Selling Public Domain Art and Maps--Why Do Some People Consider this "Theft"?

it is not theft. you charge a more than fair price for the amount of work you put into the textures and designs. anyone that is accusing you of stealing is dead wrong.

What?

Damn I need to finish my morning caffenine before reading these threads.

That makes two of us. But I meant, that someone is SL could make the same claim. You are paying not for the artwork itself, but for their cost to upload, place the image on a prim, add an attractive mat and frame that matches the image, etc.

Thats what I was referring to as well, SL, hence the part about upload cost. Almost lunch time, maybe I'll be awake by then. I guess I deserve it for staying awake with the west coasters til 3am EST.

Mmmhmm, all one would have to do is look at eBay.
One example, a game called Gunbound. It is against the TOS to sell your avatar items. People circumvent this by stating that they are mearly selling the time it took to acquire the avatar item.

People have been using that argument for RMT since the days of UO and EQ1. A more fun one to attempt to make is that you're just exercizing your right of first sale.

I am not attempting any argument. I am pointing out a current example. One being used by people right now.

I've not seen anyone make the distinction between the ART and the PHOTOGRAPH of the art. The art itself can be outside the terms of copyright protection, but a photograph of the art might be in question. I'm unsure how Copyright Law handles issues of "originality" in this context (as someone mentioned in an earlier post), however, it's not uncommon for libraries to protect the copyright on the photographs they've taken. The case of the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame vs a photographer further kinks up the works. iirc, the case was first ruled in favor of the Hall, then ruled in favor of the photographer... but that case was about Trademark as it turned out. And from what I've read, some legal experts claimed the Hall would have likely won on Copyright infringement instead. Maybe.

This is the only real issue I see with selling "public domain" product. If you didn't acquire what you're selling (i.e. you photographed the image of the artwork), I suspect you're violating someone's rights unless that photograph is itself public domain (and of course many old photographs are public; but many images being sold without the photographer's consent are not all that old).

And btw, I believe NASA still has a caveat for using their images. I recall seeing something to that effect on their website once.

Under US copyright law only "original works of authorship" may be copyrighted. A photograph that exactly depicts an existing work doesn't count. There is no originality involved. A US federal court addressed just this exact issue in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999). They held that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because they lack originality.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm

The decision was not appealed; even the museums consider this to now be settled law. According to Barry G. Szczesny, Esq., Government Affairs Counsel for the American Association of Museums:



I could not make the case much better than the AAM; there can be no copyright in an exact photographic reproduction of a public domain image.


As an agency of the US government, anything produced by NASA is public domain. Under US copyright law, any work produced by a US government agency, whether by the agency itself or as work for hire for the agency, is public domain. What you probably recall seeing on a NASA website was this page:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html


I'm very confident I'm not doing anything the least bit legally wrong or ethically suspect.

"Tact" is figuratively a "four letter word" for me as well as literally, and generally I tend towards being about as subtle as a hand grenade going off in one's shorts.

More seriously, though, the actual points had been addressed by others, and in general I don't care much for repeating what others have said/typed.

{emphasis mine}

Thanks for the legwork. That's a good reference.

Apologies for not being more clear. I was speaking generically and was including photographic images of three dimensional art. I recently saw someone selling images of sculptures (mostly cemetary stuff). The sculptures themselves are likely out of copyright. But the photographic image of the art can be "original" even if it only depicts the art.

At what point is one photograph "original" and at what point is it less than that? I've seen different photos of the "Thinker" and many look similar. I don't know. I'd guess that's the kind of thing a court rules on. However, I'd expect that someone selling those images would lose if they cited the case you reference.

Additionally, the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame was interesting because of not only the above (3D as 2D and photographic originality) but bc it was a publically-funded building. One would think that such a building would be free of any IP protection (I did). However, the way the case was resolved left in my mind at least an opening for another publically-funded architectural site to make the same claims and possibly win (i.e. the Hall's complaintants based their case on trademark violation, but they themselves, through their own carelessness when using their "trademark" iirc, made that argument moot). Consequently, while I understood works of government agencies were automatically public domain, I'm careful to ensure there isn't something else involved in the equation (wrt to the NASA link: no, that's not what I saw).

