Scylla Rhiadra

The only part of this that surprises me is the "modesty layer" bit; that's going to break a fair amount of content, I'd have thought. Overall, this is much less Draconian than it could have been. It's going to trigger some complaints, but other than the fact that kid avatars aren't going to be able to run around at nude beaches anymore (which I think is a good thing) or be given "realistic" baths (which . . . maybe is also a good thing), I don't see how this should impede those representing as children overly much.

Visited @archangel969's Canal City again, for another pic. It is VERY photogenic!

Ah. Call my bluff! Sadly, I've got nothing. Nika has always been the very model of propriety here, at least so far as I can recall. But if you're still dissatisfied, I can make something up?

The sh*t I could tell you about Nika from the "old days." Gather around, everyone . . .

I soooooo want someone to ask me if I am cranky because I am menstruating, just so that I can use this. I'm accepting volunteers.

And this is just one of the reasons I like and respect you, Gopi.

Gopi, I almost invariably enjoy your threads and posts. I think you often ask interesting questions, and your own tone is usually measured and even good humoured. I'm feeling you've crossed a line on this one, however. It does feel an awful lot like you're using this thread to call out particular forum posters. That's not merely a recipe for drama (and witness what has ensued), but also really not very fair to them. I'm not going to say anything more here, but I know I'd feel better if you walked this back a bit. This forum has "personalities," of course, and interpersonal dynamics, but I don't feel, personally, that those should be our actual subject.

I'm sorry to hear that! Happy Rezday, for whatever it's worth!

Well . . . Happy May Day, everyone! 🙂

You do realize that there are creators who do almost exactly this? Albeit, usually for full perm items? I wouldn't buy it unless you included at the least UV and AO maps, but . . . sure! Give it a shot.

No, it's not common. I know of two makers who do this -- or, at least, the things I own from them are no-mod. I can't vouch for the rest, because . . . I stopped buying from them! Yeah, I am not religious in my avoidance of no-mod stuff. I worry about it mostly with regard to structures, furniture, decorative items (including food) . . . and accessories (hats, purses, jewelry, and so on). I don't care so much about clothing because it's almost always rigged anyway, and I find that tinting is usually a not-very-satisfactory way of modifying a dress or top. No, I'm not "mad" at all. It's just another consideration I take into account when I decide to buy something. For something like furniture, it's a very important criterion. For hair, say, or a hat . . . probably less so.

This is most definitely mutual. 🙂 Definitely. I think that's very much the point. Not too many creators, I suspect, exploit their IP fully, but we do know that some of the larger ones who produce content for The Sims, Roboblox, etc., do. (Ironically, it is beginning to look as though a shifting of focus away from SL and towards Roboblox or other platforms may be the reason we are losing Blueberry. In that instance, the concession of IP rights may have actually worked against us.)

No, actually most are mod (although there are some that are not). They are however difficult to modify, because they rely heavily not merely upon baked-shadow, but also baked-in lighting. My point about backdrops was only indirectly related to the no-mod thing: I was giving a "for instance" of this point: They are an instance of the sort of "dumbing down" of the creative element in SL. The backdrops that I make for myself are very time consuming to produce. But it's worth it, because it does give me complete control over my photo.

Sure. This isn't a moral issue. There are good reasons for the creation and use of premade backdrops. I don't think it's "unethical" to use (or create them). I just think it's boring -- and it does contribute to the sense one sometimes gets in SL of a sort of dull, consumerist monoculture, in which everyone wears the same mesh head, the same mesh body, the same popular hairstyle, and the same LBD.

I may have misunderstood your point. I was initially responding to Luna's suggestion that consumers don't "own" the things they buy in SL, with the point that the ToS effectively means that, in a practical sense, creators grant exactly those same rights to LL. That particular part of the ToS doesn't distinguish between kinds of "user content": LL has the same rights over something one creates as it does over something one buys. The main distinction is IP rights, but those really only apply outside of this platform. I agree with everything you say here -- including the suggestion that name calling is unhelpful, whomever it is direct against.

This is a false analogy. Even the most generous perms aren't anywhere near as vast and sweeping as those granted to LL in the ToS. A bit of perspective is maybe in order here. Permissions that allow you to retint a dress, resize a bed, delete a script, or remove a portion of an object (for instance, a vase on a dresser) are just not in the same order as what LL grants itself. If they were, we'd no longer be talking about merely "modifying" an object: we'd be demanding the right to essentially copybot it.

