How to prevent stealing texture?

[finecream]

Hi I am newbie for creating mesh in SL.

(Btw I am Blender user.)

If I grant "Modyfy" to my mesh product, and it has some textures that I made,

then can the next owner  extract those textures because of the rights "modify"?

To short, what can we do when the product has "modify"?

It's ok to change size of mesh or over-writing textures onto the original textures.

If I could, I wanna grant "Modify" to my product , but I fear that my textures are stolen by someone.

Thank you for any help.

[Cerise Sorbet]

Permissions don't matter, textures can always be ripped, even if you release the object with very restrictive permissions. The textures have to be sent to every viewer in order for people to see them, and there have been simple user-friendly cache readers available to the general public for many years.

[Pamela Galli]

Modify perms has nothing to do with illegally copying textures or anything else. No effect whatsoever. 

[finecream]

Thank you for your reply.

I think I understood.

From now on I'm gonna turn the "modify" on.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

About the only thing you can do to help is watermark your textures with a unque hard to replicate mark so it is easier to prove it's your's if you have to file a DMCA.  Even this is not foolprooof though.

[Callum Meriman]

---

finecream wrote:

If I grant "Modyfy" to my mesh product, and it has some textures that I made,

then can the next owner  extract those textures because of the rights "modify"?

---

Making your mesh modify does not allow the textures to be extracted, stolen, or copied.

Making your mesh NoModify does not protect your textures from being extracted, stolen, or copied.

For people without ethics ripping textures from NoMod is just as trivial as it is from Mod.

 

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

About the only thing you can do to help is watermark your textures with a unque hard to replicate mark so it is easier to prove it's your's if you have to file a DMCA.  Even this is not foolprooof though.

---

Along the same lines as watermarking the texture; as it's mesh combining multiple materials into the same UV makes the texture pretty useless except for that exact mesh geometry.

So, do a nice UV map for the materials and watermark the mesh instead - because for those without ethics that is also trivial to copy. In fact, it's a little bit easier to copy mesh and it's textures than it is to get the texture by itself.

[Codex Alpha]

Use baked textures, so that the textures only are useful on the actual mesh itself. That doesn't prevent stealing of course, but it limits it's use.

Also, it's a compliment if they're stealing your stuff. Since you can't stop it, just go "cool it must be worth stealing", and go create something new for them to steal too.

If you are really concerned about it, you can upload each and every texture you create to an online site (with watermarks) as a secondary record that you own the designs, or first came up with concepts, styles, etc.

[Callum Meriman]

---

entity0x wrote:

Also, it's a compliment if they're stealing your stuff. Since you can't stop it, just go "cool it must be worth stealing", and go create something new for them to steal too.

---

I think you are onto something... a good compliment... hang on... Nobody ever steals my mesh.

/cries

Resolves that in the new year I will work double hard to learn to make my mesh better, so that people start stealing it!

[Pussycat Catnap]

Baked textures often mean lots of higher resolution textures. Too many of those around your SL home and you start getting texture thrashing - where things blur out when other things manage to become clearly visible.

 

So I tend to replace all of those after I buy something.

As a consumer, I bought a set of very nice textures that I like for wood, cement, brick, metal, etc...

- I re-texture a LOT of the things I buy using these over and over again so that I avoid texture thrashing.

 

As long as you're going to go mod - make your UV cuts friendly to people using their own textures, and you'll also end up being more 'render friendly' for the skilled consumer.

(If you want to go the extreme opposite route - tell people where they can buy the textures you used if you used textures from others... OR, put out your own base textures as a kit for your customers... what better compliment for you than if I re-texture my whole house using the kit I got from you that I first saw in 'item X' I bought from you?

- I get my ability to reduce textures and have smoother renders, and you get your style all over my builds. When somebody asks me "hey, where did you get the this wall or that rock?" I end up sending them to your shop...

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Even if you don't use high resolution textures, if you are making homes, it should be mod so that the owner can texture them to please themselves.  A lot people will like the house but want to change a wallpaper choice you made to go better with their furnishings or just because they prefer another.  Limiting this by making your home no mod limits your market, since a lot of people will not buty no mod buildings.

[Pamela Galli]

 

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Even if you don't use high resolution textures, if you are making homes,

it should be mod

so that the owner can texture them to please themselves.  A lot people will like the house but want to change a wallpaper choice you made to go better with their furnishings or just because they prefer another.  Limiting this by making your home no mod limits your market, since a lot of people will not buty no mod buildings.

____________________________________________________________________

Just because some potential customers want to mod something does not mean that a creator should make it mod. Or copy. Or two bedroom. Or anything else. The creator may not want to enlarge his pool of potential buyers, for whatever reason. The bottom line is that it is a free market, a creator is free to set anything with any perms for sale,and people are free to buy or not. One has no standing to tell the other what he should sell or buy.

So there is no particular way a creator should build.

