New Copyright Threat Warning

A resident is offering a service called "Skin Augmentation" where he claims he will combine any skin and tattoo, oil, clothing from any source into one texture, making the tattoo etc. "permanent."

Content creators should be aware of this.

I just confronted him about this service and how he achieves it. He said, among other things...

Q: How does your service work?

A: I replicate your skin with your tattoos or whatever layers you have on embedded on it. Your original skin isn't affected

Q: How do you replicate the skin and tattoo? Where do you get the texture?

A: The mecjanics of the process are a trade secret...but it works...pixel perfect

Q: Do you have any images, before and after kinda stuff, or just pics of your work?

A: i am making some images...but all my work is cash on delivery...if you aren't satisfied, you don't pay

Q: So do I have to supply you with copies or something?

A: no...you just have to come to my workshop...it takes about 5 minutes

Q: do you need to access my files somehow?

A: no

Q: Is this legal? Does it involve copybot or some similar process? How does it affect copyright of the originals?

A: i don't use copybot. The process is legal. I replicate your skin and tatts, that you MUST already have bought. I don't copy and sell skins. The tattooed skin I produce for you is for your personal use only and is non-transferable

Q: not a similar process to copybot?

A: I don't use copybot, so i have no idea
A: If you are interested, let me know

Q: Well, I'm very interested. I make tattoos a few doors down from where you just bought land, and I'm confused about how you would approach a customer who came to you with one of my tattoos and someone else's skin files
Q: and how you would then use my copyrighted work, then resell it
Q: and say its not an infringement on my copyright
Q: what about my right to resell my own work on a skin being undercut by your process?

A: I don't resell your copyrighted work. All i do is combine the item that a buyer has bought (your tattoo), with another itrem they have already bought (a skin). I charge for the service. It's like if you buy some CDs, you have the right to make a backup for your personal use, or combine tracks from separate CDs you OWN onto a CD to play in the car. If you sold the copies, that would be a copyright infringement, but for personal use, it is allowed. This is why all the skins I produce are non-transferable
A: The point is hat people have to have bought from you to start with

Q: that would only apply if the original owner was the only party involved in the copy making, and even that is iffy
Q: transfer of that copyrighted material to a third party to make the copy is in no way covered

Q: Not at all...i could take my hifi round to someone's house and make them a CD...as long as they didn't sell it on, that would be fine

Q: this leaves the third party with copies of the material and no way to make sure they are not using the copies to bootleg and resell under a different name or through another party

A: I also dont retain any of the textures once the skin has been created

Q: how can anyone be sure of that
Q: if you're transferring the copyrighted material from one party to another, particularly if you're charging, then you are dealing in stolen material
Q: and even if so, you are infringing on my right to sell my product on a skin of my own creation

Q: LL have a record of everything that is kept on the inventory servers. If i was doing that, they would have a record of it and my business wouldn't last very long
Q: You still have the right to do that
Q: but when you sell something to someone, it gives them certain rights to use it

Q: Well, I assume you will have no problem then if I report this to Linden Labs and give them a copy of this IM?

A: Sure...That's fine

Q: it gives the right to them, not to you

A: indeed...and i just facilitate them doing it...I provide a service
A: If you think about it, my service maked the use of tattoos much more flexible, and should encourage people to buy more tattoos

Q: I've been developing skins with tattoos, a lot of hard work and long hours, and really If I think about it, you selling my tattoos and someone elses skin for less than the cost of either of the originals is theft

A: How is it theft? I am not giving people anything that they don't already own and have paid for.
A: If i was selling your tatts tom people that didnt already own them, it would be, but i don't do that

Private discussions – the forums are a public area for the Second Life community’s use. Individuals who have a dispute with each other have other channels of communication to discuss their differences or communicate – private messaging, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life. Also, threads that are addressed to a single individual or group are inappropriate on the forums, this includes slander or "naming names" in a posts title, starting polls about a particular resident or group, etc.

Thanks for the heads up. And thanks especially for obtaining permission to pass along the chat log before you published it. Otherwise you would have been in the wrong, yourself for your post.

You are absolutely right that what this person is doing is not legal. What he fails to understand is that when you "purchase a skin" or "purchase a tattoo" in SL, you're not buying the source image, or any associated right to it. All you're doing is acquiring a limited use right to the finished product, the skin or the tattoo as a whole, not any of its base components. The source imagery remains the exclusive property of its creator, and the "buyer" has no right whatsoever to merge it with any other images (beyond letting the viewer do the automated baking it has to do just to function, of course).

