use the eyelashes too much...far too big for my liking as I want natural eyelashes, so I just hide them. I did find a few natural eyelashes that were made for male avatars that look pretty good so I don't need to worry about needing alpha mask for lashes as mostly I don't wear any. Also, there are far, far more applier skins I'd love to have, especially from Deetalez - her applier Catwa line is my favorite, and there are other applier skins I'd prefer to have over BOM.
-
This is where I am at with plus I think LL isn't quite sure either since they referred the OP to the TOS. I had once wanted to do a book through FLICKR, now I don't know. I feel similar to the OP, unsure, and I'll leave it at that. I'm not completely sure. It's part mine...all mine...I don't know.
-
Yeah, but still the news reporter needs it from some people. And, there we'd go 'round and 'round again. I could use an example of a photo I took. Now I do not remember who designed the build now and put it in Editor's Picks. But, it got me thinking there are many people involved here more than just me snapping the picture I will put below. Besides me, there is the person who designed this whole surreal fantasy sim, and then there are the designers who made all the items in the photo, and then there is me - the one who snapped the photo. Now I wonder do I have full rights to sell this? Well, we know if a sim owner says no I shouldn't have been able to snap pics at all but it was in Editor's Picks so I didn't think Editor's Picks would have people build stuff not photographable but it's still my fault that I didn't check on the rights to photograph it...to photograph they'd probably be okay...but to sell it? Don't you think they deserve some credit for this build? How should I view this photo? Is it mine alone? (You can click on the photo to enlarge it.)
-
That's not what we were told. Private/commercial use is often the words used to say how one might or might not use a photo. So, we agree to disagree. I already believe everyone better decide this TOS for themselves as the risk is their own, or make sure they get a professionals opinion prior.
-
Yes, but that law as I show above protects the architectural design itself and a photo has nothing to do with that unless one is using the photo to help them re-create an older homes non-copyrightable design not necessary sell that photo. And, no, it's not VARA. I think VARA is to prevent others from defaming an artist or their work and representing it in a defaming way or something like that. (I'll post a bit below). However, back to this SL and the Wiki from Linden Lab, it's a you can but there are stipulations kind of thing, and it's like that in real life too and it's complicated. In my photography school we learned about model releases and property releases as well as you'd better ask permission before even taking a photo. I carried model releases with me as they are very inexpensive and asked prior to taking a photograph. In the LL Wiki, I see LL has built on the real world here a bit about permission, and without being here forever discussing this forever, it's best to read the TOS regarding NFT's as the TOS also says it's up to your own risk you want to take. Attorneys could be expensive not to mention for fair use an attorney would have to see every single artwork. I have read the TOS also of some of these NFT's and they want to be sure it is copyrightable artwork one is selling because a legal contract will be recorded into the blockchain upon sale and a legal copyright created into the blockchain to put it simply because that is complicated to explain too because some people could go 'what is a blockchain'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act ARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights right to claim authorship right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing. To date, "recognized stature" has managed to elude a precise definition. VARA allows authors to waive their rights, something generally not permitted in France and many European countries whose laws were the originators of the moral rights of artists concept.[2]
-
Okay, the code without the eight in parenthesis is the copyright code of what one can copyright. Here is the code. 17 U.S.C. § 102 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 17. Copyrights § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general Okay, now take that code and what I posted wherein the architectural work IS WHAT IS copyrighted have anything to do with images of private property has escaped me here. What do images have to do with an architectural copyright? It's the design that's copyrighted and that law doesn't have anything to do with images. (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-17-copyrights/17-usc-sect-102.html
-
I still say I don't know for sure. There are private property laws, even for people who own a private home. I live in a very tempting to photograph homes place - places of famous movie stars even some from the Silent Film era, etc. I think you may be able to publish a work from the street but places on private property like Disneyland or Graceland, etc, etc... it's definitely a you need permission in many places kind of thing.
-
I find nothing under that law code, that's why I said link please. Yeah, there is fake stuff published on the internet but I don't have all day for you to go around and around with "I believe" stuff and not even post any links. Call a photography school and ask.
-
Okay, I think is not true. Here is a link to legal website which gives no exemption for buildings prior to 1990. If someone owns them you'd better ask first. Find law is a website for legal professionals. So, I think what you have there is false. (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-17-copyrights/17-usc-sect-102.html
-
Link please.
-
I would like to see a link where you got that one about property because I disagree. You cannot take photos of old homes when someone else owns those. And, I don't know where you are coming up with stuff about ads. Commercial does not mean ads, it's means monetary use. EDIT: You can be sued in real life for many things for taking pictures without other's permission some of which are: defamation, stalking, harassment. That is why most places require a model release.
-
Okay, I went to a bit of photography school. Now I know about model releases (doesn't mean a professional model but can be a professional model) and about property releases which I posted above already, as well as explained about private and commercial use. If you are going to be a commercial photographer, you should seek some advice on what you can and cannot freely sell. Again copy and paste explanation of property release: Photographs of properties - buildings, shops, homes, etc (which are owned by someone else) would require a "property release" from the owner of the property for you to go ahead and sell those images - even if you have clicked them. If you have a legal release document then you can sell them for commercial use.Jan 4, 2018
-
Well, that should be understandable as no one is recognized and it's blurred. And, why couldn't you sell it? I think it shows a fast moving world in motion. Many professional photographers use that technique as well as blur.