Cool precedent, thx for the informative posting.

Some people exhibit prejudice against pretty much anything that allows someone to make a profit.

What I would do is assign people a "how much do I care about what this person thinks" coefficient.

If someone says they think you shouldn't sell public domain items, set the value of their "do i care" coefficient to zero.

Perhaps some people might merit having different coefficients for different subjects, so you might listen and respond seriously to what they say about which clothes designer makes the best matched seams but tune them out when they start talking about economics and morality.

"Thanks for the shopping tips. I'd love to stay and chat about the supposed immorality of one of my income sources but I need to do the laundry and my cat is on fire."

I understand where you come from. We had a person selling art that was taken off some where on the internet in the club I run. Some people really made a big stink about and later was removed. There is a fineline but some make it a personal Hero like effort to protect all of us poor unknowing people.Oh boy ........

Stealing content is wrong in every way. and producers of ojects and designs have all the rights to protect for whats their. And action should be taken

But whats worse are people trying to be heros and pushing their own views on others, in narrow way in our ways about their copywrite thoughts. I have been flamed by the best in the past in this topic and I will surly be again.

Stealing SL objects and tearing off the protection so its nolong protected is wrong. PERIOD
A little off the topic but still with the idea.

Photographs of three dimensional artworks are not covered under the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp decision. A photograph of a sculpture can easily satistfy the originality requirement of US Copyright law (as there are many angles, modes of lighting, etc. that the photograher makes creative choices among). In most cases, you should assume that a photo of a three-dimensional work of art IS copyrighted.



Keep in mind that it is works of the US Government that are not copyrightable. However, because of the federal structure of the United States, this does not extend to works of state and local governments. They may or may not be copyrighted depending upon state laws.

I would like to point out that the discussion that launched this thread was based on a misunderstanding of someone else's post--and a bad day I was having. While I have run into the attitude that selling public domain works is akin to "theft" from some, that was NOT the position of the person I originally got into this debate with.

If the person in your club was selling art that was still under copyright, I can understand the annoyance of the person who made the stink. I've seen a number of places in SL, that just download a copyrighted image off the net, stick it on a prim--not even bothering to match the proportions of the prim to the original image--and sell it.

Yep lol and I use textures that are owned by Lucas Arts. A lot of people do. The Evil, 6-8 etc, is from one of their games. I think that set is from Star Wars. Not positive.

But when Lucas Arts comes into SL then a lot of things will be getting the boot.
If that happens I'll actually be happy. SL could use a little Lucas Arts influance.

:addition:
I would say 50% or more of the textures used in SL are copyrighted by someone else.
I have a few I made that got "stolen" running around too but nothing I can do about that.
Except not bring any more of my own art into SL.

And yes it is easy to take images. As long as screen shots work. Not that I do it. But those sets are going around as "free" textures.
I do use my own textures also but only those that I don't mind being reused by others. If I don't have the time then I use what's out there already.

I don't know about the selling them part. I don't sell textures. But I do sell the designs I build that use these "free" textures. I only charge for the building. Not the texturing. I think that could be argued of course simply cause I use freebie textures like most do in SL.
It would be nice to see that taken care of but until then that is how things go I guess.

The Evil textures are made by evillair, and are made by him for use in the game Quake.
The planetquake website, where they can be downloaded from. And a link to his new site.
He now asks that if people use his textures in a commercial game that they contact him for contract details.

Is there any way for the consumer--whether he or she is using free textures, or buying textures from a SL store that sells textures--to know whether the person offering that texture has the rights to it?

I'm thinking that if SL were to get a DCMA takedown notice on some textures illegally sold in-world, there could be a lot of content reverting to plywood, once those textures were removed from the database.

