sculpt2mesh

[emSynth]

Coming to a website near you soon:  sculpt2mesh conversion!  It will be simple, easy, and affordable to convert sculpt maps that you own into mesh objects.  

Checking file creation dates, apparently it was November 23rd of this year that I began the scripting.  I have been sitting on the code for a over a month now because of the influence of factors beyond my control.  Then recently a new member of Designers Coalition asked me for a project to develop.  One thing led to another and now it looks like we will have something ready for you to test soon.  

We still have technical details to work out such as a metering system, and business concerns to resolve as well, so I ask for your patience regarding the release date.  Trust that we are doing our best to bring you sculpt2mesh as soon as possible.  Please direct any comments or questions to this thread to centralize the discussion for now, thanks.  

emSynth

 

[Madeliefste Oh]

---

emSynth wrote:

Coming to a website near you soon:  sculpt2mesh conversion!  It will be simple, easy, and affordable to convert sculpt maps that you own into mesh objects.  

 

---

Who do you consider as the owner of a sculpt map? The maker of a sculpt map or the buyer of a sculpt map?

 

 

[emSynth]

Without getting into semantics about my choice of words and such, i sense that you are intending to raise the issue of intellectual property rights in the context of the emergence of a new tool that performs data conversions of IP storage files.  This is a very valid concern and I would like to express some related thoughts that are based upon my asking some people I know, not upon some legal expertise.  It goes like this.  

The creator of the sculpt map typically reserves the right of ownership of each data file via copyright, however the situation is that the files are released as full perm items due to the nature of their use by the customer.  To protect the IP, the creator specifies terms of use that the customer agrees to by making the purchase.  As long as the customer acts with integrity this system works for all involved parties.  

With the introduction of mesh to SL, the possibility of a sculpt2mesh converter emerged and has now become a reality. This affects the existing agreements because the creator may not have foreseen this possibility and therefore did not specify what the customer may or may not do in converting a sculpt to mesh.  Creators are justifiably concerned because their customers, without specific guidance on their rights, may just assume that they can do the conversions freely without getting the creator's permission.  This is a mistake that can be made even by a customer acting in good faith.  So how do we handle this situation?  

There is precedent.  On occasion a customer of a sculpt map creator may need to contact the creator for clarification of the rights agreement for whatever reason.  When this occurs, the generally accepted procedure is that the customer must make a good faith effort to contact the creator, and if after some time the creator cannot be located - usually due to leaving SL for some reason - then the customer can consider the IP to be public domain.  To my limited knowledge this is accepted procedure.  

Basically the same applies in thie situation.  The burden of responsibility on the customer is to seek out the creator, and the burden of responsibility of the creator is to be available via typical search and contact means.  The fact that the tool is new and unforeseen by many creators does not alter this accepted practice.  

Finally, I will mention an analogy that helps us understand the situation.  A software tool is a lot like a hardware tool.  The sculpt2mesh tool is a bit like a wrench in that it performs some function that either a car creator or a car customer may wish to perform upon the car.  Unfortunately it is also possible for the wrench to be misused in a variety of ways ranging from damaged bolts, stripped threads, or even illegal and / or violent use.  Do we outlaw wrenches because of the possibility of misuse, or do we educate all wrench users about the proper use of the wrench?  I choose the latter. 

emSynth

 

[Madeliefste Oh]

Yep, IP rights is the issue.

---

emSynth wrote:

 

The creator of the sculpt map typically reserves the right of ownership of each data file via copyright, however the situation is that the files are released as full perm items due to the nature of their use by the customer.

 

---

It is not always the case that sculpts map are released as full perms items. Several sculpt creators release their products as no mod / copy / trans. This makes it possible for the second creator to sell the items in SL, but prevents that the maps are downloaded and for example used in other grids then SL.

---

There is precedent.  On occasion a customer of a sculpt map creator may need to contact the creator for clarification of the rights agreement for whatever reason.  When this occurs, the generally accepted procedure is that the customer must make a good faith effort to contact the creator, and if after some time the creator cannot be located - usually due to leaving SL for some reason - then the customer can consider the IP to be public domain.  To my limited knowledge this is accepted procedure.  

 

---

I'm quiet sure this is not the case. Copyrighted items can be deeded to the public domain by the IP right owner. The only case that I know of when copyrighted works fall into the public domain without approval of the IP right owner, is when the copyright expires. This is usually 70 years after the death of the creator and in some cases 95 years after the date of publication.

 

---

Finally, I will mention an analogy that helps us understand the situation.  A software tool is a lot like a hardware tool.  The sculpt2mesh tool is a bit like a wrench in that it performs some function that either a car creator or a car customer may wish to perform upon the car.  Unfortunately it is also possible for the wrench to be misused in a variety of ways ranging from damaged bolts, stripped threads, or even illegal and / or violent use.  Do we outlaw wrenches because of the possibility of misuse, or do we educate all wrench users about the proper use of the wrench?  I choose the latter. 

 

---

I think it can be a useful tool, and when it comes with educational notes about he proper use, it will be fine. Then it is up to the IP owners to decide for themselves if they want to give permission for their sculpt maps to be tranformed into mesh or not.

 

 

I have another question, that has do with creator name. When you want to upload a mesh to SL, you have to be registered. The meshes will always carry the name of the uploader as creator.

How will this work with your tool? Must someone who makes a mesh out of a sculpt map also be registered for mesh upload? And whose name will the mesh show as creator?

