Restitution for Citizens

I violated an N'burg law (NL 3-10), when I removed my structures from the city yesterday. Because this was such a large and dramatic change, I was required by law, even though I am a foreigner, to seek approval from the RA first.

Granted, while Dianne's unauthorized reproduction and distribution of my structures and Sudane's approval of their use on city land are mitigating circumstances, it still does not excuse my action. Because I am serious about seeing individuals who have committed crimes against myself and the city brought to justice and because I believe that it is the right thing to do, I am admitting my guilt publicly and await trial. Even more importantly I apologize to all of you deeply for making you refugees in this ongoing ideological war.

As restitution for my inconvenience to those who were deprived of a home, you will be provided a no copy, mod, no sale home for no cost by Kendra, to whom I will send my structures to distribute and later sell. This structure and future structures sold will be under the following restrictions:

1. The structure may only be used in the sim of Neualtenburg.
   
2. Each citizen may own only one structure per lot of land.
   
3. The structures cannot be used on unoccupied land by the city.
   
4. The structures cannot be used in images to promote the city.
   

If you would like to use the structure for anything not covered above, you must contact me for permission. If you ask nicely, I almost always say yes.

~Ulrika~

Just a point for clarification...

When you state that the structure sare not to be used in images to promote the city, can you be a little mroe specific to prevent potential uninintentional transgressions?

For example, does that statement apply only to images that are used to market and advertise the city ("Come Visit N'burg", etc)? If the structure appears in a photograph, but is not the subject of said photograph, which is bound to happen if these structures are put into wide circulation, is that a violation, or simply incidental usage?

If a homeowner takes a photograph that has one of these structures in it and sends it to a friend via ingame transfer with an IM saying "Look at how cool N'burg is! You should come visit me", is that in violation? How about if ther ewas a request by the homeowner for the other party to move there? Does it matter in this case if the picture taker is a non-structure owning resident or even a non-resident?

Lastly, photographs that are e-mailed off of the grid pass through the main page at times (I think?). Will sending one of those postcards that contains an image where a fachwerk is the subject or in the background, which is in effect an advertisement or promotion for the sim, as it usually contains a direct link and some form of enticing text, is this a violation if it is not city-sanctioned? What if it is sent to snapzilla?

I just want to cover all bases to make sure that there are, as previously mentioned, no inadvertent transgressions.

Thanks for the offer and your time!

Excellent questions! Any official material used to promote the city by the city on either its website or in paid advertisements requires permission. I'm doing this mostly to be difficult, as I'm still upset with the city-sponsored unauthorized reproduction and distribution of my structures. Piracy just gets me crazy.

In regards to citizens, you can go picture crazy.

~Ulrika~

As far as I am aware, this is a violation of the TOS.

The City has a specific right granted in section 5.3 "Participant Content."You cannot sell a work or a structure to be used in the City and then deny the City the right to use said structure or a picture of said structure for promotional purposes.

I would argue that anything that is in the city and happens to even appear in a photograph is covered by this clause, but that's the very broadest interpretation.

It seems quite definite to me from this passage, that particularly something like a Fachwerk, which is a part of the City itself, and certainly central to it's public identity and image is definitely okay for the City to use in any kind of promotion it sees fit, as long as it is acting reasonably. I would think that this wouldn't even necessarily cover just images, but physical use of the structure itself as the clause refers to "content" not just images.

The exceptions would likely be if you could argue that the particular use was outrageous or unusual or if perhaps if the City was taking advantage of this clause or using your work for nefarious purposes or disingenuously. The City and the government of Neualtenburg has the inherent responsibility of all governments to act fairly (and they do), but otherwise they have this right according to the TOS.

If you wish to keep this prohibition on the use of your Fachwerks I would suggest keeping them out of the city.

Cool, thanks for responding. However, in terms of city use, there is still one defnition I am curious about...

Now, are you prohibiting theofficial use of any picture that contains any of your fachwerks, even if it is in the background of, say a picture of a dancing chicken-hat wearing oktoberfest goer? If so, that is going to pretty much make it so that no pictures are able to be taken for publicity by the city in the city.