[Nova Convair]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

Just because some potential customers want to mod something does not mean that a creator should make it mod. Or copy. Or two bedroom. Or anything else. The creator may not want to enlarge his pool of potential buyers, for whatever reason. The bottom line is that it is a free market, a creator is free to set anything with any perms for sale,and people are free to buy or not. One has no standing to tell the other what he should sell or buy.

So there is no particular way a creator

should

build.

---

The creators are free to do what they want and the customers are free to not buy unmoddable stuff. :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: The merchant will not even know how much they lost. And even customers who bought - I know many people that have fun to change stuff - once they find out they miss something - will they ever buy again from this merchant?

Well it's a free market and I couldn't care less what others think or do.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Nova Convair wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

Just because some potential customers want to mod something does not mean that a creator should make it mod. Or copy. Or two bedroom. Or anything else. The creator may not want to enlarge his pool of potential buyers, for whatever reason. The bottom line is that it is a free market, a creator is free to set anything with any perms for sale,and people are free to buy or not. One has no standing to tell the other what he should sell or buy.

So there is no particular way a creator

should

build.

---

The creators are free to do what they want and the customers are free to not buy unmoddable stuff. :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: The merchant will not even know how much they lost. And even customers who bought - I know many people that have fun to change stuff - once they find out they miss something - will they ever buy again from this merchant?

Well it's a free market and I couldn't care less what others think or do.

---

Re bolded: exactly my feeling. As long as they are not doing something illegal or unethical, why does anyone care?

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Nova Convair wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

Just because some potential customers want to mod something does not mean that a creator should make it mod. Or copy. Or two bedroom. Or anything else. The creator may not want to enlarge his pool of potential buyers, for whatever reason. The bottom line is that it is a free market, a creator is free to set anything with any perms for sale,and people are free to buy or not. One has no standing to tell the other what he should sell or buy.

So there is no particular way a creator

should

build.

---

The creators are free to do what they want and the customers are free to not buy unmoddable stuff. :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: The merchant will not even know how much they lost. And even customers who bought - I know many people that have fun to change stuff - once they find out they miss something - will they ever buy again from this merchant?

Well it's a free market and I couldn't care less what others think or do.

---

Re bolded: exactly my feeling. As long as they are not doing something illegal or unethical, why does anyone care?

---

Both creators and customers are free to do what they want. What I'm curious about is why you seem so opposed to customers creating lists of approved/disapproved creators and announcing those who they will do business with and those who they won't, and encouraging others to do the same. Assuming the information is accurate, it's just education and allowing customers to shop more efficiently. If their arguments are invalid they'll be ignored.

Is it for fear of hurting creators' widdo feewings? Do we need to create a "safe space" for creators?

[Pamela Galli]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Nova Convair wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

Just because some potential customers want to mod something does not mean that a creator should make it mod. Or copy. Or two bedroom. Or anything else. The creator may not want to enlarge his pool of potential buyers, for whatever reason. The bottom line is that it is a free market, a creator is free to set anything with any perms for sale,and people are free to buy or not. One has no standing to tell the other what he should sell or buy.

So there is no particular way a creator

should

build.

---

The creators are free to do what they want and the customers are free to not buy unmoddable stuff. :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: The merchant will not even know how much they lost. And even customers who bought - I know many people that have fun to change stuff - once they find out they miss something - will they ever buy again from this merchant?

Well it's a free market and I couldn't care less what others think or do.

---

Re bolded: exactly my feeling. As long as they are not doing something illegal or unethical, why does anyone care?

---

Both creators and customers are free to do what they want. What I'm curious about is why you seem so opposed to customers creating lists of approved/disapproved creators and announcing those who they will do business with and those who they won't, and encouraging others to do the same. Assuming the information is accurate, it's just education and allowing customers to shop more efficiently. If their arguments are invalid they'll be ignored.

Is it for fear of hurting creators' widdo feewings? Do we need to create a "safe space" for creators?

---

Oh, well, if you find it more efficient to check a list of creators not to patronize than to use filters in marketplace search, then by all means do so. My suspicion is that that's not really the purpose of a list, but I have already said as much in this very thread. 

My question is why you care so much about creators' "widdo feelings" etc. -- someone might be persuaded to think you have some kind of grudge against creators who don't make what you like. I just don't understand why you care what permissions someone chooses. Just don't buy. "Problem" solved.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

---

Oh, well, if you find it more efficient to check a list of creators not to patronize than to use filters in marketplace search, then by all means do so. My suspicion is that that's not really the purpose of a list, but I have already said as much in this very thread. 

My question is why you care so much about creators' "widdo feelings" etc. -- someone might be persuaded to think you have some kind of grudge against creators who don't make what you like. I just don't understand why you care what permissions someone chooses. Just don't buy. "Problem" solved.