Essentially what this Ekindu person is doing is creating derivative works without the knowledge or permission of the original owner(s). That's a definite no-no. It's totally illegal.

It doesn't matter that his clients may have legally purchased the skins and tattoos. What matters is that he's dismantling and using the copyrighted imagery in a manner inconsistent with the limited rights granted by the copyright owner. Unless he's got specific permission from both the tattoo maker and the skin maker in each case, he absolutely does NOT have any right to do what he's doing.

For what it's worth, I'm sure I know exactly how he's doing it, technically. It wouldn't involve copybot, so it's not surprising that he didn't know whether or not his process is similar to what copybot does. I won't say how it's being done for obvious reasons, but I will say the method is hardly a secret, and anyone who knows their way around a graphics pipeline will be able to do it, easily. But that doesn't make it right, of course. Just because one CAN do a thing doesn't mean one SHOULD.

By all means, AR the guy, and forward the chat log to LL.

How would you argue that his process is different from what every Second Life user does every day, using the "Second Life" software: baking the tattoo texture onto the skin texture?

That's part of the normal operation of the viewer. Every skin and tattoo maker expects that it's going to happen, as there's no other way to make skins and tattoos work in SL. There's no potential form harm in it because the user does not have direct access to the baked images. They can only be created and viewed (legally) by SL viewer software. They are not discrete assets.

That's very different from ripping the textures post-bake and re-uploading the combined images as new assets that can be used independently of the specific skins/tattoos from which they were sourced, which is what this person is doing. Nowhere is any license granted to do that.

If a particular skin/tattoo maker wants to allow it, great. He or she can say so, and then it will be just fine to rip his or her images. But until and unless such permission is granted, it's not legal to do it.

Chosen is spot on. This person is quite mistaken that what they're doing is legal. It isn't. On the grand scale of things if they aren't reselling or retaining the ripped images (in other words, they're being honest) this might not be a very big deal, but I'm not inclined to extend my trust to someone who's ripping textures without prior consent (or seemingly any intention of asking for it).

Well if someone wants to burn all the profits they ever made in SL to take someone to court they can have at it..

However a simpler option may just be as simple as a abuse report.

They added this with copybot... Note the "or similar application)" part. That would, in my opinion, cover the image ripper programs....

I don't think it would be fair to go all AR happy on this guy and his business.

I really don't think he's doing anything wrong.

I have a RL friend who's business might be compared to this. People send him old LPs and he uses some software to clean up the pops and hisses and burns them onto a CD for the person. The person gets back his LP and a shiny new CD with an improved version of the original artists work. Under current copyright law...I'm pretty sure this is legal and no infringement of the original artist's rights were intended.

A main point to note in the quote above:

zg

P.S. I noticed that you are just a "few doors down" from this guy...perhaps by working WITH this person instead of AGAINST him you can come to a mutually benificial business relationship. I bet that if you make friends with this guy and recommend his service to your customers, he would also recommend your products to his clients. IDK...maybe I just live in some fantasy world.

What he's doing would technically qualify as making derivative works and selling them for a profit, so I don't agree that there's nothing wrong with it, but I see where you're coming from. That's why I said if the guy is being honest it isn't that big of a deal, and I hope that he is because people having my raw textures isn't something that makes me happy. The real culprit though is Linden Lab who has yet to address this inadequacy in their avatar system. People shouldn't have to use a service like this or resort to ripping textures themselves just to wear a tattoo without giving up a clothing layer, but after complaining about it for years I've given up any hope that it'll ever get fixed.

Maybe I'm just in a pissy mood tonight, but I want to know what the question, tip or insight pretaining to texturing in SL is in this thread. There was an earlier thread where someone was obviously advertising some textures he/she had for sale or available in some way in world............he/she was rather bluntly chastised for posting in the wrong forum and was reported. I will not argue that the thread in question was, in fact, posted in the wrong forum.........it certainly was.

But, back to my question.......where is the question, insight or tip? According to the chastiser this is a forum for educational purposes. Are we getting educated on the DMCA? Or real world copyright law? Or are we just posturing over what we all consider our "turf".

By the way, I agree the subject of the thread is probably legal. No one here has proof the person doing this "service" is stealing anything or guilty of any wrong doing. Only speculation that they may......that don't cut it with me.

So, to be fair, I suppose I should report this thread like someone saw fit to do with the earlier one.