 

I ask you all these question, because I don't know yet if I would allow my customers to use your tool. I'm trying to make up my mind.

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Will a user have to create the sculpted object full perm first before doing this or will a sculpt map be needed? If a full perm sculpted object will be used, does the user have to be the creator? If a sculpt map is needed, will it have to be full perm?

Also, a sculpted prim has only one side that can be textured.  Will the resulting mesh take only one texture too and if not how will the number of faces/textures be determined?  Right now a single sculpted prim counts as one LI, two at most if linked to a mesh, but as a mesh it may have a higher LI.  So what would be the advantage other than the supposed server efficiency of a mesh if the texturing remains the same?  Could several sculpt prims that are used to create an object be transformed into one mesh object?

 

[emSynth]

Thank you fort that clarification.  In the case of no mod maps, since they cannot be downloaded, they cannot be run through our tool.  The work flow for sculpt2mesh begins with an upload to our machine from your machine, meaning that only full perm maps can be converted.  

Regarding the accepted practice in the event a creator cannot be contacted, what is it then?  

You bring up a very interesting point with the creator name being assigned to that of the uploadIng party.  That would imply that only the creator of the sculpt map could use our tool, which would be fine with me.  If I recall correctly, however, according to the ten question upload test, one only needs permission from the IP owner to do an upload.  And upon mentioning that, I have just realized that the creator and the IP owner may be separate people.  So, sigh, it gets complicated.  

We can put a terms of use with required checkbox indicating agreement on the web page if the community feels this would be prudent.  Also, I have just begun to design the token based monetizing system in which users will buy tokens from the SL marketplace and Rez or wear these tokens to gain access to the server based sculpt2mesh tool.  I could get fancy and require that the sculpt main texture be placed in the token for some sort of testing.  Unfortunately any such verification is limited by the available LSL features for sculpts and textures which are limited.  

i would like to mention that I have made every reasonable effort to understand these issues and to operate in accordance with accepted practice, and I rely on thoughtful people like yourself to help me resolve any issues that arise.  We will, within reason, tailor our software the meet the needs of the community.   

emSynth

 

[emSynth]

Hi Amethyst, so many questions You ask!  I will attempt to answer them all right here.

A sculpt map reachable by our upload component must be available for upload.  Basically the process begins with uploading your image file which can be one of several accepted formats.  How that sculpt map image file gets there is a function of the user and their integrity.  If downloading from Second Life that means the sculpt map texture must be full perms as I understand it.  

The output of sculpt2mesh is an obj file.  We will add colada output later, but for now it is obj only.  There is only one texture side in the obj file.  The work flow therefore involves importing the obj file in a 3D editor such as Blender where texturing add texture sides as you wish, up to eight of them naturally.  You can then edit the mesh object to your heart's content including combining it with other sculpt2mesh conversions or even prim2mesh conversions.  So if you can drive a 3D editor somewhat then you can take a Second Life object made of prims, sculpts, and even mesh (if you have the source files for the mesh) and turn it into a single mesh object.  

Regarding LI, or Land Impact, the Lindens have chosen to set things up such that a direct conversion without editing, decimation, or optimization of a 64 x 64 sculpt map results in an LI of around 32!  This is ok for clothing attachments where LI is not as much of an issue, however it is excessively large for Rezzed objects.  For this reason we have added decimation to the work flow.  You can take the 128x128 Apple sculpt map texture from the library and run it through sculpt2mesh with decimation of 8x8 or so to get a somewhat blocky but usable Apple mesh With low LI.  

As to the advantages of converting a sculpt to a mesh object, there are many.  LI is not one of them!  If you need low LI which is often the case, then keep it as a sculpt.  Mesh conversion advantages include making flexible cloth items from previously rigid sculpts, better texturing, the ability to alter sculpts for which the original tool used to create the sculpt is no longer available or the source materials are lost.  Creating mesh objects from sculpt only tools, faster rezzing, physics shapes, up to eight sided textures, and other advantages that escape me at the moment.  

Oh, and for simple faceted objects like gems for jewelry, you can make objects with LI less than one (0.5 minimum).  This works well when you link together several such objects and their LIs add up fractionally.  

emSynth

[Madeliefste Oh]

---

emSynth wrote:

 

Regarding the accepted practice in the event a creator cannot be contacted, what is it then?  

 

---

Then it is impossible for the buyer of the sculpt map to purchase additional licenses or rights. He has to stick to the license / eula / terms of use that came with the item at the moment he bought it. 

 

---

You bring up a very interesting point with the creator name being assigned to that of the uploadIng party.  That would imply that only the creator of the sculpt map could use our tool, which would be fine with me.  If I recall correctly, however, according to the ten question upload test, one only needs permission from the IP owner to do an upload.  And upon mentioning that, I have just realized that the creator and the IP owner may be separate people.  So, sigh, it gets complicated.  

 

---

When you look at it from commercial point of view, the target group 'creators of sculpty maps' is not very interesting for your tool. People who can make sculpts maps, can also make meshes. Your tool would maybe saves them a bit of time, but it is work that can be done by hand easily. And when you do so by hand you can as well improve the mesh in the way you want it to be. So frankly I doubt you will sell your tool a lot when you aim for this target group. It's a small group with a high "I invent my own wheel" - attitude.

In my opinion the ideal target group for your tool is 'second creators'; the people who buy sculpts map to make their own creations with them. These are the people who cannot make sculpts or meshes themselves, so an extra tool for 'meshing  sculpties' could be very handy in some cases. This is also a much larger group then sculpt creators, so you can expect more customers then when you aim for 'sculpt creators'.

