"profesional Skin Ripper For Hire !"

.. then absolutely, you should keep record and keep eye on them. look, i haven't a mean bone in my bod... i haven't time for this.

but some people wanna take your stuff, keep an eye on them. :\ not to put a pall over anyone who had any sort of mistaken incident... but for crying out loud, why should -you- trust anyone once your stuff is ripped off?? :\\\

it is a major pain, and time out of your life doing detective work... but there is no shame in protecting your property. :\

Well I'm glad to hear that it severly limits the way people play. I just don't prefer to include myself to those who are violating the TOS by downloading it. Thanks for the info though.

No one here is worried about people COVERING the skin, they are worried about RAW materials being in other people's hands that they don't belong to. You keep missing the point.

not to be contrarian, but...
i found the malibu passport skin in a freebie box and was in awe at how much better it was than any other freebie skin i had seen. i wore that skin for months. eventually i wanted a new skin, and began to search out the creators shop of my passport skin. i was starleys bitch for over a year, spending tens of thousands of lindens at cs. through cs i discovered canimal and etd and spent loads of cash there as well. and its all down to a freebie skin.

... who never saw a fraction of what you spent... (which, yes, yes yes YES, is very much worth it, obviously, as you emphatically express it yourself.)

Maybe I don't understand how this works, or maybe there's confusion here. I thought the client associated with the avatar wearing the textures "bakes" them and the other clients only receive the baked textures (or don't, in which case they get the ever-popular Missing Texture look). If that's true, then the client for that avatar would be able to intercept the unbaked textures, but "bystander" clients would never see them. So, it could be that there was some confusion, since I think it was the "bystander" (e.g., the "tattoo artist" who's client was being considered. But if the process actually works some other way, I'd welcome a correction.

---

On the broader topic: Whether it's right or wrong to offer a service that requires temporary access to copyrighted material, it is completely irrelevant to that argument whether the material *might* be retained after the service is rendered. That is a completely separate action--and as has been pointed out, one much more easily done without going to the trouble of offering the service. And everyone who's seen a naked avatar has had that skin texture on their computer, so if that's a DMCA violation, the whole game is over before it starts. The violation of the "tattoo artist", then, is distribution of a derivative work.

I think it's the classic "mash-up" argument all over again, really, from which Creative Commons arose. How much do you have to change a copyrighted work to make it your own creation? Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Jasper Johns, Rosenquist, and countless others all created derivative works without permission of the owners of the copyrighted works they represented in their images. It was, of course, totally illegal. Now, post-DMCA, working in a digital medium, it would also be totally impossible.

Admittedly, massaging an image licensed from 3d.sk onto a UV map and making a marketable skin takes a lot more work than slapping a tattoo on top of it. But really, this is a commercial matter, not something in which to invest a lot of emotion. While content creators interested in making a profit have every right to enforce DMCA, by doing so they are just protecting property, not advancing a high moral principle.

eeeeyowch, ord, i know what you're saying, but you're speaking on behalf of the other party too... but have you ever considered that, in the reverse position, someone else's skin/product is involved, and yours is 'simply involved in the idea'?? (which is often just the reverse of that, to others... you get the point...) it's tough to figure out when a 'casual customer' has overreached their boundaries.

again, look... it's not the modifying; it's the copying. (sorry if i'm putting too much 'face' upon this whole deal... obama had a very interesting interview on chris matthews/msnbc just earlier today about 'facing' the enemy pre-determined... funny cuz it half-relates to what's going on here.

and - never let any body ever excuse this in my name...

ROBBING MY STUFF WILL NEVER STEAL A LIFE.

edit to add: -NOT- ROBBING MY STUFF WILL -NOT- STEAL YOUR LIFE.

maybe except my own a lil' earlier from heart attack... geeeez effin god, of course i effing understand that, you hipped-up yokels!!

so, pardon me if i protect my own self-interest.

i'm just wondering... how much -68- -cents- -u.s.-, more or less, considering converstion (from 100 Ls) really -hurts- a customer. i mean, a really, really, REALLY BAD HURT on a customer.

