[Source Code]Get a users profile picture

the people still tinking that picture in the particle generator was stolen from they inventory


[20:47] xxxxxx xxxxxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxy.. xxxxx


PD:Im seriusly tinking on remove the script Im tired of explain over and over how its work and isnt a stolen picture from they inventory.

PD:2

21:06] xxxxxxxx xxxxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxx'xxxxxxx' . xxxx xxx, xxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xx. xxx xxx xxxx xx xx.

so we are all thiefs now ..........

never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups....

these are also the people that call others hacker, when they see that their IP is being displayed in the little web widget in someones forum signature.

aint paranoia grande?

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after me...

hehehe...made me laugh

It is mildly amusing to me that such a simple and harmless toy is causing such a stir.

A gaggle of lawyer-wannabes over at secondlifescripters are getting themselves into a tangle pouring over little legal details and the minutiae of the ToS. Their postings usually start "I'm not an expert but...." Their opinions are largely conjecture, and even if turn out to be valid, carry no weight whatsoever.

Others are acting in a way reminiscent of primative tribes worried that the camera will steal their soul. Either that or they are placing undue value on their profile picture, as if they believe that their profile picture has so much commercial value that someone would go to the bother of trying to steal it.

Oh well.

Others still are enjoying it or even benefiting from it. And while that continues to be the case, I'll continue developing it and hope that it gets distributed.

LLab could shut down this toy anytime they choose. They could clarify its status. But they have not done either. An opinion offered by a LLab employee at a Goverance Team meeting in response to an unexpected question from an attendee, no matter how well intentioned, and then posted as a paraphrased paragraph by a third party on a forum that LLab do not moderate, nor even visit, hardly constitutes a "clarification" or a "ruling". It most certainly isn't a basis on which on to decide anything. It is perhaps only good as a basis of discussion, but even then the "debate" ends up similar to that which is already happening on secondlifescripters ~ bluster without any substance.

Until those who need "rulings" extract a ruling from LLab, or until LLab shut down the ability for this toy to operate as it does, then the use of this toy, like the majority of other objects in SL, remains the choice of the individual player.

Your World. Your Imagination. And long may it be so, despite the best efforts of those who believe they should be telling us how to play the game of SL.

you made me laugh so hard LOL

I was almost put that prahase in my previus post .
Also this little gadget is a simple and funny thing I like so much raly, but why the peolple has scare of this ? maybe I need put some type of notcard on one side of the proyector with all the information...

(I cant imaginate if this people seen my SL search running on my website and accesing they profile and picture aoutside of sl.....)

Papalopulus Kobolowski, posting those messages even with the names x'd out is against the ToS as you did not obtain there permission to be redisplaying it, no different then giving someone else a notecard of a conversation without permission of the party involved.

As for people objecting, I fully understand and agree.. while no you did not steal it from the inventory, you did steal the UUID of the texture and used that information to redisplay it. You were not given permission to be using the image and it is no different then if I had a script to gather texture UUIDs and walked around a sim, then made products using those textures, or a practical use similar to what your doing, made prims textured with people's profile pictures that were exceptional then started selling them in a store framed. There is a reason UUID's for objects / textures are private and I certainly hope LL either includes a way to opt out of this, or changes the page to stop giving away the textures UUID.

In the real world, one has the copyright of her/his own picture. So if someone walks around with a camera and takes a picture of me and publishes it, I can sue that person (or at least forbid to have my picture published).
When the person takes a picture of a crowd I happen to be in, though, I can't do anything against it.
In this case, displaying my profile picture in public is almost the same than taking an RL-pic of me and publishing it in the newspaper.. it's a nono, without my permission.

I don't wanna spoil the party, but I wouldn't be _that_ amused either if I saw my profile pic on a prim when I'm at a party... But I wouldn't ask to take it away either.
In the end, it's an information everyone can have by looking into my profile. So I already publish my profile pic in a pretty public way (sure - if someone would take that picture, put it on an object and then _sell_ this object, I'd be _very_ angry. But then again, I'm not such a beauty, that someone would have this idea

I would regret, though, if this method was banned because I'm using this technique to display the profile pic of our DJs when they're on. None of them complained so far as this is some kind of advertisement for them. I think, it's a nice feature for our visitors and the DJs and I would surely miss it, if it was taken away just because some people «abused» the function...

What about this: as we know the ID of the Person who's picture is about to be displayed, we could implement a question via blue menu, before the picture is actually shown. Sort of like the question «blabla wants to animate your Avatar, is this ok?»...
So implement something that shows a dialog to the person saying «blabla is about to display your picture on our visitor's board - is this ok?» - and I'm sure, you won't get any complaints anymore... A little more complicated, but as everyone is keen about her/his 15 minutes of fame, I'm sure that barely someone would click on «no»

ok ok ok I take away my post with the conversation no problem with that but the database(2 of then) with your key my key and many more ... are they stealing your key and usit with your permission or not? what they do with yours keys?

Im desided ..I let the particle with the sensor and if the people dont wanna see they picture dont come to my land....
I think on put a notecard dispenser with that message and explainig all the stuff related to that script and a free copy of the script.

This is a nice idea and in principle would not be too hard to implement. Ideally it would only need ask once and then automatically use the pic thereafter, rather than asking each time. This ofc would mean storing the name somehow, perhaps in a list, which brings up the usual storage problems.

Perhaps a second script storing names who have granted permission, cleared down every day say, and link_message used to communicate permission status would be a workable solution.



LLab have already provided such a mechanism. Open up your profile. At the bottom, just above the 'OK' button, is a small checkbox 'Show in search'. By default this box is ticked. Uncheck it.

The toy itself also provides two ways of being excluded. Either click the prim and select 'Exclude' from the blue dialog, or the Owner can manually remove you.

seems like i boils down to a question of how public or private a profile is, and the conditions under which the photo is used...

on an absolute legal level, it'd be hard to prove any journalistic intent, but then again within the bounds of ones own property it isn't necessary....

personally why anyone would really care that much unless it was being used to promote something, or somehow being sold, either without consent.... I just don't see what the big deal is. maybe someone could point it out for me?

Well, I certainly can't. I honestly find this whole argument stupid. If you paint a mural on your fence in real life, is it wrong for me to tell people where to see the mural? is it wrong for me to allow them to look through my binoculars and take a look (at the mural, not thru the windows lol)? It's not, we all know it's not. Yes, I had the idea of the box asking permission to look at the profile picture. I even made one and promptly deleted it in favor of an exclusion list. It's SO totally not practical. In a busy club, that include list could hold hundreds of names in just a few hours and we all know LSL simply can't do that. With the very few who object, it makes far more sense to keep the names of those who've specifically excluded themselves from it.

From SL's own mouth using this method without first gaining permission from the user is against the ToS as it circumvents the permissions system granting the person full permissions on a texture UUID they otherwise would not of owned or had permissions on.

Well EIQ - I don't wanna insult you, but this behaviour sounds like «shoot first, ask questions later».

It's not a question of how public or private one's profile is, it's a question of whether you can use it for your own purposes. And it's not about whether you're on someone's property, as Void points out. When I go to a RL-club and one of these silly photographers who takes pictures for his party platform takes a picture of me, he has to ask me whether I agree with the picture being published or not. If he doesn't, he's in trouble.

It does seem that this is a problem for some people and ignoring them is not the solution. And as Michael points out, it (might) even be against the TOS. It doesn't matter, whether you or I understand the problem some people have. If they have a problem, we should take it serious and act in a way that these people won't get pissed. Otherwise we might have a problem the sooner or later when the Lindens simply ban this functionality.

As for the data storage: make like 6 or 8 lists and store the names accordingly to the first character in their name. That should provide you with enough space even for a larger amount of names.
You _can_ do it - it's just a question of how serious you take your visitors and if you're willing to respect them.