 

It is very rarely in case of sculpty maps that the creator is not the IP right owner. Sculpty maps are products that only can be used in SL (and clone grids of SL). Cases in which creators sell IP rights for sculpty maps to a third party in SL hardly happen. But it still can happen, mainly in cases where a sculpty creator is hired by an RL compagny and copyrights are turned over by contract.

SL tos says this about uploading content:

You agree that you will not upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service any Content that is protected by Intellectual Property Rights or otherwise subject to proprietary rights, including trade secret or privacy rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from the rightful owner to upload, publish, or submit the Content and to grant Linden Lab and users of the Service all of the license rights granted in these Terms of Service.

Uploading content is not really your problem. People who want to use your tool are responsible to get permission from the IP right owner to make a mesh out of the sculpt map and to upload it under their own name to SL. When a creator has bought a lot of sculpt maps from several creators, it can be some work to get each and everyones permission, and some sculpt makers might refuse to give permission, and then there is nothing your customer can do about it. I think it will often be more work for your customer to get all these permissions together then it will be to run your tool.  

 

The tos about downloading:

 

Linden Lab and other Content Providers may use the normal functionality of the Service, including the permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings, to indicate how you may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform their respective Content solely In-World. You acknowledge and agree that the permissions system and other functionality of the Service do not grant you any license, consent, or permission to copy, modify, transfer, or use in any manner any Content outside the Service.

You agree that you will not copy, transfer, or distribute outside the Service any Content that contains any Linden In-World 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.

So the SL Tos does not allow people to download a sculpty map to their own computer, unless ofcourse they have the permission from the IP right owner to do so.

Then another issue, that might become your problem, is that you as a service also need permission from the IP right owner to have their content on your machine. I think that you here have a bottle neck in your project.

This is at least for me a border that I don´t want to pass. In individual cases I sometimes do give permission to a customer to download my work to their personal computer, when they come up with a valid reason to do so, but there it stops where I want to distribute. That is also stated in the license agreement of my works:

You may NOT resell, redistribute or publish the sculpt maps, or psd files in any form. You may not transfer these sculpt maps or psd files to any other virtual world, website, torrent, or to any other 3rd party individual or entity.

Unless... you come up with a business model that makes it attractive for me as a sculpty creator to give my permission. But when there is nothing in it for me, why would I allow you to have my work on your computer? It is only enlarging the risks I already have as a merchant of full perms items.

 

A consideration for me is also: sculpts maps have no value besides in SL and third party grids based on SL. As a merchant of full perms items I have the risk to have my work now and then is illegally copied. But since that is limited to SL (and those few other almost empty worlds) I am prepared to take that risk.

With meshes it is something different, since 3d models do have value outsite SL, in a lot of other surroundings. Since I don't want to spend my time on filing dmca's to whatever website, torrent or isp I like to keep this risk of having my work spread all over the web as low as possible.

So no, I'm think I'll pass, and won't change my license to make it possible for my customers to work with your tool. Because for me it is only more risk without reward.

Unless you come up with a business model that makes it attractive enough for me to change my mind...

 

[emSynth]

Hehe, then I shall do just that!  The operator of sculpt2mesh should have the sculpt maps in SL as well as in RL, so to speak.  I can require that a copy of the sculpt map be placed into the purchased token as part of the upload process.  Then the script can simply use llGetObjectDetails() to find out both owner and creator and relay this information to our server.  We can then keep a database of upload fees (since each token will report its own fee) paid in each creator's name.  

Then it is a simple matter to occasionally pay the creators L$ automatically from an in world prim.  This way the Lindens get a piece of the action from the sale of the tokens in the marketplace, the creators get a piece of the action automagically showing up in their accounts, and we get our piece as well... Plus the customer can feel free to convert sculpts since all of the creators might be motivated to proactively send out new policies encouraging this new method of increasing profits!  

We might even get some complaints from creators such as: "Why are you sending me L$?", haha.  The Lindens have already set their percentage of the net profits via automated marketplace deductions.  Let me suggest something in the neighborhood of oh, say 25% of the amount received from the marketplace on a per conversion basis as automatically tracked by our system For the creators, leaving us with 75% of the post Linden revenue if you will allow that comical term, heh.  We can of course negotiate that number.  

Also, such a system requires oversight so I suggest that we agree to pay a third party scripter to independently help with setup and maintenance of the software that makes all of this happen.  Do these terms meet with your Approval?

emSynth

 

[Madeliefste Oh]

Something in that direction could be a workable model for your business

But even above the reward aspect I would like a business like yours to minimize my risks.

For example when you choose to work with a system where you send out .dae files to thousands of individual computers of your customers, the risk for me that my work is spread illegally is much higher, then when your customers do not get the file itself in hands. When there is a system behind where the file is stored at your server and only is accessable for uploading to SL with the SL viewer (or third party viewers that are on the SL Viewer list), this would be a much more attractive situation for me to give permission, then in the first case. 

And the safety of your system? What do you do to protect my work from hackers for example?

