Minnu Model Skins PhotoSourced from Renderosity

No offense taken, Kitty, and I understand your reasoning. I was just curious.

The debate (well, some of it) on the blog as far as I understand it is whether or not her work counts as "derivative work".

If it's "derivative work" she owns the copyright to her own creation and everything is fine and it can be used the way she is using it.
If it's not derivative, she doesn't own the copyright to it and is infringing by distributing/reselling it the way she is.

(I'm not making those claims, just summarizing what the debate concerning the license in the blog comments seems to be about)

Thanks. So I guess it comes down to did she add enough to the skin to make it more then what it was.

Oi.. armchair lawyering is not easy stuff.

I found a product I purchased via Danae via Renderosity some years ago. It's not a skin, but hair. (And with at least 10 CDs here of backed-up, poorly labled Poser-related content here, I'm inclined to do no further searching.)

Like any product that comes from Renderosity (unless recently changed), it comes in a .zip file that includes the actual product files, but also text files with information like the license.

One of the files in my .zip file is labeled "license.txt." While I didn't compare it word-for-word, it looks almost exactly like the Renderosity terms of sale quoted by Macphisto.

There is another file called "ReadMe.txt." It's similar in wording to the ReadMe file associated with Danae's product description.

If I were in the position of determining whether I could use the product to create the same thing for an SL avatar, I'd probably look in the .zip file, read the "license.txt," and do what it says. I'd probably not consult the ReadMe.txt.

To me, reading the Renderosity license, that says to me that I cannot use that skin to create another skin for a 3D figure. Or at least, if there is any ambiguity, that's the kind of thing I'd contact the creator to see how the creator interpreted it.

I'm risk averse that way. I'd rather know in advance whether this is going to be a problem.

I'm not going to say that, as to what the license allows, that it's so cut-and-dry such that there is no other conclusion that it was knowingly, intentionally violated (assuming Danae's skin was indeed the source- and when I look at it a second time, I'm convinced it is the source) that it's time to burn someone at the stake.

But even if it wasn't a knowing, intentional violation, it was quite ill-advised, at best.

No argument there.

IF she has used the textures in the manner it is claimed she has, this could not be considered a derivative work. A derivative work must contain a substantial amount of new material and be significantly different from the original, to the extent that it can be classed as a new, original work. If the changes were primarily resizing and mapping somebody else's texture to a new UV map, it would not be a significantly different work and therefore not meet the legal criteria for a derivative work.

I don't know why there might be a huge debate about whether derivative works.

To me, the SL skin is clearly a derivative work- if not outright copy- of Danae's skin (assuming it was used as a photosource) within the definition of the copyright law.

"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifica-tions, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'"

(From Title 17, section 101 of the U.S. Code.)

My little "Intellectual Property in a Nutshell" (which cannot be cited as an authorative source of law in court, of course) explains that, "A copyright owner has the right to exclude all others from creating works based on his own. This right safeguards a copyright owner from what otherwise might be an unduly narrow interpretation of the reproductions right, which could then permit another to vary elements of the work sufficiently to assert that is not actually a copy."

But the copyright owner is free to sell any of the bundle of rights that are included with the copyright. And that's what the license is- an explicit listing of the copyright owner's rights that are being granted to the buyer.

So if the license with Danae's skill grants permission for the buyer to use it as part of creating an SL avatar skin, then the part of Danae's copyright that would excluse such a derivative use has been given away to the buyer.

The whole reason that skins like Danae's are sold are so that other artists can create works based upon them (by rendering the skins over a figure in Poser, for example). They only have value as use in derivative works.

Hypatia is saying the transfer from the high rez images to SL usable images is very easy. At this link you will read why:

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/235623-post392.html

And here she says it is "almost automatic" with a proggie called Modo.

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/235633-post395.html

So it seems to not be a big process to port it over, which would mean even less skill by the skin seller if that is the case and this is all true.

Well that's interesting to know. It shouldn't surprise me that someone came up with a way to convert it easily.

And for a few dollars more than one of Danae's skins, one could buy a 'merchant kit' specifically designed, intended, and licensed for buyers to create their own new skins to sell. A few dollars more to be in the clear, legally.

I wasn't implying their was a witch hunt over here on this RA thread. The discussion here has been quite civil....that's not the case however on the blogs (orig.source) and other forums. It's been quite evil in some cases!

Where is the dividing line for a replica? If recreating a specific house in SL does not fit your definition of creative work, how about making a sculpture of a specific person? Not attacking your opinion or anything, I am legitimately curious. Perhaps the dividing line is between recreating something someone purposely designed, vs. recreating something naturally occurring?