---

To be perfectly clear, I don't have a real dog in this fight. I understand the permission system and am not an evangelist either way. In fact, I personally think at least one of the major only-mod evangelists is a ninny. However:

1) Many people who are buying things don't understand the significance of permissions so they wouldn't think to use filters, and filters are only as accurate as the settings the maker puts in the listing. Lists, articles, etc. help educate people so they can make their own decisions.

2) There are merchants that do things consumers should know about that won't show up by filters. For instance there's a fairly prominent skin maker who appears to have built their business plan around finding inexperienced users (they advertise heavily on the default viewer search) and selling them mediocre products at higher-than-standard prices using heavily Photoshopped pictures. There's a maker of child-avatar products whose customer-service appears to be borderline psychotic. There's a vendor of very expensive no-copy objects with an extremely bad track record of non-delivery. Some grudges are for very good reasons. Some aren't, of course, but the more information someone has the better choice they can make.

[Codex Alpha]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Both creators and customers are free to do what they want. What I'm curious about is

why you seem so opposed to customers creating lists of approved/disapproved creators and announcing those who they will do business with and those who they won't, and encouraging others to do the same.

Assuming the information is accurate, it's just education and allowing customers to shop more efficiently. If their arguments are invalid they'll be ignored.

Is it for fear of hurting creators' widdo feewings? Do we need to create a "safe space" for creators?

---

 No, because feelings don't count, only actions.

It's one thing to review a product, and promote those creators who you like - that's fine, as it's all positive based, and doesn't rely on name and shame lists (built on opinions only), nor on bashing would-be/percieved competitors in order to bolster one's own business or position.

I used the term 'anti-competitive' for a reason, as it does not break the SL TOS with such actions on one's own blog, or on alternate Second Life forum sites, but the result, and the antisocial, hostile behaviour it promotes, is not what Second Life is about.

"By bashing the competition, you are doing exactly what you don’t want to do. You are removing the focus from your solution and placing the focus — and the customer’s — on the competition. A better strategy is to keep the customer focused on your solution. Keep them focused on your superior value and what makes you different. Get them to see you as the benchmark of excellence that the competition must strive to achieve."

- http://labs.openviewpartners.com/bashing-the-competition/

So make your lists of creators  you like, go ahead. That is fine. Keep it all positive and it's all good. Trash someone else's hard work only because you don't agree with their legal and allowed business practices, only you are going to look nuts to everyone, or as Pam states, looking like you have some grudge of some kind.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

1) Many people who are buying things don't understand the significance of permissions so they wouldn't think to use filters, and filters are only as accurate as the settings the maker puts in the listing. Lists, articles, etc. help educate people so they can make their own decisions.

---

Most of them don't care, and don't have the expectations of permissions or otherwise... they buy what they like.

Not sure why people care so much about this topic that they feel they need to 'educate' or 'protect' them... There are truly unethical practices happening on the MP or otherwise each day that deserve far more attention than this topic

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

2) There are merchants that do things consumers should know about that won't show up by filters. For instance there's a fairly prominent skin maker who appears to have built their business plan around finding inexperienced users (they advertise heavily on the default viewer search) and selling them mediocre products at higher-than-standard prices using heavily Photoshopped pictures. There's a maker of child-avatar products whose customer-service appears to be borderline psychotic. There's a vendor of very expensive no-copy objects with an extremely bad track record of non-delivery. Some grudges are for very good reasons. Some aren't, of course, but the more information someone has the better choice they can make.

---

And.. now it's waaaaaaay off topic.

[ChinRey]

---

entity0x wrote:

And.. now it's waaaaaaay off topic.

---

I think the original topic is well and truly finished and answered anyway: no permission settings will stop people from ripping your textures if they want to.

As for the modify/no-modify issue, personally I want people to modify what they buy from me simply because I love to see how creative people can be adapting my builds to an amazing number of different settings and uses. But that's my view. How other content creators see it and what they choose to do with their works, is none of my business.

[Nacy Nightfire]

" if you are making homes, it should be mod so that the owner can texture them to please themselves.  A lot people will like the house but want to change a wallpaper choice you made to go better with their furnishings or just because they prefer another.  Limiting this by making your home no mod limits your market, since a lot of people will not buty no mod buildings."

 

These are two seperate and valid business models:  the DYI decorator and the customer who follows a creator because s/he is a fan and appreciates that creators particular design sensibility.  Many home owners in RL prefer to simply employ a decorator to make most or all of their design decisions, there are others who like to choose for themselves. And, no doubt, in SL there many customers who are more socially involved and less "creatively" involved with SL, and want a lovely finished home in SL having no plans to bother themselves with texturing. Plus, as purchased buildings continue to retain the creator's name, it may also be in the creator's interest to restrict their work from being altered and decorated in a manner that would reflect badly on the creator's brand.

I think it is a perfectly reasonable business decision for a creator to consider his/her house a complete and finished "artistic statement".  No business person should be all things to all people.  It appears there is business opportunities in both the DYI  and the person who wants a beautiful non-modifiable home. Limiting your market is a good thing.