"Borrowed" textures and scenes

Katy, if you were the first person to bring it to this world, then in a sense you are the creator, because you did what no one else could, or bothered to. Perhaps you were the only one who knew about a really good website with great free textures, and instead of telling us all about it, you quietly uploaded them one by one, and started a textures business. Sure, perhaps anyone else could have done the same thing, but either they didn't have the knowledge of the other site or didn't have the interest to follow through. In any event, your introduction of the material to SL enriches the world, even if you didn't yourself create it.

It's much the same reason why ordinary metal cooking implements, or muskets or rifles were extremely sought after by native residents, when Europeans first began to trade regularly in North America. The traders didn't create these things, but they did take the initiative to introduce something new and sought-after to a faraway land.

This is dependant on the fact the game it was sourced from also did not source another source ..... ouch... Let me rephrase...

Lets say artist A uses content from Company Z for thier own independant project N.

If Company Z got their content from a library of sorts (lets say texture library) Which was available for purchase for 200 USD in Company Y's store....

So in a round about sort of way artist A is using Content from company Y, Company Z is also using content from company Y.... ok at this point it is still infringement.....

But let's say both Artist A and Company Z both bought the same texture library.

This actually happens A LOT in SL... Animations primarily, people tend to buy the same BVH files (or use the same free ones as each other) ALSO I have seen some of the BVH files available for sale used in game content that is not SL...

Basically you can never say for sure something is 'borrowed' or not. Sadly game content and digital media are a very gray area. It certainly isnt very fun to see copies or versions of your work released by someone else, but you cannot copyright an idea.

And if something is photo sourced or pulled from a library someplace, you can always find the source or library on your own.

To be honest, Chinatown to me looked like rain, cobbled streets, brick buildings, a skate park, chinese lanterns and a cafe. Not hard to find resources and reconstruct there if you base it off an idea you saw someplace else.... I dont know how many different ways you can make the above mentioned ways, and if it's based off an idea they saw executed elsewhere it could look copied.

But, also take into account I havnt seen the source textures it has 'borrowed' so no way to say for sure... Im arguing hypotheticals.

Well see my above post... you cannot protect an idea. After Surreal and I started selling prim shoes for female AVs it was about 2 weeks later we started seeing knock-offs show up... Shoes are an idea... A few of them were Blatant enough copies to say something, it was resolved.

But yeah, basically there is nothing you can do about it, Lets say You make a nice white lace ruffled blouse that you got the texture from an online catalogue somewhere. Someone really likes the blouse a lot, and they think you are charging too much so they hit the internet and do a search for... whoa far stretch here "white lace ruffled blouse" Eventually they find the texture and they make the blouse (not exact but damn close, maybe even better than yours) And they turn around and sell it for 50% of your price....

What can you do?

Talk to them, complain, stop using photosources...

It sucks, but you're pretty powerless when someone copies an idea....

Lets say they do a texture lift directly off your design or get a bug that allows them full permissions... it still shows you as creator, and they sell it..... Then you nail their head to the wall with a nine inch gutter spike. =P

If I take a texture from another artist, and represent that its my own creation, that is really different from taking an idea. I am taking the actual creation.

If it really is ok to take another's creation, and sell or represent or claim it to be own own, then why have copyright, trademark or patent laws. Intellectual property is a valid form of property and is subject to legal protection, even when it is more difficult to identify or protect.


This argument is saying being the first to use another's creation in a new venue makes you the creator. So, if I put my name on a creepy Stephen King novel, print up copies and sell them in a ballet studio, that becomes acceptable since I am the first claim I wrote that novel in the world of little ballerinas in training? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

The issue is taking claim to creation of something created by another, not where and how it is used. Being first in this instance means original creation; not first to come up the unique marketing or use of someone else's creation.

You're right, it doesn't work that way, because a ballerina studio is still in the same world that the novel was originally published in. You took it into a building, not a different world. Inside that ballerina studio, if it's in the US, you are still subject to the laws of US copyright.

