Outrageously Offended

oddly enough, i dont get wild and naked often...
from time to time i'll run the streets of midnight city naked.. but that's all and it's always in packs

If in fact AV's are owned by the account holder in correlation to creation, then there should be no issue with one selling his AV or account. I wonder how Linden Labs looks at this?

This is indeed an interesting quandry. Because although you do pay LL for the rights to create an avatar and use that avatar within SL, you don't actually own it. And it is merely a representation of your choosing, and not your actual body.

Where would the line be drawn on taking pictures within SL? No subjects inculding in any pictures without thier consent? No "nudity" in pictures without the subjects consent? That would mean alot of parties and clubs would be very off-limits to people taking quick snapshots, unless they wanted to ask each person in the crowd that might be displaying some nudity for thier consent.

And how would this consent be given? Verbally? If so, the consentor could change thier minds at a later date and claim it was never given. By signed contract? Wouldn't that involve you givin out personal information that you might not want to do?

When lounging around nude, in a hot tub, chatting with some friends, do you surround yourself with an inpenatrable wall of some sort so that folks flying by can't cam in and take a snapshot?

I guess you could say that I beleive that any part, of anyone's AV, walking around in public in SL is pretty much fair game for snapshots. However, there is a question of politeness and respect. But those are offered, and given, not by laws or rules, but by personal choice.

And as you might have guessed, I have no problems with Taco's Museum, AS LONG AS THE SUBJECTS ARE NOT IDENTIFIABLE. And that is merely a matter of my morals and the fact that I wouldn't want to cause anyone undue embaressment. It shouldn't be a matter of "rights" or "rules".

OK, so I've talked to a linden about this, and no, this is NOT linden approved. The "linden who laughed" likely wouldn't admit to even seeing it.
Anyone featured in this art gallery need only to go there, file an abuse report and it's all over.

I've identified 3 parties, who I will talk to.

There is a Case going on now in Virginia Beach Virginia concerning a female that was put on Video "Girls Gone Wild", without her consent and it is now in litigation.

I never claimed it was Linden Approved. And as was mentioned in this post, If you dont care to have your picture in it, you can tell me and I'll remove it. I don't believe I "have" to, but I will.

I'm at work now, so I haven't been in contact with Lindens today. I'll see what's been decided when I get home.

I think I need to open up Lil' Dick's Half-Way Inn and ask male subjects to model and pose for photographs to be displayed on the cafe walls.

I think you do too!

as long as they're AWARE I have zero problems.

Well..I think that is setting a dangerous precedent for LL. Can everyone now file abuse reports for any snapshots taken and displayed of them? Or does it hvae to be a snapshot that displays certain body areas? Say 6" or more above the knees? Or only if a vagina or panties can be seen? I can't wait to see the write up and changes to TOS on this.

No, it has to be offensive to you, not consented by you, and something you feel victimizes you.

Then obviously my assumption is correct regarding ownership if Lindens can act on your behalf, otherwise you would have to seek out a Virtual Lawyer. lol.

Can I claim that about somebody taking a picture of my SL lawn? And if I did, would it be just as valid?

I think that's a bit out of context Taco LOL. I understand your point however.

I'm pretty sure it has to be logical.

I'm pretty sure this is your "What I think the rules should be" rather than "what the rules are" view. But what if I was mugged in my front yard in RL, and thus anybody taking pictures of my SL lawn traumatizes me?

Or is it just moral relativism, where you "know it when you see it" ?

I think there is an obvious difference between a person who deliberately exposes themselves in public, and one who happens to be wearing a skirt, with or without undies.

If I'm naked in my bedroom, and someone takes a picture through the curtian, am I asking for it? Is it the same as if I were naked on my front lawn? No. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I find it extremely sad that so many in this thread are basically saying that if women don't actively protect themselves from creeps, they're asking for it. God forbid anyone should be able to rely on the respect and character of another human being. God forbid anyone should assume that a (supposedly) adult male won't get their rocks off zooming up someone's skirt to see their pixels.

Yes, thus the "can of worms". Perhaps I'm offended and feel victimized if I don't like my neighbors build, or if someone sells me a pair of glasses that make me look dorky, or Hamlet takes my picture at a political rally.

What if I'm having a successful event and take a few snapshots of it, but one of the people there later complains because they'd told thier SL spouse that they weren't online during that time? Can I be abuse reported? What if someone walks into my home and sees erotic art on the walls that offends them? There are alot of blurry lines with this issue...

I'm not sure how anyone is being victimized here. They had someone take pictures of thier pixels? They weren't physically assaulted. They weren't harassed or stalked. They weren't even spied on, since they were in public places. They weren't raped. They aren't being called names or even made to look bad or foolish. They just had pics taken of thier pixels. This isn't real life.

Again, it's a matter of moral judgement and choosen viewpoints. Is it disrespectful and/or rude? Quite possibly. But does it break the TOS and be subject to abuse reports? I wouldn't think so.

So spawns the issue of Virtual Rights.

In RL, I knew an artist who was just starting out. He had an exhibition and a national magazine ran a picture of one of his pieces.

He's suing the magazine because he didn't give "written permission" that they could display his artwork. I ask you, is this logical? No. Wouldn't he, as an artist who was just starting out, WANT a piece of his artwork in a national magazine? Yes. Does any of this make any sense? NO!

My point is that even if it doesn't make sense -- say, someone taking a picture of Taco's lawn -- the person who took the picture could still get some heat.

Perhaps Taco would have to prove that the person who took the picture was in some way profiting from it. Taking pictures for personal use is, perhaps, ok -- providing it doesn't violate anyone's privacy (a whole 'nother can of worms) -- but showing it to OTHER people in a public manner is questionable.

So, in essence; is the AV representing the Creator of the Account or the Game Company?

If I put up a display with ass photos I've taken, would anyone come in?

Umm first off, I don't consider myself a creep, you're tossing namecalling in because you're emotionally charged.

Have you been to my museum? Have you looked at how it's presented? It's not a dirty porn theatre (though I would be perfectly within my rights to make one).

And God forbid you ever find out how many people take pictures daily, all over SL.

I'm not sure what your question is.

Did you put a name label on your photos of display Taco?