Stop Using Copyrighted Anims!

My thoughts exactly Zero.

There is a grey area that comes up though - around non-commercial personal use. Some artists allow for this - like using an image for your desktop or even putting it on a personal website. Now the question is... would putting a painting up in your SL house constitute personal use? Or is it considered distribution? This is a tricky area...

If I saw one of my pieces of art from my website hanging on someone's wall in SL I'd be flattered and it wouldn't bother me a bit, but I'd probably ask them to credit me in the object description. If they were selling them in SL I probably wouldn't mind that either unless I was also trying to sell it in SL. If they were using it to adveritise RL posters of my art that they were selling without my permission that'd be another story entirely.

[/B]IANAL, but the law is pretty straightforward around this. Personal use means that it's for your eyes/ears/mind and nobody else's. Share the work with someone else--i.e. display a poster in a public area, or broadcast sound where people can hear it--and the use is no longer personal, it's a "public performance."

Of course there is a difference between what is ethically right and what is legally right, but nobody is going to sue you or shut you down for lousy ethics

You should never be in a situation where you have to make up your own answer to the question "How would the artist feel about how I am using her/his work?" If you are in this situation, you shouldn't be using the work at all (overgeneralization, of course).

Chip - I generally feel the same way about my art being used... except for it being sold in-world. And not just because I try to sell it myself. At this point L$ equates to RL$. And no one but me has a right to make money off of my art, even if it is just a low-rez image in SL. Its not that it would really financially hurt me, its just the principle of the thing. There could be a guy in SL who just sells loads and loads of other people's art and makes a nice supplemental income - without having one ounce of talent beyond grabbing images off the net and uploading to SL. To me it is no different than someone in RL pirating prints of artwork. It is the same principle.

Yes, I think a lot of the debate comes down to ethics more than legality - and that's more of what I was driving at as far as the grey area.

Yep, agreed. It all comes back to selling work you didn't create.

I'm surprised nobody has simply made a semi-okay-kinda-crappy-but-it-works mocap program that operates on a few crappy webcams & some ping pong balls and tape.

I have downloaded .bvh files from the net, (edited them in poser), exported them, then uploaded them into Sl and sold them. I have also created completely original animations in Poser, exported them, then uploaded them into SL and sold them. And will continue to do so.

It seems that since Poser costs around $199US and most people don't have a piece of the new animation selling action they decide to start ripping into people who do. Have you seen the hundreds of FREE .bvh files that are available on the web. Honestly there are hundreds that are completely free to do whatever you want with. But since most of the time they need to be edited in poser before imported into SL, people who don't have Poser can't upload them. This does not mean that we are doing anything wrong.

While on the subject of copyright/trademark enfringement, what about people making Avatars of tv/movie characters? Noone seems to worry about this, why? because anyone can do it, you don't need to buy a $199 program for it.

You can copyright many things but I have never heard you can copyright your real life looks.

There are protections for movie characters, and there are protections for personal likeness, but not being a lawyer I can't be very specific about whether this falls under copyright or not, other than to say likenesses are not in the public domain. I can't, for example, photograph anyone on the street and put their face on a magazine without their permission.

In the case of movie characters, not only are the studios often very protective of the images, but the actors are often quite sensitive too. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently threatened suit over a "bobblehead" doll produced with his likeness, for example.

With regards to copyright and trademark, both can be applied to characters that are created--like Superman or Shrek, for example.

Generally, fan-created works are not squashed by the rights-holders unless the fans are getting out of hand by selling (bootlegging) material or portraying the characters in an unfavourable way, i.e. Disney porn or slash fiction. Movie studios are beginning to take notice of "total conversions" (game mods) that are derivative of their property, for example, a Star Wars mod for Battlefield 1942 or a Robocop mod for Quake3. While rights-holders are not always interested in suing for damages, they may just send you a threatening cease and desist letter.

For me, it has nothing to do with the cost of Poser. I have it myself. Its an issue of ethics, and being a digital artist / creator myself its something I take very seriously. If these free BVH files you find on the web really do say you are free to sell and profit from them - then go right ahead and do that. Even if they do allow it though I personally think its pretty lame to sell something that is available free elsewhere. Just like the people who try to sell other freebies in SL. Eventually customers will wise up to the fact that they can get it free from someone else. But I guess making a quick buck is all that matters to some.

I'm glad to hear you are creating original animations as well though.

I've had Poser for four years now, and was heavily involved in the community for a good two years. That's part of the reason that it makes me wary. At one point, I knew the people personally who put hours into these files and put them up for people to learn from, enjoy, or help create their animations. Usually when they tag them for commercial/non-commercial, they mean that you can render it in an animation without paying them and then sell the animation. Usually they say not to redistribute, which I think, editing in Poser or not, still counts.

That said, I think most people in the Poser community would be fine with it if people weren't making money off of their work. Which, with L$-US$ exchange, is entirely possible. When in doubt? Ask the creator. They might very well let you, or ask for a cut if you make over x-dollars.

