Rival Destiny

Exactly - and the money that is being exchanged here comes from the real life person who is the legal entity in all cases in sl.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Personally I've never needed to use a full perm item with another account, but I would not be judging someone who does so in instances where there is no indication they should not. If sellers want full perm content restricted to a single avatar, then they need to explicate this rather than expect everyone else to guess as much. It does no one any favours to pretend otherwise and in fact risks misinforming a full perm seller who might decide to rely on such an assumption based on reading such inaccurate advice. Anyone who wants to restrict use to one avatar should explicate this clearly in their license and preferably before the sale unless they are willng to refund the purchase. It's not something that it is reasonable to expect others to guess when the expectation of non-sharing between avatars relies on a wholly inaccurate assumption to begin with. There cannot be sales between avatars anymore than there can be sales between chairs, or bootstraps. It's very important that full perm sellers understand that they need to stipulate rather than assume non-sharing between a single persons' avatars if they wish such a restriction to limit sharing between a single person's avatars. Otherwise, even with the best will in the world, some people are going to fail to guess the intended restriction and will end up sharing between their alts contrary to the content creator's wishes, without ever realizing the content creator did not want them to do that. Anaiya, As has been posted earlier... the full perm sellers had and still have a reasonable cause understanding that BY DEFAULT unless otherwise stipulated, the buyer of content should not assume the buy is between HUIMANS - its between REGISTERED LL ACCOUNTS that all humans have agreed to the LL TOS before each of their registered LL accounts were allowed to log into SL with. You and your Alts each operated independently by you. Of course you have the full rights as the human that registered each of these LL accounts, but you also agreed to the limitations that each of your accounts with LL has. You as a buyer of the full perm content should assume that you CANNOT transfer content to your other alts based on LL agreed terms and because how can any full perm seller reasonably control use of their IP usage when he / she has absolutely no way to confirm or even validate who all your alts are? HECK even LL doesnt know that all your Alts belong to you. So, how do you or Gavin or any others think it would hold up in court when the Seller takes you to court for this poor assumption of the LL TOS and the Seller's Usage agreement? And, last point on your content... its is really in the best interests of the BUYER of full perm content to buy this content from the seller with a 100% full agreement of the terms that the Buyer needs from the content. WHY? Because lets say you are a buyer of a pack of full perm textures from a Seller of these textures. The deal happens and you then spend 2 months making this amazing new creation and put this new creation onto MP and make 1000's of sales from this build. Then 1 year later the Seller notices that you seem to have violated one of his conditions of use of his full perm textures. He demands you STOP selling your products based on it and also he is furious and wants compensation from you - a portion of all your sales you made from this amazing build. He takes you to court over it. IF he loses, other than court fees all he loses is no access to the revenue he wanted from you and nothing else. IF he wins, courts shock you and side with the Seller (Gavin and Riven and Nef were wrong after all - ohh darn - why did I listen to them and that thread).... other than court fees you also lose your main product that was a hot seller, you also *owe the Seller actual $ penalties by paying his back a portion of the renenues that he demand. So.... let me ask you again.... who do you think is the party between the full perm seller and buyer that should be most interested in making sure the terms of use of the full perm content. Let me answer for you..... THE BUYER !! Anaiya - None of this is fact but a mere interpretation so when in doubt, simply ask the creator if you ever have an issue and/or something is not stated in a license. Often if it isn't stated, it is because the creator has no problem with your intended use. User licenses tend to weight out the do not's more so than the can do's. The OP of this thread has already contacted one creator who did NOT stipulate alt useage and was told that they have no issues with his alt using the textures. And as I said in one of my earlier comments, there exists at least one texture maker that has it listed in their license that alts are allowed to use the textures. hth

Toysoldier Thor wrote: Its too bad LL never posts here. I would love if a person from LL Legal Team would chirp in and set the record straight on what rights a person's many Alts have vs not have. How do they see Gavin's statements that LL's TOS does not hold water and that Gavin can do what he feels he is entitlted to... I have to say, you would be terribly dissappointed in the reply from their legal team. As far as rights of alts, they hold the same LEGAL RIGHTS as any other account the actual person behind them is entitled to. An avatar is merely an agent of the real person, a tool used to represent the real person in a virtual world. There is no debate about this aspect of the discussion.

