texture creation rights

[Brii Moonwall]

I made some textures to use for a sign, i now see someone must have snapshot or some how copied the texture from my sign, added a border to it and made thier own sign. I made this texture i know its not just floating around on the internet or anything like that.  However, i did not add copyright to the texture. Is there anything that still can be done about someone taking the texture as their own?

[Peggy Paperdoll]

You don't need to copyright your digital creations to have your intellectual property rights protected.  What you need to do is file a DMCA complaint with Linden Lab.  You can start here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Frequently_Asked_Questions_on_the_IP_Complaint_Process

Read what it's all about and how to protect your textures (or any digital creation........not only in SL but on the Internet as a whole).  It's up to you to file the complaint.......no one else can do it.  You must file it correctly and once you do LL is required by law to remove the content from SL.  After that's done the issue is out of LL's hands and into yours and the person you filed the complaint against (it goes into the real life realm of legality.......the courts).  If the person you filed the complaint against counters your claim LL will reinstate the content and you and the person can hash it out outside of the Second Life.  It can get expensive but if you want to protect your content then that's what you have to do.  It's up to you.  It's a real life law and only the parties concerned can deal with it.

 

[Randall Ahren]

---

Brii Moonwall wrote:

I made some textures to use for a sign, i now see someone must have snapshot or some how copied the texture from my sign, added a border to it and made their own sign.

---

I believe this is a derivative work, which you think was made from a snapshot of your sign. Snapshots are subject to license provisions under the ToS. From Section 7.3 of the ToS (emphasis added):

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to any publicly accessible areas of the Service, you hereby grant each user of Second Life a non-exclusive license to access the User Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content In-World or otherwise on the Service solely as permitted by you through your interactions with the Service under these Terms of Service. This license is referred to as the "User Content License," and the Content being licensed is referred to as "User Content."

There is also the Snapshot and Machima policy (emphasis added) to consider:

 

1. A License To Capture. You may take snapshots and capture machinima of the 3D content we created that is displayed in-world, and
2. A License To Use. You may use the resulting snapshot or machinima within or outside of Second Life in any current or future media. “Use” means “use, reproduce, distribute, modify, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform.” 

 

I'm thinking that an in-world sign made from a snapshot of the OP's sign may be OK under the foregoing license provisions of the ToS. But I'm not sure.

[Brii Moonwall]

ty both for answering.

 

But if they took the shapshot of the texture added a border to try to make it look different and are now using it as their own, perhaps thats different?

[Randall Ahren]

How about some photos? A picture is worth a 1,000 words. Redact any info that you think may violate ToS, such as business names.

[Peggy Paperdoll]

Derivative work is the grayest of the gray areas when it comes to Intellectual Property rights.  It's almost entirely subjective as opposed to objective.  How much does the art have to be altered before it's no longer a copy?  Do a Google for "copyright" and you'll get an idea of just how varied opinions are on the subject......opinions by legal experts.

 

What you can do is file the DMCA with LL.  As long as you filed out the form correctly, LL will take the content off the grid.  Let the person who "copied" your work counter claim against you (it will be directly against you so be prepared for that).  It's a legal issue (are real life legal issue).  No one here can offer you much help...........heck a lawyer probably won't be able to help you much either.  It is a problem on the Internet........and there are no easy cut and dried answers.  Linden Lab won't get involved........by law they are prohibited from intervening.

[Josh Susanto]

"I'm not a lawyer, but..."

It seems to me that the issue may come down to the question of whether it is reasonable to construe someone's actions as demonstrating an intention to mislead consumers. 

Surely there's a difference between producing derivative works that are presented as derivative and producing derivative works that are presented either as non-derivative or as less derivative than they actually are.

No?

[Peggy Paperdoll]

The problem isn't about what anyone construes about anything.  It's what defines Intellectual Property and who "owns" it.  With the copyright laws written in such a vague fashion as they are one would tend to believe the laws were written that way on purpose........you will need some "judgement" on a particular case to know how the law is applied for that case.  The next IP issue would be decided completely independant of any previous decision........identical situation could easily produce a completely different outcome.  That is one of the reasons Intellectual Property cases are so seldom pursued........it takes deep pockets to even bring it to court.  Plus for the amount of compensation anyone gains from content in SL it becomes more a matter or principal that monetary loss by IP infringement..........how much one is willing to pay in real money just to assert their legal right over Intellectual Property.