[Casper Priestman]

I must have missed something because I distinctly recall that a sculpt map which resides on a users computer can be imported into Blender as an object using the freely available script from Domino Marama. Furthermore, once inside Blender,  it can be output directly as a .dae suitable for mesh upload to the grid. In summary, the people that would be uploading sculpt map textures to your service for conversion would most likely be people who came into posession of the maps through proper or improper channels and either don't posess the minimal skill to click on FILE > IMPORT  then FILE> EXPORT or just don't want to be bothered with Blender and simply want to slap an inworld texture on it or upload one.What you've done is notable as far as a web achievement goes, but when you mention that you're relying on the uploader's integrity as far as IP rights, the same can be said about you and people who connect to your service. Being that you're only 44 days old, I'm sure people would feel much more confident in your claims and integrity if there was a significant beta period and disclosure of yours or whomever would be the legal and financial figurehead's relevant personal information

[emSynth]

Security is definitely a major concern.  

First, regarding automatic upload to SL, that is possible but it opens up a wole other can of worms that we cannot afford to deal with at this time.  We could modify a viewer to do this natively or use automation software to do it, but one mistake and the whole system breaks down which is not good for anyone involved.  Also, please realize that our output file format at this time is obj, not colada.  This is the best first file format from a development standpoint and it permits the user to run an optimization program on the mesh to improve the appearance / LI trade off in a smarter way than simple decimation.  For all these reasons automatic upload to SL is a no go situation.  

However the good news is that we can protect your IP in several ways.  We can delete the files automatically and immediately after use.  This will significanly lower the window of opportunity for theft.  We can perform cross checks between the LSL token and the server scripts, comparing things like owner name, file name, and possibly do something with the sculpt map data itself such as show the user a big randomly selected pixel in SL and on the web page and asking them if they are the same color or what color it is, as a sort of captcha thing maybe.  Also we can pay extra for a dedicated security router to be installed at the server site and install security software as well.  

There are lots of possibilities for security enhancement and we will begin with the automatic file deletion and go from there.  Also, my partner in this venture mentions that it is unlikely that someone will attempt to hack a server to steal a product that they can either copy bot or more easily just purchase with the intention of violating the agreement that you specify.  So not only can we remove the data and secure it, we can also be the path off greater resistance to theft.  

We also will add a disclaimer which states that the output file is for use in builds only and is not for resale in any form or circumstance.  How's that?

emSynth

 

[emSynth]

Casper, calm down.  There are answers to all of your concerns and I will at least begin to address them here.  

Many people prefer to avoid Blender for various reasons, and even fewer want to find and install an use a script in Blender or any other program.  The obj file format allows our customers to run optimization software such as atangeo's balancer programs which do a superb job of adjusting the quality / LI trade off.  Also there are many ways of converting obj to colada that are far more user friendly than the intimidating UI of Blender.  

Your statement describing our customer base is inaccurate as well.  Sculpt2mesh is a  tool for builders who wish to incorporate the advantages of Mesh using sculpts as source material, not a hack for criminals.  So to be a bit straightforward with you, yes you did miss something - you missed it all!  

Not that it matters, but I have been an SL creator for close to three years now, my prior alt is Inventor Alchemi.  

emSynth

 

[Chosen Few]

emSynth, from the way the conversation has unfolded so far, I'm glad to see that you're so open to useful feedback and willing to engage in intelligent discussion.  Madeliefste has done an excellent job of bringing up some of the legal/ethical issues regarding potential use/misuse of your tool.  Everything (s)he has said so far is true, and I'm pleased to see that you're taking it seriously. 

I'd like to add some comments and questions of my own, in direct response to your various statements and questions, regarding not only the IP concerns, but also the overall usefulness of the tool.  Some of this will echo the the good information that Madeeliefste has already provided, and some will be new.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

if after some time the creator cannot be located - usually due to leaving SL for some reason - then the customer can consider the IP to be public domain.

---

As Madeliefste well stated, that's not how it works, emSynth.  A person does not surrender his or her IP rights, simply because some other person doesn't know how to get in touch with him or her.  The property belongs to its rightful owner, regardless of whether or not he or she is easily reachable.

The question of whether or not the owner has left SL is 100% irrelevant.  IP ownership is a RL thing, not an SL thing.  SL is simply one service among countless thousands of services an owner might choose to use as a publication tool.  Just because an owner stops using a particular service doesn't mean he or she gives up his or her rights.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

The burden of responsibility on the customer is to seek out the creator, and the burden of responsibility of the creator is to be available via typical search and contact means. 

---

Only the first part of that statement is accurate.  The second part is fiction.

Yes, the customer has a responsibility to obtain the owner's permission before making any unauthorized copies of the property.  But no, the owner does not bear any responsibility whatsoever to making him/herself available to receive such requests.  If the owner cannot be reached for any reason, then by definition, the customer has not obtained permission, and that's the end of it.

 

It's worth noting that the subject of so called "orphan works" is currently being reviewed within the US Copyright Office, with the intent of advising Congress on any potential changes to the law.  No changes have been made yet, and it's likely that none will be made any time soon.  It's extremely difficult to determine how and whether to make works of unknown authorship available to the public, as a matter of policy, while still respecting the individual rights of owners.  If you're interested in the subject, feel free to read more about it at http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

 

---

emSynth wrote:

The fact that the tool is new and unforeseen by many creators does not alter this accepted practice. 

---

First, the "practice" you describe is not accepted, as we've discussed.

Second, practices, procedures, and even laws, are reconsidered and reworked, all the time, as new and unforeseen tools become available. 

 

---

emSynth wrote:

Do we outlaw wrenches because of the possibility of misuse, or do we educate all wrench users about the proper use of the wrench? 