-
No, that isn't what a model release is in America, not in the real world, it doesn't mean a sitting model, one who sat for a photo. It includes people out in public too when it comes to selling or entering photo contests. One of my favorite things to photograph in real life was old carnivals and then I got into photographing carousel horses. The old "carnies" that had no official logo and just moved from town to town didn't care, but go to Disneyland or to the Santa Pier and you cannot commercially use photographs of their carousel without their permission. Personal and commercial use are different. Selling is very different from personal use. It has limits. In America, you really aren't allowed to even take a person's picture without asking first. You should ask, "may I take your photo?" if you do not know the person. From Disneyland site: https://disneyland.disney.go.com/park-rules/ EDIT: And, then there is property release for real life too. COPY/PASTE here: Photographs of properties - buildings, shops, homes, etc (which are owned by someone else) would require a "property release" from the owner of the property for you to go ahead and sell those images - even if you have clicked them. If you have a legal release document then you can sell them for commercial use.Jan 4, 2018
-
I never said it was against the TOS entirely; I don't know where you see that I said or implied that...? The LL TOS suggests getting permission first for both models and sims plus discusses IP and property rights and then below that part I copy and pasted above about snapshots and machinemas, it has a small section on fair use. Fair use would be not needing permission in certain circumstances. But, I never said you cannot sell your photos. And yes, it does say that doing so is at our own risk. LL will not be involved. LL referred the OP to the TOS after she contacted them about selling her own NFT's as she posted that in this thread about the reply from LL she received. EDIT: It seemed to me in your post above you were saying one can just sell their photos period without limits. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize for that. We can sell but there seem to be limitations and all LL will get involved with is sending one back to the TOS.
-
Yes, it was written before NFT's. My thinking on the asking permission could be more to avoid things like blackmail or invasion of privacy especially in regards to using photos or macinemas as porn and/or selling as porn without the users permission, and perhaps the TOS should have stated that. The rest does seem overblown. How do you reach that conclusion when the LL TOS about photographs and machinemas says this below which I've posted twice in this thread; now this is the third time. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy#Definitions If the content that you capture is subject to any trademark, service mark, trade dress, publicity rights, or other intellectual property or proprietary rights, you must obtain the necessary licenses and permissions to use the content, and you use it at your own risk.
-
I know there is a lot of free advertising on FLICKR as many put where one can find each and every item and it's not all bloggers putting up that info as to where to purchase everything. It does matter if one views something as free advertising as a complaint could become a legal complaint is more along the lines of what I meant especially in regards to selling a photo as an artwork or an NFT. Now, as far as I understand, the LL TOS says one's going ahead and selling photos or macinemas here from SL without permission, they do so at their risk or something to that effect. So, if anyone wants to attempt to sell their photos from here, they do so at their own risk. There was a time I thought it would be cool to publish my own little photographic SL book. Now it seems kind of complicated. If there is an attorney around here, someone who could chime in and give more specifics, that would be helpful.
-
I was very much into photography in real life. In real life, yes you are supposed to get something called a model release before submitting photos into contests or for sale in real life; what they are wearing no, that's considered free advertising. The real life world looks at free advertising much differently. A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed. A model release is not needed for most photograph publication because of freedom of speech rights (which vary by country.) A model release is needed for publication where personality rights or privacy rights would otherwise be infringed. That's an interesting pov but then the photo isn't being sold as an artwork or an NFT, plus it's free advertising for them so I doubt they'd complain.
-
Yeah and agreed. What part of all drugs have a potential to be poisonous if the dose is wrong, I don't know what she doesn't understand about that? Doctors in the medical field cannot just start guessing at doses let alone why she wants all of us to get Covid so they can attempt to treat us with some oddity drugs is beyond me. And, why some are being so obstinate about a vaccine and drawing a political party line about it too boot smacks of some kind of tantrum that they cannot have their way and/or want to run the medical field. I don't know what has happened to this country. I went for a walk today. Thought I'd stop into my favorite restaurant. They weren't open today, but the empty abandoned store next door had a sign on it that said "Pray For America". I agree with that too. I want to get on with my life and reach herd immunity. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall though.
-
No. The vaccines are the ONLY way to herd immunity. The. only. way. There is no other way, you are dreaming.
-
This IS the problem in a nutshell. Every drug has a potential to be poison if given in the wrong dose. This is why self-medicating with alcohol or illegal drugs leads to so many over-doses, poisonings and deaths as the dose was wrong. Self-medicating is a dangerous game of Russian roulette of guessing what is an appropriate dose one can tolerate without poisoning themselves to death. With all medicines, it must be carefully studied as to what is an appropriate dose and what is a poisonous dose.
-
I agree, Arielle, I don't think you are a bad person...but what some believe (now here I did not say you) in regards to their view that it's a pointless effort to reach herd immunity will destroy the very core doctrine of "love does no harm to it's neighbor". This could be a problem. To make this party politics is bordering on nuts territory as well as contrary to a core belief. But, I have put up sound rebuttals about the in vitro petri dish drugs and young cells versus aged or weakened cells from pre-existing conditions, however, you seem to not have heard a word I wrote about how it could takes years for a cocktail, etc...etc....that pretty soon you may be talking to yourself.
-
No one is saying vaccines are a treatment that just proves again you cannot use logic nor common sense at all. You just keep going like a wheel turning back to your belief from 15 months ago when HCQ and azithromycin were suggested at the beginning of COVID before there was anything else. No one here thinks vaccines are a treatment! They are, however, the only way to herd immunity. And, that is what Luna was speaking about. I think some of you have the patience of saints with much of this that just keeps going on and on like a breaking record from Arielle and another in this thread. I think Arielle wants to appear as a Republican stalwart champion wherein only she and others of the religious right know the truth. Meanwhile, these beliefs could hurt ourselves and our families as we fail at herd immunity. I've already told Arielle that other treatments are being tested but not everything is reported about "trials", it's far, far too early. I also wrote in a post it could take years for a cocktail but she does not listen.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr