A process for minimizing texture theft!

I have not read through all the posts here but want to offer my 2 cents on the matter. I understand that this is a big issue. I have dealt with similiar dilemmas in the past, for example making websites and having people rip images that I editted, plagurizing my content, and even copying the entire website and calling it their own. So yeah, it sucks when you work on stuff and then can't protect it. However textures in SL are really tough to monitor. As it stands right now, sometimes it's hard to tell where a texture originated from. Was it taken off the web? Was it ripped from another person's creation? Was it bought at a texture shop? Was it bought from someone who does not have the right to resell as textures? I've seen people claim to have created stuff that is not their own, I've seen people sell textures that are intended to only be resold on items.

Think about it though, if I were to unknowingly buy textures from an illegitimate source and then use it for my own building projects, I wouldn't want to get in trouble for that. It would be the middle man who caused the problem, but who's to know that? And if everyone tries to police the situation, I imagine there would be accusations flying anytime the same texture is used by different people, even if they both have the rights to do so. I think the only way to deal is to make it harder to lift textures from finished items. And maybe some texture shops might consider group only access for true builders, though I have no idea how they'd be able to monitor that completely. I just know that I'd be screwed if I lost my full perm texture sources (since I love building and selling completed projects) due to the jerks who decide to redistribute what either was not intended to be redistributed, or who violate contracts that attempt to prevent reselling textures as is.

I am English, not subject to US laws but regardless I think it is pretty poor manners to take something out of game and edit without the creators permission.

I posted part of LL's agreement on the last page.
Contrary to what you are saying, they seem to be under the impression that content creators actually do have rights.

I think I'd prefer to trust their agreement over your opinon.

Your avatar is in California. When you upload a texture you're putting it under US law.
I think it pretty poor manners to sell products no-mod so I can't customize them as I could if I bought them in the real world, even in England, so I guess we're even.

I'm sorry... I seem to have confused you, I haven't made the claim that content creators don't have rights. What I wrote is that US law doesn't give them all the rights that European law does, but that's far from saying that they don't have rights at all.

You acknowledge that Linden Lab and other Content Providers have rights in their respective Content under copyright and other applicable laws and treaty provisions, and that except as described in this Agreement, such rights are not licensed or otherwise transferred by mere use of the Service.

That means you don't have rights to mod other peoples work if they don't give permission for you to do it.

Why do you point-blank refuse to respect creators wishes?

No offense, but you are the one not knowing what you're talking about. Local law comes before International Law, unless agreed otherwise. Dutch Law comes before European Law comes before American law.

Dutch Law wouldn't accept those terms specified.

Not going to discuss this part further, is beyond the topic. I merely mentioned it to put out the fact the DMCA isn't the all-in-one solution people believe it to be.

Ehm.. No.

If I as customer create someting in the Netherlands, the IP is from me, within the Netherlands (see the Nipo list link provided by someone else). Wheter or not I put it on a server in Japan or America, IP rights are registered afaik where the person lives.

Europen laws don't give them all rights either.
Customers are much more protected in that area.
Hence what I said before: no one can forbid you to make adjustments for a product you bought and own.

If you (not you Argent ) don't agree to that, and that is the whole intend of some people, then you MUST reimburse (allow the returning of the item).
Lot of those people don't want that either.

How is that saying again? You can't have your cake and eat it?

That doesn't have anything to do with fair use. That means "if you have copyrights on stuff, you don't lose them by uploading to LL, and LL doesn't lose their copyrights by having you download their stuff" and so on. It's a standard blanket acknowledgement that transferring stuff theough SL doesn't involve a transfer of ownership.

This doesn't grant you any additional rights beyond those granted by applicable copyright laws (in my case, those of California and Texas), "except as described in this Agreement".

That means I have the right, under fair use, to mod other people's work even if they explicitly deny me permission to do it... so long as I don't distribute copies of the modified work.

Now let me make one thing clear about this statement: just because I have the right to do this, that doesn't mean I've done it or I would do it... to the contrary, I was one of the first to give up using X-flight because it was distributed illegally, because that's what the creator's expressed wishes stated.
I haven't done that. I've said that creators don't have the rights that you think they do. I've said that I've modified objects and textures under fair use. I haven't said that if I was asked not to mod a skin, I would go ahead and do it anyway. I've simply pointed out that what I'm doing is perfectly legal, and ethical, and as an aside so far the creators who I've shown my mods off to have all thought they were cool.

