New Copyright Threat Warning

Enkidu

I respect that you had the courage and honesty to post your side of it here, and I genuinely hope your claims about how you dispose of the materials is true.

At the same time, I hope that you can understand my concerns and how I might have found your setting up next to me seemed suspicious, whether you knew I was there or not.

I have not filed an AR with Linden Labs, or raised that matter with them at all, and I have not, as some here have claimed, been shouting about being ripped off.

I hope the feedback here has given you some indication that no matter what your motives, my concerns about the method might be justified, and that its given you some perspective on how we might feel about it all.

You mention how you only charge "a buck." I can appreciate that as I've had customers complain about my charging L$800 or so for a custom tattoo - a couple of bucks - for what can amount to 18 or more hours of graphics work that I would charge $40/hr for in RL. So yes, L$300 isn't much, and may be a part of the reason content creators seem so touchy about all of this. The economics of SL make that buck tough earned and sorely lost.

If you are true to your word and refuse your services to customers approaching you with my tattoos, I thank you.

P.S. just btw, to anyone following this thread, including Enkidu, the first thing I did after my conversation with him was google his name to see if any instances or complaints came up with respect to him, (they did not) and the second thing was to search the forums, so I knew on posting this here that he was a regular user and would I assumed eventually see this. I did feel an AR might do more harm than good, but at the same time didn't feel that doing or saying nothing wouldn't benefit anyone, including Enkidu. Hopefully this path might prove less damaging in the end than an eventual legal action against him by anyone and all of the ramifications.

He genuinely seemed convinced of his position when we first spoke, and I think the tone of his post here goes a long way to backing up his claims of reputable intentions in his dealings.

Thanks for the comments Rudee.

Setting up near you was purely coincidental. My GF wants to reform her Kajira Training School, and after looking at a number of parcels in different sims, the land at Fantasy Land seemed a great deal for the number of prims. Out of respect for your concerns, I won't be placing any adverts for my service on that land, and I do not operate out of the sim.

As I said, my main idea was to provide a service for Avi's that habitually use tattoos and brands and find it very difficult to deal with the layering issue. My largest customer base has been Gorean slave girls that want to have their brand and kef permanently on their skins to enhance the submissive nature of their roleplays.

I do appreaciate the amount of work that you guys put in, and that the relationship of Lindens/hour against $/hr is unfavourable. The time it takes me to create a skin, roughly 5 to 10 minutes is reflected in my low service charge. I'm sure you understand the process I use, and it does require some effort on my part, particularly in removing and rebuilding the alpha channels. I do not think it unreasonable to charge 800L for a tattoo. I don't, and never would copy your work to sell. That would be unscrupulous and unprofessional.

I will await the outcome of the AR you have filed, and will also see what advice my lawyer gives me on Monday. I am just a regular guy, and don't wish to be doing anything illegal.

Also, I will post a large sign in my store clearly stating that I cannot carry out any burns that involve your tattoos.

Regards.

As I said Enkidu, I did not file an AR, and won't, so don't worry about it.

We pretty quickly got to a "your word against mine" stand off in our talk to the point where I knew it wouldn't get either of us anywhere. As much my fault as any... I admit I got steamed and frustrated, but even so an AR can be very disruptive and I was mostly looking for some impartial back up of my points. Some validation, maybe even to myself, that I wasn't just being a tool.

There was a lot of good and valid legal reference in this thread, and if that in combination with a consultation with your legal advice can clear this up then I think that's an acceptable solution.

I'm also glad Enkidu posted a response. And that it was civilly responded to by Rudee. So in that tone I would like to apoligize for my rather hostile responses from last night. Now let me attempt to explain why I went off like I did.

First, take a look at the title of this thread. It's accusatory. It's alarmist......it's "OMG, we (us creators) are going to get ripped off again!!" By the title alone anyone could predict the various responses from content creators. Then the tone of the post (although presented in a somewhat mild way) expressed heavy doubt about Enkidu's intensions. It all but said that all content creators are in danger of losing their all their hard work to an unscurpulous exploiter of the system for a quick, easy buck.

Those two impressions I recieved pissed me off. Without much evidence at all a great deal of thought went into composing a thread to, basically, accuse someone of cheating or breaking some law (RL law or TOS). As it turns out none of that is justified (evidenced by Enkidu's, personnally, putting out his side of the story). Call it emotional for me.....because it is. Content creation in SL is very important to me. I happen to not want "money" for almost all my stuff..........and I understand others who do want to be compensated. But, I cannot accept the immediate, negative stances many creators express. It's guilty untill proven innocent. And the selfish attitude that seems to be prevailant among some, makes that innocence almost impossible to be proven. If someone can improve the content in SL then why not welcome it? Why immediately put out a "threat warning"?