---

Your analogy is too broad.  We don't outlaw wrenches, but we do outlaw plenty of other items that are potentially dangerous, even though we might be able to come up with legitimate uses for them.  I could use hand grenades to make the hole in my yard for that swimming pool I've always wanted, for example, but that doesn't make it legal for me to purchase, own, or use hand grenades in any way.

I can give you an easy example of software tools that are illegal, even though they clearly have legitimate uses:  DVD decrypters.   Under the DMCA, it is illegal to produce or distribute technology that circumvents digital copy protections.

If you want to know just how complicated that subject can be, consider the case of 321 Studios vs. MGM.  The judge ruled that although it is legal to make yourself a backup copy of a DVD you own, the software you need in order to make the copy is illegal.  Yowsa!

I'd imagine the awkwardness of the situation was not lost on the judge.  However, the ruling she made was really the only one she could.  Short of striking down the DMCA (which was what 321 Studios was arguing for), her hands were tied, and there wasn't enough there to actually strike it down.  So, odd is it may seem, the law stands.

 

You may want to think about whether or not your tool might fall into the same category as DVD Decrypter.  When you pull a sculpt map out of SL, convert the model it describes to another format, and then re-upload the model to SL under a different creator name, are you circumventing digital copy protections, under the legal definition?  I'd say the answer is a definite maybe.  It's certainly a question worthy of legal debate.  If someone were to bring the matter to court, you might find yourself in hot water, just as 321 Studios did.

 

 

---

emSynth wrote:

Regarding the accepted practice in the event a creator cannot be contacted, what is it then? 

---

The only legal thing to do in such a case is simply not to use that person's property.  As I said above, if an owner cannot be contacted, then you haven't obtained his or her permission.  Without permission, you cannot proceed.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

And upon mentioning that, I have just realized that the creator and the IP owner may be separate people.  So, sigh, it gets complicated. 

---

Yes, it's very complicated.  The few scenarios proposed so far in this thread don't even scratch the surface.  This is why it's crucially important not to jump into any industry without a full and accurate understanding of the legalities involved.

I'm pretty well versed in IP law, since I've been in the content business for a long time now, and since I fairly regularly read a lot on the subject.  But I wouldn't look at putting out a tool like the one you propose without having a good IP lawyer on retainer.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

We can put a terms of use with required checkbox indicating agreement on the web page if the community feels this would be prudent.

---

The terms of use would need to state very clearly that the tool is not to be used without the rightful owner's permission.  That MIGHT get you off the hook if an owner were to sue you.  It's unlikely it would prevent any deliberate misuse of the tool, though, as I'm sure you know.

If you ever were taken to court, and the judge were to rule that the purpose of your tool was to infringe, you'd be in serious trouble.

 

 

---

emSynth wrote:

i would like to mention that I have made every reasonable effort to understand these issues and to operate in accordance with accepted practice, and I rely on thoughtful people like yourself to help me resolve any issues that arise. 

---

I would say you've made A reasonable effort here, which is a good start.  However, you've got a long way to go before it would be accurate to state that you've made EVERY reasonable effort.  I'm glad that you're listening to us in the community, but you should also be consulting an attorney.  By your own admission, you're not (yet) very well versed in IP law.  Missteps could end up costing you dearly.  I'd strongly caution you against going forward with this until you've got a legal expert on your side, especially considering you seem to be planning on making a business of it.

 

 

 

That covers the legalities raised so far.  Now let's talk about some technical issues.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I'm having trouble understanding why I, as a content creator, would ever have need of a tool like this.  Can you please explain what advantage would there be for me in using your tool instead of my own 3D modeling software?

I can only think of two use cases, myself:

One would be if I don't actually have the sculpt map on my local machine.  In that case, it would have to be someone else's map, not mine, and I'd have to lack the creator's permission to download it.  If I don't have permission to download, it's nearly impossible to imagine I'd have permission to upload it to your tool.  Add all that up, and your tool becomes a service for circumventing copy protections, which as we've already discussed, is illegal.  I'm assuming that's not your intent here.

The other would be if I don't know how to use 3D modeling software, and I've created the map in a sculpty-only tool, like SculptyPaint or something.  In that case, what do I do with the mesh object after your tool spits it out?  If my intent is to give it better texturing, but I don't know how to use a modeling program, I'm not going to be able to give it a custom UV map, or assign multiple materials to it, or do any of the countless other things that allow an arbitrary mesh to be textured better than a sculpty.  If it's a clothing item, and I don't know how to use 3D modeling software, I'm not going to be able to rig it, so it's going to remain rigid, just like if it had stayed a sculpty.   If my intent is to lower display cost by using your tool's decimation, but if I'm not technically savvy enough to understand even a basic 3D modeling program, I'm probably also not knowledgeable enough (or conscientious enough) to be concerned with display cost.  Etc., etc., etc.

 

What am I missing here?  What can your tool do for me as a creator, that my own local 3D modelling software cannot already do?  Who exactly is your target market for your service?

 

---

emSynth wrote:

The work flow therefore involves importing the obj file in a 3D editor such as Blender,,,

---

If I'm going to have to do that anyway, why wouldn't I simply import the sculpt map itself into Blender, and save myself the added step of using your tool?

 

---

emSynth wrote:

Regarding LI, or Land Impact, the Lindens have chosen to set things up such that a direct conversion without editing, decimation, or optimization of a 64 x 64 sculpt map results in an LI of around 32!

