Ethics: Photosourcing, copyright and lawsuits.

Do I dare open this proverbial can of worms?

Photosourcing falls into several categories:

1.) Images which fall into the public domain
2.) Images which fall into fair use
3.) Images which are protected by copyright


I seriously doubt that a company would pleased to see a top SL designer profiting off of their designs or images. What I mean by this are the people who take an image of a dress or other article of clothing and practically copy and paste it into the template with a few minor alterations. I find this dishonourable and outright digital theft. I generally try not to buy such clothing on SL. I am willing to pay more Lindens for quality and orginality and if I do that I will be extremely pissed if I come across a site that has a dress or outfit I purchased thinking it was an orginal when infact it was merely a copy and paste. Saying that most designers do this is not a valid excuse. When my kids give me that lame excuse I tell them what my grandmother used to say to me, "If your friends went to jump off a bridge would you follow?" These days the answer probably would be "yes" but that's besides the point.

If a designer is going to use a clothing image to create an SL article at the very least make an apha of the image after cutting, etc and then delete the original layer and create an entirely new design from it as opposed to outright stealing. Or cut and crop the image enough so that its not easily recognizable. There are infinite images on the net which fall under public domain, such as fabric, notions, art, etc etc etc.. Take the time to search and stay legal. Better yet invest in a tablet mouse and draw. I'm not asking you to recreate a replica of the Mona Lisa. No need to be an artist to draw some basic patterns inside the clothing templates filling them with legal public domain images or studio created images that you made yourself. Try it and watch your confidence and creativity grow.

Another possibility would be to offer a link to the website of the original designer offering inworld users the chance to purchase this item outside SL. That might be an agreement a designer could arrange with the original creator outside the realms of virtual reality. I seriously doubt that many will do this but I feel a tide of change coming soon. Be prepared. The more SL continues to grow outside companies will realize the greater potential of their display images and could offer them for sale.. why not? This seem more legitimate and fair to me.

Stop the hypocricy in SL, designers accusing each other of stealing their designs or textures when in many (not all) cases it wasn't their texture/design to claim in the first place. For those of you original artists out there, protect your work with copyright. Its fairly easy to copyright your original art, music, etc. Its not so easy to copyright a 3D object created inworld because the user is not able to save it to the computer disc. Linden Lab claims that we own our creations yet give the prim crafters little or no ability to copyright the designs. Hopefully this will change in the near future.

Finally, don't expect the Lindens to be the copyright police because the burden of responsibility falls upon you. There will always be theft, copycats or copybots, hacks and a way to take that which rightfully belongs to another. Protect yourself.




NOTE: In my personal opinion, I feel that if I pay for a skin or other item that I have the right to mod it for personal use and feel that a recent well known SL designer was treated unfairly for modifying her legally acquired skin and should return to SL head held up high. Should I cower under a stolen rock texture now? I think not. *smiles*

It's not "easy" to copyright your work. Any original work you do is AUTOMATICALLY your copyright, whether you do anything about it or not.

Yes and no. Everything you do is copyrighted from the moment of conception however you need proof of that and the best proof is to copyright. You are mistaken, its extremely easy to copyright anything these days. Go to a copyright agency online. I live in France and use www.copyrightfrance.com . Usually most agencies, especially in the USA but basially anywhere in the world you can do bulk copyrights for less than 20USD. I know what I am talking about madame since I've been dealing with copyright to protect my writing or music for years.

Yes there is also the poorman's version of where you mail yourself a registered or unregistered envelope and put it in a safe place such as the bank, lawyer, or fav shoe box hidden somewhere in a dark and dusty closet (unopened of course).

If you are American, also check out: www.copyright.gov

UK people and other internationals: www.protectmywork.com

Some things to keep in mind about this - clothing designs aren't covered by copyright. At most they can be covered by design patents, but those are pretty limited. Simple design changes are enough to circumvent them. This is why there's such a thriving business in designer clothing knockoffs in the real world. Textile patterns are covered by copyright, however.

A photograph of an article of clothing from a web store is copywritten, but that copyright is only for the photograph itself, not the subject of the photograph. Pulling those photos and using them as-is elsewhere on the web or in print would be a clear violation of the copyright. Sampling from that photograph where the end result is an artisitc representation of the photo's subject is not a clear violation, especially when you consider that it's likely to end up substantially altered and repainted. I'm not saying it's not a copyright violation. I'm saying that it's a big gray area and I'm really not sure if a court would uphold copyright in that case.

Where sampling is concerned I think the determining factor in these kinds of cases is the extent to which the original is changed, and that again would be the photograph as a whole, not the subject of the photograph which the copyright doesn't cover. Since almost all aspects unique to the photograph are gone when made into an SL clothing texture (the composition of the photograph, primarily) my guess is that it would be a difficult case for the copyright holder to win. This is only my opinion and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Chip, Yes SL creations can most certainly be copyrighted because we are primarily dealing with intellectual property. Since the www came along copyright law has been a revolving door and infinitely evolving. Images of a template used in SL could be submitted for copyright protection- NOT a patent as you have said because this is an image and not an actual physical design which one invented/created/owns. Of course if one didn't have rights to the image they used in the first place they don't have the right to copyright it. In the case of virtual reproduction, a photo and "subject" as you refer to it are inseparable merely because the photo in this case is the design.

Copyright law varies from nation to nation. With many top SL fashion designers profiting from the works of a photo taken of someone else's hard work I'm sure this could be a whole new legal playground for the lawyers and experts to have fun with especially when big money is involved. As I said previously with SL growing by leaps and bounds I wouldn't be surprised to soon see some legal issues resulting from copyright infringement.

Ethically, I find it appalling that users would simply just rip off the image of a dress, pants, suit, etc without so much as giving credit to the owner of the original photograph or designer especially when the image used hasn't changed much and its still easily recognizable. When an image or design is copywritten, we don't have the authority to come along and deface that image without proper consent. I paid a large sum for an article of clothing once and later by accident discovered the exact photo used for the garment. I was flabbergasted that the item I had purchased thinking it was an original basically turned out to be a copy a paste with some minor alterations.

Ironically, some of the same designers who scream foul play are indeed hypocritically guilty of copyright infringement themselves.

I would be more surprised that there were minor alterations unless what you bought was just poor workmanship. I'm not surprised you found the source. If the source was not legal, then shame on the designer.

Most established SL designers know where to go to get legal professional quality source material for thier SL designs. There are really only a few places to get it without spending prohibitively copius sums of money to obtain source material. There is nothing wrong with that. It does, however make some end products look similar if the designers pull from the same source. That is another challenge, and one of the reasons why most people don't talk openly in these forums about thier sources. It's a very competative market, and most SL designers want to be original (or the first to use the source).

Chip , for example, does beautiful work manipulating his source material to fit the crude shape of the avatar polygons with all thier distortions. It's not an easy task, and what he produces ARE original works of art that other SL designers wouldn't be able to pull off with the same source material.

Most of the clothing I've made is photosourced. Why? Because it's a fun challenge to see how realistic a virtual version of something I can make - that "something" being a real world article of clothing that isn't covered by copyright. I've done both photosourced work and original designs. Getting a high quality seamless texture from photosourcing is actually more challenging. But then I'm a technically minded person so I find the technical challenge of something more satisifying than the design aspect. My point was that the copyright argument when it comes to real world fashions being replicated in SL isn't really the right argument since real world clothing designs can't be covered by copyright.

Now, having said that, if someone takes someone else's hand painted texture or real world artwork and duplicates it exactly, in a manner that puts their recreation into competition with the original for sales/income, that's clearly a unethical thing to do. On the other hand, if someone makes a beautiful virtual version of a Gucci dress I don't see that as so clearly unethical since it's really no different than someone using their modeling skills to make a 3d replica of the Chrysler building. If in doing so they sample from photographs of that Gucci dress, the photograph isn't art. It's a purely utilitarian document of what the dress looks like for purposes of showing it to prospective buyers. Using it as a design aid or even for direct sampling in no way competes with the photographer's livelihood nor appropriates their artistry. If someone's going to photosource, they're going to do it from photos of clothing shot with flat lighting on a mannaquin with front and back views. That's not art any more than a xerox is art. Now photographs of clothing shot on living models that are posed can be considered art, but the level of difficulty of using those kinds of photos for sourcing SL textures is extremely high.