When I'm using a server in California, the laws that apply are the laws of the States of California and Texas and of the United States of America. It may be illegal for me to display a defaced copy of a Dutch work in the Netherlands, or to display a swastika in Germany, but I'm not in Germany and I'm not in the Netherlands.

This is not a one-way street. For example, there are people working on cryptography in other countries who are potentially subject to arrest if they visit the US (and in fact at least one HAS been arrested at a cryptography convention), because they have published information in their own country that's protected under the abominable DMCA. The same realities of international law that allow fair use in the US even though it doesn't exist in (say) Australian law protect Europeans from the stupidities of the US government.

No, it really doesn't.

The example you use of fair use is MUCH too broad. Simply modifying a work (taking a skin an adding a beauty mark or whatever) and claiming fair use does not cut it.

Look it up.

Fair use typically applies to parody and satire, not simply tweaking someone's work and calling it fair use.

And, if a modified work truly does fall under the banner of fair use, then you CAN distribute copies of that work.

BUT the terms of fair use are EXTREMELY narrow and somewhat subjective (most cases being decided in court) to prevent people from simply modifying a work, claiming fair use and then selling it for fun and profit.

My only point in all this: Claiming fair use ain't that easy.

Well there you have it... The person who uploaded the texture does not own the copyright and neither do you ;0 .. While one or both of you may have a licenced copy, neither of you has a leg to stand on when accusing the other of theft.. If both of you obtained the image legally through another source then such documentation should be easy to furnish for the abuse team.

Some interesting read about the DMCA and why it is *still* being scrutinized

An excerpt, that can apply for textures: modifying a product to alter it (improve it) and redistribute freely (no personal gain):

Sony Threatens Aibo Hobbyist
Sony has also invoked the DMCA against a hobbyist who developed custom "dance moves" for his Aibo robotic "pet" dog. Developing these new routines for the Sony Aibo required reverse engineering the encryption surrounding the software that manipulates the robot. The hobbyist revealed neither the decrypted Sony software nor the code he used to defeat the encryption, but he freely distributed his new custom programs. Sony claimed that the act of circumventing the encryption surrounding the software in the Aibo violated the DMCA and demanded that the hobbyist remove his programs from his website.

Responding to public outcry, Sony ultimately permitted the hobbyist to repost some of his programs (on the understanding that Sony retained the right to commercially exploit the hobbyist's work). The incident illustrated Sony's willingness to invoke the DMCA in situations with no relationship to "piracy."

So far, as I can see it, it is clear that the DMCA is not the right tool for this. I also can see that it hampers with creativity; for the people with decent interests.


To those people making skins and textures out there, a question you might need to think about (or some questions):
- Where does the DMCA end?
- Are you sure you never used any work from others before (without their written permission)?
Ask yourself this. If you see some skin and like parts of it, and you recreate it by your own in your own taste, it can be considered a copy too. You "stole" someone's idea (no permission) and modified it. Whether you sell it or not I'm not even asking.

It is my personal opinion that the DMCA and similar laws from the USA (allways the USA!) are like using a nuke to kill an ant. I call it the idiocy of the Americans. B. Gates getting a patent on Art.... WTH? Next time you know, you might create some Art work in SL and get sued by B.G. for infringing his patent rights.

And for those who now think I'm one of those people that make illegal copies and such: nope. The things I really like I own (bought) fair and square. I don't feel the need to rip off artists. I just don't buy their products if the price is too high, even if I don't like it.

I do admit I do have a little collection of MP3s... But in the Netherlands you pay an amount of money for EVERY blanc CD that goes to a generic artist fund. So in a way I have payed for them.

Some of you are so eager to look for legal quotes, & theorietical debates.. & you know what? seems to me it's for pretty selfish reasons.

What are you arguing about? You think if I MAKE a texture, yes not upload one off of google, i MADE it. & someone took it & resold it... That's ok? You want people to have the right to do that? How many legal quotes do you want to give me to try & convince me that's ok?
Cos guess what.. You can type till your fingers fall off it's not gonna happen.