---

Just a minor technicality here.  It's not always going to be 32.  It could be as low as 1, or as much as several hundred, depending on the overall size, the physics shape, etc.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

For this reason we have added decimation to the work flow.  You can take the 128x128 Apple sculpt map texture from the library and run it through sculpt2mesh with decimation of 8x8 or so to get a somewhat blocky but usable Apple mesh With low LI. 

---

Again, why wouldn't I just retopologize the object in my own local modeling software?  What benefit is there in using your tool for this?

 

---

emSynth wrote:

As to the advantages of converting a sculpt to a mesh object, there are many.  LI is not one of them!  If you need low LI which is often the case, then keep it as a sculpt.  Mesh conversion advantages include making flexible cloth items from previously rigid sculpts, better texturing, the ability to alter sculpts for which the original tool used to create the sculpt is no longer available or the source materials are lost.  Creating mesh objects from sculpt only tools, faster rezzing, physics shapes, up to eight sided textures, and other advantages that escape me at the moment. 

---

To take advantage of almost any of these benefits, I need to know how to use 3D modeling software.  With that being the case, why wouldn't I just create the mesh model directly, and export it straight to COLLADA?

Again, the only two use cases for which I can picture a need for your tool would be the two I mentioned above.  Either I don't own the sculpt map, in which case use of the tool would be illegal, or I don't know how to use 3D modeling software, in which case I can't do enough to be able to benefit from converting the sculpty to a mesh model.  So again I have to ask, what am I missing here?

[emSynth]

Chosen Few, I have read your post and I will be happy to explain the advantages of using sculpt2mesh, however at the moment I am going to hang out with some friends and have a little fun play time which is am rare opportunity for me.  It is nearly one am on New Years data and I need a break!  

In the mean timeyo if you wish study read the more recent posts than the ones you referenced in your very detailed and thoughtful post, you will find some good answers there.  Have a grat evening and I will get back to you as soon as I can!  

emSynth

[Madeliefste Oh]

---

emSynth wrote:

However the good news is that we can protect your IP in several ways.  We can delete the files automatically and immediately after use.  This will significanly lower the window of opportunity for theft.  We can perform cross checks between the LSL token and the server scripts, comparing things like owner name, file name, and possibly do something with the sculpt map data itself such as show the user a big randomly selected pixel in SL and on the web page and asking them if they are the same color or what color it is, as a sort of captcha thing maybe.  Also we can pay extra for a dedicated security router to be installed at the server site and install security software as well.  

 

---

What does it help me that you delete the files, while you spread the mesh files among your customers?

We already have to deal with a lot in SL with people who are not aware of copyright issues, who think like 'full perms' means I can do with it what I want, or who think SL tos overrules the merchants tos, or who think that content is not copyrighted when there is no copyright sign on it, and so on and so on. Most people are not aware that they do not own the sculpty map they have bought, but that what they bought is actually a license to make use of the sculpt map within SL. I also do have customers who are perfectly aware of copyright issues and act accordingly to it. But in general you cannot say the awareness about IP rights is very high.

That is the context where you are going to send my work to peoples computers. Since the content is no longer only in SL but available on peoples computers, my IP right is as risk, in a much larger world then just SL. It is very well possible that people think they can do whatever they want with my work, since they paid me for the sculpt map and paid your business to make a mesh out of it. They simple feel it is their own mesh. And a percentage of them will do with it whatever they want because they are not aware of IP right, or because they just don't care at all.

And that is my concern. Obj files or a dae files based on my sculpt maps stored on peoples computers opens the whole world for possible abuse. And the world is simply too big for me as a small business to control and defend my rights in. 

 

---

 Also, my partner in this venture mentions that it is unlikely that someone will attempt to hack a server to steal a product that they can either copy bot or more easily just purchase with the intention of violating the agreement that you specify.

---

You just need one drama queen as unsatisfied customer, give her not enough attention to or react not tactful enough to her complaints, and a boyfriend who likes to show his hacking powers, to make it happen.

 

 

 

 

 

[Casper Priestman]

Emsynth, I'm quite calm thank you

 

No, I don't think I missed anything and Chosen Few has also confirmed some of my observations. Now to be fair I did say that your intended customer base likely included both proper and improper means of acquisition of their sculpt maps, I wasn't implying that the sole user demographic of your planned service would be disreputable. I think maybe you were confusing me with someone else you were having a conversation with.

 

We both agree that there are creators who prefer not to engage in the Blender UI, those who either have a software package of their own or buy full perm builder packs that they can assemble to their liking and texture if 2d graphics are their forte. I think it's possible that while you've come up with a novel way to handle the conversion of one medium to another, you've overestimated it's potential viability. Would it work? Yes of course it would. Is it practical? I'm guessing that this is where the crux is. The market would most likely be limited, so I would think carefully about how much effort you plan to invest, unless of course it's a proof of concept and the reward is in the experience gained by it. You'll most likely get your market data from the beta testing and you'll have a better idea of how far you want to take it. So with that said, on with the development...we can banter semantics later.

[Madeliefste Oh]

---

Casper Priestman wrote:

The market would most likely be limited, so I would think carefully about how much effort you plan to invest, unless of course it's a proof of concept and the reward is in the experience gained by it.

 

---

Indeed, it is not a uncomplicated project at all your are investing in. I do see a potential market for your service, but my fear would be that it not a growing market, but a market that will slowly but steadily starve off. A lot of sculpty makers stopped with sculpties and concentrate on mesh now. So the supply of sculpties is strongly declining.

