Minnu Model Skins PhotoSourced from Renderosity

From what I read, yes. The files have to be shrunk down from a very high resolution to something that is usable in SL. Lots of the detail is lost and blurryness ensues.

I guess that is the advantage of hand drawn skins. They can start out in the right reolutions which give them a sharper look from what I see.

I have both Photorealistic and hand drawn skins. Hand drawn don't seem to pack the realism of Photorealistic but they can come off as quite beautiful (is that ok to use as a guy perspective?) when a talented creator does it.

Does anyone else find it a bit strange that Danae is claiming to have enlisted an attorney, yet she is posting publicly about the issue AFTER that stating as such?

To add to the strangeness of it, Tenshi is imploring Minnu to post a rebuttal. Again strange, if indeed an attorney has become involved. No one, in their right mind, would oblige Tenshi with a reply, after learning that an attorney had been contacted.

In any case, there appear to be two different licenses (one is a readme.txt on the download page for the Manhattan skin, and one is Renderosity's broader license), which tend to conflict a bit with each other. I think that renderosity has a bit of work to do, to that end, because it's confusing.

It's also not very clear if using the artwork on an SL avatar is considered a rendering or not, which seems to be the crux of the issue at this point - except - that "render" portion is in the readme.txt agreement, which Danae has said isn't applicable - she instead pointed to Renderosity's EULA, which says nothing about renders, and focuses on the "must nor be extractable in their original form" legalese. In my opinon, they are not extractable in their original form, from Minnu's skins.

Note: I am just speculating based upon the premise that Minnu DID use Danae's work to make her skins, and it should be pointed out that this fact has not been established yet.

It's basically an SLExchange of the digital art world.

www.turbosquid.com is a similar site.

Artists can sell their textures, models, images etc.

The sites aren't just Poser related. They're used by many people for many different reasons. But Poser is a very popular reason.

Not even that, what I mean though is in the textures, you'd have to move around pieces of the body so that it imports correctly into Second Life, otherwise you end up getting a big mess. Correct?

That seems to be one of the major debates...whether the license is specific enough to exclude using them in SL. It does say the original creator retains copyright so, unless enough changes were made to the skins to qualify them as derivative works (another substantial debate), it seems like it would be her call. Assuming, of course, that the similarity isn't just some one in a million fluke and the skins did originate on Renderosity.

Congrats! From someone that has read 99% of the posts, speculations, etc you have just made what is in my opinion one of the most logical posts in it.

Having tried to make a Photosourced skin for Poser figures, I know that it's insanely hard to do. At least enough so that I, being an amateur and not looking to create and sell such skins for a profession, decided to give up on the project then spending a huge amount of time trying to perfect the technique.

Photosourcing a skin texture is hard enough when doing it for a good UV map (such that comes with the DAZ figures that are popularly used in a program like Poser). When working with a lousy UV map, for crude geometry, in a setting with bad lighting (i.e., the SL avatar), it seems even harder.

(I've made skins for SL- not for sale, just personal use. They were not Photosourced, and though they look good enough for me to use, they in no way compare to the quality of the good skin merchants in SL. And even for my modest attempt, it took an insane amount of time to come up with something passable.)

Given that it seems to be an amazingly difficult task to do a good, Photosourced skin for SL anyway, why invest so much into an effort that violates someone's copyright and opens up legal liability, when it wouldn't cost that much to just buy the rights to the Photosource.

Doing the work of piecing together the source photos onto the UV is the hard part. Acquiring legally usable source photos is the easy part.

To buy the skin from Renderosity, to use illegally for Photo-sourcing, costs around $15 USD. For $100 USD, one can buy a whole library of thousands of photos of hundreds of models, produced in part specifically for use as photo-source for digital skins, and using this vast library to Photo-source SL skins would be completely, entirely legal.

The skin from Renderosity is not in a form that more easily lends itself to conversion to an SL skin than perfectly legal photos ready to be used for Photosourcing. (Unless someone has developed some sort of conversion plug-in or something that can automatically convert the skins.)