I just thinking what if.......
Not was a picture and we can make a second camera proyection on a direction or angle you whant and showing it on a prim ? Like in a RL Disco or club or even more in a store ho sales video cameras in the street the seller need to come up to you and ask first if the camera can show your image when you pass in front of his store?
In this case the proyector just use the profile photo for a few seconds and give you a wellcome to the place, just a few seconds, dont take it for manipulate,sell it,stored or nothing more.
what do a greeter than use your SL name and say "Hi Papapalopulus Kobolowski wellcome to my store, feel free to look around".
that greeter use your name with out ask you first,ist the greeter a evil gadget taking names and storing it for evil proposes ?.
I agree with the blue menu asking your agreement first isnt big deal and now Im implementing that option.

Haruki Watanabe wrote:


I hear / read this all the time. What about the paparazzi? You can't tell me that every pic published of any celebrity was published with written permission or that all of them were taken with a crowd included....

From my understanding, if you're in a public place, you can have your pic taken and published and there's nothing you can do about it.

BUT - if someone takes your pic and slaps it on a can of soup they're trying to sell - that's a whole differnt story.

Celebrities are different. If you are a person of public interest, you can barely do anything against your picture being published. There are some celebrities who try to do something against this, but with just minor success.

From Wikipedia (law applies to germany)


It really depends on in which context the picture is taken. If you are - let's say - standing in front of a cathedral and someone takes a picture of it and you happen to be on this picture, you can't really do anything against it...

I'm sure, this depends from country to country. But where I live, we even had some discussions about webcams. If they're directed to public places, they have to be adjusted in a way that individuals can't be recognized on the picture.

interesting contrast, although, for fun, I know that (within the US) any residence can be videotaped by the resident, without informing any guest, or obtaining their permission.

but if we started applying RL law to it, then aside from the multiple jusidiction problems, you also have the fact that anyone can take a picture of anything, or anyone else, thus obtaining a full permissions phot of the anothers work/image all without any legal reprecussion or entanglement.

in fact given certain poorly written passages within th eToS, you can hijack anyones images and reuse them as long as they don't leave SL... obviously there's a few Lindens that don't agree

Well - this also depends on the country you're in. It is - for example - illegal in some states to take a picture of a building that was constructed by a well known architect and then publish this picture. The architect has a copyright that one has to resepect... pretty weird, in my opinion...

I personally have nothing against someone taking a picture I made and use it, as long as it is clear who's work it is. But the whole discussion here is IMHO not a question of copyright, but rather a question of respect. If someone doesn't want to have her/his profile-pic displayed, the owner of the object should respect this.

As for «stealing» pictures and artwork - this is a little different. Although, I actually don't mind if someone takes a picture I made and uses it. As long as I get the credits for it, it's fine...

Ah..but what about when you go to a club or a ballgame or anyplace large and public, and the scanning cameras simply place your image on the screen for a few seconds? This happens ALL the time..that's what I'm talking about.

well - but that's not what you're doing. If you had an automatic camera taking pictures and then upload and display them, I don't think anyone would complain.
But displaying one's Profile-Picture is more like you'd go into the RL-Person's pocket, get the picture of their ID-card and display it. But as Void points out - RL-Law doesn't really apply here. It's rather for comparison purposes...

As I stated earlier - it's not so much a question of whether you or I understand the problem some people have with that. It's more a question of whether we respect this problem and act accordingly, so these people won't get upset.
And I'm still sure that asking them _first_ before displaying their picture is the best way to do it. I do agree that it might be some effort to do this - but every happy customer is a good customer. Bad reputation is easy to get and hard to get rid of.

And unfortunately the legal wrangling is still going on. But it might help if I corrected a couple of mistakes starting with this thread.

I was the one that posted the query to the Scripting mailing list hoping to get a clarification from LL. All I recieved was a mashup of various personal opinions from individals instead, sometimes rather forcefully presented. I then sent a query to Rob Linden on whether he cared to comment or if he knew who to talk to at LL. Rob replied that the correct source for info regarding the matter was the Governance team with a link to thier wiki page. I then asked here in this forum if anyone else could attend and no one took up the offer.