If you wann agive away a free copy of your work that's great. If I worked for weeks on something & I don't want you to have a full perms copy of it, it's my right.
(like freeware vs paid software. ok? if we want money for you using it it's our right. If you use a WAREZ copy, you crack it or whatever, you know what your doing is wrong. Even if you don't give it to your friends inspite of them asking for it. You having a copy is wrong.)

Don't quote me anything from anywhere telling me that's not my right. I'm not stupid enough to have my common sence overriden because you "like to dabble in reading law documents".

SL has it's own rules. It has a TOS. It has it's own laws like if they want to charge you money for land they can. They can add to that TOS that stealing someone's original work, can result in a ban, If it has been proven. SL has the power to fix this if they wanted to. At a case by case basis.

You want to have a philosophical discussion over what's original work that's fine. Those of us who know how to use photoshop are past that point.

Marcuw Schnook - I stopped reading your posts a few pages ago. You don't know what your talking about & you look for excuses to not solve a problem that doesn't realy concern you.

Fact is, some cases can be solved. When original work is stolen & it's stolen in such an obvious way, something should be done. It can be proven with PSDs, it can be proven with creation dates.

Bottom line is about 50 people worked their a** off CREATING textures from scratch, only to have their work stolen. & we want something done about this.
If we made those textures for blizzard or eidos, or Maxis.. & someone stole & resold them.. That would be wrong, right? Why isn't it wrong for SL?

You wanting to have a free copy of something someone else made isn't a good reason not to start this sytem. & no matter how many stuff you quote to me I won't think it is.

Textures have "blank spots" That don't appear on the AV. So..

Re: idea.. put a (c) sign in there.
And type in small fonts "Canimal Zephyr"
Basicly, legaly, that makes that texture legaly copyrighted to you.
Anyone who rips this off REALLY breaks the law.
No gray zone.

There's nothing to argue about if its ok or not ok.
If they produce multiple copies of that texture work that had the (c) on it - they are breaking the law. Final.

Now.. yes, again, you need to file a DMCA and bla bla bla to make it work. But THIS makes the matter clear: This is no gray zone. And if LL refuse to act on the DMCA you filed on that, then LL is breaking the law.

LL can kind of avoid the DMCA thing if you dont legaly put the "copyright mark" on the texture that got stolen
Hell you can even stick a warning that "if I find you, I will DMCA you." in the blank spot.

Me: well what about people who upload a texture off google & stick a (C) on it, etc?

Nope
Because their (c) doesnt matter if they're not the original creators. (& we know how to establish the origonal creator)
The one who created the original picture that got snagged from Google has the real say.
If you can find the original creator, you can sue the ones yo uput the fake (c).
Because they're fabricating false copyright claims.
Now this DOES open a new problem
Photosourcing
Who owns the copyright on a skin made of photosourcing?
No idea.
You need someone who knows law for this.

Well this is great news. Especialy since there are sites that offer textures LEGALY for photosourcing.

*does little dance*

My letter to phillip

Dear Mr Linden
I am quite new to SL, I love it and I saw its potential immediately.
I can honestly say there is nothing I don't like about SL except this issue - and to be honest I worry a lot about it.

I am writing to you regarding the hot debate surrounding the theft of designers work (textures and artwork) within SL.

I read that you said you wont waste time creating inadequate solutions which I think is a fair comment, but what I would like to offer is simple information, information you can use should you decide to get pro-active on this issue.

In many cases where I and my partner have successfully had websites taken offline for artwork theft, it has been a simple and fast procedure that is done through sending one e-mail to the web host including;
1. Attached original files
2. A brief statement claiming the artwork is mine and proof is provided.
3. Attached digital copy of my signature.

I hope to see something like this implemented into SL so I can continue enjoying it.

Defining textures.
Textures fall into two clear categories as defined below.

A. "Generic" textures.
Examples: Brickwork, grass, wood, marble, fabric patterns.
These files are originated either by photography, illustration or a combination of the two (e.g. retouched photographs).

B. "Artwork" textures.
Examples: Clothing garments, avatar skins
These are not simple, flat, repeating images.

For example in the case of clothing garments each garment comprises;
1. A texture - the fabric pattern
2. Shading - highlights, shadows, creases and folds
3. An alpha channel - the pattern or cut of the garment.

