Defending Texture Sourcing....right or wrong?

Hi,

I am curious to know what you all think about an individual taking a texture off the internet and selling it full perms saying "this is my work, i made it, dont resell or redistribute".

It appears to me that there are people defending this type of behavior...am I wrong in thinking that an identical texture that is taken straight from google search and sold under the guise of credibility is still wrong no matter how credible that person is.


I know this has been discussed at length before....BUT it seems like people who own decent businesses in SL are ACTUALLY defending texture theft due to a persons credibility.


This is currently rampant on SLX, but I recently discovered a very credible and so i thought "talented" individual, was actually ripping textures off the internet and selling it as her own work...she has admitted to me that she made a mistake...but her defenders are actually saying things like :

" People DO do worse...much WORSE.....and thats my point....you have little or no concern with THOSE people, but instead decide to focus on someone who sells nice textures regardlessof where YOU want to say they came from.....she has done the work one way or another creating these packs and you are just out to try and destroy her for selfish reasons and you know it! And hopefuly anyone else who reads this and knows XXXXXX CREDIBILITY will too! "

"If someone uses an image...."IF" someone uses an image from the internet as a basis for creating a texture in a paint program......I see nothing wrong with that. "IF" someone takes one straight off the internet and sells it, well if they are willing to save me the time of scouring the internet looking for something I need, and box it up in a nice little neat package for me with pretty little pictures....I dont mind paying for that either as they saved me the time of having to do it myself"


This really irks me...the persons who are involved in this are actually reputable people in SL.

Well they not reputable then are they! They probably have a successful business, a lot of Linden dollars and influencial friends. Sounds like RL to me.

…and oh damn there are also those who take scripts from the library and they're free and they put them in furniture and sell them for a higher price than just a piece of stand-alone furniture, don't forget them

lol...

the sad thing is that the person who was selling the textures actually admitted to taking textures off the internet and selling them as her own.

And yet people are jumping in to defend her....what are they defending?!?!?!

I often wonder about that. I have taken images off the web to create textures to use for my own purposes...but I wouldn't dream of selling the textures as 'my creations'. The only plausible way to do that would be to actually take a photograph of something to create a texture...then upload that into SL. But, I wonder really...how many people DO that.....??? Just about anything can be found on the web which makes it very handy for builders and creators....but textures for sale.... I very rarely buy them...I just find what I want and upload it. I always suspect that textures are simply images taken from the web, in which case I am not handing over my L's for something so easily copied and created.

I stated the obvious on a SLX discussion thread.

I then got attacked by all her defenders....even after I send them the links and the textures that are EXACTLY the same.

I think they are missing the point and just defending their friend, which is fine...but i think the least the seller could do is chime in and say "hey i made a mistake, i took those textures down, Scarlett was correct, those textures i did not make, i apologies for the deception, I can guarantee everything else that is up for sale by me has been made by me"....

but no...she doesnt. Although I have the chat log of my conversatin with her last night, but I am not sure if I am allowed to post private conversation in a public forum.

http://www.slexchange.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&file=discussions&ItemID=561909

this is the link to the discussion thread.

I've been in SL just over a year now and only recently have I started making my own textures, the problem is, is that they can take bloody ages to do and while making them I'm not in SL socialising. For me to make a decent simple repeat 512 x 512 pattern texture I have to start with some idea of a design, then I do a black and white artwork, then manipulate this to make it look balanced, in proportion and in repeat.

Then I have to separate into various layers upload each layer to PS, then the filltering, colouring process starts, each basic layer on a texture takes about an hour, that includes overall tweaking when all layers are prepared. Then convert to .tga and upload to beta to see how it looks, then after about half an hour in there testing shiny, colour tint overlays etc, it sometimes can be back to square one if I originally got the proportions wrong, which if that's the case I usually do something else instead.

So yes if I do find the perfect texture googling then I will use it. Whether I'd ever sell it (I haven't sold textures yet) well maybe, I probably justify it by believing it makes up for all the hours I spent making the textures good & bad, would I take credit for the texture, well not specifically but I wouldn't spend anytime explaining "hey I didn't make this, I just ripped it off the web by googling".

What do you mean by 'texture?' Do you mean an image of a brick wall, that is already set up for repeat? In the case, you need to find out if the creator allows free use. If not, ask them.

If by 'texture' you mean an illustration or piece of art? Again, see the above example.

If you mean searching for, say, 'digital camera' and stealing bits of cameras in your own texture--this is completely fine, as long as you don't use logos. However, I suggest even in these cases that you recreate/refashion the texture in some way that makes it 'your own.'

If you are taking someone's picture of a building, and grabbing a bit of the building for a brick wall texture--this is completely acceptable.

If you go to a free texture website like www.mayang.com/textures, you can use them as freely as you like.

If you steal a completely repeatable texture from a cg artist, and use/sell it as your own, when they are specifically saying they are not to be used...that's obviously wrong.

It's tricky...use common sense.

right...i understand.

People use textures off the net all the time in SL. Its when sellers say things like "don't resell my work or redistribute".....and then admit later that those textures are not actually mine, but directly downloaded from a particular site where it is free for anyone to use....