 

I can guarantee you that LL won't get involved beyond what is legally required once a properly filed DMCA claim is made or a counter claim is returned.  If you read the copyright and intellectual property right laws you will understand why.  And no one in these forums is going to have any "correct" answer to the question.............there just isn't one with such a vaguely written law.

[Chosen Few]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

I believe this is a derivative work, which you think was made from a snapshot of your sign. Snapshots are subject to license provisions under the ToS. From Section 7.3 of the ToS

---

Randall, you seem to have overlooked the most important phrase in 7.3, which is "soley as permitted by you through your interactions with the service".  Section 7.3 isn't intended to give free reign to anyone and everyone in SL to copy your content with impunity.  What it does, in short, is give the SL permissions system some legal footing.

Let's take it one point at a t time, with respect to that key phrase, and hopefully this will all become more clear:

 

---

The right to

use

the Content In-World... solely as permitted by you

---

This allows people to use any usable items you've sold or given to them in-world.

 

---

The right to

reproduce

the Content In-World... solely as permitted by you

---

This allows people legally to make copies of items that you've indicated are copyable.

 

---

The right to

distribute

the Content In-World... solely as permitted by you

---

This ensures that when someone gives away copies of an item you've deemed are to be copyable and shareable, they're legally in the clear to do it.

 

---

The right to

prepare derivative works

of the Content In-World... solely as permitted by you

---

This part allows people to modify items for which you've given mod permission in-world. It also allows people to do things like mix and match individual components of avatar outfits in-world, to create new outfits.

This part does NOT allow people to copy your work and make derivatives for uses you did not intend.

 

---

The right to

display

the Content In-World... solely as permitted by you

---

This allows people to do things like put a house they've bought from you on display on their land, or wear a shirt they've bought from you on their avatar.

 

---

The right to

perform

the Content In-World... solely as permitted by you

---

This enables people to play animations, sounds, scripts, and any other playable items that you may have given or sold to them.

 

None of that allows people to do things like rip a sign texture for use on another sign.  That's a whole other animal, entirely.

 

 

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

There is also the Snapshot and Machima

policy

  to consider:

---

Yes, let's talk about that as well.  Just like 7.3, this policy simply allows people to do certain things that are part of the normal operations of SL.  

The policy does NOT allow people to just snap a picture of something in order to create an anauthorized copy of the item itself.  What it does do, in short, is allow people to approach photography and cinemtography in SL in the same manner that it's approached in RL, with respect to copyright.  I'll explain.

In RL, if you want to snap a photo of your 12-year-old daughter wearing her Justin Bieber T-shirt, you likely don't need Justin's permission to reproduce the photo.  The picture is of your daugher.  The shirt is coincidental and periphary.  However, if you took a picture of just the shirt, and reproduced the image to make another shirt, or a lunchbox, or a sign, or whatever, then you'd be in volation of that little twirp's copyright.

By the same token, if I take a picture of my avatar in SL, and the avatar happens to be wearing a shirt got from you, I don't need your permission to do that.  You own the copyright on the shirt, but you don't own the picture I took of my avatar, no matter what the avatar happened to have been wearing at the time.  What I can't do, however, is extract the shirt's image from the snapshot, and then use it as the basis for a new shirt of my own.  That would absolutely violate your copyright.

The same is true for every item in SL.  If it's on display, anyone can take a picture or a video of it.  They can also prepare derivative works of said picture or video (since it's their picture/their video).  But at no time are they allowed to prepare derivative works of the item itself without the owner's permission.

Make sense?

[Randall Ahren]

The copyright laws aren't that vague, just quite broad and codified in Title 17 of the United States Code. Basically, a copyright is created in any work having some modicum of creativity when it is stored in a tangible medium. For example, short words and phrase are not considered to have the requisite level of creativity. Those must be protected under trademark law. Moreover, copyright extends to copies of the work and derivatives thereof. 

You cannot sue for copyright infringement unless you have registered the work. And you cannot collect statutory damages unless you registered the copyright before the infringement occurred. Statutory damages are important because it is difficult to prove actual damages. 