When combined these three elements create a unique piece of artwork that is next to impossible to be accidentally duplicated.


How to prove ownership.
The proof of ownership of a texture doesn't have to be a complicated issue.
In the case of an ownership dispute LL could issue both parties to provide 'original' artwork.

All designers work in 2D digital artwork programs for example Photoshop and paintshop.
When creating textures or digital artwork every designer will work with a layered document with different graphical elements on different layers - finally saving as a flattened .tga file for SL upload.

This layered file is the 'master file'. A thief will never have access to this file and its contents.

In the case of 100% photographic textures, digital cameras record info in all images taken, often referred to as metadata. When the creator uploads to SL as a .tga file this information is stripped, so only he/she has access to this metadata as someone who makes a copy, makes a copy of the .tga file in SL - not the original.

The genuine designer will be able to provide an original 'layered' document. e.g.. a Photoshop .psd file or paintshop equivalent.
The thief simply cannot provide this document.

In extreme cases the thief may try to fake a layered document, but this would be easy to spot for anyone with experience in graphic software.

As a final measure LL can check file creation dates, where the original will always show that it was created earlier than the fake.


The cost to LL
For this to work LL would need a minimum of one person dealing with these issues that should have knowledge of, and access to graphic software - Photoshop, paintshop etc. A 'texture detective' if you will.

When a theft report is sent, a generic mailing asking to submit original artwork in a zip file should be issued to both parties.

where no artwork is sent, the case should be handled as it is at present.

When artwork is submitted it goes to the artwork detective, who can use professional judgement to determine the real original and the fake. Further action can then be taken based on their decision.

I feel its important for me to re-iterate that these steps only need to be taken when original artwork is submitted, if the original owner cannot provide a master file then the "case" should follow the current system - thereby reducing un necessary time and cost to LL.

Although this mail is a bit long and I appreciate you are very busy, I hope you managed to read it or even pass it on to a relevant person. I have tried to convey how simple this solution can be, and its a solution that is used in other areas, e.g. website theft etc.

Keep up the good work on SL

regards

Wanda Rich

Great letter Wanda. After reading the Town Hall transcript yesterday I got the idea that LL's reaction to all this is 'your world, your stuff stolen, you create a solution.' The only solution I could see, if LL is not wiling to put in the time and resources to take the basic steps that have been suggested by Canimal's feature suggestion, is to just stop selling stuff altogether. This makes me sad.

I'm a total consumer in SL. I don't make anything or sell anything, but I love to buy things and support my favorite designers and see the incredibly, incredibly talented designers push beyond everything artistically to realize their visions.

I can see now why many designers are selling limited editions, and maybe the solution is to only have a select few who they are willing to sell to (albeit at a much higher price) who they can trust not to steal their stuff. This of course, still reduces their income, creates problems for new residents who are honest, limits the amount that can realistically be sold and bought, and it reduces their exposure in world. Very sad that LL seems unwiling to even make a policy and follow it to stop the most basic, obvious kinds of theft that are occurring.

I am in agreement with the principle of your idea - but must take exception to the idea of IP banning people. This is a bad idea in EVERY instance. Virtually NOONE has a fixed IP address so its banning the IP just means that the next time someone gets the IP that has been banned they are immediately unable to signup/logon to SL while the person that has been banned is free to get a new IP (really easy) and carry on with a new alt.

This achieves absolutely nothing apart from discrimination against those who have done nothing (the person who gets the IP that has been banned) and building a false sense of secututy that the person cannot get back in - whereas they can - easily.

I would also agree with what has been said before that a lot of texture sellers (not saying this is you - I have no reason to think it is) simply find free textures on the web then claim ownership and protection under DMCA. The issue of ascertaining the original owner of the copyright can be difficult.

Yes I agree with you in regard to skins and clothes - these are not likely to be textures taken from the web as they have been processed a great deal to be made to fit the templates provided by LL. Perhaps a watermark on the parts of the skin that are not used? In the corner of the texture a creator name and date for example?

The only problem with that however is that someone could get the texture and remove your watermark putting their own watermark on. Who owns the texture then? I suppose if these were registered with LL then it would be a little clearer but it would mean a lot of work for LL and I cant see them doing that - especially for free. If they had to charge for it - even if they would do it - then prices would have to go up.