That's what perpetuated my somewhat nasty posts last night.......and, again, I'm sorry for that.

This has indeed been a fascinating thread. I have just lurked and tried to learn from the positions that several people seem to have staked out. Discussions like this help me clarify my own thoughts about intellectual property.

I really don't want to rehash any of the legal and ethical issues. Peggy made an interesting comment in one of her posts, though, that provokes me to chime in on a corner of the conversation ....



This goes to the question of what art is, and who is an artist. It seems to me that in the old days, the answers were clear enough ... art was a physical painting on a real canvas, made in a garret somewhere by a guy with a brush, and people considered it art because it sold for a lot of money and hung in a museum. (OK, a bit over the top, but work with me here...) Even in those days, though, those apparent answers were NOT on target. The art was not the physical canvas, but the intellectual concept that led to its creation. And an artist didn't have to be (a) a guy, (b) famous, or (c) making any money from his creation. We just didn't pay much attention to anyone else.

The same is true now that there are loads of people creating images digitally. The art is not the "representation of 0's and 1's," but the concept behind that representation. The physical representation (the artwork) can be given away or sold, the way a painting in a museum was, but the art is always the creator's. Once the artwork leaves the artist's hands, it is no longer under his control -- it never was in the canvas and paintbrush days either -- but the artist always owns the underlying conception that is the art itself.

We can get confused more easily today because digital artwork is infinitely copiable and easily distributed and, as Peggy points out, disappears when the power goes off. Also, the spread of technology has made it possible for us to see the work of many talented people who are (a) not guys, (b) not famous, and (c) not making any money. Get past that confusion, though, and art is still art.

Setting aside the questions about copyright that led to this discussion, my point is that art is still one person's creative expression of his/her inner world, and an artist is a person who finds a way to convey her/his creative expression to others. The medium and the physical representation of that expression are certainly important to the act of conveying the art, but are one step removed from it.

Except both of those things are justified by the simple fact that they're both true, regardless of how benign or honorable the intentions are. Accessing SL content by any means other than through an SL viewer and breaking SL's DRM are both TOS violations. Breaking the DRM is also a DMCA violation. Selling derivative works without permission is a violation of US copyright law. Those aren't character judgments. By my understanding of the TOS and the law they're simply facts. No offense is intended to Enkidu who I believe has honorable intentions, and I very much appreciate his honesty here.

Considering that skins are the most pirated items in SL, and by extension skin makers lose more money to piracy than anyone else in SL, I think it's pretty easy to understand why we have some justifiable trust issues and tend to be a bit reactionary when someone advertises ripping our textures, stripping them of their permissions and attributions, and redistributing them for a profit with their name listed as the creator. If there was a way to permit this kind of service to operate without such high risk I'd be all for it, but the reality of piracy in SL is what it is. This is something that LL sorely needs to address through a more flexible system. Blaming skin makers for SL's limitations, for the law, or for wanting to protect their businesses, is simply unfair imo.

Nice Photoshop job.
Do you have the original files you used to make that image?

I'm SURE you wouldn't upload a file to an image sharing site like Photobucket that you didn't create.

I'm sure that... at the very least, you can provide proof that the image has a Creative Commons License, or it has been released into in the public domain.

After all, if you didn't make it yourself, you would have gained permission from the copyright holder before you uploaded it as a good, law abiding citizen. Otherwise you would be in breach of Photobucket's TOS.

"6.2 You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Photobucket Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Photobucket Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights or any other rights of any person, and (iii) the posting of your Content on the Site does not result in a breach of contract between you and a third party. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of Content you post on or through the Photobucket Services."

I mean, since I'm so wrong in my opinion about people who have actually purchased something having a right to it's fair use, I just know you wouldn't violate some one else's copyright by lifing an image from some web site, and putting an illegal copy of some one else's work in your personal library on Photobucket.

You wouldn't reveal yourself then as a complete hypocrite as well as guilty of copyright infringement, by ironically linking to that infringing image to support an argument for the absolute control of a work by the creator.

You wouldn't do that now. Would you?