I don't think you live in a fantasy world, and I appreciate your comments and optimistic outlook. I do look for ways of working with other SL businesses in mutually beneficial ways, but as I also said in my conversation with him, I have been killing myself to develop my own line of skins with my tattoos on them, ironically for the very reasons he promotes his business - so they don't keep popping off when you change clothes - and its been a butt-load of work.

So there's the rub (read infringement.) How do I justify selling my hard work, a decent skin with my tattoo combined, when the tattoo alone likely cost more than his "service." I have tattoos ranging between L$40 to L$700, so unless I value the combined skin and tattoo and inherent added value at less than L$250 or so he's just undercutting me with my own work.

And as Chip has also observed, would any of us trust this guy at his word of not keeping and using copies of our work, considering how he's making his money? Its like saying "I'll sell you guns, but I'm morally opposed to selling ammunition."

P.S. and in answer to Peggy, I simply searched for similar themed posts and placed this accordingly. Perhaps the tip you search for is that "Its a Texturing jungle out there and its best to keep your eyes open."

I can understand your desire to keep your rights intact. I respect that.

So much of my stuff gets ripped off (not just SL IP) that I don't really sweat the small stuff.

But, what I would do is figure out how he's doing it faster, cheaper, better (?).

"Keep your friends close...and your enimies even closer"

zg

Thanks Zolen!

Like Chosen, I know exactly how he's doing it, but it's probably unwise spelling it out.

Lets just say his "Trade Secret" is even a little more insidious than Copybot, as it is unaffected by texture permissions.

For the most part I myself recommend to others to simply ignore these people. Its part of the digital age, they'll always be there, they'll drive you crazy and in the end, like mosquitoes, you can swat as many as you like but it probably won't even slow them down.

I guess my real intention in posting this was that while it'll never go away, its still probably wise to keep vigilant. And lets face it, even if its futile, there's a satisfaction in the swat.

This has been happening for a long time and its not the 1st post Ive seen about it.
I dont know if its the same person but i recall reading the same thing about the same "service" a year ago.

:/

I think it's a pretty good example of the mentality behind a lot of texture ripping that goes on in SL. I think it deserves to be publicly disected for what it actually is, IP rights infringement. Content creators get frustrated having to explain over and over again about usage rights on IP. Texture creators are no less content creators than anyone else, just more vulnerable to IP infringement.

This person mentioned by the OP would be a fool not to save the individual texture components purely from a business standpoint. Someone is bound to want the same exact skin combined with a tattoo, or vice versa. Why waste the extra effort of having to obtain the textures again when you've already ripped them? I don't believe for a second that this person deletes any texture they have copied for this "business".

I have a similar service I offer exclusively with my skin makeovers. The difference is - ALL the textures I use have been created from scratch by myself, and use complex layering effects. NONE of the textures are ripped from other people's work. The benefits of the service are essentially the same. With a large enough inventory the combinatorial possibilities are almost limitless, and very cost effective to the consumer. I have a single texture artist devoted entirely to skin customizations (because I don't have the time to do it myself). They have been a trusted friend in both RL and SL for years. Nobody else has access to my layered textures, and for good reason. They could potentially open up an illegal business like the person mentioned by the OP with all my textures. Unfortunately, as Chip briefly mentioned, this type of business would have no reason to exist in SL at all if the SL avatar had enough generalized texture layers for all essential purposes. How hard is that to do? Apparently, for Linden Lab, it's tougher than sending people to Mars.

I'm thankful my service gives both my customers and myself the added security that none of my component textures EVER get uploaded into SL unless they are baked into the skin texture first. No amount of ripping can accurately separate gradated eye shadow and other complex (PS generated) layering effects including visible and invisible strong and weak watermarks from the skins.

What this person is doing is illegally leveraging (making and selling copies without permission) other people's work to make a quick buck. They do not have my permission to copy my textures, and if they've taken the time to rip the textures then they can read all about it IN the textures.

Other people don't get to see the individual layers that make up your look - they just see the baked result. All this person is doing is grabbing that end result and re-uploading it as a skin.

Aside from the procedural mess of having to track every customer they've ever done, it's not something that would technically work - any difference in shape would make the results look like crap. It'd be far easier (and come out better) if they just did every customer from scratch.

It's a shame that a service like this is not legal. It sounds like a good idea.

Technically, that is the procedure all the way up to the point just before they sell the skin to another person. The transaction is an important part to mention! Legally that statement could be re-phrased as - All this person is doing is grabbing other peoples intellectual property without their consent and re-combining it and selling it as an unauthorized derivative work.