I think it depends on whether or not the baked texture has propagated to the server cache yet or not. If not, then individual parts are sent to the viewer. How hard your client will try to make up for missing baked textures is related to the "avatar composite limit" in graphics preferences. There was a detailed description of how it all worked when the missing image thing first started becoming chronic, but I don't remember all the details now.

OK, I apologize for my all-caps rant. In my defense, Jesseaitui did say "it`s really starting to feel like a 'content creater vs everyone else' battle", not for the first time implying that only non-creators would defend modifying a skin. If he doesn't mean it, he shouldn't say it. But I agree that I overreacted and for that I apologize. I get pissy sometimes, and I'll try to get better!

Chip, you said "We don't want to limit the way people can use what they bought." In fact, you do, you want to keep them from applying tattoos in any way other than by using a clothing layer. Or makeup, or scars. This makes 3rd-party face tattoos impossible, btw, since there is no clothing layer for the face.

The main arguments against this practice are:

1) I don't want my art modified by anyone
2) I don't want my art to be distributed freely
3) It's against the TOS and violates DMCA.

#1 is debatable, but isn't enforceable for *real* things, only for digital things via TOS and DMCA. You couldn't enforce this for a print, for example. However, folks may feel that artists have rights over their works even after being sold.

This practice isn't a case of #2. #2 exists whether people do this tattoo service or not. But, it is a TOS violation, and skin makers are within their rights to file a DCMA if they see a face tattoo on one of their skins. (Other than that, they'd have a hard time realizing that it's not a tattoo on a clothing layer.) Of course, the practice *does* cause a copy of a skin to be made that otherwise would not be made, and that's a legitimate concern. If the tattoo artist deletes the skin, then it isn't really a concern. Are tattoo customers making illegal skin distribution more likely? I doubt it. Any skin ripper can work without offering the tattoo service.

#3 definitely applies.

Any way other than what LL provides us requires breaking the law, the TOS, and the DMCA, so you're throwing up a bit of a straw man there. You're correct that I don't want my rights violated or to have my business put at risk because someone can't accept that SL doesn't currently allow for everything that they might want to do. I absolutely do want my customers to have much greater flexibility that what they currently have. Only LL can give that to them. I can't without condoning something I don't, and won't, condone, for obvious reasons that none of us should have to defend. That we do have to defend it just goes to show the overreaching sense of entitlement many people seem to have.

No, look, I think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. I'm laying out the thought processes of your average skin buyer. There's no point in saying all this to _me_; I don't even _want_ tattoos or makeup, I'd look ridiculous (my skin is absolutely au naturel and that is how I like it).

For them it _is_ about the modifying, and the copying is just a method to allow that. And unless you can convince them that their letting person X copy a skin is just too risky, and person X will likely sell it on, then nothing is going to happen. You can't stop them; you don't know who they are, for a start. The chances of ever coming across someone doing this and then successfully ARing them are absolutely microscopic.

Most people might care vaguely in the abstract about not distributing skins, might agree in principle that it's a bad idea to let someone copy a skin, and if someone approached them and said "hey stand still while I rip your skin please" they'd tell them to bugger off - but, when it comes down to it and it's their fun concerned and the ripper seems legitimate, they are likely not going to care much unless there's proof otherwise, because they feel it's fine to have a change made to something they own.

In fact though, that's only true if the work is unlicensed and is protected only by standard copyright. Any content creator can specify exactly what permissions are granted. A skin creator would be completely within his or her rights to explicitly grant the permission needed for the "tattoo artist's" activities, without in any way permitting redistribution of the original skin textures. The Creative Commons "Sampling Plus" license might be a good candidate for this.

It's unfortunate that so few content creators are aware of their rights to shape the licensing of their works to better suit the SL environment than standard copyright, which many of us consider largely obsolete in this medium.

True, but if there were skin makers who wanted to allow it they'd just include the textures with full perms in the package with the skin. Of course no one does that because it would be insane. Oddly no one seems to have any issues with skin makers not doing that, yet will argue that ripping for personal use should be considered fine. Why would you trust people to use your textures benignly if they rip them without permission when you wouldn't trust them to just give the textures out freely to begin with?

