Selling Art Originating from an SL Image?

Is selling art created using Second Life as a medium against the TOS? I ask because deviantArt isn't letting me sell prints, which include this one (just demonstrating that there was some 'creative' effort involved):

---www.flickr.com/photos/felonyfabre/2824616721---

I received a series of emails with the following explanation:

Due to the licensing constraints on the Second Life website, you cannot
submit images from Second Life as prints on deviantART.

We are sorry, but copyrighted or trademarked characters, images, logos
or lyrics can not be printed through deviantART. If you can get the
copyright or trademark owner to email ... and provide authorization we will approve the print. Until then, however, this print must be rejected. For our policies regarding "fanart" prints, please read the following FAQ: ...

Awesome image!
As for the legal aspect I hav'nt a clue.
Would be a great shame if SL as an art medium was lost.

If you are the artist one would think you should be able to do whatever you wish with it but if you're not and don't have permission to sell that artwork then technically you stealing someone else's artwork. Not saying that you're stealing but if your art work then you should have right to do whatever with it.
Avatars tend to be artwork or photos then uv wrapped to making avatar made by someone else.
If you sell prints of someone else's avatars you basically making money off something you didn't make, you just took the photos and alter the image to look artistic.
The photos are great but did you create the avatars and every image in the prints?.
Everything in the image in the photo must be something you made I guess to avoid legal issues.
If you made those avatars and can prove its your work then I don't get why that would be a problem.

Thank you Thales and FD, and your points are valid, FD.

Though I am clearly a narcissist - the only avatar in most if not all of my shots is MY own avatar, though the example I linked is actually a shot of my own island.

The possible implication is that any still or moving media taken of Second Life but displayed outside of SL is now technically a breach of the TOS. At least, that may be how deviantArt is seeing things.

Its very hard to say, from looking at your link it looks like you have taken photos of an area in SL and then used them as a basis to create your own piece of art, much like painters who take photos to use for inspiration in RL.

To me I'd have to say that is your piece of original art as it would be if your photos had been taken in RL. But i suppose the IP of those hills and water belong to LL and the IP of the boat and dock belong to whoever created them.

I find it a bit confusing to be honest because if I designed a boat in RL and you took a photo of it to do something similar there would be no legal issues whatsoever.

This doesn't sound right. Someone has a wire crossed. When is it Deviant Arts place to uphold the TOS of another site, and when did the Second Life TOS say you don't have rights over your own screen shots?

Lame , I hope this all gets sorted!

Just a guess but... This may be the part of the TOS that they are talking about. Your very lovely picture inscludes part of the Second Life sky. That's Linden Labs' texture and environment. Apparently you can't use them to create things not in-world.

I agree with you Rocketman. As I said, it is my own island. I am also a bit confused. I suspect that dArt is playing it safe by considering all SL-generated media the copyrighted property of LL. I suspect this paragraph in the TOS is driving their decision:

During any period in which your Account is active and in good standing, Linden Lab gives you permission to create still and/or moving media, for use only within the virtual world environment of the Service ("in-world", which use or include the "textures" and/or "environmental content" that are both (a) created or owned by Linden Lab and (b) displayed by Linden Lab in-world.

A possible interpretation is that now even simple screenshots are breaches of the TOS - but then the fact that the SL BLOG links directly to the Second Life Flickr group calls that interpretation into question.

I be confused.

From what I have just read (first time I have ever seen the ToS in honesty) ..

LICENSE TERMS AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TERMS


***yadda etc

3.2 You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law. However, you must make certain representations and warranties, and provide certain license rights, forbearances and indemnification, to Linden Lab and to other users of Second Life.

Users of the Service can create Content on Linden Lab's servers in various forms. Linden Lab acknowledges and agrees that, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you will retain any and all applicable copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to any Content you create using the Service, to the extent you have such rights under applicable law. ** yadda et al



I don't see any clause that prohibits use outside of SL and I seen a lot of machinema from SL on Youtube.


I hope someone can figure this though

Thanks Pie. We are on the same page I think. That paragraph is a bit confusing and probably needs to be clarified by LL. As I said, it implies (to me at least) that even simple screenshots saved to disk are now breaches of the TOS.

I am sorry wasn't implying it wasn't your avatar.
It looks really good never seen another one out there.
Just inform them it's your avatar, not made by anyone else.
Ask how you go about proving is your original avatar and artwork.
It yours, you should have right to do whatever you want with it.
LL doesn't own our artwork.
There is lot of different photos, videos,etc people have taken in world and show on
You tube, even television and coffee table books I don't entirely get it.
Yet I did have friend who ran into someone using avatars he made without his permission,
was selling photos bit back and there was issues around copy right around this.
So maybe they added new clause because of problems with this in past.

Sneaky but open to interpretation.

Thanks FD. No worries - I know what you meant.

