SL Forum Jury for Taco Rubio. Forum Jury decides fate.

good things regulations are decided by polls but by reason.

FINALLY one of the girls come's forward. Taco, will you kindly explain to Kiari how she

1. Has no rights over her SL image and
2. Has no right to even be upset with you for displaying her like this and
3. How displaying her crotch without telling her makes you an artist.

You may wanna spring into how it would be "unethical" for her to even neg rate you for this like you did to a close friend of mine last night.

-aimee

That's cool an actual comment from someone IN the "display" who didn't know about it.
glad taco's being ETHICAL :))

i don't think taco is arguing that she has no right to be upset.

sure, aimee!

Ok first off I dont' know that her image is in the museum. She didn't identify one for me.

now IF she has a picture in the musueum, here I go:

1. Kiari, I took a picture of you in a public place. You have no rights to my picture.
2. You have every 'right' to be upset, I'm not sure I ever claimed people didn't have the 'right' to be upset.
3. Art is defined by the individual. Methinks Aimee isn't getting which part of this whole thing is art, but that's only my opinion.
4. As i've stated, I'll take down any picture of you, just tell me which one is you.

Umm aimee, your 'close' friend lied to you. She neg rated me with a quote of (umm i actually use quotes when quoting something, so this is literally what she said) "I am highly dissapointed with your lack of ethics". I wrote back to her that I had ethics, I just didn't happen to share hers.

She then told me again that I do not have ethics. I told her I very much have ethics, they just aren't the same as her. Then she told me she didn't want to discuss this.

What version did you hear, I'm curious?

Hearsay and irrelevant.

Taco, she is not asking you to take it down. She is asking for her 50$.

Is there a contract signed by both parties involved with signatures stating agreement?

Stay focused Aimee, you asked me to explain 3 things to her, and then I did (cuz I do wot you want). Then I asked you a question regarding a wild, slanderous, and incorrect statement you made, and you didn't answer it.

also I'm not sure where you're getting the "her" part of the $50 she asked for.

Wopner at 4.
Definately Wopner.
KMart sucks.

I rarely get obscure movie references.. but I got this one.

I won't tell you the details of our conversation. This particular issue is on hold until I get a chance to talk to her and find out if I misunderstood, if she lied, or if you are casting the conversation in a pro-taco light. If I misunderstood I will apologize.

-aimee

Somewhere in the heartlands, a village is missing it's idiot.

Just one?

i'm lost

I love you Siggy.

Surreal

So if I take pictures of your mother in a public place and sell them to porn mag, thus making money off of her image (or in this case, my intellectual property, since I worked damn hard making my fishie skins) I can claim it was in the name of Art and don't owe her compensation?

If you'd asked for permission, I'd have given it to you without a second thought. As it stands, take it down. I'm the fish, if you can't figure out which one that is, I guess you'll have to take the whole thing down.

Your analogy doesn't apply. He didn't take pictures of anyone in RL (that we are aware of), his mother or whoever, and he isn't selling the pictures he took. They are pictures of pixels, Avatars in an online environment. No RL information or identity was revealed.

He has also stated he will take down any pictures of these AVs upon request by the subject. Thus, I'm sure the defendant will comply with your wishes, not out of legal obligations, but because he has stated that he will.

Unless the Prosecution can come up with some tangible evidence of legal wrong-doing within Second Life and concerning Community Standards and the TOS, we would like to ask that the case be dismissed.

I just thought of another issue that in my mind seems on par with the non-consensual upskirt photo policy. How do you folks feel this relates to the issue of using scripted repeaters or av disguise (invisible prim) to listen in on conversations and then publishing those conversations without the knowledge or permission of the subjects.

For this example, let's just say I listen and publish a chat discussion that seemed to be of a mundane nature but the actual sensitivity of the conversation is not known since the subjects were never consulted. Aimee collects these conversations for her "collage of conversation" exhibit which she proudly deems to be breakthrough art. My justification goes as follows:

1. The conversations are spoken publicly rather than in IM, which implies consent for public consumption and reuse. If they talk out in a public place, they are pretty much ASKING for this.

2. Banning me from publishing these chat logs would appear to ME to be a CLEAR violation of my freedom of speech.

3. If you forbid me to publish the chat logs, what's NEXT? Can I not paraphrase? Can I not simply TELL people what we talked about even though I don't paste the exact copy??! This is a slippery slope!

4. SOME of the people that later find out I published their chat logs DON'T mind. In fact they LOVE being apart of this exhibit. And for 3 days straight I have run this exhibit, and I have yet to get ONE SINGLE ABUSE report filed against me. OK sure. Other people have complained but as I said, once they do, I take down their chat log.