Mega Mesh??

Toysoldier Thor wrote: What Nef said in her posting and that Riven is refusing to acknowledge she stated and which seems to goin in harmony with Riven's initial posting that started this whole discussion is basically... Paraphrasing.... "Since I fully believe that under a court of law I - the Human - was the actual buyer from the seller in SL/MP I will rightly come to the conclusion that all products I buy from any seller in SL/MP is a product for ME the human and not my alts. As such I am fully entitled to use the sculpts textures etc. I bought from any seller among any of my alts - regardless if the Selling Alt states in the product license that I am not allowed to share the product among my alt". If you Riven and anyone else is now saying that the RL person behind the ALT that bought the product is allowed to ignore / violate the creator/seller's stated "Limited Use Agreement" which would state the buyer CANNOT TRANSFER CONTENT BETWEEN ALTs.... then this is a pretty sad situation in the SL community. Since the SL ALT is the agent of the RL person.... then when the SL SELLING ALT states clearly in the product's "limited use agreement" that "YOU CANNOT TRANSFER OR RESELL ANY CONTENT IN THIS PRODUCT AS STAND-ALONE ITEMS", I sure as heck better not see Nef buying my agent's products and transfering it to any of her other alts because of her interpretation of her god given rights as a human behind her buying alt. What is good for her (rl buyer behind her alts) is good for me (rl person stating my IP rights thru my alt). Nef IS NOT entitled to transfer any of my content to her other alts - regardless of who is the legal buyer - because my limited use agreement of the IP content I have rights to has stated to her that SHE CANNOT TRANSFER STAND-ALONE CONTENT SHE BOUGHT FROM ME. That is ME telling HER. And she she pays for and received my product - SHE (the human) has agreed to my terms of the purchase. Is anyone here debating this? So I will say this once again and fully endorse Amethyst's last posting..... dont make your own legal assumptions of what the seller said or didnt say and what rights you have if a SELLER didnt make a point in the agreement that you are not sure of. Do exactly what the OP of this thread has done...... Go back and confirm with the creator/seller on exactly what rights you have when you are not sure. This will avoid a lot of potential future hassle for you and the seller. DONT ASSUME TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT - CLARIFY THEM WITH THE SELLER. As for anyone above that posted the silly and obvious statement that a contract cant violate a local law - welll DUHH!!! Where did I say anything about a contract stated that violates a local law? What I said was that I can stipulate how my product that is being used can or cannot be used. I was using an extreme example in saying that if a IP Creator states something as silly as "if you buy this product you are agreeing to never use it and it can only sit in your inventory" then that is the agreement you agreed to by buying the creator's product. If you are silly enough to read the terms of use and still buy it - that is your fault. If you dont like the terms of the purchase agreement - then dont buy it. Nef stated what she believed the facts to be and you have taken her words and turned it into what you believe to be her intent. As for myself, I have never said that I would violate a creator's license & Nef did not say that either. As for the license itself, the person who said you can put anything you like in it, but it's not necessarily going to hold up in a court of law, is bang on correct. Nobody is saying that the person is allowed to ignore, they are saying that if your license is poorly written, then someone may use your product for something you don't want them to. Think of an unlocked car and a purse sitting on the seat. Just beccause someone says that it would be easy to take that purse, does not mean that they are endorsing stealing. You see what I mean? As for your own terms of use on your products, if I were to purchase them in SL I would follow your license to the letter. If you said no alts, I would not pass them to my alts. Even if I legally could I would still not so so. Having said that, if you did not specify useage by alts, then I would consider it. And as I said to the OP earlier on in the thread - if you are worried or unsure of the legalities, you can always ask the seller/creator.