Its the defenders of this behavior that puzzles me the most.

Just set the same textures up in a vendor somewhere and give them away for free. Or make them freebies on SLX. You could also blog your chatlog with her where she admits to taking the textures from the internet. As long as you do not pass out her conversation in Second life or post it here you are in compliance. Place your blog address in your WEB tab on your profile.

It's not their work, they didn't make it and I would have no problem reselling it or redistributing it if I were so inclined. If they have a problem with it let them try and file a DMCA claim and I'll laugh my ass off as I send Linden Lab the original source they took it from. Maybe I would notify the real creator/owner of the texture as well so they can file a DMCA claim against the "reputable" vendor.

I agree, but its what I kind of said in my post, if I had a shop I really wouldn't go out of my way to have one part for "don't resell my work or redistribute" and another for "hey someone else did this, but I'm still charging for it's use and to make even more Lindens I'm asking you not to resell or redistribute as well" LOL

yes, i plan on selling the textures on SLX for free with screenshots of her texture, and the website where she got them side-by-side.

I dont have a blog....but I will send the chat log to someone I know who does have a very popular one in SL.

cause they`re loosers like her and prolly do the same

one more reason not to texture shop as it prolly is "borrowed" and just search and upload your own

and yes, there are a handfull of places that are original but there are 1000 places that aint

The problem is this....the creator has admitted to her wrong doing, and has said she has taken the texturs out of the box.

Its the people who are coming in and defending what she did and making arguments like "other people do worse things than this" and "she spent the time finding those pictures, so i will pay for them anyway".....

those are not logical arguments, especially from the person who said this who owns a reputable store in SL.

I was kind of in the same boat awhile ago. I wanted to save some time on a build, so I went texture shopping. I went a well known texture place and started looking for the kinds of textures that I wanted. What did I find? Textures ripped right out of fps games that I've played - lots of ripped textures.

Normally I wouldn't think twice about it and take another route. But the thing that really vexed me was that this place is known for defending copyrights and such.

I didn't see any sense in starting anything even though I can provide absolute proof. I even went so far as to rip the textures from the fps game(s) myself and do side-by-side comparision - spot on. Just kept my mouth shut and moved on.

stealing = stealing

end of discussion tbh

Scarlett, why do you think they are 'stolen'?

I could make textures like this in Photoshop without Filter Forge, I just tried in fact. They are geometrical, mathematical - the plug-in just automates what you could do manually in a lot of stages.

Why is using a plug-in to create procedural textures wrong? She is not claiming these are 'high art'. They are what they are, simple but effective uses of basic gradients to simulate metals. Many, many people COULD easily make these, she has done a good job of it to save others having to. Please could you explain to me exactly what you consider wrong?

I think that selling an item with a googled texture applied to it is ok. I even think putting freebie scripts in something you made yourself is ok so long as the item's selling point is not solely the script's functions.

However, if people choose to sell Googled images or just the freebie scripts, shame on them, but I am not going to be the one to lock horns with these people. It is pretty lazy of them to do, but really it is their right in the open market to do so.

One interesting point about selling a googled texture is that the people buying it didn't know it was on Google...so the seller may be providing it via convenience. (if you want to look at it that way for a second)

I would just distribute the texture in SL silently without publicly naming and shaming someone. These kinds of vigilante actions will end up with unforseen repercussions that may get very ugly. You know how fast freebies circulate in world. Eventually, the shaming could be done without the pointing of a finger. Let's face it, these sorts of behaviors are not the worst 'crimes' in SL, and I don't think it's worth your safety and reputation to take on a battle for a texture. Just looking out for you here.

reading helps

Scarlett is publically accusing this artist. I am asking her to show us the proof of her allegations. All I have seen is the artist denying she has copied these textures on the discussion page of SLExchange. I have not yet seen a link to the sources on the internet where she is said to have obtained them.

I am also pointing out that I can make very close 'replicas' of these textures very easily, as can anyone with a copy of photoshop and a knowledge of gradients etc. I am therefore curious for more details of what has happened here.

I am not taking sides. I don't have enough information to do so, lol.

Just a forum reader who is looking for the facts behind an allegation.

I am posting a box on SLX tonight with screenshots and the textures as freebies. She has admitted ADMITTED...that she has taken googled images and sold them with restrictions.

She said she made a mistake, and that she did that in her earlier days of texture selling....


I will be sure to place the screenshots on this discussion thread too when i get a chance to login.

I'm pretty sure it's ok to take images off the internet which are labeled as free for anyone to use, and put them into a good SL format, package them and sell them in SL.
If another person also finds them, formats them, packages them and then gives them away no one should mind.
Pretending to have made things someone else made really isn't cool.

proving anything here is naming names

don`t care who it is tbh, she asked the question here what people think, they are thieves

But IF that is the case and she has admitted she made a mistake (IF she has made one ) and has removed the ones causing offence to you...why are you being so vocal against her? There are lots out there that would not correct their mistakes.

I just dont get it..most people would be happy with resolving this privately especially if the content creator has listened to your concerns and resolved them.