Texture theft controversy

Is there a texture theft controversy on this forum?

My husband talked to an av today that said there was.

He claimed that reselling textures whether or not the texture was sold as not for resale as a texture or not as long as it is sold full perms it is against the TOS to try to limit the purchasers use of it including reseling it.

He quoted the TOS 3.2 to him. Which we looked up and this is what it says:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3.2 You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law. However, you must make certain representations and warranties, and provide certain license rights, forbearances and indemnification, to Linden Lab and to other users of Second Life.

Users of the Service can create Content on Linden Lab's servers in various forms. Linden Lab acknowledges and agrees that, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you will retain any and all applicable copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to any Content you create using the Service, to the extent you have such rights under applicable law.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, you understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the service, you automatically grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Linden Lab: (a) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to (i) use, reproduce and distribute your Content within the Service as permitted by you through your interactions on the Service, and (ii) use and reproduce (and to authorize third parties to use and reproduce) any of your Content in any or all media for marketing and/or promotional purposes in connection with the Service, provided that in the event that your Content appears publicly in material under the control of Linden Lab, and you provide written notice to Linden Lab of your desire to discontinue the distribution of such Content in such material (with sufficient specificity to allow Linden Lab, in its sole discretion, to identify the relevant Content and materials), Linden Lab will make commercially reasonable efforts to cease its distribution of such Content following the receipt of such notice, although Linden Lab cannot provide any assurances regarding materials produced or distributed prior to the receipt of such notice; (b) the perpetual and irrevocable right to delete any or all of your Content from Linden Lab's servers and from the Service, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and for any reason or no reason, without any liability of any kind to you or any other party; and (c) a royalty- free, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing and/or providing support services in connection with the Service. Further, you agree to grant to Linden Lab a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable right and license to exercise the copyright, publicity, and database rights you have in your account information, including any data or other information generated by your account activity, in any media now known or not currently known, in accordance with our privacy policy as set forth below, including the incorporation by reference of terms posted at http://secondlife.com/corporate/privacy.php.

You also understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the Service, you automatically grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Linden Lab and to all other users of the Service a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual License, under any and all patent rights you may have or obtain with respect to your Content, to use your Content for all purposes within the Service. You further agree that you will not make any claims against Linden Lab or against other users of the Service based on any allegations that any activities by either of the foregoing within the Service infringe your (or anyone else's) patent rights.

You further understand and agree that: (i) you are solely responsible for understanding all copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property or other laws that may apply to your Content hereunder; (ii) you are solely responsible for, and Linden Lab will have no liability in connection with, the legal consequences of any actions or failures to act on your part while using the Service, including without limitation any legal consequences relating to your intellectual property rights; and (iii) Linden Lab's acknowledgement hereunder of your intellectual property rights in your Content does not constitute a legal opinion or legal advice, but is intended solely as an expression of Linden Lab's intention not to require users of the Service to forego certain intellectual property rights with respect to Content they create using the Service, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My husband saved the log and although I didn't read all of the chat log, I think he/she left out some of what 3.2 says...but the way I read this is that I retain all my copyrights and as long as I make a statement saying the textures can't be resold, then he is in violation of the TOS to not honor that. Most of the textures of mine that he/she is selling I checked for the note I put in the description and it was STILL there, saying that my textures were not to be redistributed as textures.

He said over and over that texture artists are the only ones that read the TOS the way my husband (and I) do, and that it is not the way it is.

I can't believe this is true ...if it is I am done creating content for SL except for freebies.

So please tell me what your opinion is, I especially hope to hear from people that agree with this av's logic, because I have never heard from anyone except resellers that my rights don't exist under the TOS.

Oh, btw, he is selling my textures as well as some that are my husbands, also many others made by some high profile texture artists. We have all been ripped off and complained and some have filed a DMCA already, to no avail so far. My husband hasn't made a complaint yet as he only has about 10 or so textures there. And I was the one selling them in a pack with other similar textures of mine. I was told he had nothing there from TRU by their agent and had my husband ask why he wasn't reselling any of Lillybeth Filths textures, but the man/woman didn't answer that question.

I believe you're correct. The TOS and the SL permissions system do not supercede copyright law. As near as I can deciper the legal blather in the TOS, LL is entitled to use any content you create for marketing and testing.

This bit... 'you automatically grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Linden Lab and to all other users of the Service a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual License, under any and all patent rights you may have or obtain with respect to your Content, to use your Content for all purposes within the Service," which is the most dubious sounding part, seems to pretain to patents, not copyright, but trying to decipher the TOS makes my eyes bleed. If someone is redistributing your work or using it to create derivative works, you can file a DMCA takedown notice.