Thanks for posting that ... actually sounds very promising and kinda gives me a boost to get even busier in sl! I'll be here to the bitter end for sure....and besides, someone has to stay behind to lock up and turn out the lights

Toysoldier Thor wrote: Rival Destiny wrote: Nefertiti Nefarious wrote: Alts are merely multiple manifestations of the same LEGAL persona ... the real person behind the keyboard. They have no standing in law, they are not real persons, they cannot be sued for anything, and they cannot sign a binding contract. Only the human behind the alts can. A sale to Nefertiti Nefarious is really a sale to the person whose credit card pays for the stuff. Likewise, a sale to my Anonymous Alternate is also legally a sale to that real person, not a bunch of pixels. So prohibiting transfer among alts is a concept that you would have a very hard time enforcing legally ... all my alts are ME. And if I bought it, I would expect to be able to freely use it. This is my understanding also in regards to what the law defines as a legal entity. SL is a platform where real people do business with real money using our avies as our agents. We cannot circumvent the legal system by assigning legal rights to a virtual being that is in fact driven by a real person. This is yet another instance where you cannot separate rl from sl. So Rival, go on and read the rest of Nef's statement. Nef believes that her RL rights behind her avatar allows her the right to vioilate / negate the license / agreement rights set by the real life seller's avatar simply because she (the human) in her opinion is the actual buyer. She forgets that a usage agreement set by creator and selling IP rights owner can state ANYTHING it wants and if she purchases the creator's product - she has agreed to and is obliged contratually to this agreement (dont matter if the human or his/her agent is telling her). IF I am the seller and in my agreement for the widget I am selling it says :"by purchasing my full perm widget - the purchaser agree to never actually use the widget that was just bought for any purpose at all other than to sit in the purchaser's inventory".... then the RL human of the Avatar selling agent expressed his limited use agreement to any purchaser that made the decision to buy it. As such, Nef's avatar buys it and Nef is contractually obliged never to use the widget she just bought.... regardless if it was her avatar or her.... it amazing how many are trying to come up with ways around the creator's IP rights and agreements.... loopholes and rights that trump avatar agreements..... sigh I read the entire comment by Nef but I don't come away with the same interpretation as you. I don't see her saying anything about violating the license. She is simply defining who the legal party is - the human behind the avatar. This is a standard in contract law where a person uses an agent on their behalf. In sl, the agent is the avatar. You are the actual real life legal entity behind the agent. Any licensing of product on the marketplace falls to the flesh and blood person, not the pixel avatar. It's very simple really. If you wanted to take legal action against the purchaser of your textures because they violated your useage license, who would your real life lawyers haul into court? If the answer is your real life person you are correct. If the answer is your avatar, then you need to see a shrink cause the odds that the avatar will show up in court are slim to none. Nef has in no way, said that it is ok to violate a license agreement nor has she said that she does this. She simply has defined who's who legally.

I have a sim that I would like terraformed and landscaped in a tropical theme & I have no time to do it myself. I will provide all the necessary plants, textures, features, structures ... whatever is required to complete the build. Please drop me a notecard in world with your resume including references and at least two outlines of your idea of a tropical paradise themed sim. Be as creative as you like as I am looking for something unique although not outrageous. I know the tropical theme in sl has been done to death but I know there are some very creative minds out there that are dying to express themselves! Only experienced seasoned applicants please. Job will not go to lowest bidder but to the most qualified and inventive designer. $ is negotiable however, please include your rates (please make it relative, ie an hourly rate) as well as a time line. I have no budget in mind and will pay generously to the right applicant. Feel free to contact me in world if you require any further information, or have any questions, in regards to placing your bid. Bids can be dropped in notecard form to myself, Rival Destiny. Thanks in advance!

Nefertiti Nefarious wrote: Alts are merely multiple manifestations of the same LEGAL persona ... the real person behind the keyboard. They have no standing in law, they are not real persons, they cannot be sued for anything, and they cannot sign a binding contract. Only the human behind the alts can. A sale to Nefertiti Nefarious is really a sale to the person whose credit card pays for the stuff. Likewise, a sale to my Anonymous Alternate is also legally a sale to that real person, not a bunch of pixels. So prohibiting transfer among alts is a concept that you would have a very hard time enforcing legally ... all my alts are ME. And if I bought it, I would expect to be able to freely use it. This is my understanding also in regards to what the law defines as a legal entity. SL is a platform where real people do business with real money using our avies as our agents. We cannot circumvent the legal system by assigning legal rights to a virtual being that is in fact driven by a real person. This is yet another instance where you cannot separate rl from sl.