LL modified modified those provisions by requiring as a condition of use that everyone grant a license for snapshots of their content. I can take a snapshot of your house in SL and reproduce it because you have granted me a license to do so under the ToS. Moreover, I can produce derivative works. For example, I can write on the snapshot with photoshop of something "Peggy's House" and draw some arrows and a smiley face and it still falls within the license.

In this situation, someone took a snapshot of a sign, erased what it originally said, inserted their own words, and added a border. Looks like a derivative work falling under the license required of all residents for their content in SL.

ETA: I see Chosen Few has shown up, who I have an ignore, which doesn't function. Accordingly, there will be no further replies from me in this thread. 

 

[Chosen Few]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

In this situation, someone took a snapshot of a sign, erased what it originally said, inserted their own words, and added a border. Looks like a derivative work falling under the license required of all residents for their content in SL.

---

 

While you may be correct about the technical actions performed on the image, that doesn't change the fact that the usage certainly falls outside the spirit of the policy.  When a picture of a sign is used to create another sign, it's no longer just a snapshot.

 

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

ETA: I see Chosen Few has shown up, who I have an ignore, which doesn't function. Accordingly, there will be no further replies from me in this thread. 

 

---

So mature.

[Nefertiti Nefarious]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

---

Brii Moonwall wrote:

I made some textures to use for a sign, i now see someone must have snapshot or some how copied the texture from my sign, added a border to it and made their own sign.

---

 I'm thinking that an in-world sign made from a snapshot of the OP's sign may be OK under the foregoing license provisions of the ToS. But I'm not sure.

---

No - SL's policy means that if I take a screenshot of a sim and the OP's sign is in the scene, as one of the elements, used as a sign, that's OK.  It doesn't mean I can take the sign tecxture, alter it a bit, and resell the sign.

[Josh Susanto]

>The problem isn't about what anyone construes about anything.  It's what defines Intellectual Property and who "owns" it. 

I'm pretty sure that LL owns it unless there's an earlier claim to the data or similar data outside SL.

If you load a texture, you give it to LL and they license it back to you.

That's why they have little interest in policing intellectual property matters beyond SL, but, as I said, will take unkindly to attempts to mislead customers, which is as serious a problem, if, technically, a separate one.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

 

I'm pretty sure that LL owns it unless there's an earlier claim to the data or similar data outside SL.

If you load a texture, you give it to LL and they license it back to you.

---

 TOS 7.1:

You retain any and all Intellectual Property Rights you already hold under applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or through the Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to the rights, licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any underlying rights of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use or modify.

You need to have the actual copyrights registered before you can claim a texture as your own in a court of law. If you don't do this, you still own the copyrights as far as I know, so I can't imagine anyone else can register anyone elses texture. So I really don't see why LL would own them at any point, just because the data is on their servers.

In 7.2 you do give all the rights to let LindenLab use or copy your (yes YOUR) items or textures, that doesn't mean you hand over the copyright and it sure doesn't mean LL licenses you to use it.

7.6 is even called "Linden Lab owns Intellectual Property Rights in and to the Service, EXCEPT ALL USER CONTENT, and in and to the Linden Marks.

[Morgaine Christensen]

Okay hypothetical question here...does not necessarily apply to the OP...but one I have been curious about for a long time.

How doesDMCA, copyright, and such apply to simultaneous, independently created items by different creators?  Granted, the odds of it occuring are high, but it is a possibility, especially if creating with certain types of software that may generate/alter derivatives or using free textures from open sources to create your derivatives?

[Chosen Few]

---

Morgaine Christensen wrote:

Okay hypothetical question here...does not necessarily apply to the OP...but one I have been curious about for a long time.

How doesDMCA, copyright, and such apply to simultaneous, independently created items by different creators?  Granted, the odds of it occuring are high, but it is a possibility, especially if creating with certain types of software that may generate/alter derivatives or using free textures from open sources to create your derivatives?

---

Great question, Morgaine.  In copyright law, independent creation is a valid defense against an infringement claim.  If the accused party can satisfactorily show that he or she created the work on his or her own, and that it is merely a coincidience that it happens to look similar to the accuser's work, then the accused would not be guilty of infringment.  Both works would then be entitled to their own independent copyright protections.

[Chosen Few]

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

I'm pretty sure that LL owns it unless there's an earlier claim to the data or similar data outside SL.

---

 

Josh, you seem to be operating under the assumption that data and IP are the same thing.  They're not, and that's a very good thing for you, and for me, and for all of us in SL.

