No-transfer texture copyright quandry

Over the weekend I bought a bunch of textures for backdrops, not paying much attention, and now discover that they have Mod and Copy permission, but not Transfer. Usually I only buy from places like TRU, so it never actually occurred to me that anybody sold textures with those permissions--I guess I should have noticed something was up: there was no EULA--but anyway, now I own some.

Of course, it's a no-brainer to make transferable objects using those textures. Problem is, they really could benefit from some tweaking. (Why do I buy textures when I always end up fixing them anyway? But I digress.) It's not rocket science to take same-resolution captures of the fullbright textures (they're alpha, so with white and black backgrounds and extract the alpha channel in Gimp).

The question is: once I've exercised my Modify permission in this way, would I be violating the No Transfer permission by uploading the result? Obviously, what I'll have is a Transfer-permitted texture with me as creator. I'm not talking about actually selling or otherwise distributing that texture, but am I violating copyright just by *having* it?

I think you are infringing the intellectual property rights of the creator, by creating a clone with you as creator, and with different permissions. Yes I think it could be interpreted as a copyright issue.

I agree with Derek.

I've bought textures without full perms in the past by mistake and been faced with the same quandry. If I desperately wanted to use one of these textures for distribution on content then I have contacted the original creator and asked for a full perm version or asked their permission to 'adapt' the texture slightly which would obviously result in me upoading my own version in the end with me as creator. I think officially you would still need to ask the creators permission to distibute the texture on content if sold as no tranny.

From my experience the people who sell no transfer textures are either not aware that textures as sold full perm as standard in SL. Or they are fully aware of what they are doing and feel they are protecting themselves against theft. If you as an individual contact them, tell them what you are building, have a nice chat then it gives them confidence that you are not a thief nor a competitive texture seller and they will hopefully pass over a full perm version.

There has been a fairly long discussion about a somewhat similar topic here:
/109/02/282730/1.html

In this case, it's questionable whether you have violated *copyright*, but you have violated the DMCA by circumventing the built-in digital rights management (the permissions system) in *any* way.
That makes you an evil terrorist! So there!

because they aren't substantially different (I assume) it wouldn't fall under derivative works. but there should be some middle ground there, where as your modification constitutes personal use... it gets a bit a bit hairy when you are using the modified versions in products you sell, but generally this is acceptable use for images bought for this purpose. however, because SL lists you as the creator of the new image, it causes an undue headache re copyright.

I'd say as long as they are not obviously labeled as being created by you, not much worry. you may even include a text that states the problem of 'creator' and credit the correct source.

What SL REALLY needs to do with uploaded content is have two fields, not one, Uploader, and Creator. Uploader would be default, creator would be fillable by the uploader... it'd als give a more clear claim to DMCA case since the uploader can't hide behind SL's silly upload = creation silliness

EDIT: lol I violate DMCA every day I wear my DeCSS t-shirt, just call me User Bin Echo

Qie I would definitely contact the creator on this one. It seems to me that if he has given you copy/mod rights, he might expect that you might modify the texture, but when you upload it the modified version, it will show you as creator (with full perms) which isn't good... I would definitely talk to the creator and see how they feel about it, and comply with their wishes.

Did anyone even bother to read the original post? His last paragraph asked if it were copyright infringement to just "own" the full perm derivative texture and NOT distribute it. I'd say go for it, who the heck is going to know anyway...

So you are saying we actually need to READ other people's posts rather than just reponding to the title? Strange concept.

Next you will be expecting us to type proper too.

It depends.

The problem is that by reuploading the image you have essentially stripped the users copyright notice from the image; which is where you run afoul of copyright law (otherwise what you are doing falls within fair use). I think if you list the original creator of the image in the texture description, that satisfies the copyright notice aspect of the law (as then you aren't removing it, you are just moving it).

While I'm not a lawyer, the best solution (short of acquiring permission) is to make the good faith effort of documenting the history of the image along with it's original creator in the texture description. By making the good faith effort you greatly diminish your liability.

Again: You run up against the DMCA, even if staying within copyright law. They are two separate things, and there is no such thing as "fair use" in the DMCA. Any circumvention of a DRM system is illegal. (Though exceptions can be made for criticism, news reporting or the like).

That makes your act illegal in the US. The laws are different in Europe where it is legal to strip the technical DRM as long as you obey copyright, and in fact, current cases are testing whether it is actually *illegal* to try to *restrict* somebody's use once they have bought the rights.
But in the US, and hence under LL's ToS, it's not allowed. Whether somebody will prosecute (or even care) is another matter, of course.

Thanks everyone for the input.

In this case, I'm pretty sure I can get verbal approval from the creator to do what I want to do. (In fact, somewhat along the lines of Porky's comment, I rather suspect that explaining why I'm even asking will take more effort than gaining agreement.) So I guess that answers my resident question. But I was also idly curious what my rights were in the general case, if the creator couldn't be found or wouldn't agree.


Wow. Makes for interesting reading, and some of the comments touch on my concerns, although from a rather different case. I certainly don't want to open quite that large a can of worms, though.

But as I type this, I realize there's something pretty basic about SL's DRM that I just don't know: What semantics is a texture's "Modify" permission intended to denote, in the absence of Transfer?

(Now I wish I'd posted this in the Texturing Tips forum because it's more texture-specific than I anticipated. Sorry 'bout that.)

I knew it.. hahahaha


seriously


Fixing a texture for yourself is usually not a violation of copyrights.. but the second you upload it to your computer for any purpose other than archiving, you are basically stealing it. If you re-upload it you will then be the creator.. if you distribute this texture at this point you are blatantly in violation of every copyright law there is and someone could come after you for it.

They might sue you for 12 Lindens in federal " you stole my cartoon picture" court...

I would always ask the creator.. most of the time they will be ok with whatever you are doing as long as you are not going to devaluate the product.

Only if you redistribute it... and then I suspect only if you do so in a way that the copyright notice would be visible.

Note that just *using* a texture in a build, even if you don't transfer the build, is redistributing it. But that redistribution is licensed by the SL TOS.

This is why I think we need creator-editable and user-visible copyright fields on assets. You could put the original creator's copyright in the copy you made for personal use.

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-701