Okay, JoeTom, you made me laugh...........and I got to pee!!!

sighs.

if i may make this perfectly clear here in forum for anyone running similar services to understand, i do not condone or approve (in the legal sense) using unlicensed, unpermissioned practices to meld skins with my Nyoko's Bodyoils (TM CP... gee sorry to take advantage of rights - and not =loopholes= - offered me... ;0). those left inworld who have sold outright my bodyoils, bare or melded, and other of my products know all too well that i back up my rights with action. using my work in a new 'product' is only my right. for better or for worse.

i've one ongoing collaboration with a skinmaker (although yet still not featuring her latest, grooviest line - i apologize that both parties suffer from all-too-full sl and rl lives already), and had previously proposed similar collaborations with a handful of skinmakers, to what i would describe as a rather 'cool' response (as in 'eh', not as in 'ayyyy'). i can understand this, as doing so is...

1) a helluva lotta work really, regardless of whether most of it is 'already done' (all possible composite combinations, uploads, skin prep, photography and vendor maintenance - and not all of it ever gets done 100% perfect the first time 'round... who does not echo chip's and other skinmaker's frustrations with the all-too-meager layers that we are provided? we are -all- waiting for that blessed day to come when we've got at least five complete head-to-toes freely-interchangable layers ;0), and

2) it requires at least one party to share their flat master tga's (maybe not the layered origs, but still is all one needs to go into an illegal business).

i do want to provide them; i fully understand the need for it - not to mention i had hoped to have at least doubled my meager earnings by now! (and provide some additional coinage for my collaborators). i am sorry that i have not filled that void already, but this does not make my work (or anyone else's work for that matter) automatically available for such practices.

your service could easily provide one client their skin and oil melded... then that client could give their (transferable) bodyoil set to their friend, who then later approaches you for service. and another... and all you ask for is a 'yes, i bought it'. (i don't mean to be presumptive, but for the more vocal set in this thread, let me save you the trouble and play out your little headgame for you... "gee golly gosh, do you stay up nights worrying about -that-?" no. "well okay then, -now- can i do this?" NO!)

and btw, you can't easily compare the practice of free music-trading and the profiteering of stolen product. you can't easily compare a single starving artist with the record companies. you can't easily compare $15.99 to $1.35.

let me be clear about one other point of copyright... -ideas- are not copyrightable. anyone who wishes can make their -own- bodyoil, from scratch... see if it takes you less time than it did for me to make the original version (40+ hours at least, probaby upwards of 60+ total). but it must be your own... not a trace, not a forgery, not a rip.

in short, make your own bodyoil, and your own skin, and sure, go knock yourself out. steal all the ideas you want - but make your own stuff. if you push me, i'll push back. don't waste your time flapping your mouth to me anymore about it, lol... ;0 if you're above the radar, i will find you.

phew okay ;0 - now having put my foot down - now i would recommend to many of you to look up trent reznor's recent interviews as he also muddles through the age of adapting to these things. no artist wants to be an asshole about it; we love our customers and friends, constantly working to make 'the next greatest thing' and we want to have a certain dignity along with our work. we live with the age of instant-burn mix cds and drag-and-drop-to-desktop browser images. but what you don't do is charge your friends for it. you don't put a sign out by the street saying 'crazy ivan's cd burning shack'. even the 'coolest' musician will come knocking on your door with a cease-and-desist.

As Chip has already stated, (among others) this is your opinion on the matter Peggy, your feelings about it and we all respect your right to that opinion, but lets try something to help you better understand our point.

Its great that making content for you is a matter of personal satisfaction and the joy of enriching other residents experience is reward enough. No one here wants to take away that away, but the entire point of law is to look outside of your own experience and protect everyone.

Suppose someone close to you, someone you care greatly about is disabled for whatever reason, accident, age, whatever, and on a grossly restricted income. That every dollar counts for them and that they sometimes have to choose between eating and paying the bills and that Second Life was their source of extra income. That even $40 scrounged in SL might make a difference in whether they can afford their prescriptions this month (remember that skewed linden dollar/RL dollar rate and how much they are working for every cent.)

Do we turn away from them because they are behaving greedily?

The entire point of the law is that it functions outside of emotion and opinion to protect everyone....

The person who has chosen to make luxury automobiles and their rights to make buckets of money, the non-profit organization who have chosen to make lap-top computers for third world children and distribute them cheap or for free. There can be no "yeah, but" in law because if everybody's rights are not protected, no one's are (including your right to give your work away.) Sometimes that takes great vigilance that might just come off as alarmist.