Certainly the ethics of photosourcing is a valid argument to have, but it's by no means the black and white issue you're making it in my opinion.

I recognize photosourcing in the creations of designers across the table, not only the unestablished ones so that statement is false.

Secondly to you Chip I'm most certainly not making it a black and white issue as you may have wrongly assumed. I explained myself rather well in my first post that what I am against most is when a virtual designer in a 3D world whether it be SL or something similar takes a copyrighted photograph and then copies and pastes it with a few minor alterations thus calling it their own.

I fully expect designers to defend their actions by white washing it, sugar coating it or whatever you want to call it because no doubt I'm stepping on some feet here. Its not wrong as long as you are making a living from it, right? I seriously wonder how much of a percentage of the income a designer derived from using the photographer's image unathorized should be shared with the original author of the photograph. I doubt many have asked for permission either.

Please let's not twist words here.. I am directly speaking about using images which are copyrighted and not images which fall into the public domain category and I know for a fact many consumers would back me up on this. Wrong is wrong and if you want to call that black and white, then so be it because I don't back down on my stance. I find it especially hypocritical when a virtual designer who is using unauthorized easily recognizable copyright images from the net can accuse others to steal their work when infact they are guilty of that which they falsely accuse others of. That's another can of worms. This thread is about using unauthorized copyright images for material gain and wealth. I see it all over SL and I find it pathetic. Its not ok for someone to steal the virtual designers work but its ok for them to steal the work or copyright image of another and then actually profit from it.. I think not.

Let's ask Nike or Gucci or some other famous brand names how they feel to see their brands, designs, etc exploited in the matrix. Please don't tell me its ok to copy these designs or clothes without permission. Some of these designers are making 50K and up or even 100K USD a year and you don't think Gucci would want a part of that? *laughs* Don't be so sure that designers can't sue the people who exploit their unique and original designs in virtual reality. Copyright law is constantly rewriting itself on the internet and some big company may just decide to make a historical case which sets the precedence on intellectual or virtual property.

Its also my responsiblity/choice as a consumer or designer to not support or feed the ones who steal. Some call it photosourcing. I call it theft.

One more thing, let me restate that I am referring to easily recognizable copyrighted images (or even brand names), not images which have been mutated beyond recognition or images which fall into public domain. Thanks.

I'm not glossing, white-washing, or sugar coating. Clothing designs can't hold a copyright. Copyright law doesn't cover them. Taking a photograph of a piece of clothing does not give the photographer a copyright on the clothing within the photograph. Any real world clothing manufacturer can take a designer article of clothing and copy it without any royalty or even right of attribution owed to the clothing designer, and with only minor alteration (as minor as changing the number of stripes or pockets) to get around any design patents. That's not an ethical judgement which is certainly open for debate. That's simply my understanding of the way the law is written.

Now, if a clothing manufacturer can copy someone else's design in the real world and sell it in direct competion with the original designer which is standard practice in real world clothing sales (hence everyone selling knockoffs of designer clothing) without violating any laws, I personally find it a rather big leap to accusing designers in SL (who are making virtual versions that in no way compete with the original real world designer) of being unethical. Some are comfortable with it and some aren't but I think that's something people should decide for themselves and shop in SL accordingly.

If the coposition of the photograph is the design in question I very much agree with you. If we're talking only about what the photograph documents, and that thing is something that isn't covered by copyright law, that's where we part ways. I'm not a lawyer though so it would be interesting to hear from anyone who could shed more light on that.

Chip, I disagree but that's your opinion and you are entitled to it as I am mine. I'm a bit surprised that you are in support of this form of theft (that is unless I've misunderstood something) and if its not white washing or sugar coating it then I don't know what else you call it besides covering one's assets. You're right about one thing, people should decide for themselves and shop SL or any other virtual reality program accordingly and I for one do not support this form of theft. That's what it is.

I'm shaking my head here in disbelief that you can honestly claim that photographs or images, especially images taken and owned by the creator is not protected by copyright law. You are so wrong. Its even more wrong for any virtual designer to profit on these ripped off images. I see all kind of brand names floating around SL. Yet this is ok for you or for some other few designers.. what a pathetic shame. Then the same designer would be crying copyright infringment over someone mimicking their borrowed design or borrowed texture, image, etc when it wasn't their's in the first place.