However, your actions, though illegal, might have value in and of themselves, if that ballerina studio were, say, only accessible from the rest of the world by a moat/drawbridge, and the people inside the studio were bored to tears with nothing to do and rabidly interested in any new thing to help pass the time by. If you scanned the novel to PDF, and brought it in to distribute on the computers inside this ballerina studio, or went to the expense/effort of typing up and reprinting the entire novel, you might just find a willing customer base who would gladly renumerate you for your efforts. You could even turn a tidy profit, trading in the isolation of the ballerina studio for money on what would otherwise be easily available, if they could but get to a bookstore. You'd have to hope, however, that your efforts don't attract the notice of Mr. King's lawyers, or that none of your potential customers gets irate enough at the prices you charge to report you for your actions.

Just so in Second Life. It is a separate world from the real-world, and you might find a ready market for Stephen King books in notecard format.....good luck on not gettting caught, though.

Similiarly with textures, animations, whatever. You might possibly encounter a great deal of success, right up until the moment when your success attracts the attention of the person who did write the book, create the texture, animate the model, and who you did not license the work from.

Katy, your questions presuppose that the people who you are referencing did represent the work as wholly, completely created by them, AND that the rest of the population believed it was so.

I don't know that either of these is the case, and like I've said, I automatically assume that the opposite is true. I don't ever assume that someone who creates an amazing build is a talented builder, texturer, and scripter all in one; it's highly unlikely. That, combined with the additive nature of creation in SL means that they were responsible for putting it all together, presenting it just-so, but that most likely many of the component parts came from other sources.

I'm Ok with that, as long as the owner of the material has the option of having it removed. Again, if you have knowledge of an infringement, and are particularly concerned with it, you are free to inform the owner of the material what is being done. They can then decide for themselves if they consider it an infringement, and if so if they consider it worth pursuing, and if so LL can receive their report, weigh in on it and act accordingly.

All my textures are home grown! Come see for yourself =] My wood texture on my pool table is a picture I took of an old wooden radio cabinet and cropped and I am about to upload a bunch of pic's i've taken of natural stone to. Guess I'll have to take that up with mother nature.

Edited because I felt like it..... =P

Yeah there is a ton of stuff in the real world that is great for photo sourcing... Cathedrals and churches are great for photos of stonework, arched windows, stained glass etc....

hehehe but you better be careful God may come get ya for Copyright infringement =o

Even Stephen King publishes e-novels now. It is not separate, we live in one world and the internet, along with e-commerce, and internet law is part of it.

Whether we examine these issues ethically or legally, we cannot compartmentalize in the way you have suggested and be left with a system that works.

What do you think the position of the content graphics creators of another game would be if they were to see their original in game content displayed on the front page of the SL web site, the inference being it reflected original content created in SL?

Is there a distinction between using "borrowed" textures for our own use within SL and the Linden advertisement of builds created with the "borrowed" textures and/or scenes?

I dont get the argument that using the creation of others is acceptable in the situation where it is obvious that the user is not the original creator. Copyright protection is not waived because the user admits the creation is not his own.

Under Title 17 of the US Code, Chapter 1, Section 106 It is forbidden:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

There are fair use exceptions in the Code, and certain factors are used in the determination of enfringement. One factor appropriate to this discussion is whether the use is of commercial in nature or for nonprofit educational purposes.

Arguably there a distinction between using "borrowed" textures for our own use within SL and the Linden use of the resulting builds within an advertisement or on the web site in order to attract new members.

I think it's perfectly acceptable that people use other, copyrighted material in secondlife, as long as the owner of the material has the option of having it removed. People don't exist in a vacuum, and one person's activities, if widely distributed or financially successful, will eventually attract the notice of others who might have a stake in their activities.

If I were the person who created all the textures in a game, and then found those unaltered textures appearing in another game, I'd be pretty damn upset. If you think this is the case, then you might have a moral obligation to get in touch with the original creator or rights holder.

Instead of asking vague questions, howabout some direct ones, or accusations?

Do you suspect people of illegally using another person's work? Who? Name the project.

I am a little dismayed as the extension of (or invention of) "intellectual property" the last decade or so. The waters are indeed murky and getting ever more so as more and more is claimed "intellectual property". So with that slightly biased lead in, here is Stanford University's primer on fair use which is suprisingly readable and not very legalistic; unfortunately, it will likely leave you with the impression that things are just plain murky.