What I experience in my own business is that I have three types of customers: mesh fans, sculpty die hards and mix-and-matchers. The mesh fans were in the beginning early adaptors who stopped buying sculpty maps as soons a mesh arrived, but this group is rapidly growing. Well layout uv maps are much more handy for texture artists to work with then textures for sculpty maps. People who experience this tend to choose more often for meshes then for sculpties.

For mix and matchers it is not such a big deal if an object is made as mesh or as sculpty. When they have in mind they need a table with six legs for a project they will buy the best looking, prim lowest, most affordable table with six legs, no matter if it is mesh or sculpt.

The sculpty die hards is the smallest group. They refuse to use mesh, it can be because they have an older computer that is not capable of running a mesh viewer, or it can be that they have dediced to dedicate their brand to customers who run sl on older computers. Or they just hate mesh for whatever vague reason.

I get a lot of request for costum builds and such. Notable is that during last year I was asked about 20 times if I was willing to make a sculpty version of this or that mesh of mine. But not a single costumer asked me if I wanted to make a mesh version of one of my sculpties. I would have expected to be the other way around. So I'm always curious why people ask for a sculpt version, when there is a mesh version available. And 95% of the times it is: old computers cannot run mesh viewers.

I don't hope to discourage you, but think indeed that the market is limited and expect that it will shrink more and more when time passes.

 

[emSynth]

OK I am back from playtime and will respond to what has been written.  First I will ask that you not pick apart every word I write like some usenet junkie starting a flame war.  That will get us nowhere.  Also please refrain from threats, that is inappropriate.  I do not fear hackers or lawyers so your mention of their imagined response on your part is not only ineffective, it actually appears to be a cry for help.  Do not fear the unknown consequences of progress.  

I have previously stated the advantages of and situations within which one might benefit from converting sculpts to mesh And I see no need to repeat them here.  Also I am not distributing the obj output files to anyone but the customer - I am not spreading mesh files among my customers As Oh asserts.  In fact, I will not address any additional misconceptions except to ask you to Go back and read the thread again.  

I have proposed to include creators in the profit model and for that matter Linden Labs as well so that everyone involved receives compensation for their role in this plan.  I have also proposed a no resell disclaimer In which the mesh output may only be used in builds.  And most importantly I made an effort to incorporate all of your concerns to the best of my ability.  There is nothing else that I can do short of canceling the project, which is not appropriate.  

Please realize that you cannot stop the march of progress no matter how strong your fear of the unknown may be.  If i were to listen to you and give up, then someone else would provide this technology and guess what?  They might not be quite so accommodating!  So I respectfully suggest that you learn to deal with the emergence of sculpt2mesh - it is not going away!  

emSynth

 

[Innula Zenovka]

What steps, if any, do you propose to take to prevent someone's using your service to make sculpts when you know the creator of the sculptmap objects?

That is, if someone who makes sculpts says to you, "I most emphatically object to anyone using your service to create meshes based on my sculptmaps,"  how do you intend to work with them to help prevent abuse of your service, and what information would you need from them?

If, for example, someone offers to provide you with reference copies of sculptmaps they've created and don't want converting, would you be prepared to compare these with items you may be asked to convert?     Could you check for watermarks, for example?

 ETA:  I got to thinking about Watermarks and stuff.   Presumably, whatever the creator's view on the matter, you're not going to be able to do much with something like this (by Madeliefste, as it happens, but that's just because it was the first convenient example to hand):

[Chosen Few]

---

emSynth wrote:

First I will ask that you not pick apart every word I write like some usenet junkie starting a flame war.  That will get us nowhere.

---

No one picked apart your words, and certainly no one's lookng to start a flame war. This is not that kind of forum, emSynth.

If you're referring to the fact that some of your sentences have been quoted for direct response, please consider that a positive, not a negative.  It's the way we keep the discussion pointed, and well organized.  It happens every day, in almost every thread.  I've never seen anyone here have a problem with it, except for you right now, assuming that is indeed what you meant.

If that was not what you meant, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what you did mean.

 

I'd also like to point out that name calling is neither appropriate nor productive.  Your demeanor had been so apparently thoughtful and well presented until the "usenet junkie" stuff came out.  It's a shame you've now changed gears, because truly that's the stuff that will get us nowhere.  No one else in this discussion has said anything even remotely disrespectful.  You're the only one.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

Also please refrain from threats, that is inappropriate.  I do not fear hackers or lawyers so your mention of their imagined response on your part is not only ineffective, it actually appears to be a cry for help.

---

What threats?  Who threatened you?  When? I see no evidence of threat anywhere in the thread. Please explain.

No one said anything about hackers, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.  The only reference to lawyers was my suggestion that you consult one before proceeding with this business (just as you should when beginning ANY new business) since you yourself mentioned your own knowledge of the laws by which your business must abide is limited.  That was good advice, and you really aught to take it.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

I have previously stated the advantages of and situations within which one might benefit from converting sculpts to mesh And I see no need to repeat them here.

---

You've listed some obvious advantages of mesh over sculpties in general, but I still have yet to see you suggest any ways in which an actual person would benefit from your service. 

As I already said a couple of times now, the only two use cases I can think of simply don't work.  One is illegal, and the other is impractical.  (1. If someone doesn't own the sculpt map, then the use of your tool would be illegal.  2. If someone doesn't know how to use 3D modeling software, the results of your tool would be fairly useless to them.) 