Clothing designs may not hold a copyright in the physical world but we are discussing images. I think you seem to forget that. We are discussing people using unautorized copyrighted images and also brand names. As I keep saying the copyright and internet law is a revolving door evolving constantly.

I still find it extremely hypocritical that a virtual designer (not only on SL) would accuse others to take their work which they stole in the first place. Fortunately there are also many brilliant and honest designers and artists who wouldn't dream of unlawfully snagging the image and profiting from it. Those are the designer/creators who I will support and none other knowingly. All may not agree with me and may not even care just as those who don't care what happens across the ocean as long as it doesn't directly effect them.

Of course this issue does effect quiet a few virtual designer who make a partial or total income this way so I fully expect them to be on the defensive. I was hoping this thread would provoke thought and not drama.. sighs.. was hoping that it would make people realize that some things are simply wrong and there is no other way around it.

To sum it up, its ethically and legally wrong to take a copyrighted image without permission and use it for profit or material gain. This is as black and white as it can be. There are no shades of grey here. Not only is this my personal opinion, it is also fact. Finally people can and should protect any digital images, art, etc and that includes virtual designs on the net because that image is still considered intellectual property. I am also 100% certain that any major brand will not tolerate their name being exploited for a profit.

Yes Chip!! yay you finally understand what I've been trying to say.. now my poor brain needs rest as it is 3 am in the morning here in France. I kiss you for finally understanding my point. *laughs* Sorry if I was beginning to sound a little PMS'y but I was getting frustrated.

Oh my Vryl. I was interested in what you wrote until I got here and now I must raise my hand for some attention. As far as I can tell, your thread did provoke thought. You imply that if someone doesn't think like you then they are wrong. What a shame.

Martin, I'm very open minded to a certain point so that's not the case at all. On certain issues such as legalities for me its rather clear however we are each entitled to our own opinion right or wrong.

I don't think our positions are actually very far apart. I just differentiate between a photograph that exists merely as a document and one that's an artistic expression in its own right. Taking a photograph of something that's not under copyright doesn't suddenly infer a copyright on the subject. If for example I photograph a still life, and one of the items in the composition is an apple and someone takes the apple from my photograph I wouldn't care. I never owned a copyright on the apple and my document of that apple by itself isn't art. It's simply a document unless there's some special artistic merit to the way in which that apple was documented (say with a bullet going through it captured with a very fast camera). The art is the composition, the arrangement of shapes, the positive and negative spaces, the interplay of light and color, or the frozen moment in time (if it contributes to the message of the photograph). If someone took a bigger section of my still life in order to copy those broader compositional traits, then and only then would I take issue with it.

I'm sure that our positions aren't that far apart however I still maintain the stance that no one has the right to profit from another's copyrighted image or brand name. Regardless if the image is document or art is irrevalent. Virtual designers are using images not merely as an artistic expression but to make a living from and that's fine. Most of the clothing images or other images are used as a tool to also earn an income. I think we both agree on this is don't use copyrighted work or even brand names. Anyone who is against the copybot should also be against the unauthorized usage of copyright material for commercial gain, otherwise its hypocritical. Down off my soap box..Ok.. back to more important things now like washing dishes and they are not virtual.

Very interesting statement to be made by someone who threw a tantrum when someone else moded a modable version of something you made, again not for profit, but for personal use.

and on a unrelated side note, may i ask what Vampires you are Queen of? i'm just curious

So are the vampires.

If you hunt, I think through the archives of this forum, you'll find discussions about copyright that have cropped up before.

I don't know anything about French copyright law, but I do remember from that earlier thread that UK and US copyright laws are different from each other in a variety of interesting, sometimes subtle and sometimes blatant ways. I suspect, given the EU's influence in such things, that French and UK law are more similar than French and US law on this issue, but I could well be wrong.

Photosourcing, under UK law, is a rather grey area. Directly copying the image is, even for a fashion shot, breaking the photographer's copyright under UK law (under US law it certainly can be different). That said, I've never seen a clothes image that is directly suitable for uploading into Second Life. That's where the grey area comes in. How much work, with what tools, makes an object derivative work rather than a copy of the original?