You know what's funny? You created illegal unauthorized reproductions and are a judge in the city. Sudane sanctioned and defended said piracy and she is the head of a branch that exists to protect artisans and their work. The irony is profound. Both of your actions are in exact conflict with your city functions.

I'm sorry if this has nothing to do with your post but as a lawbreaker you have lost all credibility and respect in my eyes.

~Ulrika~

No images of the buildings can be used by the city for promotion or advertising without my permission. I would be willing to remove this single restriction, if those who are responsible for performing and sanctioning the piracy step down or are removed from office. Until then, all one has to do is ask. Given that I will always say yes to Kendra, you can infer that it's a selective barrier to prevent exploitation by some of the seedier elements in the government.

Is this acceptable?

~Ulrika~

I don't need the respect of lawbreakers, so whatever you think "as a lawbreaker" is up to you.

As to credibility and respect, yours has been similarly squandered in my eyes.

The difference however, is I actually *did* have respect for you at one point and great admiration as well, whereas I am certain that your words are empty. Just something to say to divert attention from the point of my remarks.

Why don't you take a screen shot of this post and put it on a prim.

~Ulrika~

Why don't you give all your posts to the city, then take them away, than charge everyone for them, then destroy them? (and blame everyone else while you do it)

Your analogy is meaningless in that you have failed to prove where I transferred ownership of my property to the city. However, I have proved conclusively that you have engaged in the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of my structures. You can refresh your memory with this link here. It has large full color pictures and real quotes. I call these "facts".

You have brought shame to the SC. You have publicly embarrassed N'burg with your texture theft and piracy. And for as long as you keep making the mistake of replying to me in forum threads I will remind you and the world of this forever.

~Ulrika~

It wasn't really a "capital-A" analogy dear, it was a childish retort to counter to your similarly childish remark just above it and done in fun.

I almost went with the classic, "I know you are but what am I?"

Considering that Ulrika holds the copyrights to Neualtenburg she has the "right" to ask anything she will under RL law, just as Sudane as the "owner in fact" of the Sim has the "right" to do anything she will under RL law.

The problem right now is that Neualtenburg is much like my favorite Robert Heinlein quote:

"The Universe is a thing we whipped up amongst ourselves and agreed to forget the gag."

When we remove our faith in the Government that we all so painstakingly whipped amongst ourselves we then cease to forget the gag.

Unless we go back to The Constitution and begin following procedures, then Neualtenburg becomes nothing more than a Sim owned by Sudane which is using infringed copyrighted materials.

The solution therefore is to either follow proper procedure --or agree that Neualtenburg has failed.

I prefer the former.

Stand on your head and spin around like a top.

Ok, seriously... as an outsider with an on again off again interest in the 'projekt' why would the city government wish to allow the return of this creator's buildings with so many strings attached to them? It seems patently transparent the only reason they are being offered is because they'd give the OP some leverage against the city in the future.

Not for historical significance, not for style of building they are, not out of some altruistic sympathy for the denizens (whom were the apparent victims in this when the OP herself removed the structures in the first place), not out of kindness, just simply as a calculated movement and tool to apply future pressure to the projekt in a seemingly on going attempt to extort rl monies from this projekt or failing that cause as many problems for it as possible.

I mean, isn't this just the same issue as last time, that caused the OP to leave the projekt and SL? I seem to recall a few months ago she wanted to use her IP claims to get some rl monetary compensation from the projekt and when the membership of the projekt pitched a fit about her decidedly unique perspective on just that point, she left all of SL, and the projekt supposedly for good?

Rhetorical question of course, but why would any sane person want anything created by her with all these strings and conditions attached? Especially if there seems to be a very real (and historic pattern of, some of it very recent, of her willy-nilly deleting of homes on whim) possibility she'd try to use this largess as a tool attempt to influence and manipulate citizens and the greater projekt later?

It seems the projekt is attempting to divorce/cut/delete itself of all ties, anything created by OP to prevent the reoccurrence of a IP claim being used to extort/manipulate in the future. Frankly I wouldn't blame them in the least, and would urge the commission of a new set of houses/builds of that particular architectural style with complete privileges and rights existing solely to the city proper (no strings) and, change the city name, wash hands completely of this mess and just move on with an eye for securing IP rights needed to the city itself in the future rather than one single individual.

