New Copyright Threat Warning

Amen, brother!


I can't speak to what goes on in LL's collective heads, but I can share some of what I've observed. When I was at their San Francisco headquarters for SL Views a couple years ago, a group of Lindens asked me what would be my top 3 wishes for bettering SL. The first thing on my list was a host of avatar improvements. Primary among these were more sensible UV mapping and more flexible layer configurations. (Ideally I'd want to replace the existing model with a brand new one, but since that's a taller order, I mainly focused my comments on relatively painless ways to improve the existing one.)

The Lindens who were present listened, and then one of them said something to the effect of "So you're an avatar guy, OK." And then the discussion went a different direction to other topics.

I can't say for certain what that meant, but the (unfortunate) feeling I got at the time was "OK, so there are 'avatar guys' and then there are Lindens". My impression is that while they do recognize that the avatar needs improvements, I don't think they feel it's anywhere near as important or urgent as we 'avatar guys' do.

I can't necessarily say I blame them. The current avatar, flawed as it is, does at least work reliably and predictably, while there are plenty of other aspects of SL that don't. If I were in charge, I'd probably want to devote the majority of resources toward grid stability, viewer improvements, etc., just as the Lindens are doing now.

But at the same time, come on; we've had the same freakin' model for five years now. In computer years, the avatar is even older and more decrepit than John McCain. It's high time to add a new one. Surely SOMEBODY can be assigned to do it, or even contracted to do it if no actual Lindens are available. Heck, I'd do it for free if I could find the time, just so I'd have one less thing to complain about.

And it's not like the old one would have to go away in order to add something better. Just insert the new one to exist along side the old, and let content creators design for both. Sooner or later, the old one will naturally weed itself out, as consumers will of course want to use the better one. Old school content creators would bitch and moan, as they always do whenever they need to learn new skills to keep up with the times, but at least they would't be out of business over night. They'd have plenty of time to learn how to make the new model work for them. The playing field would be totally even for everyone in that regard.

For a little while, things were looking promising. While I was at Electric Sheep, I was in semi-regular communication with somebody at a third party company that specializes in human models. He claimed that they were working with LL to incorporate one of their best known products into SL as a new avatar model, and that their current software was also being adapted to incorporate the existing SL avatar. Were his claims true, it would have been really exciting, probably the best thing to happen to SL ever, in my opinion.

But it's been well over a year since I fell out of touch with that guy, and all signs are that none of what he was talking about have actually happened. SOME SL-focused stuff has surfaced here and there in that company's software products, but nothing like what we'd been discussing. I have no idea if any of that stuff is still in the works, or even if it ever really was. I reamain hopeful, though. That's about all I can do.

Meanwhile, some of the stuff that's going on with Open Sim, avatar-wise, is really cool. With any luck, such competition will drive LL toward making the right decisions. I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

Meh, old story.

The bottom line is that technically, it's illegal due to DMCA. Prior to DMCA it would not have been: only the fact that it's digital makes it an infringement. Someone is going out of their way to thwart protection mechanisms to make a copy, and that is specifically forbidden. Otherwise it would simply be a copy for personal use, similar to my asking someone to make a personalized CD mix from songs on CDs I've bought, for my personal use.

Who cares if he charges for it? He's providing a useful service. Skin makers are far too busy to do this or it wouldn't be a problem.

The guy is simply providing a service that should be built into SL: a simple "bake" feature to create a new skin from whatever you're wearing, allowed only if it's all copiable, the result being transferrable only if it's all transferrable. Would anyone object to a feature like this?

IMHO, it would be morally wrong to render this service unless all sources (skin, tattoo, clothing) are copiable, and with the result being no-trans if any sources were. If any source material is no-copy, then it's violating the intent of the SL permissions.

But as I said, it's technically illegal anyway.

*laughs* I've pretty much used every opportunity when LL has asked me for my opinion about anything to lobby for changes to the avatar system... which is probably why they haven't asked for my opinion in a very long time. Certainly they have other important things to worry about, but after five years I find it very hard to be sympathetic.

Dear Just-us System .. this cartoon guyon this website just copied my primf**k box with pretty pictures on it and I am entitled to damages of 0.003 American Cents times 12 times.

I vunt mah Money - I neeed it badly!

Found a Jira, and only 10 votes:

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-4459

If you'd like a legal way to do this, please vote for this Jira entry. Needs a little more elucidation, but I think it's the best approach.

If you think it's a bad idea, make a comment saying why. (Is there a Jira entry to add "vote against" feature to the Jira system?)

Knowing seamstresses and taylors in first life, if anybody tried to claim 85 hours on anything short of a wedding dress, you'd know you were getting fleeced...

So which is it? Is it possible, or is it the truth? It's not both, because those two statements you separated are directly related, unless you're overestimating talent and underestimating the market.

Well yeah, because everyone knows that sewing and working in Photoshop are *exactly* the same.