Thanks to all of you for your responses. I'll pursue some clarification with a Linden. I suspect that if there are TOS interpretation issues with third-parties, it might help someone else as well as me.
I'd be interested if anyone else has experienced any similar issues lately. I think the clause in question was a recent change to the TOS.

FF

from google ..

Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information - the activity of making information available for public view. In some cases authors may be their own publishers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish


surely Torley can't break the ToS?

R.E "the activity of making information available for public view"

There was coffee table book someone was selling few years back when FD joined and there was a lot of people were grumbling about it.
I don't remember who put it together but it was a part of something well known at the time, but not that important to be remembered.
Who knows maybe there was other issues too since then that made them add stuff like that.
There is also lot of videos being made on Youtube, people get paid on Youtube for content.
I don't know. It is confusing to me too.
I would like to do videos some time in future so I guess better have understanding of this myself.
I originally posted artwork in Deviant art but I have misplaced my account and now they want me to pay and I can't afford a membership.
I thought about selling prints myself but it wouldn't be of artwork within SL if I had done it

Yeah, you read my mind. I saw Torley has office hours tomorrow, and had already planned on a visit. If anyone can pursue and provide clarification, it's Torley. If someone tells him he can't post pictures of watermelons, all hell will likely break loose ...

reading deeper .. it would seem that even if you used your own ground textures and green screened the sky out .. as LL keeps dabs on "Environmental content" we seem pretty much sunk here as lighting is surely included.


3.4 Linden Lab licenses its textures and environmental content to you for your use in creating content in-world.

During any period in which your Account is active and in good standing, Linden Lab gives you permission to create still and/or moving media, for use only within the virtual world environment of the Service ("in-world", which use or include the "textures" and/or "environmental content" that are both (a) created or owned by Linden Lab and (b) displayed by Linden Lab in-world.


I hope I read this wrong.

Thales Infinity grabs tin hat and dives fer cover.


__._.__

No Thales - I read it the same way you did. But not sure what the intent is here. Think about it. That would apply to virtually all screenshots taken in-world and saved to disk, as well as those posted indirectly to the BLOG via the FLICKR group. LL itself has even promoted itself as a catalyst for digital artforms like machinima. In my opinion, the implications of this paragraph, taken literally, are serious. Hopefully, there is a reasonable explanation. It just seems unfathomable to me that this would be their intent. All evidence suggests otherwise to me.

Agreed totally.
If taken serious the implications are indeed dire.

it's just the legal/sneaksy way it is written that keep watch on a million loopholes.

Good luck and I sincerelly hope this uncertanty is resolved.

This is just wonderful promotion and advertising for Secondlife. Your pics and many others Felony .

Maybe their real fear is the not so beautiful side of SL being promoted and this rule helps them bring down that type of work.

The wonderful work suffers because of it .

I would imagine the Australian Centre for Photography knows what they're doing when they hold an AV photography show like this (that def has SL images in it, see pic), although I do NOT know if these works are for sale or just viewing...I would imagine they're selling not just showing:

http://sl2rllove.blogspot.com/2008/09/avatar-new-you.html

Felony, to answer you question as to maybe why devinantart.com has this policy in place, I can attest to a personal experience as an avatar creator.

About a year ago, I sold one of my custom avatars in SL. Ironically the customer later contacted me for 'specification custom' work. I met with them to see what their needs were. In the next few weeks we stayed in contact asto what they had in mind for the job they wanted me to do. I was also directed to deviantart for further research by them, and upon closer observation, found they indeed had a deviantart.com account, but not only that, they were trying to sell Prints of SL art (as deemed art in their opinion) only problem was, they were using my avatar as the subject (not a depiction or rendition or interpretation of the avatar itself) an outright picture taken of them wearing my creation.

I don't mind people posting my work on websites or other media generally ,infact I'm more than thrilled to get noticed , but said customer was trying to make a direct profit off my creations' image without even asking me (Like selling one of my Ads itself) and this was not ok, infact it was and still is even copyrighted and licensed and documented on my web site as well as ISP etc. as well as stating the TOS as to the images of them and their use, and yes I immediately filed the proper complaint with deviantart.com as prescribed and the issue was resolved.

If you can provide sufficient proof and evidence to them that you are infact the originator of your works etc. then I'm sure they would have no problem. I don't think they are singling out micro details either. Documentation and facts have to be presented as with any sale or presentation. If you crated say the skin for example, you may want to even provide the .psd or whatever other proof you have that it is indeed your work.

There you go, Hunter. Whether or not your explanation applies to my specific circumstances, I believe that it is ultimately the dilemma we face.

I am glad Hunter stopped by when you first mentioned this Felony I thought about what he had told me he had went through last year with Deviantart.com and a former client.
Not that situation is exactly similar to yours Felony, but it was the other side of someone wanting to sell things they didn't have permission to do so and I don't remember right but I think they were selling Hunters work without his permission and at the time Deviantart.com had different policy until then.