Having recently made a set of clothes based around a national flag I wonder whether photosourcing is actually that common. The amount of time and work to make the flag parts fit the template and look correct was insane. If asked to do it again I'd probably draw the flag from scratch, it would be faster. Drawing a picture on the templates that is clearly inspired by the picture of the clothes is, yet again, a grey area. The image is clearly rather heavily dissimilar to the original, because of fitting around the UV map requirements. Skirts are often missing entirely these days, and made of flexi-prims etc. Given the fact there are a number of different elements that make up the SL clothes in this fashion I rather doubt that a suit under copyright law would be successful, even under UK law and almost certainly not under US law.

The ethics of the situation should never be counted in monetary terms, but all too often money comes into it, particularly with copyright law where it's mostly about damage to the purse. I would love to know what the total income from the best grossing clothing item is in SL, just for intellectual curiosity. I would be rather surprised if any one item has broken the US$10,000 barrier, the clothes designers that make big money, and they are out there, tend to do it from a huge range of items rather than one huge seller is my experience.

Before this gets dismissed as white-washing again, I make a grand total of two clothing items at the moment for sale (I have made more items such as brands and the flag as clothes mentioned above, but they're not generally for sale yet). One has been out for a while and I'm struggling to remember for sure, but I'm 99% certain it's all 100% made by me, the second item is 100% hand made. The brands are more eclectic, but I'm sure I've not taken copies of copyright material, although I have had people send me images that they wish to have converted into a brand that they may not have rights to.

Lovely... two little slave girls getting "catty" for their mistress. You should get your facts straight before you post. I gave an item to a "friend" as a gift (because I haven't started selling anything on SL and I enjoy giving things that I make to friends or to others) who asked that it be mod to change one of the textures on it. This person in question took that item and completly rebuilt it with her name on it as if she was the creator without even asking me. This isn't a place for mud slinging, is it? Stick to the subject of the thread but of course its SL so there will always be drama... Two days ago we evicted this person from the land because after allowing this person free space to build, etc and over 4 months of waiting patiently for something to be completed which never was entirely only to discover this item was rebuilt as if their own, it was insult upon injury.

Alex, I didn't expect this of you. I thought your mistress trained you a little better than this. Its demeaning of both of you to bring personal issues into this thread where they don't belong. Shame on you both. Grow up a little and stop taking a thread hostage for your own personal agenda.

As for the title "queen of vampires" its the name of a song that I wrote not that I need to explain myself. *sighs*

sighs
i made a obsevation that i thought it was interesting that someone who belives they have teh right to modify some one elses non mod work threw a tantrum about someone moding their own modable work, i find that hypocritical! the exchange of money does not effect ownership, once something is mine whether given to me or if i buy it does not change the fact that it is mine, for someone who is claiming in this thread to be so interested in laws of ownership, i again find this somewhat a interesting view.

You didn't make an observation. You are just angry that I kicked her off the land yesterday but that's fine. I really don't care and furthermore, she didn't mod it. She duplicated the coding and rebuilt it entirely and set it out in her club on the land that we provided to her for free trying to help a friend only to discover the friend stabbed me in the back. I really don't want to discuss this here because it doesn't belong here. I have muted you inworld so I guess I will do it here also. No, its not ok to steal someone's code and rebuild it as your own and that is not considered as modifying it either. I have a ton of Relic furniture, most of which is modifyable and I wouldn't dream to copy the demensions only to rebuild it and claim ownership. Bad bad bad.

This is a personal and private matter which you are exposing and if I am not mistaken its against the TOS plus you are inciting and are offtopic. This thread is about photosourcing not about my private affairs which don't concern you nor anyone else just because you are one of her inworld slaves.

Someone's a little too eager to defend herself.

I didn't bring up what you're going on about, Vryl, despite the fact that we both know you were told in advance exactly what the item would be for and threw a tantrum anyway because you are a grown child.

I just wanted to know which vampires you were queen of, since I knew your antics, not unlike the ones we're seeing now, had already gotten you banned from Trans.

Now I know.

For the record, Chip is absolutely correct about copyright regarding photosourced images in most jurisdictions that have IP law. As Eloise notes, at the very extreme end of that scale, there are countries like the UK, in which it's merely a grey area.