Nothing could be farther from the truth. You can not make a distinction between the rights of someone who works to create intellectual property and the person who sells groceries, again that's what law is about, and JoeTom's argument says that the grocer who expects you to pay for the food that so many hands have worked to produce and who's paychecks depend on - rich and poor - is exorcising "economic censorship" essentially penalizing another for being poor by simply expecting to get paid. And if they loose the right to be paid for their efforts, they stop and no one benefits from the process, including the potentially economically censored person who sweeps the floor.

Insisting for the creators of intellectual property that once they have produced their work and put it out into the world they no longer have any claim on it because it has no physical properties is simply ludicrous. Is your internet service provider only justified in charging you for the first time you open your browser. Should you only be expected to pay for the first time you go to a movie? There may be equipment and a delivery medium, but you're not leaving with anything. Anything that is but the idea, the experience, which is what you wanted isn't it - the entire point?

If everyone is simply to be compensated once - the first time - for their song, digital image, screenplay, then how do we decide what they are paid, what they deserve? We arrive at the value by demand, how often its wanted. And if someone who wants it goes and gets it from some other source than the person who owns the rights, then they are harmed. Period. They have lost both the income and indicators of the demand that give the very value to their work.

The miracle of the internet and places like Second Life is that one of the providers and beneficiaries of that experience might just be your granny and not a corporation. In at least a way it's the wall of economic censorship shattered.

Come on Peggy, JoeTom, embrace copyright law. Do it for yourself, for the geek in the basement down the block... do it for Granny!

My intentions in providing the service were primarily to enable people to enjoy their Second Life more. They were never to denude content creators of their justly earned rewards. I had considered that my work, as it only used legally bought items would be of benefit to creators as well as users in that it made their products more flexible and therefpre more desirable. However, having read through this thread, and taken on board the comments, often polemical comments, of all involved, I can see that there are some serious and genuine concerns out there.

To be honest, I had not considered the scenario that Nyoko raises of people passing a transferrable item around between their friends in order to utilise a service such as mine and effectively copy a non-copiable item. Whilst I think that the vast majority of people in SL are basically honest, the potential for this abuse does exist. As I cannot think of a way of dealing with this issue and ensuring that all of the items I use are legitimately owned and utilised, it seems that I have little option but to withdraw the service.

The debate on this has been interesting and clearly features some pretty polarised opinions. My view is that content creators DO have the right to protect their items from abuse WHERE the potential for that abuse exists. I do think that if a method could be found that rules out users being able to abuse the system over this issue of transferrability, then a service such as I provided would be greatly beneficial to all concerned.

So, back to the drawing board. I guess my next option will be to talk to skin and tattoo makers about legitimate uses for the process within their business models. I do think the process is the best method currently available to people that use tattoos and other layered products, given the deficiencies in Linden Labs basic architecture for avatars. I wonder if their is a skin makers or tattoo maker association on SL.

Not that I know of Enkidu. There are loosely held together groups, mostly enthusiasts, and of course the creator's product groups, but not much more than that.

I'd certainly be happy to talk to you about it, but I'll level with you, in looking for solutions myself and contacting skin makers, the most common reply I got to inquiries was none. I had made the decision to make tattoos. It was what I wanted to do and getting into skins as well seemed a huge undertaking and distraction, but because of this issue I was forced to look at it.

The search and lack of interest was frustrating but understandable. Even as I though about how to approach skin makers with the proposal I envisioned the conversations. Who passes the mod/trans texture of their product to the other (a stranger really) to do the work first, and do I trust them? What if I get into this with them and it all falls apart for whatever reason? Somewhere down the road there's an angry ex-partner who has all of my inventory and the ability to do anything with it. It all gets sticky fast.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that the work and effort you've put into starting, maintaining and promoting your endeavor will effectively be lost. Believe me I know how hard that all is and how it would hurt. At the same time, this was going to come sooner or later from some source, and really could have been at a time when you'd invested more and when the fallout could have been far worse.

Thanks for making the effort to understand and the sacrifice that meant!

Very pretty, heart warming words Rudee.......who could argue with those? Believe it or not, I completely understand what you are saying.......I actually have little disagreement with the law. It's the sometimes extreme position that some take when they even think there is a chance that someone just might take something from them. As I understand what the subject or your thread is you are extremely worried that you will loose something if Enkidu's business takes hold and he (and possibly others) actually profits from it. I could see your point IF Enkidu was not working with a product that has not already been paid for in full.....he is not. You are taking a very broad interpetation of the law and saying that no one has a right to do with their personal property (that fully paid for skin, tatoo, whatever) as they please. You are telling me that because you made it, it's yours and even though you sold it to me I cannot do as I please with it.......only you can do that. Your intellectual property are the files you created to make the end product.........not the end product. You own the "plans" (call it the 'concept) for the product......I own the copy of the end product. Enkidu is not taking anything from you.....he is modifying a product that is paid for (and owned) by someone else at their request. You are telling everyone who owns something purchased in SL that they cannot do that.....and spouting pretty words to justify your stance. Plus a healthy dose of copyright law.