Yes, Chip -- but the logic of only allowing what the creators want is the same logic that would allow Mr. Coffee to void your warrantee if you used any coffee filters other than the (overpriced) Mr. Coffee brand filters. Courts have ruled that there are limits to what the creator/manufacturer can legitimately require of their customers.

Courts and laws also take into account the PURPOSE of a potential copyright infringement. In this case, things could easily go either way. However, courts wouldn't be the arbiter, LL would, and they'd rightly rule in favor of the skin maker in the case of an AR. (I say "Rightly" not due to any moral issue, but simply that it's a clear ToS violation.)

LL should just implement a tattoo layer and we could all forget about this!

Amen to that!

I actually don't understand why not, and have wondered that for a long time. Why the skin makers don't use an approach similar to that of the texture vendors, with a (hopefully more sophisticated) EULA required for purchase, has mystified me, especially in light of the fact that stealing the skin texture is so easy anyway. I rather suspect that, net-net, redistribution of stolen skin textures is *increased* by the absolute need to do something illegal, just to customize the skin.

But in the interest of full disclosure, I don't think I've released a new script for sale in about a year, instead either just keeping new ones for myself and friends or releasing them full public domain. So I guess I'd think twice about the hassle of setting up the system for requiring pre-sale EULA agreement, and all the associated record-keeping, just because I'm really not that interested in making a business of SL. If I were... I dunno. I'd like to think that's what I'd do.

I'm sure, given a choice, texture vendors would protect their work if it didn't render it unusable. I know way too many people who've had their work stolen repeatedly. The toll isn't just financial but also emotional, and the SL community has come very close to losing some very talented content creators on numerous occassions. I've talked a couple of them down from the ledge myself. Why would anyone want to make life easier for thieves than it already is? It's easy for people to break into my house if they really want to, but I still lock my door when I leave.

Personally I think it is the fault of the skin makers for forcing people into going through questionable means to personalize their skin. Many creators simply refuse to do any custom work and quite a few are down right rude about such requests. There are a few I will never give my money to again because they felt it necessary to make me, the customer, feel like they were doing me a favor by even allowing me to buy their skin in the first place.

I say more power to the customer to get done what the content creators will not as long as it is for personal use only.

I'm sorry to hear you've had unpleasant experiences. But should all content creators suffer this criticism for the sins of a few?

It should also be noted that there are just not enough hours in a day to customize something for everyone too. I know a few skin makers who work full time to create the skins many enjoy. A lot of time goes in to even just one skin, and their time is consumed making skins for general consumption. For many such individuals, to do custom work is just not possible - there are only 24 hrs to a day.

To those content creators who *are* open to customization - I applaud you for having and making the time. Now please hand over the extra 48 hours you seem to have per day :B

Simply because (a) it would change stealing skins from something that takes quite an effort to do, into something that anyone who knows how to upload a texture to a skin layer could do, and (b) it would implicitly give permission to do so. Most people do not read EULAs, and in SL they're more or less unnecessary because the maker can make it clear what is allowed using the permissions system.



Huh? Look, it's a free world. If a skin maker doesn't want to do a laborious process for minimal reward, it's their right! Whatever job you have, should we criticize you for not doing MORE than you signed on to do? No, only spite would make us blame the skin makers here.

Frankly, I understand the position of folks who are against this. The ToS is clearly on their side. However, I disagree with those early on who said that anyone who profits from this form of tattooing is "scum", and I even believe that it could be successfully defended in court, as similar cases have been.

I'm really trying to see both sides of this. Coincidentally, just tonight I sent my long-suffering alt shopping for textures at The Really hUge texture store, and for animations at that place that sells full-perm animations--both products that just don't work right without "riders" to the permissions system. Now, actually, I don't think one ever actually *needs* full-perm textures; they can just be applied by script instead of in the editor. That would be inconvenient, but it would make the license correspond to the permissions. It would be *so* inconvenient, though, that a texture vendor who sold texture UUIDs instead of full perm textures would never be able to compete.