I agree that people should pay for the textures they use - and certainly should not resell textures that they have obtained illegally from others, but the way the technology works at the moment it is just too unpractical to do something like this as far as I can see. I would love to say it is doable but I dont believe it is.

-
Timmins

That's a whole different aspect of "fair use", and not the part I'm talking about.

Fair use *also* includes copies made for personal use that aren't redistributed. That explicitly spelled out in the Betamax decision[1], and it's why it's legal for Apple to advertise that you can "Rip, Mix, and Burn" your own CDs using iTunes. Because while these products are all designed to let you make a copy of a complete work, there is a legitimate "fair use" purpose for buying and using these products: personal use.

There's no essential difference between making a mix tape and playing it in your car or at a picnic and wearing a modified skin in SL.

[1] Manufacturers of home video recording machines could not be liable for contributory copyright infringement for the potential uses by its purchasers, because the devices were sold for legitimate purposes and had substantial non-infringing uses. Personal use of the machines to record broadcast television programs for later viewing constituted fair use. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

I didn't say that. Go back and re-read what I've posted: my point is that it's not copying the texture that's illegal, it's redistributing that copy.

I said that there is (in the words of the Supreme Court) a substantial non-infringing use of modified skins. All I'm saying is that any policy that LL implements has to require illegal redistribution of the texture as an essential element. Your proposal would mean someone who is legally using a modified version of a skin they bought and paid for could be permabanned for it.

It's very like software, because it's explicitly legal for me to have a "full perms" copy of any commercial software I paid for. If a copy protection scheme prevents you from modifying the software or making a backup copy, you can bypass it.

In 1981 I got my first and only "cracked" game. It was a program called "Wizardry". I got it because a bug in the copy protection scheme had made my original (and paid for) version unplayable, and I wrote the cracked copy right over the original gold-labelled software disk. Later I ran into one of the authors of Wizardry, and he thought it was pretty funny.

If he'd said "I'd rather you hadn't done that" I'd have trashed the disk then and there. You don't want me making modified copies of your skins, and I won't do it. But I won't do it because you've told me that you don't want me to... not because making those mods is wrong or illegal.

I'm not trying to override your common sense. It's just that if you're asking Linden Labs to change "the law of the land", it's only "common sense" that you understand what it is you're asking them to change.
You mean like the "free" textures that people are using all over SL that were stolen from video games? That's why I don't use a lot of "popular" textures in my builds.
It is, but you have to draw the line to allow fair use.
I don't want a free copy of anything. I bought and paid for everything I've modded.

This topic is degenerating into a troll fest.
I've presented a do-able option to Phillip Linden that can be put into effect almost immediately and at fairly minimum cost to LL.

There is a permission system in SL that allows content creators to specifiy if they want someone to mod their creations or not.
If they set no-mod it means they don't want you to mod things. Respect their wishes - end of story.

I couldn't agree more.

Well maybe you should get your head out of the sand and read some I posted, since I did give a reasonable and easy solution that Linden couls use to verify original created/uploaded work, with a minor drawback.

Since it's your parade, you started this post, and expecting all and everyone having you same opinion. You bash people who do not share the same *vision* and try to ridicule them and then start to the childins insult of "stop reading your post whine whine blabla" stuffd like a KID!

Well good luck to you. I will make sure for myself I won't have to deal with people like yourself. I think I'm reasonable listening to argument and giving mine. Keep on flaming me.. I'm wearin flame retardent vest (C)

* Excepting -> expecting

I agree with some previous posters. You write it well...

Again, it's not full proof... What if someone is NOT using some photoshop program and uploads textures as jpg (using something simple as Painthsop will also make layered images)..

(I asked a friend for more info)...

Where does that lead people: getting legal images from websites, someone claiming they are his/hers causing injustice to an innocent user.

But unfortunately as this thread turns out, there are a lot of people here that only look out for themselves.

Which is good for me to know, because I tend to evade people like that. They often lack a good real thing called common sense. (And this is my own practical experience).

Sorry (altough many will be releived) I take my hands of this thread. If something stupid like a ill conceived and wrongly implemented way of copyright is introduced and enforced, I will only start doing business with people that do have common sense and a bit more of a relaxing attitude.