LL owns all the data on their network, yes.  But with respect to user-generated content, they do NOT own any of the intellectual property that their data describes.  If you created the work, you own the copyright, period.

 

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

 

If you load a texture, you give it to LL and they license it back to you.

---

It's actually the other way around.  If you upload a texture that you own, you retain ownership of it, while licensing it to LL, and potentially to other SL users. 

This was one of the key factors that made SL a success, and allowed it to grow into what it is today.  The fact that we all retain ownership of our own creations was what made SL appealing to content creators early on.  Had LL not made it so clear right from the start that their mission was to do right by content creators, it's likely the whole thing never would have taken off.  I certainly never would have gotten involved.  I doubt any of my friends and colleagues would have either.

Kwak posted the relevant sections of the TOS.  I suggest you read them (and the entire TOS, while you're at it).  It's super important that you understand your rights, and what you've agreed to in signing up for SL.

 

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

That's why they have little interest in policing intellectual property matters beyond SL

---

There are two apparent misunderstandings in this statement. 

First, LL doesn't "police intellectual property" at all.  That's not their role, and they could potentially get in quite a bit of legal trouble if they tried.  What they do is follow the same rules as every other online service provider, in accordance with DMCA and other applicable laws.  That means when somoene files a takedown notice, they are obligated to remove the alleged infringing content.  Then, if the accused party files a counter-notice, LL is obligated to put the content back.  At no time will LL ever step in to decide which party is right or wrong.  That's the job the courts, not of service providers.

Second, matters beyond SL are not LL's concern, with respect to content that they do not own.  It's YOUR job to protect YOUR content, not theirs.  If they did in fact own your content, they would very likely seek to protect it outside SL.  But since they don't own it, they cannot even try.  It's simply none of their business what anyone does or doesn't do with it outside SL.  When it comes to IP that they do own, like thier logo and such, they do protect it vigorously, under the law.

 

---

Josh Susanto wrote:

but, as I said, will take unkindly to attempts to mislead customers, which is as serious a problem, if, technically, a separate one.

---

Yes, totally separate issue.  It's in LL's interest to maintain an environment where customers and merchants can do honest business with each other.  This, in large part, is why we all have to agree to the Community Standards.  If people can't enjoy their time in SL, they won't want to be a part of it, and we all lose, LL most of all.  Therefore, they make an effort take things like consumer fraud seriously, and deal with it as they best they can.

But that's really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Copyright is a RL legal matter.  LL operates the same way as every other service provider with respect to it.

[Morgaine Christensen]

Thanks Chosen for the info. This all started in my head again as I have been working on some clothing for myself...learning actually, or trying to....with the possible thought of selling them if I can perfect them. BUT, because there is only so much you can do with clothing via the templates, sculpt/prim add-ons, rezzed skirts, etc., it is worrisome.   While I might be influenced by the work of others in SL and RL, the work is still done by me.  Anyway, thanks ...your answer helped some.

[Chosen Few]

Be careful with things like "influenced by".  That could be construed to mean your work is derivative, rather than independently original.  In order to be claimed as independent, it has to actually BE independent.

If it's simply a matter of having been influenced by a general style or technique, that's fine.  For instance, if you wrote a book about a little boy who goes to wizarding school, because you like the genre, and you think there's a lot of room for totally original stories and characters within it, great.  But if the boy's name is Larry Rotter, his two best friends are Don and Shmerlione, and his favorite teacher is Professor Rumblerore, you've probably got a problem.

[Shelby Silverspar]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

ETA: I see Chosen Few has shown up, who I have an ignore, which doesn't function. Accordingly, there will be no further replies from me in this thread. 

 

---

 

That's seriously a shame considering how misinformed you seem to be regarding copyright law. Chosen is probably the most knowledgeable poster this forum has, and I for one am really grateful that Chosen chooses to share that knowledge with us here.  To have access to Chosen's level of expertise usually requires tuition at the very least.

[Josh Susanto]

>Josh, you seem to be operating under the assumption that data and IP are the same thing.  They're not, and that's a very good thing for you, and for me, and for all of us in SL.

It's a distinction that will have very practical consequences, if any. SL owns the right to provide people with screen shots of whatever you load into SL. So, sure - they can't have your computer seized and the hard drive accessed to remove images you created which now have become part of SL. Those will tend to actually belong to you. 

