Library: Random Profile Picture Projector

As much as I hate to say this, "the lindens made this available to us" may not be a good way to tackle it. All texture UUID's are made available to us. Our Second Life viewers use the texture UUID's to request the images.

The only difference in this case is that the UUID is provided over an HTTP connection, to which LSL has access, instead of over the client-simulator connection. Did you know that just last month it was possible to log an account into Second Life using LSL? LSL can't do UDP, but it was possible to get the UUID's of the world map using caps (over HTTP), and eventually I think it'll be possible to do just about everything else with only HTTP. But they blocked the sims from making login requests... and I guess they could block them from accessing the new search, too..

Regardless, I've been using a script that shows profile images since the new search was made public, and when some people got angry, I've defended it, arguing that they've made the images public. I'm curious what the final ruling will be, and I like that it trips people out. But what's the difference between using someone's profile image on a prim, and permanently using someone's profile image to wallpaper a permanent build?

It just makes me wonder... any Second Life viewer, even web-based ones, are allowed to take any image from Second Life and display it in their own context. The key difference here must be reusing the UUID in-world... but I would like to imagine one could make an object in-world that could be thought of as a viewer, such as a terminal that shows search results, including the images that go with them. I wonder if that's really the gist of it, that a line will be drawn between the virtual environment and our operating systems.

Sorry, long message, and I suck at writing... but in short! All UUID's are available to us, and I guess we have to use discretion and/or figure out what the limits are.

I'm of two minds on this. First, I think if they didn't want it to be used from within SL, they shouldn't have made it openly viewable on the WWW either (you can link to the picture from other web pages all over the WWW; why not from SL?). But second, I'm glad they are protecting people's content in a way other than the usual blind, "did they have transfer/copy permissions? If so, sorry, you gave away your soul," manner. I don't think copyrights and distribution licenses can quite so easily be equated to three simple checkboxes.

Oh, and what really confuses me is that they call it DISCLOSURE. It has absolutely nothing to do with disclosure. It is a content ownership issue. :-/

Posted a query over on sldev hoping to get some clarification on the matter. Hopefully one of the Lindens is in a verbose mood.

Well, I've only had one complaint about the one I made using the profile search functions, but I've done everything possible to protect someone if they don't want their picture displayed. I've set it up so they can be instantly put on a list to be ignored, and it intermittently shows a texture, explaining what it is, and how they can opt out. It also spams the chat every 2.5 minutes telling them they can opt out and how.

I really don't see how anyone, lindens included, can expect more than this. The person has every chance to make it so they won't be included, not to mention the fact that they could have made their profile non-searchable in the the first place.

Just depends on what the official determinations is. I can kinda see both sides. Is it like walking by a Radio Shack in the mall and seeing your face in the TV? Is it like taking a picture at Rua and showing someone? Or is it because you are actually showing the picture itself that is the problem. It isn't a like taking a photograph of someone with a camera, it is their actual picture itself. Guess someone could interpret it as copying a picture from someone's MySpace page and posting it somewhere else as opposed to just providing a link?

Minor change to v5.4.1:

'ApplyRotation' is set to "FALSE" by default; to switch prim rotation on, change to "TRUE"

To obtain latest version of the script, visit: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Random_AV_Profile_Projector

Forthcoming enhancements:

1. Make 'OpenListen' and 'CloseListen' functionality avaliable even when toy is switched off
2. Add a 'Configure' button that will allow Owner to change the parameters, manage default textures and otherwise configure and customise the toy without the need to manually change the script
3. Convert 'Exclude List' to a strided list in format "[<Exclude_Source_Indicator>, <Excluded_AV_NAME>]"
4. Add ability to list only those AVs exclude by the Owner
5. Add ability to list only self-excluded
6. Add ability to produce any of the three 'Exclude' lists from the Owner Main Menu
7. Create an 'Install and Configuation Wizard' (probably as part of v6.0)

See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Talk:Random_AV_Profile_Projector for 'Help' manual


To me, this toy has always been about creativity, imagination and learning LSL. That so many have found this toy fun and enjoyable is a very satisfying bonus. That this toy has been sufficiently interesting to encourage others to look at LSL for the very first time is just superb.

That a vocal minority have been upset by this toy is, frankly, not of too much concern to me, and on this basis alone I will continue developing it. Likely such people get upset about many things, this toy being but one. Life is just too short to have them dictate how one should live one's own life. However the petty, bureaucratic mind has always been a vocal one and the propensity to stop/ban/suppress/bomb/kill (delete as applicible) anything that they don't like/understand is strong within them.

Doubtless these minorities will continue their shouting, moaning and complaining until they get their own way and have this toy removed from use by the majority who have benefited from it.

Even the "permissions" issue, probably the only argument having any semblance of merit imo, turns out to be groundless. The toy provides a number of ways that someone can have themselves excluded, not to mention the 'Show in search' checkbox on their profile. So mechanisms already exist whereby they can withdraw permission on an indivdual toy basis or on a global basis. Moreover, the toy does not retain a copy of either the picture itself nor the UUID.

So, to those who have enjoyed and benefited, I hope this continues to be so. To those who haven't, well, so be it.

phew....that feels better..

I've integrated my 'Particle Text Generator' product into the 'Random Profile Projector' and fondly called it v5.4.2 SE.

Having all the features of the previous versions, it also, on selecting an AV, produces a vertical particle stream of the AV's first name. For example, if "Joe Smith" is selected, his profile picture is shown on the prim and on a banner (as before), but also the letters "J", "O", "E" rise slowly upwards in an attractive font. Cool.