5. My "collage of conversations" is art. The word is blissfully difficult to define, but I have enough positive feedback from close to 33% of the users that I feel comfortable concluding that this exhibit is indeed art. There are also alot of angry IMs from people who JUST DON'T THINK. They have yet to give me a coherent argument as to why I should stop. They just shove their morality down my throat!

6. COME ON...It's JUST A GAME. Chat logs are just bits! It's not real! If you can't handle it, maybe you should go find something else to do. I don't know how sensitive YOU are to having your chat logs shown, but *I* don't think it's a big deal.

7. If my subjects catch me doing this I will graciously remove their chat log from the exhibit. Even if the chat logs have been up for a week...I don't care. If you catch me, I will remove it.

9. I have removed the user names from the chat logs. True, in some cases the context of the chat log MAY give away details of the subject:

-"Oh <removed> I would LOVE to be in your next issue of Players Magazine" or

-"Hey <removed> where can I buy one of your Seburo's? By the way, has your jock itch healed?

But in other cases you really can't tell the identity of the speakers (at least I don't THINK you can. I wouldn't know for sure because I don't know what everybody currently knows about everybody else).

10. Hey we know people CAN do this. If you want to keep your conversation private, keep it in IM. But if you slip up and continue a public conversation into sensitive waters, people have a right to copy and display it, even it you were under the impression you were alone.

11. This is SL, not RL. Any RL laws or policies that have parallels in SL should not be sited for this issue. Only the TOS applies.


Well ok, there IS a difference. In one case, the Lindens have a very specific policy, and in the other, they do not. It goes like this:

"Remotely monitoring conversations, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without"

So lets do some thinking. Why would the Lindens bother with a policy like this? Are the parallels I am drawing between Taco's Upskirt museum and Aimee's Collage of conversation valid? If not why? If so, should there be a change in the current CS so that it allows chat logs or disallows non-consensual upskirts?

Food for thought.

-aimee

interesting arguement aimee. i am not qualified to answer questions regarding language. language is far too complex for me. maybe if i reflect for a little while. see you next year.

Originally Posted by annie Lily


Case Dismissed! *Throws the Hammer down!*

In private conversations, RL and personal info can be stated. In pictures taken in public places, RL info and personal info about a RL person, or a persons actions in SL, are not being revealed.

If Taco were to set up a remote camera in someone's SL build and take pictures without thier knowledge or permission, I think that might be closer to a TOS violation, though it is still not directly addressed. Pictures of pixels just aren't as dangerously informational as text.

Are you saying that according to Linden CS policy, I CAN reprint the chat logs as long as no RL or personal information is stated? Who decided what is personal information?



Where was Taco when he took the upskirt photos? Was he in view of the subjects? Did the subjects know he was doing this? How would Taco know if they did? What is the acceptable distance for the chat logs in current CS?



Remember my analogy. We are comparing what seems (to Taco) a mundane conversation to crotch photo.

Naturally there is interpretation by a Linden involved. But they still wrote that policy specifically in the TOS.

-aimee

No..I'm saying that's why Lindens have the policy against easedropping and posting chat logs. It's a blanket protection for people discussing RL issues and personal information.



According to him he was in public areas and not using remote cameras in people's homes. However, pictures still aren't text chat and still don't have the ability to convey RL or personal information. AVs are pretty darn public. Anyone can see them. Private conversations, by their nature, are private. Bits and panties are also very public. Vendors in almost every mature sim have them prominently displayed.

But as I stated, even if he took remote pictures in a persons home, the TOS still doesn't cover it, and I really don't see how it can, since we can easily cam thru walls, or actually walk into builds on a whim.



It just seems a bit tough for the Lindens to make a snapshot policy, since folks could easily, and often, accidently catch things in thier snapshots that the Lindens have outlawed.

Examples:

If they made taking an AVs picture without thier expressed consent against the rules, that would mean no more party pictures or large event pictures.

If they said no pictures that show panties without the AVs consent, that again would greatly stifle many party and event pics. Hell, what are panties? Sometimes it hard to tell bathing suits, lingerie, shorts, etc. for panties.

Also, what form would the consent take? A mere verbal (typed) consent could easily be denied in the future.

It would be a damn tough rule to write and be fair about. Any suggestions on how it would be worded without making snapshots basically obsolete? Remember, folks will get mad at each other and file abuse reports, and this will just add fuel to the fire of ridiculous abuse reports for vengence, etc and waste alot of the Linden's time.

this is an official plea....

let these threads die, thanks. I'd like to read about some other drama instead...

How's that L$ value doin? any trolls wanna take that one back up? please?