>LL owns all the data on their network, yes.  But with respect to user-generated content, they do NOT own any of the intellectual property that their data describes.  If you created the work, you own the copyright, period.

We'll see how far that goes when you die and your executor wants all the intellectual property you generated removed from LL servers. If no damages can be shown due to failure to execute a take-down notice in a timely manner, your heirs will likely get exactly 1 dollar as compensation. Linden dollars are not actually money, so in-system transactions can't be used as an easy measure of profitable abuse.

>It's actually the other way around.  If you upload a texture that you own, you retain ownership of it, while licensing it to LL, and potentially to other SL users. 

That's written as a legal convenience to LL, but I understand this may be counterintuitive. Have you ever actually tried to get any IP data of yours removed from the system? 

>This was one of the key factors that made SL a success, and allowed it to grow into what it is today.  The fact that we all retain ownership of our own creations was what made SL appealing to content creators early on.  Had LL not made it so clear right from the start that their mission was to do right by content creators, it's likely the whole thing never would have taken off.  I certainly never would have gotten involved.  I doubt any of my friends and colleagues would have either.

It's a great selling point, yes. Except that it doesn't actually have broad defacto applicability, making it almost a moot point. The main advantage to LL is that, as they technically forego the actual copyright, they violate no copyright by allowing you to load pirated material; the violation is yours. And yet, they get to continue to use the stuff as long as you are not ordered by a judge or otherwise agree to get rid of the stuff.

>Kwak posted the relevant sections of the TOS.  I suggest you read them (and the entire TOS, while you're at it).  It's super important that you understand your rights, and what you've agreed to in signing up for SL.

I understand what it says. What it means in practical terms is a different issue.

>First, LL doesn't "police intellectual property" at all. 

They will if it comes to that. It just doesn't come to that. If you put a Linden Labs copyright notice on your own textures, for example, that will certainly open a can of worms.

>That's not their role, and they could potentially get in quite a bit of legal trouble if they tried. 

Thus they write the policy so that they get practically total use of the content without having to take any responsibility for your right to provide it to them. Not just them, though; I understand it's a broader norm among online service providers.

>What they do is follow the same rules as every other online service provider, in accordance with DMCA and other applicable laws.  That means when somoene files a takedown notice, they are obligated to remove the alleged infringing content.  Then, if the accused party files a counter-notice, LL is obligated to put the content back.  At no time will LL ever step in to decide which party is right or wrong.  That's the job the courts, not of service providers.

Yes. By "policing", I mean actions that would include compliance with RL legal action.

>Second, matters beyond SL are not LL's concern, with respect to content that they do not own. 

Yes, I get that. As soon as the data leaves SL, it only belongs to LL if it actually originated with LL. Otherwise, it's someone else's problem.

>It's YOUR job to protect YOUR content, not theirs.  

That's exactly why they don't want to own it legally, even if they effectively do own it in-world.

>If they did in fact own your content, they would very likely seek to protect it outside SL. 

There would be nothing in it for them. They'd have to show due diligence by tracking down every imaginable infringement of their copyright, even if they had no idea where images actually originate, any time someone loads anything out of Sl and tries to re-use it. If I load a McDonalds logo and then load it back out, LL automatically claiming to own it would put them in a position of taking action against both me and McDonalds. 

Meanwhile, in-world, the image effectively belongs to LL until I or McD begins to insist otherwise. If you get a screenshot of the logo and begin to use that, it's my problem, not theirs, but only because the data then exists outside SL.

>But since they don't own it, they cannot even try.  

Or, rather, they are removed from the responsibility of having to consider whether they even should.

>Yes, totally separate issue.  It's in LL's interest to maintain an environment where customers and merchants can do honest business with each other.  This, in large part, is why we all have to agree to the Community Standards.  If people can't enjoy their time in SL, they won't want to be a part of it, and we all lose, LL most of all.  Therefore, they make an effort take things like consumer fraud seriously, and deal with it as they best they can.

I don't doubt their morally good intentions. But the practical angle is that any fraud that users produce by means of SL only exists outside of SL. I can also commit fraud with Photoshop, but that doesn't mean Adobe is responsible for my actions. A difference is that Adobe doesn't get paid when I decide to sell a Photoshop image to someone, because the sale doesn't take place inside Photoshop. The legal nonexistence of money inside SL provides for a technical nonexistence of monetary damages if we sell images in-world or on SLM which infringe on someone else's copyright. Meanwhile, LL nonetheless gets to destroy the commission payment (if there is one), reducing financial liability for actual money already paid into their system. 