Yes I actually followed a convo in one of my scripting groups a while ago that was talking about this exact same thing. The ability to grab the UUID of a texture.

Madeliefste Oh wrote: For the law an avatar has no rights at all. An avatar simply doesn't exist as a legal entity, it is not a juristic person. IP rights are rl rights. You as a creator can provide a license to use your products, you can do so because you as a private person are a juristic person. Your avatar is only a representation of you and your rl rights. But your avatar doesn not hold the copyrights. Your avatar can also represent a business in stead of a person. A business is also a juristic person. The same what counts for you as a creator, counts for the buyer. An avatar cannot agree on terms of use or a user license, only the juristic person behind the avatar can do so. I have nothing stated in my user licenses about alts. Because at the time I made them I did think it was for a deal between avatar and avatar. But now, some years laters, after reading a lot about copyrights and a talk with a lawyer, I think different about it. Point for me as a creator, is that I don't know the rl names of my buyers. (Though there are some rare exceptions, I do have customers who ask me to put the licenses on their rl name). I also don't know who the alts of my customers are. But when people contact me personally with the main avatar that they have bought our items with, and explain their situation and the need for transfering my products to an alt, I think it is realistic to allow them do so. Because it is the rl person behind the avatar that agreed to our user licenses. And since we did not state in our user licenses that the license is limited to use of just óne avatar that represents the rl person, I don't see a need or justification to force them to buy a new copy of my merchandise. But I do want to know the name of the main avatar as well as the names of the alt(s) that use our products. Yes I do believe this is the standard for most countries as well. At least the majority. I can only speak for myself but I would have no issue with providing rl information in license useage situations.

Deja Letov wrote: Thank you all for your comments. This thread is full of legal questions. Wouldn't it be nice if LL reads this and just decides to add a matrix table to their database hooking up an avatar ID with a store ID and letting us have multiples! Yay! Just FYI...to be on the safe side, I am waiting to hear back from all the creators I have contacted. 1 so far has told me alts are no problem I just had to provide her name. I can't start listing anything quite yet anyway because I just made the alt and it won't let me create a marketplace store yet. So I have time to get it all straight. For those who say no or just don't get back to me, Ill probably go ahead and repurchase on her what items I am missing permission for. Thanks everyone! Awesome! Am glad that you have it partially sorted and that so far one has replied positively and has no issue with your alts using their textures. Well done. Maybe others will follow suit. You may have made an LL legal precident my friend Congrats!!!