This sort of methodology is referred to as baking textures. It's certainly not a new thing someone came up with recently, it's been a standard feature of many high-end 3D tools for a long time. While modifying a texture designed for one UV set to work on a different UV set is very difficult to do by hand, and Poser doesn't include any tools for automating the process, I do it regularly in other tools like Maya. For example, when I made a bunch of fish recently, I needed to adapt side-view pictures of the fish to look right on spherical prims.

Thats what I was thinking when I first started the thread, that either way, it was still hard to convert the Poser skin into a Second Life format, and sometimes the User Agreements on those things you buy aren't worded too good either, But we'll see soon.

I have not seen any witch hunts on any forums and I am a member of a few.

People are discussing it yes... stocking up on tar and feathers..no.

The blogs..well thats the blogs!

Another blog link about the mess. Most have likely seen it but I just read it myself:

http://commonsensible.net/2008/05/09/blogger-news-of-skin-piracy-slanderous-content/


Thoughts on slander and what ifs.

New post by Tenshi with more comparisons from Danae's work to the skin seller's:

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/236326-post485.html

you are cracking me up.

Just trying to make sure things are current.

Wow! Danae needs to sell skins in SL.

'Vendetta' or not, as I could care less about personal dramas, the proof is in the pics that the real creator has shown and speak for themselves. Comments like yours make me laugh because it seems like people like you want to 'kill the messenger' and cry 'zomg drama' cuz so and so doesn't like so and so, instead of looking at the proof. The real creator on Renderosity obviously didn't want her items to be used in the way they were in SL and has nothing to do with anyones personal views. As far as Eloh's skin base, those were provided to SLers to be able to mod and sell under certain rules, no secret there and people shouldn't be criticized for it as that is what the creator intended. The only person who destroyed herself and the trust others had for her is the one in SL who copied the real artists work and proclaimed it her own.

What I find extremely ironic is that the accused in this situation was a crusader for content creators and voiced strong views on theft. People should practice what they preach.

With respect to the issue, it sounds like people who sell things on Renderosity do so knowing that their work would be used for a commercial purpose (i.e., people who bought their art would use it to make money for themselves somehow.)

Yes, maybe they didn't know about SL.

Yes, it's not "right" that someone pass off someone else's work as their own. I'm not sure it's not "legal" in this instance though. That's obviously one for the lawyers.

if MORE THAN ONE skin are this similar, i'd have to agree that they are Danae's. if it's just this one, then someone simply got lucky.

i want to see ALL the lifts, not just the same one over and over. no case has been made, imo.

Agreed. Well, mostly agreed

Why anyone so talented and successful in her current arena would want to make less money and deal with far more drama by coming into SL is quite beyond me.


.

WHAT IF SHE IS INNOCENT? What if she bought those files believing that she had a right to use them to make skins for SL? That would be perfectly legal.

The real crux of this issue is the copyright statement in the read me file that is available to the buyer of Danae's product says only;

"These files are copyrighted. The product can be used for commercial and non commercial renders. Do not redistribute in part or whole without the author's written consent. "

Many of the products sold at Renderosity.com are Merchant Resource Packs where the buyer can use the textures to make new products of their own. Given the vagueness of the copyright statement I can see how a person could legitimately believe that it was acceptable for them to use those resources in making a commercial skin for rendering in SL.

I'm inclined to give the creator the benefit of a doubt. I don't think most people set out to do wrong. It could just simply be a misinterpretation of what was allowed by the copyright notice. I understand also that the creator is possibly from Brazil and english might be a second language for her. English is my native language and when I read the copyright notice, I did not understand it as prohibiting its use in making something for SL. It certainly needs clarification.

WHAT IF SHE IS INNOCENT?

Yeah, you and me both. People say a render is a still image. I wouldn't have known that were it not for the many threads, blog posts etc that are going on.
The commercial vs non-commercial as I am understanding it is that the render can be used to advertise something. Not that it can be put out as a skin and sold in SL. Again, not something I would have known were it not for the threads, etc.

I agree. I have seen HEARSAY on other threads/blogs saying she claimed to be the original creator of the photos used in making her skins, but no actual quotes from her saying it. So we do not know if it is true or not, or if she intended that statement to apply to all of her products or just some of them. It may be true for some of her skins but not this one. Maybe the statement was made before she created this skin. Or maybe she exaggerated. No one ever does that right? There is an awful lot of conjecture going on.

Even if she exaggerated the degree of her originality, she could have still had every legal right to use the files she bought at Renderosity to make the skins.