But then all this is just my opinion and a outsider's perspective, so grains of salt and all that rot. Carry on, good luck with it.

Similar builds and textures could be created in a trice by a competent and interested builder/texturer. Unless the OP is claiming ownership of Bavarian style architecture, that is.

I absolutely agree! I have no idea why Dianne and Sudane resorted to texture theft and piracy to reproduce my structures. It should be simple enough for someone to put in a little effort and make their own replacement structures honorably.

~Ulrika~

My goal is to admit my guilt and make amends with the citizens without doing any favors for a seemingly corrupt government that approves (the SC and RA have remained silent) of the piracy of other people's work. If it is best to keep these structures out of the sim, I'm all for it, especially since they have many legitimate (not pirated) structures that they could use in its stead.

I am still here to receive monetary compensation for my work, as I stated a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately the issue has become sidetracked when it was discovered that the government was creating and distributing unauthorized reproductions of my IP.

I think I'll step back and wait for a statement from the SC (the members who aren't pirates) or RA concerning the piracy and how they feel about my restrictions. If I hear nothing (which is an excellent chance) then I won't distribute the structures. However, I want the citizens to know that the offer still stands to make restitution for their losses, including buying them a structure with my own money from another artisan. Just send me the bill.

~Ulrika~

Sounds like terrorism by ultimatum to me.

edited: On second thought, it sounds more like, If you won't play by my rules, I'll take my ball and go home."

Sounds more like an attempt at bribery and vote buying.

{paraphrase}Hey sorry I deleted your homes/buildings, I'm a swell kinda gal though, so I'll give you lot some new ones for free. Well yeah there are some conditions... don't worry, just fine print really. You can trust me. I'd never change my mind and delete them all again, or threaten to if I don't get my way. Never.

Oh, well ok, if you don't want these stringed-laced buildings how about I buy you some new ones instead. Just bill me, I'm good for it you can trust me. Remember though! It wasn't your government who made things right it was mumsie, remember that when it comes time to vote on things, mumsie loves you.{/paraphrase}

Frankly it seems she's already taken the ball. I think this latest offer/thread is more like she's hanging around the field offering to hold the pigskin for Charlie Brown 'one more time' in a desperate effort to remain in the thick of things and maintain some level of leverage over a projekt she's supposedly already left. After all if they change the name of the projekt remove all of her IP she wouldn't have any reason to hang about.

One only wonders if the good denizens of the projekt are going to bite and try to kick the ball one more time.

I've been gone a couple of days and it looks like more structures are being returned by a group of three working outside the government without RA approval and the individuals responsible for pirating the structures are unrepentant. All of this is unfortunately occuring without intervention of the SC. Because of this, N'burg is still a very hostile place for me (and any other artisan) to deploy works. Additionally, given the resistance to my efforts to protect them with usage clauses, it is unlikely my structures will ever be seen in the city again.

Because I feel I have a moral obligation to pay restitution to those who became homeless, I repeat my offer to pay for new structures if needed.

~Ulrika~

Similarly, I have no idea why one would choose to be so vitriolic over such triva and with little effort could have refrained from being so accusatory and hostile. Honor comes in many forms.

You don't have to blank out the names in the quote. One admitted to the piracy and the other defended it openly in the forums. You can see the quotes here.

As for my passion, it is motivated by a desire to see hard and honest work respected and those who violate that respect punished. I guess, I just don't see those concepts as trivial.

~Ulrika~

Motivation? Seems like childish revenge to me.

There is a lot of childish revenge going on on both sides. Whether it's me removing my structures in retalliation for the state-sanctioned piracy or them purging the city of objects owned by me without RA approval, it's all foolishness. What's sad is that this is just the easy stuff (piracy and prim replacement). There's much more to come in the way of IP conflict and based on current behavior, one should prepare themselves for more of the same.

Not all is lost, though. While you have no control over my actions, you certainly have a say in what your government does. If you would like to see a more moderate course of action taken, simply contact your officials and ask them to stop the unauthorized reproduction of others' work, work within the laws of the city, and work with outsiders to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. You could be part of the solution.

~Ulrika~