Toysoldier Thor wrote: Rival Destiny wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: At the time your AVATAR AGENT entered into the purchase agreement, your AGENT did not divulge to the seller who the REAL LEGAL PURCHASER WAS. So, as such the agreement can only logicall be between the agents. Or worse yet, based on your understanding of contract law..... since both the buyer and seller agents are not legal entities... what you are suggesting is that the sellers agreement in general is completely null and void. So basically full perm sellers have NO PROTECTION legally in SL since obviously the agent cannot enter into any agreement - its not legal in the eyes of the court - and the buyer is not a legal agreement entering entity since the agent cannot enter into any agreement.... So I guess its a free for all. LL does not force you as an SL AVATAR to openly and publicly reveal your RL identity nor all of your Agents you control. Since this is clealy information not readily available to any other resident in SL - including the seller Avatar agent, it sure would be interesting so see your court case go up against a seller that you made the assumption YOU were the buyer and that the seller didnt clearly state your RL identity is the buyer. IF by default the Purchaser is the RL human as you state or even if a Seller clearly states that the RL human is the buyer and that only one of his AVATARS can use the asset.... I guess this seller must take his products off the MP.... since MP is designed to make sales between AVATARS - not HUMANS. Even if the Seller wanted to sell on MP - MP has no way to collect the RL Buyer's informtion prior to you making the legal purchase agreement as a human buyer. The seller cannot force you to agree to the terms of the agreement prior to pressing the BUY button and to provide your RL info to the Seller prior to pressing the buy button. So... if you ever do get taken to court for your assumption - I would hope you post a thread in this forum telling us if you won or lost on this case. I would be very curious to see if your assumptions on if the courts sided with you or the seller. I never assume. That is the part that I think you are misunderstanding here. I am not assuming anything. You are assuming that because something isn't stiupulated in a license that it shouldn't be considered. I'm saying, not assuming, that legally, if it's not mentioned in the license then it isn't covered. If it's not covered then you can legally go forward. Just because you have an issue with alts using textures doesn't mean that the texture creators who currently sell their textures and allow you to use them with your alts are wrong or unethical. Because according to your theries here, they should not be doing so. The statement you made that started this discussion between you and me.... This is a real grey area IMO with regards to the 'purchaser'. Unless it states in the license somewhere that the definition of 'purchaser' is the 'avie' then myself, I would consider my real life self to be the purchaser. To "consider" is in my opinion to "assume". If you said that ... Unless it states in the license somewhere that the definition of 'purchaser' is the 'avie' then myself, contract law would state that the "puchaser" in the agreement is myself" then this would not be you making an assumption or considering the situation - it would be stating the fact that if the seller does not define the definition of the BUYER - they BUYER is the human. Also, you said in this statement that unless the seller states in the agreement that the buyer is the avatar.... but later you state that contract law NEVER sees an avatar as a buyer - that an Avatar is only the agent. Since as you state that contract law only see an avatar as an agent - then any seller that includes in the agreement that the buyer is the avatar would not be valid in the eyes of the courts..... hmm??? Anyway... we can go round and round. Maybe you are right - maybe you are wrong. I do not agree. Yes with regards to how the license is written, the terms used, a lawyer will look to define the 'purchaser'. Again, please refer to contract law and the use of agents. etc. I'll stop the discussion here: Toy Soldier said: To "consider" is in my opinion to "assume". and refer you to a dictionary. I stand by my statements. You are more than welcome to disagree with me. I enjoyed the debate. I think everyone should keep in mind that this discussion was about a few texture creators that stipulate in their licenses that alts are not to use their textures. I brought to the table at least one that stipulates in their license that alts are permitted to use their textures.

Pamela Galli wrote: Sales in SL, unless stated otherwise, are always between accounts (ie avatars). You cannot, for example, buy one of my houses, copybot it, and give it to your 9 alts, "because it is the same person behind them". Yes, ppl do sometimes want me to give them a house because, they say, their alt bought the house. There is no way for me or any seller to verify who is an alt of whom, much less who the RL typist behind any account is, so it is simply specious to suggest that transactions can be consider anything but between accounts, unless it is stated. Yes ITA 100%