I'm not sure how you're defining "a controversy", or why it would be limited to this forum. Yes, there is texture theft in SL (there's no way to prevent it), and yes, it is illegal. People do argue about it, of course, so if you want to define that as "controversy", feel free. The law is the law though.


This is a bit of a gray area. Generally, it's assumed that if an item is marked as full perms, then the creator has granted to the purchaser the right to do whatever he or she wants with it, including to resell it. However, if you really want to be a stickler for what copyright law actually says, then a purchaser of your copyrighted material cannot redistribute it without your express written consent, and it's highly debatable whether or not the SL permissions system is a capable means of such expression.

Personally, I don't think the permissions system is so capable, especially where textures are concerned, since textures are pretty much useless without full perms. But there is room for argument both ways.



Correct. You own the copyright. It's up to you to decide how and whether to allow copies of your work to be distributed. The permissions system doesn't take that away from you, nor would any other technical solution. This is a legal matter, not a technical one.

And, by the letter of the law, you don't even have to include the note (although it's good that you do). The way it works is that in the absence of express permission from the copyright holder, all materials must be assumed as not for redistribution. So technically, you would only include a note if you DO want to allow reselling, not if you don't. But since the word "permission" in the permissions system is so easily confusing to so many people, it's better that you add the note no matter what.

You might also want to put "not for redistribution" right in the description line, so it will show in the popup when people hover over it with the mouse.


Now that's funny. You'd think the guy would at least be smart enough to remove the evidence, hehehe.


People will convince themselves of just about anything when they're trying to justify their actions. There is no "my way" or "your way" to read the TOS. It says what it says. That's all there is to it.

In any case, the TOS is not really the important factor here. Copyright law is.


It's not; don't worry.


Here are a few of the justifcations people tend to use for texture theft. Some of these are easy to dismiss. Others speak to the relatively newfound difficulty of understanding copyright in the digital age.

1. You gave permission via the permissions system, and that's all the matters. (Relatively easy to dismiss, as stated above. However, it's an easy misinterpretation to make, and speaks more the inadequacy of the current permissions system than anything else.)

2. The data on my computer is mine to do with what I please. When you put this texture on display and allowed me to look at it, you put a copy of it on my computer. My computer is mine, so whatever is on it is also mine. You can't tell me I can't do what I want with my own stuff. (A bit harder to dismiss. The argument is still flawed, but it has an air of legitimacy to it, and people who feel this way do have a point. It's an incorrect point, legally speaking, but morally and logically, it's not entirely easy to call wrong.)

3. It's my world and my imagination, so I shouldn't have to follow real world laws in it if I don't want to. (Totally wrong. I can see how some people might have this as a pipe dream, but realistically speaking, it's an extremely childish, selfish, and naiive way of looking at what it means to be part of a community. If you want ANY world to be truly your own, keep it private. The minute you participate in anything public, laws have to apply.)

4. I'm pure evil. (No arguing with that one.)


According to LL, the overwhelming majority of DMCA takedown notices cannot be honored because they are improperly submitted. Legally, LL does not have he authority to intervene without a properly submitted notice. If you've filed, but no action has been taken, I'd suggest you double check to make sure you did everything right. Consult an attorney if necessary.

Thanks so much, I appreciate the info and the support. I was beginning to doubt my own reality

Chosen, as to the question if there is a controversy here, he stated there was one and that Shoe should go check it out but he didn't have a link, he/she said search for DMCA and you will see others debating the same things as we are...or words to that effect, so I'm looking through here and not finding anyone agreeing with him, so I thought I would askk...I still don't see anyone jumping in to defend his right to resell textures without permission!

I do understand that there are a few people that are honestly make a mistake, but generallly talking to them seems to be enough. This person may not be completely pure evil, but was not going to be taught any morals/ethics by the lowly likes of a texture artist.

God I want a weapon to use on him so bad...but I can't stoop to that.

Anyway thanks guys, not only for this but also for all the help I've gotten from you via your templates, Chip and both your answers to others Q's throughout this forum.

I approve of these types of threads that cause discussion of accepted practices in SL and
copyright law. When I started in SL I thought I knew what copyright was about but in retrospect I really did not know that much at the time. Since I have been here I have learned
a vast amount of information on copyright law especially due to the business I chose to get into.