I make many avatars based on anime and video game characters. As long as a person doesn't take the credit for creating the characters themselves, it doesn't seem to be an issue. Just to be safe I add a disclaimer notecard into all those types of items/avatars stating who owns the rights to the characters themselves (e.g. Final Fantasy characters are copyright Squaresoft/Square Enix, all rights reserved).

i think there is still a huge gap between you who take time to create an avie inspired from existing character and guis who download pictures , bvh and more from the net and upload them in SL.

Linden lab cannot check everything its near impossible so ppl really need to follow a basic rule of conduct.

im creating clothing inspired from the gothic lolita and jrock scene but i dont feel guilty at all because i do all my stuffs by myself (and it take me days to create a full dress) , and for animation i always start from scratch.

No one has addressed the issue of people getting properly licensed motion captures. You can buy mocap bvh files for as cheap as $5.00, and if it's as true as you mention that L$ is "reasonable consideration" worthy of being cash equivalent, any $5.00 animation that will net you over 1250 would be worth buying and reselling in SL.

While there are many talented Poser artists, it's true that hand editing will never reach the fine-grained details of a motion capture. Therefore a purchased motion capture will almost always be of higher quality than something you make yourself.

Using this logic the people who resell mocap animations in SL should receive the highest praise, for taking the proper steps to bring the best possible quality animation in to the SL world.

anyway its still really lame, it downgrade the work done by people who spend time to create 'by hand' anims, or ppl who have access to mocap tech and spend time tio create good moves.

anyway , even if mocap ar 5$ or something, there is still ppl who arent willing to spend 5$ on something they can get for free, and it goes for pictures and textures too

if we where able to create sort of "quality label" to reward the true artists, it would add value to theyr hard work

remember that for a picture you can still ask to ther artist, its better than if he discover himself that you ripped his work

How can you generalize that all motion capture animations for sale are "really lame", but then say any homemade motion capture apparently isn't? This whole discussion is kind of moot anyways, because if person A makes a homemade animation and sells it, and person B buys a motion capture and resells it, the SL economy will reward each person based on the value of the final product to the consumer. Your lamenting will not change the supply or demand curve.

Animations I use in my creations are either:

o manually animated by myself, using Poser
o created from freely available motion capture data on research website
o have a license that explicitly allows use for commercial work, which in some cases required me spend real money

Still law is complicated. If you find anything wrong or think I overlooked something, please let me know

I do wonder however, where all the porn picture for sale in SL come from. Those women (and men) shown there, do they agree with this?

I agree my art work is what I did in real life with real pastels and oils, it not copies out of a book or off line. I Put alot of heart in doing it. Having it here to have a dream of showing it to real people is fun. To sell it is just a extra. Knowing some steal art work call it there own is sad. Not very orginal at all just in it for money. Someday it will catch up with them as SL gets more popular.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter. I have been in situations where I have had to contact the creator, seeking permission to use their work and have always had a positive experience doing so. I didn't always get permission to use their property, but just making the effort to contact them has opened doors that I never would have imagined.

Please respect other's property and make the effort to do the right thing. You could very easily get way more than you originally set out to achieve.

Salazar

so where is the interest if we can find in sl near all the mocap you find in commercial packages

and it cut down the problem, if you did it by yourself its ok
if not, we need to search who did it, if he is ok, if you have payed a license fee, is your license allowing you to do so??

a little complicated considering the tons of media circualting in SL

These instances do not fall under copyright law, they fall under the laws of libel/slander and defamation of character. Libel is the false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. Slander is oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. Of course each state has its own definition.

As a journalist I have had to learn a bit about libel so I wouldn't commit it. The reason you can't put an image of anyone on a magazine is because everyone has a right to privacy except for public figures (ie movie stars and politicians.) Public figures have a right to privacy in their own homes, however because there is no expectation of privacy on a public street anyone can take their picture (hence the papparazzi). Because movie stars make their living on their looks they do have some protection for their likenesses to be used commercially. However in the case of Arnold and the bobblehead, the company brought up the point that he is a politician now and can be parodied because of it. The outcome of the suit will be very interesting to see if his new status will result in their ability to sell the doll. He may just have threatened suit to scare them, (that happens alot) but we'll see.

As for avatars, I would imagine they would be treated in the same light as costumes. (It's not as if anyone believed that the avartars are the actual people they represent.) I'm not certain if costume makers must get permission to sell a Bill Clinton costume. As for movie star costumes most represent the characters that a movie star portrays not the star themselves, which is a copyrighted character and requires permission. But either way its not illegal for me to dress up as Bill or The Terminator for Halloween, even if I make the costume myself.

As for copyright law, one major point that we may have forgotten is that it is ok to use images likenesses and other such copyrighted material in order to promote it. For examble if I write a book review and scan the cover of a book I don't have to get permission to use the book's artwork. The same goes for movie reviews.

For the most part if you give credit where it is due you should be fine. However I would stay away from selling anything that isn't yours personally (unless of course you get permission and even then get it in writing).