Toysoldier Thor wrote: At the time your AVATAR AGENT entered into the purchase agreement, your AGENT did not divulge to the seller who the REAL LEGAL PURCHASER WAS. So, as such the agreement can only logicall be between the agents. Or worse yet, based on your understanding of contract law..... since both the buyer and seller agents are not legal entities... what you are suggesting is that the sellers agreement in general is completely null and void. So basically full perm sellers have NO PROTECTION legally in SL since obviously the agent cannot enter into any agreement - its not legal in the eyes of the court - and the buyer is not a legal agreement entering entity since the agent cannot enter into any agreement.... So I guess its a free for all. LL does not force you as an SL AVATAR to openly and publicly reveal your RL identity nor all of your Agents you control. Since this is clealy information not readily available to any other resident in SL - including the seller Avatar agent, it sure would be interesting so see your court case go up against a seller that you made the assumption YOU were the buyer and that the seller didnt clearly state your RL identity is the buyer. IF by default the Purchaser is the RL human as you state or even if a Seller clearly states that the RL human is the buyer and that only one of his AVATARS can use the asset.... I guess this seller must take his products off the MP.... since MP is designed to make sales between AVATARS - not HUMANS. Even if the Seller wanted to sell on MP - MP has no way to collect the RL Buyer's informtion prior to you making the legal purchase agreement as a human buyer. The seller cannot force you to agree to the terms of the agreement prior to pressing the BUY button and to provide your RL info to the Seller prior to pressing the buy button. So... if you ever do get taken to court for your assumption - I would hope you post a thread in this forum telling us if you won or lost on this case. I would be very curious to see if your assumptions on if the courts sided with you or the seller. omg who is 'us'. You have a mouse in your pocket? That is the most clique statement i've read all week. You all get jackets? Again, my attempt at humor. :matte-motes-evil-invert: Edited to add: And I still hold true to my statement that this would never leave the seller's lawyer's office. That I know for a fact.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: At the time your AVATAR AGENT entered into the purchase agreement, your AGENT did not divulge to the seller who the REAL LEGAL PURCHASER WAS. So, as such the agreement can only logicall be between the agents. Or worse yet, based on your understanding of contract law..... since both the buyer and seller agents are not legal entities... what you are suggesting is that the sellers agreement in general is completely null and void. So basically full perm sellers have NO PROTECTION legally in SL since obviously the agent cannot enter into any agreement - its not legal in the eyes of the court - and the buyer is not a legal agreement entering entity since the agent cannot enter into any agreement.... So I guess its a free for all. LL does not force you as an SL AVATAR to openly and publicly reveal your RL identity nor all of your Agents you control. Since this is clealy information not readily available to any other resident in SL - including the seller Avatar agent, it sure would be interesting so see your court case go up against a seller that you made the assumption YOU were the buyer and that the seller didnt clearly state your RL identity is the buyer. IF by default the Purchaser is the RL human as you state or even if a Seller clearly states that the RL human is the buyer and that only one of his AVATARS can use the asset.... I guess this seller must take his products off the MP.... since MP is designed to make sales between AVATARS - not HUMANS. Even if the Seller wanted to sell on MP - MP has no way to collect the RL Buyer's informtion prior to you making the legal purchase agreement as a human buyer. The seller cannot force you to agree to the terms of the agreement prior to pressing the BUY button and to provide your RL info to the Seller prior to pressing the buy button. So... if you ever do get taken to court for your assumption - I would hope you post a thread in this forum telling us if you won or lost on this case. I would be very curious to see if your assumptions on if the courts sided with you or the seller. I never assume. That is the part that I think you are misunderstanding here. I am not assuming anything. You are assuming that because something isn't stiupulated in a license that it shouldn't be considered. I'm saying, not assuming, that legally, if it's not mentioned in the license then it isn't covered. If it's not covered then you can legally go forward. Just because you have an issue with alts using textures doesn't mean that the texture creators who currently sell their textures and allow you to use them with your alts are wrong or unethical. Because according to your theries here, they should not be doing so.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: You are correct - each up to each person to run their lives and businesses any way they want. If taking chances in entering an agreement whereby he/she clearly knows of and sees a loophole that the other party's agreement because the other party didnt provide them with a 20 page long agreement prior to entering a purchase agreement and whereby this person sees an opportunity to bend or break the intent of the agreement of the other party simply because he/she didnt want to get clarification.... that is a viable way to run a life / business in SL or RL. I tend to run my RL business more conservatively and safely to avoid future potential conflict, costs, risks to my own business operation by not taking advantage of loopholes in agreements, getting clarification on factors that I know of and am concerned about, and NOT letting the control and fate of my business operation be decided on HOPES that the courts will side with me if this poor assumption ever ended up taking me to court. Everyone runs their business to their own level of operational risk and ethics. In this I will completely agree with you. You seem to hint that I am somehow unethical here. I take offense to that. We disagree on a simple point here - I side with the texture creator that has no problem with alts using their textures and you side with the ones that don't want alts to use them. I am not breaking a license agreement yet you seem to think I should be? Neither of us are wrong and neither are unethical. I'll leave it there.

My apologies am all over the place here and not used to replying so much. Am also not very familiar with the formalities in here. Toysoldier Thor wrote: ansd would the courts of law not also stipulate that for the Seller to have an agreement with an AGENT of the RL Purchaser, that the RL Purchaser must divugle to the seller the RL-Agent relationship prior to the selling agreement being transacted? So you are saying a court would say that a a Purchaser can remain anonymous and have its Agent execute a legal transactions with a Seller whereby the Seller cannot control if the RL Purchaser divulges his/her agent's relationship? Somehow I see your case would be on shaky ground. Your Agent decided to enter into the agreement with my Agent - the agreement is between agents - not between the RL entities. Again - the seller can be explicit and make sure buyers like you wont make assumptions.... but I still think the better practice you should follow as a buyer in SL is for you to clarify your rights when this assumption you are making is not stipulated. Does this not make sense? Or would you rather take the risk and be willing to potentially be taken to court (where you might or might not win) simply because you didnt want to clarify the agreement you entered into? Logic to me seems that its best to avoid a future legal confrontation..... but thats just me. IMO I'm taking no risk ... I am following the useage terms of the license as they are laid out. So far has bode me well rl and sl. As far as agent to agent? That would be fine if LL was holding the court! my humor. But in real life, your rl bum goes to court, not your avatars lol. And yes, I avoid legal confrontation always. I even drive the speed limit