The fact that a person has access to something does not make it ok to seize upon the opportunity to capitalize on that access. That is the reason that we have laws in the first place, to avoid barbarism and tribal warfare. If that comparison sounds extreme think about
what it really is, it is a person taking an action most often without declaration that "they are doing something just because they can!" without reference to what anyone else thinks about it. The whole basis of any civilized society is a system of agreement, I have met quite a few
people who will try to generate or quote some 'controversy' to cause doubt as to whether
their actions are just or not. So just because a person's computer needs that access to present visual enjoyment does not mean that it belongs to that person for resale.

That would be like having a job where you deal with money and you deciding that "hey I like money, and here is some right here!" Most people that want to keep their jobs are not going to take the money. Yeah sure too bad we cant just fire the texture resellers, but the comparison applies to all sorts of things in real life. Just because you See something you want it does not mean you can just take it.

There is a ton of effort that genuine content creators put into their work and it is a shame
when others do not respect that. And there is a valid point that many people simply are
not aware of the rules and that is exactly why it is good for threads like this to pop up from time to time. And it is excellent when people like Chosen and others take the time to
explain things as it enlightens the newer people as to what is good and bad sales practices.

And to the potential retailers out there, steer clear of those business in a box deals, ask yourself "did this seller really acquire permission to sell each and every one of these items?

It helps to separate the work from the medium it's distributed on.

You may have the ability to copy a CD and give away that copy, but that doesn't in any way imply that you have the right/permission to copy&distribute the copyrighted work on that CD.

In real life noone (sane) would even think to argue that having the ability to "copy" and "transfer" audio CDs gives you permission to start up your own little distribution shop. That doesn't stop people from doing just that, but at the very least they fully realize that what they're doing is illegal.

In SL the medium is the asset you have in inventory which has certain permissions on it, which may or may not match what you can or can not do with the copyrighted work contained within that asset. What rights you have to the work determines what you can legally do with the asset, the actual asset permissions don't really convey any kind of copyright permission.

Based on what I read in TOS 3.2 perhaps I am wrong but these are the things LL
can do as far as your content.
Majority seems pretty intimidating and confusing....but this is what I gathered:
They can delete or choose to do whatever they want with them including distrbuting your content.
Run test, examine how you made it.
If it suits them and you have product that will gain them media attention, they will use it.
Also there something that says we can't sue them or other residents for violating copyright protections and we must do certain things to protect our rights.
Linden Labs has right to do whatever they see fit with your content.
Yet people have sued Linden Labs and other users so I don't entirely get it.

They can't distribute your work, as in LL will never set up an in world store selling your products in competition with you, or decide to add your product to the library folder without your permission. They can delete your stuff if it violates the community standards or causes a nuisance (I wish they'd do a lot more of that). They can pull apart your work to examine how you made it if you've done something novel or unexpected, and use it to test their systems for debugging. None of that is especially threatening.



Yes, and they'd be foolish not to. It's been my experience that when they do use resident created products and attractions for advertising they still ask first (even though they aren't obligated to), and they always give proper attribution.



There's nothing that says we can't sue other residents for violating our copyrights or trademarks. Such suits are already happening (such as the SexGen case). We can't sue LL if another user violates our copyrights or trademarks if such violations are enabled by flaws or bugs in LL's software. For example if one of your products loses its permissions due to an SL bug the TOS says that we can't hold LL liable.



LL is far more generous to its users in regards to our rights than any other MMO publisher. To my knowledge they are the only one to recognize the intellectual property rights of their users. In any other MMO user created content becomes the sole property of the publisher, but in SL we retain our intellectual property rights, with a few exceptions to protect LL from liability.



No one to my knowledge has sued LL over intellectual property. The Marc Bragg case was over virtual property (land). The resident v. resident suits have been over trademark and copyright.

When I returned about year ago there was big thing about this guy who was upset with LL because he had made these baggy jeans and SL took the content and gave it out to all the new residents without telling him first.
He was pissed because he felt he had lost the ablitity to sell his product.
I don't remember the guys name,etc but anyone remember this?
I figured this part of tos meant we couldn't sue:
ou also understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the Service, you automatically grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Linden Lab and to all other users of the Service a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual License, under any and all patent rights you may have or obtain with respect to your Content, to use your Content for all purposes within the Service. You further agree that you will not make any claims against Linden Lab or against other users of the Service based on any allegations that any activities by either of the foregoing within the Service infringe your (or anyone else's) patent rights.
If it doesn't mean that then perhaps I am just confused....

Correct.