I have a sales history for every customer I've ever sold to, and have all their custom skins on file. It's part of the service if they want to add on to a custom look at a later point without starting completely from scratch each time. It's not that difficult if one has the storage space (maybe 100 gb, at most) and all the nicely layered master files.

As far as shape goes, all anyone can do is make a suggestion as to what works best. It's always up to the end user how they combine shape with texture. They are not a single component, although it would be nicer if they were.

Except for the last line, I wasn't talking about the legallity of the process..

They're not doing custom work. They have no layers. If they're selling the 'new' skins as copy/no-transfer, I don't see any reason for them to keep the image set around on their local disk - it'd be easier to just generate a new one if they need to.

All new people to SL should read these kinds of threads, and it is also great when original
texture creators weigh in to confirm who they agree with. And when they do 99% of them
agree with the international copyright laws.

When making decisions about how to treat the textures you have obtained as a new person
it is best to get the best most reliable advice you can. Or just do some research on copyright yourself.

In short it boils down to distribution rights, according to the law unless specifically indicated
otherwise in written form by the creator, you don't have any.

In most cases however when things are being sold for specific purposes like in SL the primary use is either implied or specifically detailed in a user agreement or a T.O.S.

In the case of textures for prims, most texture sellers allow you to use them on your creations
which you can in turn then sell. This is the Only method of distribution allowed unless you have direct and specific written permission to do otherwise.

Remember! Another person's opinion does not change the law!

In the case of original skins very few creators allow for Any distribution whatsoever.

As a good rule of thumb, if you want to do anything out of the ordinary with a texture that
You did Not create, Go straight to the creator and ask permission.

As a creator, I understand where you skin and texture makers are coming from.

As a consumer, I have to agree with Sindy...I would like to see SOME legal and accepted method of selecting a tattoo and combining it with one's favorite skin(s). I've recently got into a situation where I WOULD like a certain tattoo added to all the skins I normally wear...if it could be done at a reasonable price.

Whether it's this guy's third party service, or an add-on service offered by the skin makers, or a partnership between the skin company and the tattoo artists doesn't really matter to me, the consumer.

Evidently the concept of Fair Use means nothing in Second Life.

As I understand it, some one had to buy your skin texture, and your tattoo. That grants them the legal right to use these items.

What this guy is offering is a one off combination of these two legally owned resources for the exclusive use of the person who bout them.

It's no different than buying a jacket and an Iron On patch, them paying $5 to have some one iron it on to your jacket.

If he's providing your work to some who DIDN'T get legally from you... nail him.

There is an accreditation issue I see here, which has nothing to do with "copyright".

SL has a way to see who made what, and this is brings business to you. If his business info is supplanting yours you have a great case for pseudo TRADEMARK infringement.

He MUST provide a means to CREDIT BOTH merchants for their work in his legal combination of it.
But other wise, If you sold it... that is what you YOU gave up in the transaction. The right to dictate it's use by the individual who bought it.

Apart from asking the customer, he's probably got no way to do that.

There are, to my mind, absolutely _no_ ethical or legal issues regarding modifying a skin for one's personal use. Issues arise because it is impossible, really, to properly modify a skin without duplicating it first, and that duplication is a threat to the original designer, quite obviously.

No, Fair Use means the same thing in SL that it means everywhere else. In no way does Fair Use grant anyone the right to capture and redistribute someone else's imagery. As I said before, when you "buy an item" in SL, you are not buying any of its source components. What you're buying is simply a limited use right to the whole item itself. Derivative works are absolutely not included with that.

JoeTom, I'd suggest you do some reading on what Fair Use actually means. It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about here. It doesn't mean "whatever the buyer thinks is fair is allowed". It makes specific allowances to do very limited things for very specific purposes. I'll explain, briefly.

Fair Use is mainly a free speech issue, regarding the citing copyrighted works for such purposes as criticism, comment, news reporting, education, scholarship, or research. For example, since it might be impossible to criticize a book without citing some of the passages that are worthy of criticism, the right of free speech in such a case could supersede copyright (to a very limited degree), and grants one the (very limited) right to quote parts of the book. But if the critic overdoes it, and quotes too much, he or she may end moving beyond fair use to infringement, and then be liable for damages to the author. The value of the book as a uniquely original work must be preserved. Hence the limitations.

Fair Use absolutely would not include the ripping of textures without the permission of the owner. Such practice is NOT criticism, NOT commentary, NOT news reporting, NOT education, NOT scholarship, and NOT research. Therefore, it's not in any way related to Fair Use.



Yes, you have the right to use the items, the WHOLE items, in a very limited way. You do NOT have the right to use any of their source components separately from the whole, for any purpose.