I own a skin by Namssor Daquerre (Second Skin). It's probably the best skin I own. I wear it almost exclusively. It's no modify, no transfer (I completely understand why). However, suppose I find the "perfect makeup" for the skin. Now I know Namssor will do a custom makeup for me......but most skin makers will not. But, lets say that makeup is on a skin made by Chip Midnight. Will Namsorr take Chip's makeup and put it the skin I have bought? No........I know the answer to that one. But if I purchased the skin from Chip that has the makeup and merely want the two combined to make the skin of my dreams......I'm just stuck with two skins that neither are what I really want. Now, I've spent over $L4000 and don't have what I want. You are telling me, tough beans.....you control what I can have. It's your rights over mine.......I have no say so. I don't think the law was written that way........no matter how you word your words. Namsorr owns the intellectual property for the Second Skin I purchased......I own the copy that was sold to me. Chip owns the intellectual property for the skin I purchased from him.......I own the copy he sold me. All is fine and dandy, until my rights come into play. That copyright law protects me too. I did not steal the skins.........I did not break any law or violate any TOS. I want my product modified.....but I cannot do it. I can't do it myself nor can I have a third party do it for me.

Everyone played by the rules but someone got left out......the consumer. And the person who offers to do what I want done. The creators didn't get left out at all....in fact, they are making out like bandits. They claim rights I do not believe they have.......and threaten anyone who disagrees with them with their interpetation of the law. Virtual products like "items" in SL are unique.........people actually pay for them. What they get is a very limited use of the product........they can only be used in Second Life which is in 100% control. That is known to everyone......it's spelled out in the EULA. There is not a similar agreement between any seller or purchaser in SL........the implied agreement is that I do not violate any RL or TOS law when I purchase something. I cannot make copies to sell or give away without prior permission. It does not say I cannot modify it.........you (the creators say that). I know why you do that.......but if I can find a way to mod it then I don't think your copyright law is going to come down on me. You will threaten me with TOS violation.....but if I have the resources, I'm betting you will lose that fight too.

Why do you think Linden Lab has not taken the actions you demand of them? Ever think that maybe they know it will not hold up in any court in this country? I'm sorry you are stuck between a rock and hard place with your content.......I really am. But should I want that makeup put on my skin and I can do or have someone do it I will......and all you will be able to do is scream I'm cheating. I'm violating your rights. I'm an evil person. But, the other side of that story is YOU ARE DENYING MY RIGHTS.

BTW.........I do not like tattoos. I am very happy with Namsorr's skin and Chip's skin......as they are, WITHOUT any modifications to either. I used that makeup/skin mod as an example only. It's the point I'm trying to make. You guys need to learn how to deal with competition..........FAIRLY. Most who have posted in this thread have not learned that yet.

And, please, don't play to my sympathies.........I happen to be a very sympathic type. But, I know a BS scenario when I read it.

yea, im glad i didnt get into this one

im no lawyer, im just a guy making crap

and in most of the crap ive made (which is "physical" ive made it where people could mod it to fulfill their needs

do i care that the shelter dance floor is using different color patterns than the one i gave travis, or that my radio scripts are not playing the example stations i put in there

no, all i care about is someone bought it, is using it in broad public with my name on it, and is not selling it as a whole new product just because they made it to fufill their needs

sniffing textures out of vram, and snagging their uuid via scripted methods are nothing new, atleast someone was up front about their intentions

i view it much like buying a suit, does the mens warehouse get sued for tailoring someone else's design?

Interesting post

I just wanna add a thing

Lot of people is talking here about the laws like they were lawyers, my advise for experience is ask a RL lawyer specialized in copyright

When I started selling skins here in SL my main question was since where law protects me, since where Linden Lab protectecs me.

I asked advise to my cousin that is lawyer, she read the Linden Lab TOS and she told me write my own tos and make it clear people read before buy the skins, this is cos (obviously) linden lab just cares about their bussiness and even the real law and linden lab protects you there are flaws that can be exploited. This is curious cos there are lot and lot of skin shops that hasn't nothing, so my advise is better write your own tos especifying all the uses for what you sell, protect your busniness and maybe you would avoid lot of headaches and money.