One point about the distribution thing though. If that weren't in there, the system really wouldn't be able to work. Notice the frist point in the second paragraph says you grant them a right to "use, reproduce and distribute your Content within the Service AS PERMITTED BY YOU THROUGH YOUR INTERACTIONS ON THE SERVICE" (emphasis added). This allows them, for example, to distribute copies of your stuff to your customers when you set items for sale inside SL. Were you not to grant LL the right to distribute your stuff to other people, you'd never be able to sell anything or give anything away in SL. It does not allow LL to just take your stuff and give it to anybody they want outside of SL.



Sure, for the purpose of testing and debugging the system. Perfectly reasonable.

If you make an item that's breaks the system, they have to have the right to take it apart to see what is the cause of the problem.




Yes, they can use your stuff in their own marketing materials. But the same sentence that says that also says if you don't want them to do that, you just need to send them a letter saying as much, and they'll stop. No big deal either way. They just can't unprint something if it's already been printed is all.



Read a little more closely. That section talks about patent rights, not copyrights. Patents and copyrights are entirely different things.

My understanding of patent law is a little thin, but here's how I'd interpret the section:

The need for you to grant patent rights is another one of those things that is necessary to make the system work. Let's say, for example, you come up with a process inside
SL, say it's a unique way of making scripted trees grow over time or something, and you patent your process. LL needs a right to use that process, or else they wouldn't be able to have your trees in SL . Otherwise, they'd be undertaking a very real risk that you might later argue they're using your patent as part of their system without your permission.

You see, everything we make in SL becomes part of the SL system as a whole. And, in order to incorporate a patented process into any other system, the owner of that system needs some sort of right to the patent. Further, it could be argued that users of the system need a right as well, or you might be able to go after them for using your process without permission.

Notice though, it doesn't say LL or anyone else gets to own your patent, or use it for any content other than yours. It says they have a license to use it "with respect to your content" just so that they can "use your content for all purposes within the service".

This is really not a big deal. It's just what is practical and necessary in order to make something like SL usable. You still have all your rights.




Well, let's be fair. They can "do whatever they want" within the limits of the law, and within reason. As noted above, for example, if you don't want them using your stuff for marketing purposes, all you need to do is tell them that in writing, and they won't.

In any case, none of this grants other users any rights whatsoever to your copyrights, which was the subject of the question in the original post. Your stuff is your own. No one else gets to do anything with it without your say so. There's no cause for concern. Those who say otherwise need to read a bit more carefully, or if they really can't understand it, consult with an attorney who can.




I'm not aware of any case in which someone sued LL for copyright infringement. In fact, the only case I know of in which a resident sued LL was over an account closure, and that had nothing to do with copyright in any way, shape, or form. If you know something I don't, please enlighten me. Can you cite any actual copyright suits against LL?

As for suits between individual residents, I'm sure there have probably been plenty. None of us have made any agreements, in the TOS or elsewhere, requiring us to surrender our right to sue anyone for anything (except for the patent rights thing, which is pretty limited).

In fact, the last paragraph of 3.2 says just the opposite. It expressly states in the last sentence "Linden Lab's intention NOT TO REQUIRE USERS OF THE SERVICE TO FORGOE CERTAIN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS with respect to Content they create using the Service" (emphasis added). You can't get much clear than that. LL is not seeking to limit your rights at all. You own your stuff, period. If someone uses it without your permission, the law is on your side, and you have every power under the law to take action against that person.





To sum all this up, common sense applies. Your copyright is yours. LL needs to be able to use your stuff in certain ways in order to make the system work. No one else can use your copyrighted material for any purpose without your say so. These are pretty simple concepts.

As a consumer and builder, I make sure I let everyone I know about the ethical use of Textures. Textures are like prims, a basic for us creators and I want to protect the businesses of people who take the time to bring them in world and make them right.

Every time I see a violation, I say something. The problem is that we are awash with freebies most of which seem from dubious sources. It is getting very hard to find out if a freebie is legitimate or not. Sometimes the creators is not in SL anymore or they have given up protecting their property. I always ask the creator if I can find them if I use a freebie texture and I pay for it if they have not released it. I keep records of this. I think this should be standard Operating Procedure for an ethical content creator. Crap ethics creates crap content IMHO.

I asked Torley Linden to do a Tutorial on it and he suggested starting a wiki about Texture rights but that would take way more time than I have and frankly being a sub geek, I really don't understand how wiki's work.

I think this needs to be a big deal inworld and I'm really glad for this thread.

And Linden Labs should be deeply ashamed of the wording in the TOS. That is just plain awful. We need to move towards clearer communication these days not towards gobblegook like the TOS.