For me, a typical skin starting from scratch takes about 20-30 hours. Adding, uploading, assembling, doing screenshots, and vendor packaging 20-30 makeup and hair color variants adds many more hours. If I were to bill for my time what I do in the real world (for using exactly the same tools and skill set) it would be in the neighborhood of $5000. Some of my skins have made a reasonable return on the time invested (but nowhere near real world rates). Many of them never will.

Aren't renowned for their foresight, or don't mind risking a Flag Day to bring on what is ultimately in the long term an improvement? Having worked in the IT field before, the way the Lindens operate feels like the latter.

That being said, it'd be nice if they either made the shape itself modifiable into non-human avatars, or add appropriate attachment points (paw/skull/tail attachment points for the furries come immediately to mind).

That being said, even US small claims courts refuse to take cases where the disputed amount is under $20+legal fees.

You've made some difference, I was at the office hours just a few minutes ago and on some web issue we ended up at the page with your templates on it so the Lindens aren't entirely ignoring resident's whims and innovations.

Out of my friends who build fursuits and avatars, they can usually whip out the avatar version in considerably less time (and usually use the avatar as a prototype for the fursuit because it is easier and faster to work with)



Practice makes perfect; you'll get that time down.

OK, Baloo, show us the pro quality skins you can make in 10 hours.

Oh look, everyone! There was a shark in that pond we just jumped over!

A fursuit and a human skin are completely different projects. Human skin is the single hardest thing there is to texture convincingly, mostly because everyone is intimately familiar with what real skin looks like, so we're programmed to spot "fake skin" instantly. To make a skin look anywhere near realistic is a highly labor-intensive process, even in the best of environments. There's absolutely no way around that. Throw in the fact that SL is far from an ideal platform for this sort of thing, and it gets even harder.

You'd do well not to try to comment on subjects about which you obviously have no first hand experience. It would be one thing if you had said "I make skins, they look great, and they only take me ______ hours." But to insist that merely knowing a few people who make fur somehow qualifies you to speak intelligently on how long it should or shouldn't take to make a skin is ludicrous.

Had you ever made a skin yourself, you'd know that to spend 20-30 hours on one is hardly outlandish. Heck, I've spent longer than that texturing inanimate objects before, which generally speaking, is infinitely easier than making skins.



Baloo, do you have any idea who you just said that to? The fact that you're telling Chip Midnight of all people to "practice" is perhaps the most laughable thing I've read in many months, either on these forums or elsewhere. You might as well tell be telling Michael Phelps to take swimming lessons.

Not that Chip needs me to defend him, but just so you know what an ass you just made of yourself, let me clue you in on who he is. He's too humble ever to say this himself, but Chip is perhaps the most respected skin maker in all of SL, and he has been a successful professional 3D artist since before SL even existed. He wasn't kidding when he said earlier in this thread that he was the first person ever to make realistic skin in SL. He really and truly was. I was there when his skins first hit the grid, and I watched as his work literally changed people's expectations of what was possible and the common measure of what was considered to be "good". Chip's work instantly inspired countless others to try and do the same, and the entire SL world changed and bettered as a result.

Be careful in whose direction you cast your misguided stones.

hehe, I wasn't in any way offended and I took it as purely well-intentioned, but I do appreciate the kind words. There's truth to practice helping speed things up a lot. The time it takes me now compared to a few years ago is about half. I doubt I'll ever get any faster than where I'm at now though, short a radical change in tools or workflow (or some sort of time bending device), but ya never know.

Feel free to spot me in SL, I know it can be done since a friend built mine in two afternoons.

Not to mention helping thousands (including myself) with his time, expertise, template files and tools.

Look at his post numbers. That's time he's spent when he didn't have to or need to helping people who were trying to sort this all out - above and beyond the time he's noted on his skins and clothing.

This is far from a clearcut case to me. Given the nature of the "copying" laid out here, this looks an awful lot to me like "fair use" -- limited to the parts having to do with someone purchasing a skin and a tatoo, and getting a 3rd party to modify, blend or remix them.

If it's NOT fair use, then I suppose that putting an applique on an outfit I own in RL would also constitute copyright infringement.

No wonder SL has been steadily losing interest for me.

Creating derivative works and selling them without the permission of the IP owners is most definitely a violation of US copyright law (not to mention the separate DMCA and TOS violations for circumventing the DRM). It's very clear cut, and has nothing at all in common with your example of modifying a piece of real world clothing (which isn''t covered by copyright law or the DMCA). It's easy to get confused since SL items are analogs of real world functional things, but they aren't the same so comparisons aren't very meaningful. They're digital art. Someone who did it themselves with things that they personally owned might get a pass under fair use, but they'd still have violated the DMCA and TOS.

Of course the standard IMNAL disclaimer applies.

No. $4 per skin I purchase. I can enjoy an individual makeup or tone, I don't need to have them all.



Oh, for each given product line I'm sure there's a lot of reuse. There is in mine. But I also collate my sales per product line. My figures that implied however many weeks until profit (72? 73?) were based on per-product-line for my store.