My question was more then slightly expected, in fact 1 day after I recieved Rob's reply the Governance Team's wiki page dramatically changed with the names of all of the members removed and an addendum added:

"However, the team can’t accept abuse reports at the meeting; tell you about the status of any reports; discuss the outcome of any reports or situations; or discuss the account status of any Residents."

I waited through a very boring 30 minutes until the floor was open for new business and then made asked my question (I did not keep a log file because posting it of course would also be a violation w/o gettting the permission of ereryone there. Anyway I just wanted an answer.) Paraphrased again:

"We have a rather brilliant scripter who has come up with a charming script that scans the surrounding area for avatars, it gets a key and does an http request for the key through the new google database and parses out the profile picture of the key holder and displays it as a texture. It does this for 20 second before moving on to another key. There are some complaints but most people thoroughly enjoy it, and the creator has added an opt-out option now. LL has started issuing Violation: TOS: Permissions Exploit and confiscating some of the display objects. What exactly is the problem, when any pics displayed are in the profiles and readily available to anyone who clicks on thier profile."

(As further proof that they were prepared for my question, a cube was rezzed by a Linden and it displayed my profile picture on it's faces.)

"I was then told that viewing a persons profile picture in thier profile was different then taking that picture and displaying it elsewhere. That even though offering an opt out option was a step in the right direction, for the script to be totally in compliance with the TOS, it would need to be strictly opt in"

It wasn't exactly the opinion I was hoping to recieve either but it did answer the question and I don't really see any loop holes. Anyone can, just like me, go to the Governance Team and ask for themselves.

Well, I guess that is as close as we will get to an official answered, and thanks Jessie, for going to the effort on our behalf. As you say, it is a brilliant piece of work, and we have had our fun with it. I have noticed, thought, of late, I am having far more complaints than wow's in my IM's, in fact it is almost as if there is an organised attack starting up.

I have no intention of deleting the script, or the devices I have included it into, but I will turn off the random display aspect. I still think it has great potential to display the Pictures of artists and DJ's that perform in clubs and the winners of events, the latter will probably be pleased by the honour and the former will be opting in.

All in all, it was win / win, it got publicity, got a lot more people interested in scripts, and got the people thinking about how fragile privacy is in this world.

Debbie, thanks for a great script, don’t kill it off, lets rather migrate its strengths for the good of all.

Thank you, Jesse, for this information and for putting a context around the LLab statement arising from the Goverance Team meeting. This is very much appreciated.

Having digested various responses and opinions, it seems to me that, by far and away more important than the quasi-legal arguments, or the strongly worded views of pretended-authorities, is the simple matter of respect.

If somebody doesn't want their profile picture shown, for whatever reason, and whatever I or anyone else may think about that, then that is their right and it should be respected. On this basis alone, regardless of any ToS clause or pseudo-legal opinion, the Profile Projector would be an improved product if it had some sort of "permissions" system.

Now, the Profile Projector was never intended to be a complete, polished product. It was originally just a little script to pass a few hours on a cold, miserable Sunday morning, with perhaps a vague hope that the script may contribute in some way for learning LSL. The script has always been open source and free. I have never sold it nor financially benefited from it.

As I am currently working on two large SL projects, I cannot devote the time to work on this permissions system until probably mid-March. But there is no reason whatsoever that someone else cannot implement such a system and post the code in the Profile Projector 'Scripting Library' thread. Or even script a standalone permissions system and post that on its own thread and on the LSL Wiki. There are plenty of good people here whose technical abilities could easily accomplish this. I'd happily then take that script and shoehorn it into the Profile Projector script.

For anyone who fancies taking up this task, the latest version of the Profile Projector script can be found at: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:debbie_Trilling

And I do agree with Very that the important part is that this single script got more people interested in scripts and thier possibilites.

And it even helped some of us old timers like me. Frst time I had ever done an http request.

What about first a simple yes no menu prompt asking their consent, and then only if they say yes, getting on with it?