Toysoldier Thor wrote: ansd would the courts of law not also stipulate that for the Seller to have an agreement with an AGENT of the RL Purchaser, that the RL Purchaser must divugle to the seller the RL-Agent relationship prior to the selling agreement being transacted? So you are saying a court would say that a a Purchaser can remain anonymous and have its Agent execute a legal transactions with a Seller whereby the Seller cannot control if the RL Purchaser divulges his/her agent's relationship? Somehow I see your case would be on shaky ground. Your Agent decided to enter into the agreement with my Agent - the agreement is between agents - not between the RL entities. Again - the seller can be explicit and make sure buyers like you wont make assumptions.... but I still think the better practice you should follow as a buyer in SL is for you to clarify your rights when this assumption you are making is not stipulated. Does this not make sense? Or would you rather take the risk and be willing to potentially be taken to court (where you might or might not win) simply because you didnt want to clarify the agreement you entered into? Logic to me seems that its best to avoid a future legal confrontation..... but thats just me. Actually you are saying that by insisting that the 'avatar' is the legal purchaser whereas I am saying the person behind the avatar, the real life person, would be considered the purchaser in a court of law. The avatar in the virtual world be be merely an agent. This is part of contract law. If it every came to a courtroom, NOBODY would be anonymous of course.

Question..if one texture creator stipulates that it is ok for an alt to use textures and another texture creator says nothing about avie use....Should I assume the 2nd texture maker is against my alt using their textures? This is why these documents are in effect - to tell you specifically what you can and cannot do. Specifically is the key word there. As far as a court of law goes, this would most likely get no further than the sellers lawyer who would let the creator know that they don't have a leg to stand on and that they need to add the stipulation to their license. A court of law cannot rule that a stipulation has been broken when it never existed in the first place. This is all legality of course. We as people need to use also our best judgement which I believe I do in both my sl hobby business and my real life business. What one person thinks is right or even common sense, another may not agree. You have your opinion that you would not want your full perm creations used by an alt while the texture maker that I previously mentioned, disagrees and has in his/her license that alt may use them. So bottom line, we use our best judgement.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: the courts will side in favor of what makes sense and what could be fairly assumed based on the situation. BUT... I would turn the statement around on you Rival... the BUYER should be certain of the terms of the agreement set out by the seller. If you are not sure of what the terms mean or if the terms did not state something that you want to know the seller's interpretation of the situation.... CLARIFY with the seller. Its always better in any agreement you enter to understand what you are buying into and not assume - it will potentially hurt you in the end or the seller but it could have been avoided if you only would not have assumed. But sadly some people in life would rather take a risk and let a matter get resolved in ugly legal actions that could have been so easily avoided. You should always ASSUME the worst case scenario in the agreement - not the best case scenario in the agreement. In this way it could only get better from there. Not worse. but again - its your call how you want to deal with creators and what risks you want to get into. This is just my opinions. Again I disagree. The courts don't sway in favor of 'what makes sense'. They go by precedent, definitions, etc. They take the license apart word for word. One thing in particular that is included in that is the definition of such details as 'purchaser' etc. as to licensing. I am speaking from both sides of the fence here btw. As a creator and as a purchaser. Edited to add: Question..if one texture creator stipulates that it is ok for an alt to use textures and another texture creator says nothing about avie use....Should I assume the 2nd texture maker is against my alt using their textures?