>But that's really got nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Copyright is a RL legal matter.  LL operates the same way as every other service provider with respect to it.

The policy is consistent, yes. But because the service is different, the practical consequences of the consistent policy are different.

[Morgaine Christensen]

Yes, thanks for the clarification, Chosen.  I have a couple other thoughts and questions cause I am really trying to wrap my head around this.  I have always respected the rights of other creators and damn sure don't wish to start disrepecting them now.  But, it seems to me there are only so many ways of doing things in SL before you start getting overlaps of ideas EVEN if folks have never seen the work of others to be influenced by or make derivatives of.  Eventually, you are going to get major stagnation in creativity.

So, if you study art of the Medieval Period (or any clothing period for that matter)  and find a particular artistic  rendition of a dress you would like to re-create as a dress in SL , would the new creation be "influenced by" or a "derivative of" that piece of Medieval artwork?  You are not re-creating the painting itself but an element of that painting., and yet, you are not re-creating the original element because you are using a different medium than used in the original (i.e. flat looking painted dress that you can only see part of turned into a 3-d version, where you have had to extrapolate all the details in what you think the original might have looked like during the period).

Due to the limitations of the tools and the SL World, much of what I see in SL would be derivatives of the work of others. Take for example, if you will look on the marketplace, you will see lots of clothing templates.  Many come with access to .psd files you can download, which you can alter, slap a tint to, add a purchased fabric texture, and voile an outfit.  Basically, whatever you do to that template, would be  "derivative of" because you personally did not create that template. Is that correct?

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Morgaine Christensen wrote:

But, it seems to me there are only so many ways of doing things in SL before you start getting overlaps of ideas EVEN if folks have never seen the work of others to be influenced by or make derivatives of.

---

You don't have to reinvent the wheel, 99.99% of everything new and creative and original is influenced by some other things. That's how progress works, take what's available, give your own spin to it and improve it. I wouldn't worry about being one of 99.99%.

---

Morgaine Christensen wrote:

 

So, if you study art of the Medieval Period (or any clothing period for that matter)  and find a particular artistic  rendition of a dress you would like to re-create as a dress in SL , would the new creation be "influenced by" or a "derivative of" that piece of Medieval artwork?  You are not re-creating the painting itself but an element of that painting., and yet, you are not re-creating the original element because you are using a different medium than used in the original (i.e. flat looking painted dress that you can only see part of turned into a 3-d version, where you have had to extrapolate all the details in what you think the original might have looked like during the period).

---

The design could theoretically be copyrighted, but it's not for two reasons i can think of. First is I don't hink there were any copyrights in the Middle Ages and if there were they would have expired:)...Secondly copyrighting a design is useless since all one has to do is change a small thing and it's allowed. Chosen had a link to a nice YouTube on this...

---

Morgaine Christensen wrote:

 

Due to the limitations of the tools and the SL World, much of what I see in SL would be derivatives of the work of others. Take for example, if you will look on the marketplace, you will see lots of clothing templates.  Many come with access to .psd files you can download, which you can alter, slap a tint to, add a purchased fabric texture, and voile an outfit.  Basically, whatever you do to that template, would be  "derivative of" because you personally did not create that template. Is that correct?

 

---

If one buys such templates they are allowed to use them for their own creations. Whether it's a derivative or not is grey area material I think. It's used as an underlayer, not an example. I think you can compare it with using a ruler. Just a guide for your personal creation. Either way you're allowed to do so, so it's a bit academic anyway....

 

 

[Shelby Silverspar]

using a template that was obtained legally and created for the purpose of creating clothing in SL is neither derivative nor a gray area.  Templates are a legal, copyright-free resource, like for instance royalty-free stock photography.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Not if the seller doesn't litterally say so. You can USE the templates, but you can't sell them on. why? because there are copyrights.... Ofcourse it's legal to use them, they would be pretty useless if that wasn't the case. But that wasn't the question.... What if the buyer changes 1 pixel and sells it on as their own template...call me crazy, but that is the beginning of a grey area if you ask me.