I understand (don't approve of, just understand) why people might go the illegal route to take a shortcut to quick money. I don't understand why, when it takes so little money or effort to have a legal product as opposed to an illegal product, people don't take the little extra step to be legal.

While I don't know personally either the Renderosity merchant or SL merchant involved in this, some years ago I did purchase skins from the Renderosity merchant in question. When I saw her name, it immediately rang a bell in my head, because I remember how much I liked her work and how much use I got from it. I know she's been in that business a long time and is generally well-respected. Even though my eye isn't trained enough to to meaningfully compare the skins, I know just enough about this particular Renderosity merchant that I would trust her opinion and expertise.

I also know, from previous experience with Renderosity and the forums there, many merchants (particularly those who create skins) have been for years vexed about what they suspect is widespread theft of their work, but how hard it is to prove. And I know that those merchants have been discussing in Renderosity forums for years how to catch infringers and prove infringement. From what little I've read so far, it appears that those Renderosity forum discussions are paying off for the merchants, because it looks like the infringement case is pretty well developed this time.

Just based on what I know of the merchant who sold over Renderosity (Danae), from when I bought products from her, and I was well-versed in the market for them, I'd place a high deal of credibility in what she has to say. Unless it's changed in the past few years, she has a stellar reputation.

On the other hand, Renderosity, as a store, used to have a poor reputation for professionalism. (That poor professionalism reflecting upon store staff, not the merchants who sold there.)

So it would greatly surprise me for Danae to be making anything but a well-founded, genuine claim. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Renderosity did something to sabatoge her. (I.e., providing some sort of "additional" licensing information that conflicted with her own.)

If Renderosity did do something like that- offering a conflicting license- then the SL merchant using the skin may have legitimately believed that the license allowed it.

However, from what I've read, the SL merchant's defense is not that the license allowed the use. My understanding is that the SL merchant claims to have made the skin without any sort of reference to Danae's skin. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

An answer for why she contacted Tenshi about this:



http://shoppingcartdisco.com/2008/05/08/renderositycom-losing-content-to-sl-users-dozens-of-times-a-day/#more-539

[14:48] *name withheld*: MMS IS NOT RELEACING ANY STATEMENTS TILL LEGAL ACTIONS WE HAVE TAKEN ARE SORTED

As much as I think the pictures speak for themselves (particularly the ones that line up exactly), it could turn into a rather bad thing *if* it turns out to be true and if Danae is determined to get all sold infringing copies removed from SL, even if she doesn't noone could use the skin without infringing.

On the other hand, Danae could simply do what some SL content creators have done when their creations were copied and offered up for sale and going to court isn't worth it: turn it into a freebie and release it into the wild.

---

(Work warning: don't look "Sample Image 2" since it's nudes )


*looks at Poser render.... looks at her SL avie... looks back at Poser render* Maybe I want a better avie mesh after all .

It could be very bad. If the Lindens delete all the infringing skins from the grid there will be lots of people that spent a lot of money to have their stuff taken away. That demonstrates a very selfish seller (can't call her a content creator if this is as true as it looks) in that instead of thinking ahead at what it could do to her customers.. she just went for the money.

As it has been said in other comments. With three islands under her it is obvious that the skin seller is doing well with the sales. Danae could come out pretty good in a lawsuit.

I think it is time for me to pull out my Poser install disk and buy some renders.

Several years ago, Renderosity commissioned a 3D graphics artist to create a "signature" 3D human figure for Renderosity, to be sold exclusively by Renderosity. Similar to the way that Victoria is the "signature" figure for DAZ.

Immediately after the Renderosity figure was released, a lot of people looked at the geometry and noticed instantly a huge, huge similarity between the Renderosity figure, and Victoria from DAZ.

Instead of destroying Renderosity, DAZ struck up a deal with Renderosity, and licensed Renderosity to sell it's otherwise infringing figure.

I don't remember the exact terms of the deal (or whether the terms were released to the public- maybe I'm just remembering hearsay and speculation on this point), but I think that DAZ may have gotten a piece of the sales and also a piece of Renderosity.