Neither the buyer nor this third party person have the right to make such a combination.


Actually, it's VERY different. What you're failing to comprehend is the very real difference between physical property and intellectual property.

A RL jacket is a physical item, and it's not copyrightable. The patch, also a RL item, has copyrighted imagery on on it. While you could certainly pay someone, legally, to iron the patch onto the jacket, what you couldn't do is have him make you a new copy of the patch and iron that on. That would be copyright infringement.

And that's what's basically happening here. Since neither the buyer nor the compositor own the original image, both can only work with copies of it. The moment the texture is ripped by the compositor, an unauthorized copy has been made. That's infringement number one. Then, when the image is composited with another, a derivative work has been created, which is infringement number two. When the work is then uploaded to SL, there's now yet another unauthorized copy of an unauthorized derivative work, infringement number three. Finally, when the image is used to create a new skin, the unauthorized copy of the unauthorized derivative work is being utilized in an unauthorized way, infringement number four. Account for both the tattoo and the skin, and you're talking eight counts of infringement every time it's done. And that's assuming no other copies are ever given out.


If the skin/tattoo wasn't legally obtained to begin with, then that simply compounds the problem. Either way it's just as wrong.


You're stretching on equating this to trademark. The copyright issues are very clear (which I hope you see now). Trademark is another matter altogether. While trademark could certainly be infringed upon as a result of this sort of thing, it doesn't have to be. Copyright is being breached each and every time.


Again, you're failing to understand the difference between physical property and intellectual property. If I sell you a shirt in RL, then yes, you can do whatever you want with that shirt. However, if the shirt has a picture on it, you can't distribute copies of it, not even once, without my permission. You also can't cut the picture off the shirt and put it into another picture without my permission. You might own the physical shirt, including the one copy of the picture that's on it, but I own the image that the picture shows. You have no right to copy my image.

I hope you're beginning to understand now. IP and physical property are separate things.



EDITED TO ADD: Ordinal's post is exactly right. He said pretty much the same thing I did, just with a whole lot less words.

*Sorry if this seems out of order, been having troubles logging on to the forum today*



While permanently combined on one layer, this works just as the original product, skin or tattoo or oil, adapts itself to the various shapes. No difference. He ends up with a square texture with X by X number of pixels which is then applied or worn by the customer.

Sure its a good idea, or he wouldn't be doing it, Linden Labs wouldn't have supplied a "general" or tattoo layer, and I wouldn't have been thinking of offering it. Where the idea goes bad is where he illegally uses our work to make a quick buck... where he makes the connection that a solution to having no money would be selling jewelry, so he robs a jewelry store.

But what this person says he is offering really isn't the point. The point is what he's using to offer it, and hemming or hawing and saying it's not so bad, shrugging and putting up with it, or going so far as to say what this person is doing with it is a good idea is gonna blow up in our faces sooner or later, because I can think of at least two ways off the top of my head that a person could get vindictive or angry, then using this method, some time and effort he could completely wipe out all of someone's hard work in creating content. Blink of an eye, and its gone - useless to them.

Just mention the word Caramel to the Sine Wave people.

Again, I'm not stupid enough to spell it out here, and the method he's using has serious limits, but that is the real issue here, and any of us who think it's never gonna happen - that no one would ever do that - should disable their firewall and anti-virus for just a second and see if people aren't capable.

And when that day comes the people who do create content will stop. Why bother? I've already stopped my plans for combined skin/tattoo. After putting countless hours into it, I've considered this development and feel my time can be better spent, so if your argument is that you'd like the option of having the skin and tattoo together it seems to me that this is more a way to kill that option.

That's the issue. Look into your inventory and delete everything but the original Linden Labs defaults and you're looking at what happens when content creators saying its not worth it if their intellectual property - their creation and contribution - can all be stolen.

I really don't mean to sound like a tool about this. Just wanted to keep the discussion going so we can come to workable solutions.

As Chip mentioned, greater flexibility in layers would be a start. Linden Labs itself offered (offers) a "generalized" tattoo layer that's been co-opted by the skin makers, but server loads are probably the issue there, as they are with limited groups etc.

Something more along the lines of embedded encryption in uploaded textures that scramble them if downloaded.

Viewed or attempted editing outside of an official Second Life application they would simply appear as TV static. Same as encrypting your banks web page. It could include in the encryption information about the creator and usage rights. A fairly simple solution to ensure user created content remains viable and not interfere with what Linden Labs refer to as "legitimate uses" of these programs.