People is talking here like law is god and not, law is not perfect and one of the main problems of it is that is slowly than internet. Also after my cousin looked Second Life warned me, even all this can protect you, this is really a "jungle" , and really since the day that all the designers and people joints forces and sue Linden Lab for realz or do something piracy wont change here in SL.

I'm no lawyer.......far from it. I am a fairly intelligent person though. I can read quite well. I understand words and know meanings of words. I also know what people are saying on this subject. As is the usual, people tend to pick specific portions of any issue and apply them to their personal liking...........that is what lawyers are paid to do. What I believe most here are doing is combining copyright law with patent law. As far as I know no one selling any product in Second Life has a patent on their product.........yet they tend to imply they do. All they have is a law protecting them from theft.

It's not theft if the person purchased something at the asking price. It's not theft if I see something and duplicate it with my very own resources. Photo sourced textures are legal by any interpetation of the copyright law......exact copies of the actuall texture is not, unless it's properly labeled as such (giving credit to the "legal" creator.......with that same legal creator's permision). But is the "duplication" when combined with another duplication an exact copy? I don't think so.......and I believe, from my limited reading for copyright law, the law will back that belief up. I suppose it all could be hashed out in a real court.......and, eventually, probably will be. But, I think the answer to the exact duplication when combined is not what people think it is.....it's not theft. It's not a copyright violation. It's an entirely new "creation" built on other creations. Evolution? LOL

Take care y'all..........I'm rambling now.

:0 i want you and all to know, i do not mean to send any sour grapes about this - i'm not comfortable with these sort of things, i don't think anyone is. but, i must draw the line with squeeky chaulk... ;0

it's not like a such service is without merit (especially the way things are right now), and it wouldn't suprise me if there probably still is a 'market demand' for it even whenever someday the lab upgrades our clothing layers to something more robust. there's still the underlying issue of whether one is doing so in collaboration with the originating artists, or whether doing it without permission and 'on demand' instead. as i explained, it's tough to find those willing to make such an arrangement, even artist-to-artist.

there's another thread going currently about 'success' in sl; i tend to shy away from such conversations for numerous reasons, but i will offer up to say here, like others mention in that thread, i also live below the poverty line. no matter how lucky and 'successful' i feel so far, i still can't offer my story as a 'success'. (some previous 'crazy callers' via IM, fishing for info, probably some thievies, gave me the impression that they felt envious of my 'success', but what they didn't realize is that -all- i have is 'happiness', not riches. ;0)

most single persons 'would not survive' in a stable way if they made even three times what i do (laughable maybe, but in the 'american' sense, if you get what i mean)... certainly not most families. i don't need much; i live in a fortunately economical rural spot, and have long tried reducing my 'carbon footprint' long before i even knew that was what it was called... ;0 but i hardly ever have exta mon anymore (esp. given gas prices) to go out rl with friends, see movies even, let alone concerts, or buy new clothes, or take care of what's left of my car... ;0 sorry for the gritty details, but for some these are the things they need to know.

something funny i'm reminded of, in the past, thieves would often call and try to strike up im conversation with me about their 'work'... as if i had any more time for them other than to file the DMCA... ;0 anyhow, the funny part being especially when -they- try to tell -me- 'how much money' i must make from my work (when i've frequently had to resort to living on cheese sandwiches - no joke), or even that i 'charge too much money' (with so many products less than the price of candy, the most popular original bodyoil still only 36 cents - yet they are worn constantly and 'last' so much longer than a candy bar)... it's quite ludicrous to have these grade-skewl-grammar'd power-trippers come yowling at you, about how -you- owe -them- something for -your own- creations. (one finally feels a bit of dylan come through, lol - "just because you like my stuff doesn't mean i owe you anything..." ;0)

without any financial margin to speak of then, i can easily say for a fact from my own experience, thieves significantly negatively impact the income of the creator. so i am serious about making the point - use other's works without their permission or blessing, and you are potentially seriously hurting others.

