"profesional Skin Ripper For Hire !"

Apologies if you'd already said it. I'm a chronic thread skimmer.

OMG I am shocked. Someone that doesn't read every single post in a multipage thread???????? What will the world come too.

heehee, Nope mistake was mine, you said it first.

There will be some development time before I am able to show Chip and the rest you what he was able to help me with. So far my experiments with it in-world show that it will work after alot of sizing and adjustments. Thanks!!! The best part is that since it is a prim and not a texture, it is going to allow me implement some very original and special ideas I had for this product at conception. This is going to be awesome.

@Tegg: i know.. that was my reaction at first, too. but the fact is I don't have a patent on the concept of kid teeth, let alone dentures in general! and yea as chip said, my competitors will still have lots of work to do. thanks tho!

Its really a shame that people think its ok to modify an artwork .... course that what its all about, its not a t-shirt you bought at H&M . Here its about pure artwork of the creator .... its not only about the copyright. Skin creators take allot of time to make them the way they want them to be, and the buyer knew that when he bought it.
You also don't hire an other painter to modify a Picasso. Its the same with websites, if I make a website and the company makes a change in the template without permission I can sue their #ss.
So my point is that its not ethical to do, we are not talking about making a simple copy (=copyright)
we are talking about mutilation of an artwork.
And in this case only the creator may say what is good and what is wrong, nobody else has legal rights to make that decision. Whats next that every time you buy an object in sl you have to agree the therms and conditions of that creator ?

Oh please. There are many arguments you can make against skin modification, but that isn't one that holds any weight.

I WOULD hire an artist to paint over a Picasso. I mean, no, I wouldn't, because I like large wads of cash thank you very much, but conceptually I have no problem with the concept of mutilating artwork.

lol you totallay don't get the point ... its not about picasso... its about modify an artwork ... creating stuff is art, only the creator has rights to modify it, no-one else thats the law (in most sane country's)

I appreciate that sentiment, Flater. I'm not sure I completely agree though. I'd be more than happy to have people put overlays onto my skins to their heart's content. In fact I'd be thrilled if they could. The tattoo market was hit very hard when the replacement skin market exploded and it's really a drag that they have to use clothing layers for their work. My only real objection to the current state of affairs is that I'm just not comfortable with having people have access to my raw textures. We all know people who've had their hard work stolen and resold, or lost to permissions bugs and now available in freebie packs everywhere. Things like that can really suck the joy out of creating, not to mention the profit. It's very dispiriting. None of us want to have an adversarial relationship with our customers. I'd love to see LL finally go to bat for us and add overlays. How cool it would be if you could buy a base skin from one person, makeup from another, eyebrows from someone else, tatts from yet another person, naughty bits from another, and on and on. It would open all kinds of secondary markets and no one would have to be tempted to rip textures who only wanted a way to personalize their skin. Avatar customization is the lifeblood of SL and its economy and it simply blows my mind that LL hasn't done anything to address this yet.

It's no more mutilation of an artwork than putting racing stripes on a car after getting a custom respray.

Of course you can modify art. If I go buy a Picasso, I can paint flowers on it and use it as a tablecloth if I want to. Would be a vast improvement over most of Picasso's work, if you ask me.

What I *can't* do, in some imaginary universe where anyone living had copyrights on any of Picasso's work, would be to, say, paint over the blue dress on his "Girl in a chair" with green paint and sell it as my own work. That, no, I can't do.

Actually, DOES someone have copyright on any of Picasso's works? He only died in the 70s, IIRC, so I guess there is the chance that someone does...

doggonnit... again the point is not the modification, it is the copying required to do so.

No the point here was the mutilation of artwork assertion, if you mutilated a copy of a Picasso it voids it.

well a artist must be dead for quite a while b4 you may copy his work... but again if you buy a painting of an artist (thats not been dead for a while) and he find out that you altert his work, he can claim that the painting may no longer exist.... or that the "damage"must be undone, when you buy an artwork and you dont got a paper saying you bought the rights/licence of that artwork .... you can only look at it, put it on a wall. you may not destroy or alter the work.
thats illigal...
so again the artist make the rulles,. not the buyer.

here something about copyright

so that will explain a little bit about copy right...
and maybe.. if you got a minute or two you should also read this:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~csundt/copyweb/CunardCAA2002.htm

but again ... if you can proof im wrong, please let me know
then ill tell you im a crap-talking-dumb-ass .. who don't know where he's talking about ....

If I *buy* a piece of artwork, I can do whatever I want with it. I can hold a bonfire with it if I want. If I'm leased a piece of art, however, there can be restrictions.

Copyright protects the idea contained within. It does not protect the physical medium on which the idea may however unfortunately reside.

ok have you read this link ?
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~csundt/copyweb/CunardCAA2002.htm

or is the idea of being right is enough for you?

again ist illigal to destoy artwork... you may think you got the right... but the law tels us difrent .

here some more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966994,00.html

Interesting. I've never read anything like this til now.

I agree it is interesting but not exacty pertinent to the discussion:

"VARA provides its protection only to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photographic images produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies, signed by the artist. The requirements for protection don't implicate aesthetic taste or value."

Yeah, I'm aware of it.

You will also notice how many times this goes to trial successfully.

well I must say I know europe better then the amarican law,
in europe it aplies on all images. so even unsight silkscreens. whenever a image is used that is made by an artist, the artist has all the rights of that image (IMAGE RIGHT we call that). the rights can only be transfert by a legal signt paper.
but again these are the laws over here.

And in Europe, it might hold up.

And, by the way, to answer something else:



Yes, in this case. I have a moral and ethical right to destroy anything I own, regardless of what the law says.

ok, thats up to you.
maybe its true that every person has the right to make his own laws.
I mean where the heck do we need laws for

*flater looks up, takes a deep breath and walks away*

I wouldn't call my position "standing up for" anyone, so it's unclear if I'm one of the people you're musing about. At any rate, I have a line of skyboxes that pays the bills and I'm a texture artist, although I do not distribute or sell my textures because I use them for my private builds and want them to remain unique.

In situations like this, you have several options: you can blindly defend the person in question, you can try not to draw conclusions if you don't have enough information, or you can demonize this person you don't even know and try to run them out of SL. As happens so often in life, I choose the position in the middle.

EDIT: And if SL had a tattoo layer we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

ahhh, well... fair enough, so it is. (what're we on... oh page -4-...

felt like the thread just skipped a groove again.

This is not entirely true. The asset belongs to LL once you upload it. The creator only owns the copyrights on it. What the creator sees in their inventory after uploading is not the asset, it's a link TO that LL OWNED asset. What the customer purchases (and thus fully owns) is a single copy of that LL asset, with your copyrights attached. Your only say in the matter is who can or can't copy the asset.

Please stop assuming that all content creators are in favor of all aspects of DCMA and draconian intellectual property laws that take rights from consumers and create brand new rights for digital media.

The point was to stop piracy. The fact that DCMA went WAY overboard is proven by the sense of entitlement you seem to fell you deserve have over all use of your art.

In point of fact you DO have that right, but not ethically or morally, simply because of a rather one-sided law, DCMA.

I'm against piracy. I do not believe that an artist deserves full control over every copy of their art, to prevent it from any further modification.

I AM A CONTENT CREATOR. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. STOP ASSUMING YOU SPEAK FOR ALL CONTENT CREATORS.

Do I need to repeat that again?

This is funny argument because the very concept of ownership is defined by law, also. So you're basically using piece of law that suits you to claim right to disregard other piece that you don't like...