Interesting article on copyrighting fictional characters, given that Linden Lab has granted us copyright to what we create in Second Life...

http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html

Salazar

(Edited to correct the spelling of "Linen Lab" to "Linden Lab." Leave it to me to make a textile error. - S.J.)

I would like to interject a bit into this debate.

Copyright law, as I read it, is a vague and flexible thing. The boundary between "fair use" and "copyright infringement" is far from fixed and is constantly moving these days, with everybody claiming copyright on all sorts of things, be it anims or textures or music or species or software or whatever.

Recent law and regulation changes have made it easier than ever for owners of copyrights to reach ever further into the lives and activities of users for ever longer periods of time, and this can most readily be seen in the RIAA's recent crackdown on hundreds of music uploaders and Disney's extension of the copyright on Mickey Mouse, which was just about up before the termination deadline was extended (retroactively, essentially, but no one seems to be challenging Disney or the rule change).

In short, this trend towards copyright fear is something that's being forced upon us and encouraged by powerful interests as a way to extend their licensing fees into perpetuity. Now, I know saying that will be a bit contentious here, since many in SL are graphic designers and so on, that is, people who profit directly from their creation of ideas.

And believe me when I say I guard that which is my copyright just as jealously as any other creative artist. I myself have seen others profit off of my work -- as a musician -- with no recompense, and it irks me off to no end just like I'm sure it does for you when it happens with your work. I'm not saying your concerns are unfounded. I'm just cautioning us to be a little less hyperbolic.

What I'm getting at is that copyright is a complex and nuanced issue. Just because you created it does not mean you have the final say in how it is used.

Some people have said, essentially, that "distribution is illegal, period." This is not necessarily the case. There are a number of factors determining whether an act of distribution is fair use. U.S. law describes a four-point criterion for such determinations:

1) Purpose or character of the use. For example, is your use commercial or on-commercial (e.g., educational).
Are you making an exact reproduction, or are you transforming it? If you are transforming it, how great of a transformation are you making?

2) Nature of the copyrighted work. If the nature of the work is largely factual, your reproduction of the work is less likely to be seen as infringement. This is probably why celebrities don't have complete authority over their image, especially when an image of them is captured while they are in a public area.

3) The amount of the copyrighted work used. Are you using the complete work on only a portion thereof?

4) The effect of the use upon the marketability of the work. This is why, the RIAA argues, file-sharing is bad for music; it provides a cheap (free) alternative to actually paying for CDs and DVDs. Whether this actually is the case (the much-decried slump in music sales may have less to do with file-sharing than it does with our long recession and perhaps just a general disenchantment with the market, which should hardly be surprising after a decade of highly-managed pop tripe, but I digress) has yet to be accurately established, and indeed studies are now coming out which soundly reject the RIAA's reasoning, but that's not going to stop the RIAA's lawsuit-binge.

But anyway, to bring us back to the issue, which is copyrighted anims. Uploading anims to SL is a tricky issue, because the ToS seem to imply that by uploading anything you are giving free license to the entirety of SL for the work. It seems to me, then, that the ToS assume that you own the copyright or otherwise have permission to use for copyrighted works you upload to SL. If you're uploading anims without ownership or permission, then, you're in a sticky situation. And I say "sticky" only because it seems a bit messy; according to the rules you wouldn't even need to try to distribute the work in question -- just having it in your inventory would be a problem.

But whether uploading to SL constitutes "distribution" is another question. As far as I know, there's no high-fidelity way to download images, anims, or sounds from SL to RL files. There may be a way, I just don't know it. If there is a way, then distributing a work in SL can be thought of as distribution, and if you sell it, you are very definitely profiting off of someone else's work and hurting their bottom line, so you're in the wrong, period. BUT. If there is no high-fidelity way to take anims off of SL, then I don't know how it could be argued that the distribution of the work violates the fourth measure of fair use, in other words, I don't see how you can be hurting the original owner's bottom line. In such a case it could even be argued that your use is transformative, since whatever you're doing is based upon the work, and doesn't use the work itself per se.

However, if you're selling that anim, I think you're flirting with infringement, which is only the case nowadays because of the widespread knowledge of and use of GOM. If Lindens were worthless, selling a work for Lindens wouldn't really constitute "commercial" use, I don't think. If you were to give the anim away, well, it wouldn't be as bad.
It's also pretty clear that you're using the whole work, which won't help your case for fair use.

So, if you can't easily download an anim from SL, distributing copyrighted anims in SL may be infringement, but then it may not. It's far from a clear-cut case for fair use or against, and even if court decisions existed, it's not clear the courts would decide in the same way in this particular case of distributed anims. Copyright law is tricky and fad-like like that. The ToS don't make it any easier.

60+ Free animations!!

In world now!

Go down into my cave at the Prehistoric Market - Bethel (110, 50)

Or the Phobos Project, currently located on the stage - Phobos (120, 40)


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully this will help put an end to peopel SELLING these animations Full credit is given to the original creators and website links.