;0 the grid is not a museum, although we still offer works of art (especially bodyart ;0) for others to enjoy. this is not the gallery circuit, although one can sell (at the peril of texture-thieving) non-copyable limited runs, or only even one, 'like rembrandt' lol... ;0 besides, most of those painters made little or no money during their lives. only their paintINGS are worth millions now, long after their deaths. frankly, i'm not willing to wait that long to try to make a living with my talents. ;0 i've been going back and forth between too-stressful-yet-still-sooo-boring deskjobs that haven't increased my rate of pay in over fifteen years, and humiliating fast-food jobs straight from a kevin smith film. (which reminds me, back a few comments, about how 'we are their servants'... the other way of saying it is 'the customer is always right', but i am not serving fast food here. ;0)

:0 i apologize for so much candor - i think it's obvious that i'd rather skip prattling on what i have to deal with in rl, and just concentrate on the sl here... i'm embarrassed, but whatever... ;0 just to offer up a bit of my story for those to consider what's going on, and what impact it can have upon other's lives. here's my plate; here's what's on it.

there are at least a handful of artists in sl who've commented in other threads, they give up on working in sl because it 'becomes work' and 'thieves suxxorzzz' and all that, and not any fun for them anymore. believe me, despite all the thieves and heartaches and non-richness and cheese sandwiches so far, it's still all so much more fun (and beats cleaning toilets at wendy's ;0) - and if it weren't for that, at least i'd have my dogged persistence to fall back on! ;0

put your heart and thought into the things that you make, do your best to make smart decisions, and you will find success, if not slam-bang riches... ;0 i wish you (and all) best of luck with future endeavors.

Nyoko.........you are far richer than most. Though I most likely make a better material living than you I am not nearly as "rich" as you.

Take care........god bless.

I absolutely agree with you there, and I really appreciate your honesty and candor, and apologies if I come across too stridently. Texture based products as a primary business in SL is very high risk. Once the raw textures or a full permissions skin get out there they spread like wildfire. Because of that it's hard to be trusting. Giving people you don't really know the green light to extract your textures is a bit like giving the keys to your house to a stranger. I have no reason to doubt your intentions, but I wouldn't want to hand you the raw textures if you asked for them. Even without that worry, there's still the issue of people with transferable items ending up with one to give away for the low price of your service. There's also the issue of the creator attribute being stripped away.

I'm as frustrated as anyone else that people can't use their skins as flexibly as they'd like. For a couple of years I allowed people to have any tattoo or makeup that they wanted added to the skins they bought from me. I'd contact the creator to make sure they owned it and then coordinate with them to get the necessary texture and I'd do the composites with their permission. It was a very popular service. Some people would get a half dozen things added every week or two. I have every custom version I've ever done still in my inventory - hundreds of them. It started to take up so much of my time that I had to stop offering the service. There's a definite need for that sort of service, but the way SL is set up, and dealing with mostly anonymous people, makes it problematic to trust it to a third party.



I completely understand your frustration, Peggy. That's the part that seems to get lost when this issue comes up. I'm not telling you tough beans, because I find the situation every bit as frustrating as you do. It's tough beans for all of us, and I feel like skin makers and other texture artists get blamed for the limitations of the system as if we have control over it, but we don't. Believe me if we did it would have been overhauled years ago! I can only speak for myself, but I think everyone wishes you could do exactly what you want with the skins you buy. People just don't want to hand out the keys to their houses just so someone can wear a tattoo and underwear at the same time. That that's our only option is testmant to how poorly thought out the avatar system was.

Chip, I guess I have yet to get the simple point across that I understand what and why the situation is the way it is. I just get all bristled up when the "copyright" crap comes up......it's all about the creators. Nothing about the comsumers. I do not violate your rights.............I violate no ones right with content either in SL or anywhere else. But, there is a customer side to the argument.

I understand your side......I've said it a couple times. But, sometimes you don't seem to understand my side. But, now I think you might have taken a look at where I'm coming from.

Thank you.

I won't say that it's morally or legally right (most likely not the latter and dubious on the former) but I personally find it very hard to have sympathy for skin creators for this type of thing considering how overpriced both original skins and, if provided, the services to add tattoos or whatever are. This is especially true of those skin creators that sell 5 different versions of their skins at L$2000 or more apiece each with only tiny changes like one shade different eyebrows or a tattoo and either charge you extra to buy a "package" with that extra stuff or more commonly and even worse make you buy each skin one by one just for that tiny little change thus netting them an exorbitant amount for them putting almost no extra work (which should be the basis of their price, work time + work costs + material costs + margin = cost) So that's my little rant on the topic.

Gordon, that's another thing you can attribute to limitations of the system. It would be nice to be able to sell add-ons packaged separately and at a low price, but that isn't possible for the same reason that this thread exists. You couldn't apply them yourself. They have to be sold as full skins, and priced accordingly, otherwise people would just buy the add-ons for the small price and very few skins would ever sell enough to create a good return on the time invested.