So, what's the third case that I'm not thinking of that warrants the tool's existence?  You must have one in mind or you wouldn't be doing this, right?

You promised to explain, in response to my earlier post.  Please do.

 

---

emSynth wrote:

In fact, I will not address any additional misconceptions except to ask you to Go back and read the thread again. 

---

That's not how to have a discussion, and it's certainly no way to treat your potential customers.  The fact that you posted here suggests you believe we here are your target market. I invite you to treat us as such.

As someone who's been in business for nearly 20 years, I can promise you that when one reacts to one's potential customers by saying what amounts to, "I already told you once, so I'm not gonna tell you again," one won't be in business very long.  If I started doing that, I'd be out of business in a matter of days or weeks.

I used to teach accredited courses in communications, and psychology of sales.  Here's a pertinent factoid from both of those disciplines, which I hope you'll see the advantage in knowing.  The average customer needs the same information presented at least five times in five different ways before his or brain becomes prepared to formulate a yes or no decision. When the information is only presented once, at least 80% of people will just walk away confused, without ever getting to make any decision at all, which is the worst possible outcome.

No business can afford to lose 80% of its customers, right off the bat.  So, if you want to be successful, you absolutely MUST expect and welcome the fact that people so often misinterpret your meaning on the first go.  It's perfectly natural, it's entirely positive, and it's THE first step in the buying process (and yes, buying IS a process).  The fact that someone chooses to respond to you at all indicates that he or she is interested in what you have to say.  It's an active invitation for you to restate your case, to propel the process forward to the next step.

Imagine if a surgeon were to say, "I already cut this person once, so I'm not gonna do the rest of the operation," or if a mechanic were to say, "I already turned that screw once, so I'm not gonna tighten it."  How successful would they be?  Effective communication, just like surgery or mechanical assembly, is a mutii-step process, involving repetition.  When someone doesn't get it the first time, GREAT!  Now you get to clarify, which is even better.

You already stated your (correct) understanding that threats are often cries for help.  I can promise you, responses to misinterpretation are ALWAYS cries for help.  Your potential customers are asking you to help them understand.  Not to recognize that is to do yourself and your customers a tremendous disservice.  Not to respond to it is to be abusive of all involved.

If you truly believe your service will help people, then you should welcome any and every opportunity to shout the benefits from the highest roof tops, so everyone can understand.  When someone doesn't get it, you should get more enthusiastic, not less.  It's a brand new opportunity, each and every time it happens.

Please take this opportunity to clear up what it is we all seem to be missing here.  How might we benefit from your service?  For those of us who use 3D modeling software, what will your service do for us that the programs we already have will not do?  And what do you expect those who don't know how to use 3D modeling software will be able to do with the models your service generates?

 

---

emSynth wrote:

And most importantly I made an effort to incorporate all of your concerns to the best of my ability.

---

I sincerely hope you misspoke there, and it's not actually the case that simply participating in one day's worth of forum discussion, in which only four other people besides yourself have yet engaged, does not constitute the very best of your ability.  Surely you're made of more than just that if you intend to launch a successful business.

 

 

---

emSynth wrote:

There is nothing else that I can do short of canceling the project, which is not appropriate. 

---

If indeed the only two use cases for it are illegal and impractical, then it would be appropriate to cancel it.  I'm still hoping you will explain whatever other case(s) there may be that I haven't thought of, which would make such cancellation inappropriate.

 

 

---

emSynth wrote:

Please realize that you cannot stop the march of progress no matter how strong your fear of the unknown may be.  If i were to listen to you and give up, then someone else would provide this technology and guess what?  They might not be quite so accommodating!  So I respectfully suggest that you learn to deal with the emergence of sculpt2mesh - it is not going away! 

---

No one except for you said anything about stopping.  What we're all asking for is clarification from you.  On a few points, you've done a good job of that, but on some of the most important ones, you now seem to be recoiling.   That's not a good sign.  It suggests that perhaps you came here looking for validation, expecting that we'd all be excited about your project as you are, but when you instead found that we were analytical and cautious,  you became uncomfortable.

I'd encourage you to set that discomfort aside, and recognize this opportunity for what it is.  Come on back to the discussion, and show on all points the great thoughtfulness and willingness to engage in meaningful discussion that you showed in your first few posts.

[Madeliefste Oh]

I'm bringing up my concerns not to flame you or discourage you, but to help you with the further development of your project. I can imagen that you have spent your time and thoughts mainly on the programming of your tool, To make it happen that it all works flawless, which in itself is admirable.

But the succes of your business does not only depend on how well the coding is done. You offer a service in which you work with other peoples copyrighted content. Your customers need to get permission from these IP right owners to be able to profit from your tool.
As an IP right owner I bring up my concerns to challenge you to find solutions for my concerns. Because the succes of your business depends also on willingness of IP right owners to give permission to their buyers for the use of your tool.

When people start using your tool without these permissions from the IP right owners, the result will be that DMCA's are filed against the meshes generated by your tool. Linden Lab does act on DMCA's and when the uploader (your customer) cannot come up with a counter DMCA in which he states he is the legit copyright holder, the result is that Linden Lab is going to delete the meshes uploaded by your customers.

I think you really have good reasons to try to prevent that such is going to happen. The whole IP right issue might give you more head crushing spreads than you had expected, but that does not mean it is unsolvable. The succes of your business depends partly on how well you will adress the concerns brought up in this thread.

Profit from it for the further development of your product, and please don't consider it to be an attack.