I have an ethics question.

I hope this is the right place to post this but since it is about textures I figured it was worth a shot.

When I first started building in SL, before I learned anything about photoshop, I did what most people do and I bought the majority of my textures in world. Now that I have more building skill and am learning photoshop, I've been taking some of the textures I had bought and altering them. I do things like add vines and flowers to wall textures, combine textures to make unique tiles. I might take a texture I have in the game to use as a base and then add a bunch of things to it or vice versa, use something else I create as a base and add a texture from the game to it...whichever. It's not a tiny bit of work, it does take up a lot of time but I enjoy it and I like having unique textures.

Right now all I do is use these creations on my own buildings. Sometimes I sell the buildings and sometimes I don't. My opinion at the moment is that this is perfectly fine. But now here is my ethical question.... If I take a texture I BOUGHT in SL, alter it in my photoshop by adding vines or combining it with other textures, is it then ok to sell it in the game, not on a building but to sell it AS A TEXTURE?

Now for those of you who are about to yell at me, please don't... I haven't actually sold any textures, i'm just asking opinions...lol. At this time I'm kind of back and forth about it so because I'm not sure I haven't done it. So now tell me what you think?

It all really depends on what rights the original creator gave out with the textures. I'm not only talking of the permissions, but any other terms of use. Most raw texture creators need to specify thier own terms of use since they sell full permissions textures. It's not too different from the web. When in doubt, seek out the original creator and ask them what you can and can't do with the textures.

It also depends on how much you change it. If you take any image (copyright or not), and change it a significant amount if becomes a "new work" and is yours.

What counts as "significant" is hard to define though. Just adding a vine to a purchased texture of a stone wall probably won't do it, but taking various textures of stone and vines and putting them together to create a wall texture might.

If it's hard to define you probably don't want to go there and risk challenging a legitimate claim of "All Rights Reserved". As I said before, asking before acting eliminates all that grey area.

I see your points. How much I alter a texture varies, sometimes it is only adding a vine or a border, sometimes it's unrecognizable, just depends on my need. Asking first makes sense though I can't really see too many people being happy to oblige me.

If that's what you think then it suggests you really shouldn't sell the textures.

Yes, it does sound like inside you have a sneaking suspicion that you probably shouldn't. No matter what you might be able to justify, if your conscience won't let you live with doing it, it's usually better to listen to yourself.

Still, some people are very accommodating, as you can see by the variety of artists in SL. Many people give away completely free textures with free right to modify and distribute, others go the other extreme and are very protective (as is their right). You just will not know unless you ask.

I wouldn't fret asking the question, it's a good question. All art is built off of the work of others, conceptually or visually, and we have to "prime the pump" by looking at what others are done or we have trouble getting started.

There is just a line somewhere in that gray area, between coming up with something that is really your own, that you can conscientiously claim is a product of your own efforts, and something that really is just swiped from someone else.

I would be extremely careful when doing something like this. You can take and alter a texture enough to make it so that it essentially can be called an original and only retain minute details of the previous version. Then again, the texture is always linked to an original name. What i suggest is not taking textures out of SL and editing them but going around everywhere you can and taking inspiration from many different textures. Therefore your not left without a base design but no one can say that you stole their texture.

The safest thing to do is to ask the texture's creator. Show them what you have done with their base work, and ask if you may resell your altered version. Most would want to see what you wished to resell, and would take it on a case by case basis.

Speaking as a texture designer myself, it would depend a lot on how much you changed the image. But I would certainly be open to being asked, and if I thought your efforts were sufficiently unique, I'd probably have no problems with it, myself. A lot of the textures that I sell are explicitly designed to be recombined with other textures. Things like curtains to go on existing windows.

Agreed. Asking first is always the way to go if you know the creator and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Speaking of copyright law and not Second Life specifically, that's simply not correct.

Alterations -- even significant alterations -- to a copyrighted work are considered derivative works, and they DO NOT diminish the original copyright, or invalidate it in any way. The original copyright is intact, valid, and still applicable. It's well within the rights of the original creator to prohibit derivative works if they so choose.

To the extent that your new material is new and substantive, yes, you as the creator OF THOSE PORTIONS hold a copyright IN THOSE PORTIONS ONLY. But the parts of the original that are still used are still protected inasmuch as the original creator wants them to be, and just because you added lots of new stuff doesn't make the original parts yours.

The classic example? Sampling in electronic and rap music. Even tiny samples of other recordings used in a new recording require licensing and permission, as Vanilla Ice found out back in the day when he used the famous guitar riff from Queen's "Under Pressure" and promptly got sued for doing so without licensing or permission of any kind.

As it pertains to Second Life, it's likely a permissions issue -- or whatever licensing details, if any, that the creator chose to include with the texture when it was purchased.

Personally, the only assumptions I make with these things is to assume the worst, most restrictive rights. Unless the creator grants the rights explicitly, they can't be used.

For more details on the copyright aspects of this, visit:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

Obviously only of interest to US-based residents, but the principles likely apply more broadly.

In all honesty honey youre looking for more trouble than it's worth. I dont know any designer that will let you resell with your own name. SOOOO Since you HAVE learned photoshop, why not make your own, sweetie, I bet you could do a fabulous job and make your own textures to allow ppl to do what you wish with.

I've found that most textures people are selling in SL are just ripped from the web anyways. I went to a texture store (not saying which one) and saw several stone textures I really liked. They were selling for L$50, and I was horrified. I thought it a total rip off to pay that much for something that someone only paid L$10 to upload. These textures were nice, but didn't look exceptionally original or complicated. I decided to just do a google search to see if I could find something just as nice on my own and guess what? I found almost every stone texture that was for sale at that store on a 'backgrounds' web page that stated the images were royalty free and could be used how ever and where ever one liked.