I know that the textures I upload (whether I've identified them as public domain, or make them myself) are okay--but what about the ones I buy in-world?

Ah I knew it was something like that.
Well same point.
It's everywhere in SL. And hard to find out who actually created it outside of this game.

As soon as I get my own texture batch rendered out and put together I'll be redoing the stuff I build.
Of course that won't make a difference as far as the issue with copyrights being abused in here.
The only enforcment seems to be the option settings which have their own hidden exploits.
We need a better system is my point.

I went to the site and read the Creative Commons license he's released the "Evil 6" and "Evil 8" textures under:



That license says pretty clearly that you may not sell objects that incorporate the "Evil 6"/"Evil 8" textures. Which rules them out for many SL applications. Since I want to be able to sell stuff I make in SL, I'll be deleting them from my "Textures" folder. I will also probably remove them from the New Citizens Incorporated "freebies" kiosk.

I think researching it ourselves is the only way right now.
I doubt that the textures would be taken out of the database until SL becomes a real threat to those outside of it.
When/if that does happen, the objects sold with those textures can be retextured and a new model given to those who own an old copy.
All they have to do is contact the owner once it happens.

That is, or course, assuming the owner is still around. So yeah there is risk in that area.
In my case I would give them the new updated model. Simple as that.

I only have one thing I sell with someone elses texture. And it's just a cheap market test ship.

While I was building it, I wasn't even sure who's textures I was really using. But as someone else just proved, it was from Quake. Here I thought it was from star wars and it turns out it's not. Just knowing that is proably bad enough but SL isn't that big of a deal yet. My point is, we just never know where they really come from if we never seen it before.

The only way to be sure is if we make our own textures or have them made for us. Which is what I'm doing soon for other projects.
But that is for our own piece of mind. Not the consumer. People won't be able to know for sure unless they want the copyright data from the UST.
I don't think people want to see that junk just for some ship to fly around in.
And I don't think people really care unless it is an expensive ship I sell them.

In any case, until SL is taken seriously by others outside of it, I don't see how it will stop any time soon. Which is sad.

I use SL mainly as a market test for selling in real life and I'm now starting to use SL as a platform for an inworld business.
It isn't really a problem for me to retexture something, for the better, and give out a free copy to previous owners.

So far it's worked great to use textures others made. I don't have the time to texture something for a market test like that. Which is why it gets sold so cheap.
And I don't have the time to research those textures to see if the person giving them out actually made them for public use or not.

All I can do is offer a refund if the textures dissapear. Or a discount toward the full version equal to the basic model's price which I already do.
I'm sure most people selling in SL would rather put "no refund for any reason" on their items.

Anyway, the way I use them, is simply to market test a design.
I have a cheap version that will have to prove itself, then if it does well, a major build using a similar design will get more attention by the entire group. It gets custom texturing and details etc.

I doubt many others would do that. But I don't know. It's a risk just another risk that exists in SL I guess. Like a lot of things here.
But if any company wants to survive they would offer at least some customer support in that way. And go after the person who uploaded the content in the first place. That would be up to each of us thou. I doubt LL would do anything except take down the texture.

In any case, there is a similar risk in real life.
I purchased a $2600 Gateway computer some years ago. One month later the Gateway company closed up and my warrenty was useless.
And I was left with a computer that had a faulty cpu fan. So it cooked my chip.
And no answer from Gateway.
I just got another chip put in with a working fan. But that situation isn't always so easily fixable. Even if it was an unnecessary expense.

This kind of stuff is what makes SL exciting for me personally thou.
And watching how it all turns out.

Yeap, and all that wasted time of using them. Cauyse some of use think it is free to use.

I think there are some games or applications that use a moderator setup. But it takes ages to get your uploads done.

These are exactly the kinds of specifics that need to be pointed out and discussed. The best way to fixing the current system is to have informed discussions. Thanks for doing that here.