'Free to Copy' version is available at http://slurl.com/secondlife/SploLand/84/160/24/

I'll release the basic core code for the 'Particle Text Generator' to the SL 'Scripting Library' in the next few days, on its own thread. It is based on the XYText code and I believe will prove more stable than previous particle versions that have been released elsewhere. The code has been much streamlined and a fundemental llParticleSystem() call error corrected. A more advanced version, including ability to change font type (funky, sci-fi, gothic, formal), font size etc will be released to the LSL wiki in due course.

Other innovative variations include the 'Welcome Board', which displays the profile picture on a large screen & also targets the AV with the picture as a particle stream, and a flexi-flag and flag pole. Both available full perms and free to copy at the same URL above.

I've also been IM'd about other innovative variations:
* Magic Mirror
* 'Hot Or Not' contest board and voting sytem
* Swimwear competition
...and my personal favorite...
* Milk carton with "Missing! Have you seen this person?"

reminds me of the posters on the statue square in Suffugium(sp?)

The RANDOM AV PARTICLE NAME GENERATOR has been sent to the 'Scripting Library' Moderator...

The irony that moderation occurs on the forum least needing it is a bit weird to say the least!

In the meantime, the script can be picked up at:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Random_AV_Particle_Name_Generator

and a 'Help' manual is at:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Talk:Random_AV_Particle_Name_Generator

Enjoy!

I posted a query about the about the TOS violation and permissions exploit to Rob Linden the other day asking if he could clarify the situation any or knew who to send it to.

Per Rob, this would be a matter for the Governance Team:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Office_Hours/GTeam

They do have office hours every day but unfortunately it is during the time I am at work. Hoping someone in the forum is available during that time to bring our concerns to thier attention.

Per the Governance team:

(paraphrased)Even though people have opted-in to making thier profiles publicly available, a scripter can not make use of that data without permission. In other words; even thou giving an opt-out option in the script helps, you would really have to make it an opt-in only system to not viloate permissions system.

Makes sense to me. Opt-out systems are unethical in my opinion anyway; a way of exploiting people's ignorance and laziness. If you are really implementing something that is optional, make it opt-in.

v5.4.3 fixes a bug spotted by shamblesguru Voom...

If not applying a default texture when the toy is switched off, but applying the profile picture to the prim when on, the prim was not being set to solid white, blank, full bright. Now fixed.

Latest code at: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:debbie_Trilling

Invitation still open for any scripter to implement a 'opt-in/'permissions' system and post the code either here, or as a standalone solution in the 'Scripting Library' forum...

I'm using hacked up bits of this script as a data source for an in world dating / escort / service type thing I'm setting up.

My system uses the profile picture information and assignes the user a personal photoboard where their picture is kept on display. The user is then allowed to drop their notecard into their picture much like an ad-board.

I have 126 picture boards in my grid that are controlled by a central dataserver which is fed key information from the profile projector. The photo boards (and notecards in them) swap themselves around and people who spend the most time visiting get better placement of their profile pictures (ie closer to the lobby)

Now, the reason why I'm posting all this is because I've been hearing that the profile projector device is being returned to residents along with TOS warnings. I've ran into angry residents too when I was test running my wall of photoboards in a sandbox. It looked really neet with everyone in the sandbox's photo lined up on a big wall...but I can certainly understand someone's dismay over seeing their photo on such a thing.

So, my solution was to implement Group Permissions. When the scanner detects an Av, it also checks for same Group. If the av isn't in the group, it llSays a message to them inviting them to join the group and the default texture is displayed instead.

As soon as they join the group, their picture is added to the Big Wall o' Pics.

If your interested in looking at my implementation, or just want to sit down and chat over a coffee...you can find my location in my Picks.

Cheers!

Zolen Giano

I use a similar 'Same Group' check in two of my Tip Jar products.

They check that the person being assigned to the Tip Jar is an active member of the Group that the Jars are assigned to, and, if so,

1) texture the Tip Jar itself with the assignee's profile picture
2) target the tipper with a particle stream of the assignee's profile picture

In both these cases permission to use the profile picture is implicit by fact of using the Tip Jars.

PS: I'll pop over to see your picture board grid. It sounds fun and innovative

So is this against the TOS? Would be nice if we could get an official response...

The nearest there is to an "official" view appears to be as explained by Jesse Barnett on post #71 of this thread:

/54/bf/225460/1.html

I've been informed that Michael Linden deemed them a while ago to be a violation of the TOS. Unfortunately I cannot give more without committing disclosure. Maybe I'll make it--or someone else can--to a public Governance Team meeting in Kremer and ask for an explicit description of LL's stance, and for permission to repeat it.

I think this is a bit ridiculous. There is no difference between viewing someones picture on their profile, and viewing it on a prim. In fact, viewing someone's profile is *more* intrusive, as there is no way to opt out of profiles. However, you can opt out of the search, making retrieval on the prim impossible. They are splitting a non-existing hair here.

Tomorrow is Saturday, they will be Meeting at Noon SL time. Anyone else who can make it? I certainly want to hear an explaination of this.

the hair being split here, isn't about being viewable, it's about what's available INWORLD, and under what conditions..

essentially they are saying that because you couldn't access a profile pic from a script through inworld means, accessing it through a script by http request is violating the permission system.

don't get me wrong, I think it's an idiotic distinction, but I think LL is more concerned with griefing potential (like say labeling someones profile pic), than any actual abuse that's occured.

But you could easly screencap their profile pic, and do whatever you pleased with it. It's no different. So just because a script does it, it's wrong? How silly. What if i search Google and get the pic then upload it to SL, what then? If they don't want people accessing this info, it shouldn't be public.

you preacher, me choir

...and that, too, would be reuse without permission and a possible copyright violation. The idea here is that just because you have the *means* to reuse someone else's content in a way that they did not intend does not mean you have the *right* to.

nope, if I photograph something, the photo is mine, to do with as I please. try again.