All art -- without exception, be it music, visual art, dance, or literature -- is ultimately derived from other art. Sometimes that indebtedness is direct and self-conscious, as through allusion, parody, reference, and so forth, but even where that is not the case, any creative endeavour is indebted to other creative works, through an allegiance to a particular tradition, genre, or style. To write a novel, any kind of novel, is to be indebted to the founders of that form. Even revolutionary art is only possible because there is a tradition against which to rebel. But there is a clear difference between reference, allusion, indebtedness, etc., and outright plagiarism. And there is also a difference between mechanical reproduction and human artistic creativity that might include an attempt to mimic a style or make a reference. AI doesn't "allude," and it is by definition uncreative because it is mechanical and literally without thought.

That's a good distinction -- I believe that creators do retain IP rights -- meaning, I presume, that content can be freely used on other platforms or in other contexts. In practice, however, LL's powers under the ToS are so sweeping and all-encompassing as to suggest that they have at least equal control over your work here, while it is hosted within SL.

Sure, as are my images. But once you introduce them onto the platform, it's subject to the ToS

Does that not apply to the creators who are staking their proprietary rights over their content as well? Pretty sure it does.

Which is precisely why I almost never use commercial backdrops anymore. I don't think that anyone has asked for "total control" though. Tinting or resizing something, which is probably 95% of the actual modifications people make to items, are hardly that?

As I take it, the "goal" is to let creators know that for some of us, at least, "no-mod" is a deal-breaker when it comes to a sale. How you respond to that information is entirely, of course, up to you. A secondary "goal" is the rather interesting point that has been, as I've noted, introduced into this discussion with regards to the broader implications of what we might call "no-mod" culture among creators, and the particular model of passive consumerism that it tends to buttress. That might not be of interest to you, but I'd argue that it does impact on everyone's SL.

Seriously, though -- if I could find a way to make my 2D art more engaging, interactive, and collaborative, I would happily do so. As for "defacing" my art, Maddy has been doing that in fun and interesting ways for YEARS. And I appreciate her creativity (and sense of humour)!

There's maybe more heat than light in this thread. I don't think anyone who is in the "pro-mod" camp has suggested organized boycotts of creators, protest pickets, or lobbying LL to get red of "no mod" as an option. And any vituperative language launched, perhaps unwisely, against creators who insist on "no-mod" perms has to some degree been sponsored by statements that seem to foreground a pretty arrogant attitude towards consumers. As I take it, there are at core two essential points that have been made by those who value work with mod perms. 1) Some of us choose not to buy no-mod items. That is our right as consumers, just as it is a creator's undeniable right to set perms on the objects they create. This seems to me pretty simple: unless you've got a really good reason to set something as no-mod, you are losing business from some of us who don't want such items. It's for you, the creator, to decide how gravely that impacts upon your sales, and/or whether such an impact is outweighed by your desire to ensure that no one re-tints the sofa you've made. 2) The tendency towards no-mod items can be seen in the context of the larger shift of SL away from a "creative" platform towards one that is more heavily about consumers and consumption. I am grateful to those, such as @Qie Niangao, who've made this point, because I hadn't contextualized the discussion that way before: I think this is correct. And I think it is regrettable. My own experience of the latter phenomenon is particularly evident in the field of SL photography; there are a number of popular creators of photography backdrops, sometimes sold as no-mod, and occasionally with associated poses specifically made for that backdrop. These are often quite nice looking, and they're easy to use: plop them down, use one of the associated poses or another, and voila! Instant picture! But the result is that a great deal of SL photography, particularly that produced by the less ambitious or creative bloggers, is very samey-looking. Which, fine, I suppose . . . but I do think that essentially ceding all creativity to the makers of such backdrops works to impoverish SL as a whole, and certainly renders vast swathes of my Flickr feed an uncreative wasteland. As a creator, one might not care all that much about the slow but inexorable drive to make SL a sterile and rather dull place -- so long as you're still selling items. But I don't think it's a bad thing, or "insulting," to highlight one of the ramifications of one's decision to throttle the creative potential of the platform. You be you, by all means -- but at least be aware of the consequences to which you are contributing.

Ok Boomer Oldbie.