I suggest doing some google searches on your own and you may just find that the texture you altered is royalty free as well.

Visited many galleries? There are plenty that sell uploaded 'classics' and works they've probably never even seen in the flesh. One the things that irks me no end, but I just try to ignore it now.

It happens all the time. SL has a HUGE community, and it's a safe bet that a large proportion of that will be people who either don't know how to upload textures (or that they can), or find it easier to pay someone else to do it for them. Where there's a market, there'll be a trade.

Better than doing your own google search by far is taking your own pictures, if you have the means. The satisfaction is far greater when it's something you've sourced, developed and seen finalised yourself. Plus it's going to be totally unique. There are only so many keywords you can search for when you're after a specific texture, and chances are plenty of other folk have run those same searches and found the same 'great' texture.

A bit of imaginaton goes a long way. Ever scanned in a crumpled sheet of paper? There are lots of ways to make and places to find gorgeous surfaces without expensive equipment. I fully understand people who don't have the time paying for their textures, and sometimes there are things that you just can't find in RL or work out how to make - but for me making new textures is all part of the fun of building.

That's a surprise. (Not.)

Just a point of clarification, Syless -- "royalty free" doesn't necessarily mean "use for any purpose." Royalty free art and photography are generally free from royalties or licensing for repeated use, but you still can't resell them. Terms and conditions for these thngs vary -- a lot -- which means reading the fine print is important.

That said, it's seems awfully disingenuous for many of us to be having an intellectual property discussion in the first place. My observation is that many (most?) people here run pretty free with the intellectual property law. How many Nike® shoes, Calvin Klein® underpants, and Coors® beers have you seen in SL? (Registered trademark symbols intentional.) How many clothing designs lifted directly from popular catalogs, or leading RL designers, right down to the embroidery on the pocket?

I've done it too -- we all are trying to replicate a life-like look here. But truth be told, using other peoples' trademarks and lifting other peoples' copyrighted designs and then openly selling the results here strikes me as pretty much a definition of the word "disingenuous," and it's certainly of pretty shaky legal ground.

I, like a lot of people, want my avie to wear a Nike shoe, not a Nookie brand knock-off. And as long as Second Life continues to be a pretty small, select community of people, I somehow doubt the Calvin Klein legal team is going to spend much time here slapping wrists about digital underwear bearing their logo.

In any case, people probably shouldn't be squaking too loudly about lifting ideas and designs when, in a lot of cases, they aren't original to start with -- whether it's a major label design, trademark intact, or very directly lifted from some CD clipart collection.

But I digress. My point in even bringing this up is that there are principles involved here, legal and otherwise, that people who design (and more importantly sell) in Second Life should probably brush-up on. Linden Lab lets us keep our own intellectual property, which is key. But when that incorporates trademarks and copyrighted material used without permission or license, it's not really ours, and moreover, it's not even particularly legal.

Well, I wasn't saying to go and sell the stuff you find online. I was stating that people ~are~ selling these textures and you can just as easily go find them yourself and just pay the upload cost if you want to use them.

I also feel if you modify anything enough it becomes your own work, long as you are only modifying things like wall textures and not someone's drawings. I'd like to see someone copywrite ancient mayan temple wall carvings, for example.

The general % of alteration considered acceptable is 70%. And/Or that the original image/art work must not be identified or put it another way, if you removed the original texture from your modified version would it leave a noticable void? If so its not yours

I have scanned copy right websites and info for mths myself trying to answer this question as it can be a shade of grey.

As regards selling other ppls textures after modifying them. My stores EUAL states my hand drafted txtrs are not to be manipulated or modified in any way shape or form to then be claimed as your own and resold.

Asking the creator is a good idea of course but legally they should have been putting their EUAL or TOS in with all textures they create & sell..THATS their only protection really in SL legally.

I do allow ppl to modify my work and use it on builds but not to resell it.

On the other hand a lot of my artists modify my textures and do sell them but ONLY from my store and my store only and I get a copy of each texture they modified so should they decide to leave it then becomes mine again by right. They also sign a contract stating they will not sell the same txtrs anywhere else outside my store,

SO if you want to modify textures and sell them...you do have a place my store but they have to be txtrs you a) bought from me or b) found/bought outside SL and what ever the EUAL for them are is your responsibilty.

Theres a new txtr store ( wont mention the name) has Total Textures entire CD collection uploaded 1 - 17 I spoke to the owner and said I recognised them as Total Textures he/she claimed she had got 'release forms' which is a crock of sh*t

Yes I agree we ALL bend the rules ( most) in one way shape or form and I have always stated this but that person (ne store owner) is just begging for court action.
I tried to gently warn them but was met with dismissal and even I would state anger

Some ppl think theyre untouchable in SL from the RL we all do until we get our RL butts kicked from RL sources.

Actually, without the object in question being of public domain or royalty-free derivative work must be authorized.
It's also important to understand the difference between public domain and royalty-free. Generally speaking when something is royalty-free (ie Dover Clip Art books) it comes with a terms of use that must be abided by. While objects of public domain follow the laws of public domain. An object becomes public domain either 70 years after the authors death (assuming copyright was not transfered), or I believe 90-120 years after creation. It can also become public domain if the creator deems it so.
So you can alter the Mona Lisa (I forget the exact % of alteration required - possibly 20) and own the derivative, but if you alter and distribute something that was made a year ago without authorization you've violated US laws. Although this is generally overlooked for non-commercial uses, if anyone bothered with a lawsuit the fines involved are extreme. For certain violations the maximum fine carries a $1,000USD fee per view. As the internet becomes less anonymous this is a serious matter to consider, and not something to be casually brushed off.

Some more extensive reading can be found here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html (on Public Domain)