That is one potential option here. If Danae's claim does prove to be a legitimate claim, perhaps instead of wiping the infringing skins from Second Life, a deal could be worked out by which the Second Life merchant would buy licensing rights from Danae.

It might not be as easy as the DAZ-Renderosity deal. At least in the DAZ-Renderosity case, both figures were in the same market, making it a lot easier for the parties to settle on financial deal. Now, the market for Poser-figure skin and the market for a Second Life skin cannot be so easily compared.

to get rendosity.com items, don't you have to pay for them? if, in fact, these are an abuse of the system, seems a paper trail will prove it and the lawyers will hash it out.

any other discussion or accusations are pure speculation.

That would be a good thing for everyone. We will have to see if Danae is going to be out for blood or just want to see something resolved. The whole thing is very unfortunate for Danae and the buyers of the skin who thought they were getting an original product. (Provided it is all true of course)

Yes, you have to purchase. Being the nature of the beast though I could purchase them tonight, then send you a copy of the files, then you send copies to another friend...

No telling how many copies are floating around out there.

Most items (like Danae's) are for sale.

There is also a Free Stuff section. Items here are free for download, but use subject to licenses that come with the free downloads (may of which specify that they can only be used for non-commercial purposes).

And then, buying the skin legally isn't the only way to obtain Danae's skin. One copy can and easily share it on a warez site. Most skins are just picture files, like .jpg. They are notoriously traded on warez sites.

could get messy!
That could set a precedent.....what about future potential claims made by RL designers against copied items made by some of our SL fashion creators?

Very true, provided Minnu gives a real name, or that LL complies with a fact finding account search for a real name to turn over. If they do get the real name from LL and Renderosity complies with sale information, there can be no question as to whether the art in question was boughten and used.

Personally, from looking at the screenshot comparisons, it's pretty easy to see that those are lifted, retouched textures. Makes me happy that the only thing I ever bought from Minnu is a pair of prim lashes.

If she really has a lawyer on the case it will be a snap to get the real life info. She is not a no info on file res with three islands to be sure.

Stroker's case will be one that will likely be pointed to for IP rights. Each case will add another piece to the puzzle making the next ripped off creator have an easier time with the case.

I'm not a copyright litigation specialist by any means.

However, even if the case were litigated, most courts are going to avoid remedies that screw a lot of innocent buyers of the infringing product.

This isn't like buying a pirated DVD on the street, where a quick look at the cover lets you know that it's illegitimate. There is just absolutely no way the average consumer of an SL skin can determine whether the product being bought is geniune or not.

So, assuming that Danae is consulting with a good lawyer, that has to be part of the good legal advice she should be getting. One of the things a good lawyer needs to do is help a client past the emotional cry for a pound of flesh, and get to considering the legal possibilities in practical terms.

Stroker's case was very different though (an SL creation copied in SL by someone with no claim over it) so I'm not how relevant it would be?

Assuming that she doesn't claim "original creation" and assuming that she bought it, the easiest defense would probably be to attack the license? The alleged "copier" *does* have certain rights/permissions to the content in question as described by the license(s) that accompanied it. The question is really whether or not she acted within a court's interpretation of that license or not.

The question of whether or not it qualifies as a "derivative work" will need to be answered as well. If it is, what she did was maybe dishonest/unethical depending on your perspective, but probably less likely to be "illegal".

she has claimed (to her customers) to have been the creator, so she'll have to eat heaps of crow if determined to have purchased them afterall.

it's all really speculation right now. innocent until proven guilty in a fair and just society.

If she has already claimed that she did not use Danae's work as a reference, she may have given up her opportunity to claim that she was innocently operating under the terms of the license.

By denying initially that she used Danae's work as reference, she has created evidence that in fact the terms of the license were unambiguous to her and prohibited her use.

If she claimed a defense immediately that it was licensed, then she could take advantage of any amibiguity in the license. It would be an innocent mistake, and ambiguities might be resolved in her favor. However, by denying use of Danae's work (if shown to be false), she's shown the mistake to be not-so-innocent. Now ambiguities are going to be interpreted in Danae's favor.