So why isn't it that way with skins? Why doesn't some skin vendor start selling full-perm skin textures, and simply drive everybody else out of business? Presumably the answer is that the demand, while clearly present, just isn't so overwhelming for that product. Or, that people who really want full-perm skins just use the illegal approach, having no alternative short of going into skin creation themselves.

At the animation store, I was reminded of all the illicit redistribution of those full-perm animations. I'd guess a lot of that is a result of how easy it is to mess up while setting permissions, and another large share due to folks who don't understand or respect the EULA. I know this animator hardly needs nor wants my sympathy, but I still feel bad that his work has gotten so much illegal distribution, intentional or otherwise.

So, yeah, I see the downside of relying on licensing outside the permissions system. But I also see where it's pretty necessary for some products. And I bet *most* skin buyers would really like to tweak *something* on their skins--and not just add a tattoo. Right now their only option is to do something illegal, to say nothing of inconvenient.

Maybe it's the permissions system that needs overhaul, more than the introduction of a "tattoo layer." If there were such a thing as "next-next owner" permissions, I think it might have all the desired semantics to serve these particular content areas, at least. But even the existing permissions system is hard for end-users to understand, and seems historically "fragile" in its implementation, so trying to extend it might be asking for trouble, too.

Hey Is this thread allowed even here?
It pretty sad that you experts can go on for pages and pages about this subject that I don't entirely get but for those of asking geninue questions or needs tips we are lucky if we get even response.
It just isn't fair.
Isn't adding layers possible in slider without interfering with the skin or someone's copy right already?
I wouldn't know I don't buy skins or tattoos they cost too much.
I use one's with modify permissions that were free or make my own.

maybe the OP was questionable, but it's turned into a technical discussion, so yeah


everyone has their area of expertise. and this thread is mostly about law and opinions so.... it gets more attention because it's A) different from the rest, B) something the 'experts' can talk about and debate with clarity C) easier to understand (some posts are impossible to decipher) D) not already covered in a sticky or 50 other posts E) life isn't fair

as to the sliders question, it's not about changing color, it's about changing details, like tattoos, within the tatto layer (which is also used by most skins) so that they don't intefere with clothes layers

oddly enough people are assuming you need unbaked textures to make this work, when actually if you have a nude av, wearing tatto underclothes a baked texture would mean zero work.

An overhaul of the permissions system without addressing the mechanics of skins wouldn't do anything to remedy the situation. Most people don't want to have to make their own modifications in a paint program. What we need is an avatar system that allows for a much greater degree of modularity. It would serve the do-it-yourselfers as much as the "I really like this skin but not the eyebrows on it" and the "I'd really like to have this tatt on my skin instead of on my underwear layer" crowds. It would add a layer of protection for creators (or at least take away an incentive for rippers) and it would enable legitimate secondary markets.

A greater degree of granularity in the permissions system would be welcome too, as long as it's designed for a wider range of choices and not for social engineering in service of idealism. The last time LL initiated a serious discussion about overhauling the permissions system, their idea was to make all content have a wrapper that expired after a year, at which point all the assets in any given product would be up for grabs. That's the kind of social engineering we don't need. I respect them for embracing open source with their code, but they don't have the right to force that decision on their content creators. Wanting to protect your bottom line isn't a mutually exclusive position from altruism. If it was, no one would be here taking the time to help other people learn (which, and this is for you FD, isn't an obligation).

Quite right: my bad. In this example, my hare-brained scheme for "next-next" perms would collapse once the skin-wearer's skin got handed to the tattoo artist and couldn't get handed back. So that would mean the skin-wearers would have to apply tattoos themselves, and the only in-world mechanism for "adding" textures to each other is (in a weird way) the avatar's layers. I was casting about for a Grand Unified Solution that would also help with other types of content but was, in short, Wrong.Aww, c'mon FD. You should know by now that I "go on for pages" whenever the answer can't be expressed in LSL. Seriously, though, if questions over in Scripting Tips--where I ostensibly know something--are going unanswered, then yeah, I've been slacking. It happens.