Addendum: this is really nothing new in that all the arts rely on some form of emulation - early jazz is almost defined by such borrowing. There are those who would say that art which doesn't follow some convention would be incomprehensible. Who would have thought George Harrison's My Sweet Lord was a rip off of He's So Fine? Well some people and courts did, but if you have the patience to wade through that you'll see that it was a long and winding road to the conclusion.

If I ever caught anyone distributing my copyrighted works on notecards in SL, I would file an abuse report, and if LL didn't make sure that stuff was removed from the world immediately I'd send an attorney after LL. And if there was even barely enough of a case so that I could bring suit against the thief, I'd sue the shit out of the scumbag in US court -- the legal equivalent of punching the fucktard in the nose for attacking my livelihood.

katykiwi is bringing up some important points here, some of which I've wondered about myself. I have seen some content creators on this site flaming the hell out of other members for selling copies of someone else's objects without permission and/or attribution, while on their very own posts there was a signature advertising their own SL business that includes sale of objects that violate real-life copyrights and/or trademarks.

No, I'm not going to sit here listing names of people I've seen doing it. It'd be pointless. They know what they've done, they've managed to rationalize it somehow, and I have better things to do with the little time I have to spend here than try to reform hypocrites. I just won't have anything to do with them.

It is the responsibility of the copyright holder to persue copyright infringements. Same for trademarks and patents. LL does have some liability (if they ignore a takedown request), however they are not obligated to act unless provoked by the rights holders.

So, if you have a problem with anything which you believe to be used illegally, posting in this forum does no good. The people whom you accuse don't care, and the others have no authority to act. If you truly want to make a statement, contact the rights holder via email, and cc: LL/Philip. Anything less is just hot air.

There is no one project in particular that is subject to these issues. These issues apply across the board. Although some questions were rhetorical food for thought, most were quite specific and direct.

No issue or question is invalidated due to a lack of finger pointing blame at a specific person or build. The issues are what is important for us all.

After some of my own textures were used inappropriately I began to ponder the ethical aspects of texturing and creating in SL. Sorry my posts did not satisfy anyones morbid need for blame pointed at a particular person or build but that was never the purpose.

Ethics apply to us all even when no accusation is presented against a specific wrongdoer.

Morbid need for finger pointing aside, your questions seemed to be directed very particularly at a project that you were not naming outright. That's why I asked you to be more specific, or make an accusation. It seemed to me more straightforward. If you really weren't talking about a specific situation, then that's fine, I'm still happy to contribute $0.08 to the discussion.

Ethics only apply to those of us who subscribe to the same moral code. It's possible for a completely honest and a completely dishonest person to be equally ethical, if they both adhere to their particular moral framework or lack thereof.

Textures being used inappropriately? By this, do you mean that:

-Someone managed to circumvent the permissions you had set on textures that you had uploaded to SecondLife

-Someone snagged textures of yours from elsewhere on the web, uploaded them to SecondLife without your permission, and started using/selling them

-Someone used textures that you uploaded to SL, took advantage of the permissions that you yourself set, and used the textures in a way that you did not predict or approve of

-Some other misuse of your textures?

katy's pulling a SCO

I'm glad someone brought up the concept of fair use at last. I'm aware that its not an idea that's at all legally enshrined anywhere, but it's one that's become increasingly valid the more the digital networks proliferate and sharing becomes more instantaneous, more pervasive and just so bloody easy.

It's because of this that new rights frameworks such as The Creative Commons are being suggested. In the world of digital, where there is an amorphous mass of content growing at an exponential rate, we have to recognise that old fashioned models of rights control can hamper the actions of creators as much as protect their creations. Why? beacuse the concept of sharing and sharealike-ing is fundamental to many aspects of creativity in the new digital media - look at weblogging for example - 99% of these would be considered in infringement in the strictest terms, I would suggest.

Perhaps there are some lessons to be learnt in SL here. i certainly think its applicable.

Katy, I know this is not legal solid ground I'm talking about. i'm interested in knowing your opinions, as a legal professional, on fair use, and also what solutions you would posit to the issues you raise - I notice you haven't ventured your own personal answer to your questions yet.

Is that true?

Ethical considerations aside... There is no "internet law." LL operates under U.S. law, however by shifting IP rights to the creators they probably duck this issue themselves. There are a number of countries which have not signed the copyright treatries similar to the U.S. statute that you quote, so there is no international law either.