Toysoldier Thor wrote: Rival Destiny wrote: I have to disagree with your assumption. While I am not 100% certain of what would happen in a court of law, I would think that your rl person would be the only one to appear and would be consider by the court to be the agent of the alts. As far as my rl info - if a seller required that I would most definitely comply if the license stipulated that I give that info. I have no problems with that. Also, know that my comments are only in regards to the selling/buying & use of textures for builders. And that I always comply with the license under which they are sold. Also as I've said earlier, some texture creators include in their license that alts are permitted to use their textures. Some say alts are NOT permitted and others say nothing about alts. I use my best judgement when making decisions. So, bottom line, I think it's debateable and would have to be settled in a court of law as to who's assumtions are accurate here. So look at your point I highlighted in RED. If you believe that you the RL purchaser is the ASSUMED "purchaser" in any creator's license / pruchase agreement then why would most creators even take the time to refer to the rights of your avatars in their agreement. And I am no lawyer either but I cant see how if this was brought to a RL court of law, that the courts could easily be convinced that since the pruchase was happening automatically BY the BUYER in SL / MP and that the purchaser is only known to the seller as an AVATAR in this virtual world.... that the Seller could very easily shut down any argument from a RL buyer that he / she was the understood default "purchaser" in the transaction. Come on... think about it for a minute. We sellers make dozens or more automated sales to buyers a day. The buyer - unless MP will make changes that can force you as a buyer to fill out a purchase agreement form that will capture your full RL information and register all your SL ALTs in the agreement - is only an avatar to the seller. Unless you tell me otherwise - I do not know who you are in RL and nor would LL provide me with this information and in most cases except for you and a few others - most of my buyers would never divulge their RL information and who all their alts are. If this was an actual prerequisite of buying full perm sculpties and textures, my sales would sink to almost nothing. You have you opinions and I have mine.... but mine is base on common sense of the situation where the sale is being made. My recommendation to you is that before you make any serious creation and re-selling decisions using the full perm assets of another creators.... you should not ASSUME your rights in the agreement. You should CLARIFY your rights. and one of those assumptions you should surely get clarified with the creator BEFORE you buy his / her assets is who does he / she think is the BUYER in the agreement. I can say with a strong level of comfort that most creators will tell you that the agreement is with the AVATAR. All I am suggesting to you you is.... Dont Assume.... Clarify. I am also a creator in sl and I respectfully disagree with you. I don't presume to know the law entirely in such things but I do know enough about contract law to know that I am in my rights here. I also know that in a court of law, an avatar would be considered an 'agent' of the real life person. And unless the license stipulates that only the avatar may use the textures, it becomes a grey area. If some texture makers allow avatars to use their full permission textures, then I have no problem using them should another texture maker make no stipulation that I cannot. If they come to me and say they don't want me to use them and are editing their license then I would comply.

Morgaine Christensen wrote: Has to agree with you about the sculpts. Most licensing I have pretty much states license is to the purchaser (i.e. the AV that purchased the item) and requests that you not give away the items full perms to anyone. Techinically, making a scuplt item then giving it full perms to an alt would be a violation of the licensure. I don't disagree with you about the licensure. I would like to see builders items licensed to the RL person, but unless there is a court challenge or LL sets a policy, I think licensure will be left in the wilds. This is a real grey area IMO with regards to the 'purchaser'. Unless it states in the license somewhere that the definition of 'purchaser' is the 'avie' then myself, I would consider my real life self to be the purchaser. And if there is no definition of 'purchaser' then I would look to the license to see if it stipulates that textures may not be used in an alt's creations. If not there either, then i would see no reason why not to use them. Keeping in mind of course that we are all on our honor to following that license. Also, keep in mind that some texture creators have in their license that alts are permitted to use them.

Very well said!

I am not sure I'm following you here. Why would they need to verify? I am thinking in terms of one real life person following a license. If the creator specifically states not to use with alts then you should abide by that. On the other hand, the texture creator I mentioned allows you to use them via an alt. They actually list alts as a permitted user in their license. I think they are also thinking in terms of the individual real life person using their textures. I am trying to think of an instance where a texture creator would have to verify an alt. Edited to add - yes I can see where they might want to verify that an avatar using their textures in a build is an alt of the person that originally purchased them. I suppose it would be up to the person purchasing to be resopnsible & letting the creator know their alts using the textures. Otherwise they are susceptable to the concequences.