If so, then for those major stores and major skin makers, my figures are very wrong. Again, that's why I posted every part of my argument - so that those who disagreed with the premise could correct it.

But for smaller stores, my figures are correct. I took the number of sales of my most popular product line directly out of my GNUCash.




I turn the question the other way around. Why should people expect an artist to work for less than minimum wage?
Heck, why should people expect ANYONE to work for less than minimum wage?

And to rephrase it yet again: why should people begrudge an artist the price of a latte for a copy of their work?


Yes, some hobbyists do things purely for the love of it, and release their work at low prices. Some hobbyists do things purely for the love of it, and release their work for free.

In some cases, I'm one of them. I've posted tutorials that took me all day to do and a week to research, and put them up for free. I've written open source software. I've made freebies in SL. I'll do it again. I often teach for free, or run impromptu classes.

But I do like to be appreciated when I make good work available for free, or for a pittance. I think everyone does.

And I don't like the expectation that artists (or anyone) shouldn't be paid fairly for their work.



Geez, Rollig. Compared to me, you're a sprinter!

And while I sell a few more than 2 or 3 a month, I've not yet made enough Lindens to be worth withdrawing into RL cash. Though I have bought myself one skin. One skin tone in one makeup, mind you. I meant it when I said I don't need to have them all.



The JIRA entry (that looks like the major entry) for this is https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-1449

Chip has commented, and presumably voted for it. (We don't get to see who's voted for what JIRA issue.) I've voted but not commented.

If you haven't voted for it, and you want something like that system, go vote!



Not quite the same JIRA, but worth voting for too IMO. YMMV, of course.




Given the uproar in this thread and elsewhere about skins that cost $1K, I think the market for $136K (but exclusive) skins is probably very, very small.

The only person I've met who's seemed interested in paying a living wage for work in SL is actually after a complex scripting/building project.

I do stand by my statement that I'd be happy to do work on that basis, though. And yes, for a proper wage, I'd give over all rights to a product: as long as I were commissioned on that basis, and everyone knew the deal in advance.

I'm just doubtful that there is a market for it.

Does that clarify what I mean?




And also the Berne convention. So those who've said it's 'only because of the DMCA' that it's illegal - sorry, no. Derivative works violate Berne.



And neither am I.

Sorry, no. The Berne convention simply states that copyright is automatic on fixing a work in some medium. It says nothing about whether an owner of a copy is allowed to mar, disfigure, or modify that work, or hire someone else to do it. Note that this is different from someone distributing copies of a derivative work, which is clearly a violation.

But in this case, the person offering the service is providing a service, not "distributing" derivative works. At least, that's what the defense would argue, and it would have a good case. It's not a clear issue, and different courts would probably decide differently. However, it is a pretty clear violation of DMCA because the method specifically violates mechanims intended to keep the original work uncopied.

If I bought a copy of a Mickey Mouse poster and hired someone to draw a moustache on it, would I be violating Disney's copyright? Of course not.

Note that this is unrelated to laws that disallow disfigurement of original works of art. These are mechanical copies, not originals. No damage is done to Disney or humanity when I have someone paint a moustache on a print Mickey.


On another note, let's not quibble over whether skins are worth what they cost. Vote on that subject with your Lindens. It's completely beside the point. We all might agree that Cadillacs are horrible cars, not worth the cost of a bicycle, but that doesn't give anyone the right to steal them. If you don't like the cost of pro skins, then simply don't buy them, and stop whining.

If LL implemented the JIRA I mentioned above, that allowed us to bake layers together, would that be a copyright violation? I certainly don't think so, for the same reason that showing the avatars with clothing or tattoos is not.

Yep, definitely. I think it would depend on if the judgment was based on intent or the actual mechanics of it.

And yes, I did vote for that Jira.

Weighing in a little late, I'd side with Lear here, with the addition that in Europe (Northern, at least), circumventing DRM is *not* illegal in itself, with the precedent set by the "DVD-Jon" case, who hacked the DVD encryption to be able to play DVDs on any player. Indeed, trying to restrict the customer's use of the rights s/he has already bought (such as limiting it to 5 players, or one format or the like) may well be illegal, and is in the balance currently, with Apple having been forced to loosen up some of their insane licensing since it violated basic consumer rights here.

So I'm fairly certain the principle of the service originally discussed would be legal here. There's the ethical question about asserting that the customer actually has the rights, and is not passing around a transfer-version as has been mentioned, but that's strictly speaking on the shoulders of the customer.
With the ToS building upon the US DMCA, it's probably a moot point, though, since, as Lear pointed out, it would be a ToS/DMCA violation to circumvent the permissions system (even when not keeping a copy), regardless of whether it is a copyright violation to actually do the merging.

I principally side with the European interpretation, finding that the DMCA tramples consumer rights in this case, but as Enkidu puts it, we cannot pick and choose which laws we want to follow...