I used to price makeups for my skins as add-ons for a low price to people who already owned the skin, but that meant people couldn't just buy them and get them immediately. They had to buy a voucher for what they wanted, then I'd have to look them up in my ledger to make sure they owned the base skin, and then I could send it to them. People would finally get their skin 2-24 hours after they bought it. People prefer being able to get their purchase right away.

There are systemic reasons for why skins are sold the way they are, and it's another thing I wish could be changed.

Sell the base skin as M/C/NT and sell the different make-ups as M/C/NT textures.

Copy the skin, wear the copy, edit appearance, click skin, drop new make-up texure on the skin, save and done.

Quite easy to do and there's no need for you to be involved other than setting up the posters.

Kitty is correct. To actual create make-up packs for skins would be pretty easy following what she says. Skin makers must be pretty savvy about the workings of SL and the texturing, and so must know this. My conclusion is that they choose to trumpet out these excuses and blame LL as a cover for their greed. It's bad enough having to pay up to 5000L for a skin, without being further ripped off for small changes to the face. You are effectively being made to pay again for the body textures which are identical.

Now the makers will no doubt bleat about needing to maintain control over their textures and not give them out raw, and about this issue of attribution. To me that's a red herring. You can't rez a skin so that people can right click it and see the creator, you can only wear it. No one but the owner can ever really sees the creator, and under Kitty's system, that would still be the original maker anyway.

As to textures. To me, the cat is out of the bag. I have a fair idea of the tool that Enkidu is probably using, and anyone could use it to capture ANY texture at ANY time. The fact that LL have made the system open source enables all sorts of clever programmers to exploit it as such. Any texture can be taken as full perms by any user if they so wish. The only reason that they aren't is that, 1. most SL users are honest and 2. Most users are unaware of the tool in question.

I think that if Enkidu wants to really help the multitude of users out there, he should publish detailed instructions on what tools to use and how to use his process. Make it available to all. Then, if they choose to use it in breach of copyright, that's their lookout. After all, if he is stopping doing it, keeping it a secret serves him no commercial advantage.

I sympathise a little with Nyoko's point on transferring items, but she chooses to make her items transferrable. If her oils were M/C/NT, then it wouldn't be an issue.

I think that content creators should concentrate more on providing for the needs of the 99% of honest users rather than getting all hot and heavy with the tiny majority that they think might be abusing the system.

Overpriced?

Something which costs 1000 Lindens is what - 4 US dollars or so?

I haven't yet developed the skill in texturing to make a skin: and I'm no art slouch. So it's years of art practice to even be qualified to do it.

Then sixty or eighty hours of work to make a new skin. To make a new makeup onto an existing skin would be at least eight hours' work, to meet my own quality standards. And I'd probably take more.

So we're talking a week or two of full-time work, not necessarily including the makeups.

Now, let's presume you have a small shop, it's mainland, and it's the only land you own. Premium membership, paid annually, is $1.4 USD. (rounded up.) At 260 Lindens/USD, that's 364 Lindens/week.

To get onto the middle of the third page of classifieds with the keyword 'skin' will cost you 1501 Linden/week.
Your places listing is 30 Linden/week.

So before you get any money back at all, you have to get 1895 Lindens every week, without fail. If you have five skin ranges in your tiny shop, that's 379 Lindens a week from this skin alone.

Let's presume the skin artist spends four hours a week helping customers and doing administrative & merchandising work around his shop. Given how long some customers like to take with you, that's probably a low figure - but we'll use it.

Federal Minimum Wage in the USA is $6.55/hour. Multiply that by four hours, and our arbitrary 260 Lindens/USD, and we get $6812 Lindens to give you minimum wage.

The shop now needs to take in $8707 Lindens a week just to give you minimum wage, before you create anything. Or $1741.4 per skin, given our 5-skins figure. Or 2 sales for this skin at $1000 Lindens per skin.

And somehow, each skin needs to bring in $136, 240 Lindens on top of that to give you minimum wage for the eighty-odd hours you spent making it. 136 sales.

I will grant that that's far from impossible - in the last four months, I've made 63 sales from my most popular product line. Given the numbers here, and the two-sales-a-week just to break even for that week, that would bring me up to 47 sales towards that 136.

Only another 45 weeks to go before I (hypothetically) make minimum wage!


Lots of things get cheaper when you work digitally. People, and peoples' time, does not.



*snort*

Yeah. $4 or $8 USD per skin is soooo overpriced.