Boycot?

Hi everyone.

Today I posted a new thread in this forum about the theft of my textures. I put in the name of the thief (*name removed) and a link to my blog where you can see that the theft really happened:

http://www.thumdar.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Texture-theft.html&Itemid=110

http://www.thumdar.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=The-story-coninues....html&Itemid=110

When coming back on this forum tonight, I noticed the post to be removed. If there were any replies, I didn't have the chance to read them. I didn't get any notice of the reason why this thread was removed.
Does this mean that thiefs are being helped and even rewarded and the people that they stole from are the bad guys?

Again, my textures that were stolen are used in these pants:
http://www.xstreetsl.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&file=item&ItemID=917432

Don't buy them, they are stolen property.

Hopefully this post will stay posted and can warn you for illegal actions.

Regards,
Dalriada

However good your reasons, naming another resident in that way will get your post removed and could get you banned. Not saying it's right, just the way it is here.

Thank you for your reaction Wulfric. I removed the name in the previous post.
Banning me from this forum and letting a thief run around free....
This forum has really weird standards I should think.

"Just the way it is here", so we agree and report it?

Now if I didn't have the proof right before me and I didn't post it, THEN I would agree....

Dalriada, I hate to have to tell you this, but by reposting on the same topic after your original post was removed, you're breaking the rules yet again. I would invite you to read the forum guidelines. Here's the relevant excerpt:



If you feel your post was deleted unfairly, you should contact LL, just as the instructions say.

As for your allegedly stolen textures, your recourse for that is to file a DMCA takedown notice with Linden Lab, so they can remove the infringing content from SL. Instructions for how to do that are at http://secondlife.com/corporate/dmca.php . Further, you can sue the alleged IP thief, if you want to take it that far.

If you're in the right, the law is on your side on this. But either way, it's never proper to use the forums for this sort of thing.

By the way, one quick piece of advice: if and when you do file your takedown notice, be sure to follow the instructions to the letter. The most common reason for LL "ignoring" notices is because of users not filing them properly. Remember, this is a legal matter. All your paperwork must be in proper order.

If it seems harsh and unfair to you: turn it all around and imagine if the person you claim stole from you came here first with a claim of "Dalriada stole my creations and here's some pictures as proof!".

There's no way for anyone here to know whether any allegations are actually true or not.

Ouch Chosen Few! To think that I didn't even read that.

Well to be honest, There told me about that DMCA. As I am in Europe and not English speaking by birth, it's very hard for me to understand all that.
It also means I have to send a letter to the US and I am in Europe.

I hate the fact that the one person that is the victim of this has to spend money and take a language course or even get legal advice for these matters, so thought i'd do it this way.
Yes I read now it's not the right way.
I am sure I am not the only person that is feeling like this.

It's like a virtual rape and then have to talk about it again and again and again......

Kitty, that didn't even came to mind!

I posted about this on a There forum, because all people know me there and they know I made these textures. I also know she used the textures of other designers in There.

All I can say is that all of these textures have been in There.com for a long while and that these new one in SL came in game recently. If I was accused of being a thief, I'd have the proof to deny it. I tried to mail her twice and she's a member of the forum I posted on.
If i got mails of someone who called me a texture thief I'd react right away to let them know it's not true. Wouldn't you?

I posted before but the thread is gone, you saw the items on Xstreet, you should go to Xstreet and complain, they might take them down if they believe they are yours. You can file a DMCA with them I believe, and then (as I understand it) they HAVE to take them down.

Hi Dal, this is VenusMediazone from There. I know you are the original creator of those textures. I also live outside the US and it's hard to fill a DMCA notice, but I was in the same situation some time ago here in SL and they told me I can fax the letter. If you need help with the DMCA notice, I can help you. Just give me a yell.

I know how you feel right now, all the anger and impotence. Been there.

I should check that designer's (ok, that is not the right word for that person, we know the right word) items in SL to make sure "the person" didn't steal anything from me too.

You are not alone on this Dal, I'm here for anything you need and you know how to contact me

Don't give up and keep creating the great stuff you do.

V

The rules of this forum are designed to protect LL legally. It's nothing personal.
However, third party forums do not have their hands tied. SL Universe is a popular third-party forum which would be a good place to voice this. http://sluniverse.com/

It would be good to provide as much detail and evidence as you can. I had a similar issue when I was new with sculpts, and I gave as much evidence as I could- which was pretty strong. Then another poster who was a professional graphic designer analyzed the images and discovered that the pirated sculpts showed signs of being doubly compressed, as would be the case from printscreening my original sculpts. This established whose sculpts were the original and gave incontrovertible support.

Thank you so much! These 3 last posters really helped me and made me feel supported. That's why I wrote about this in the first place.
I have to admit that I felt pretty rotten and the reactions to my post were more pointed to the "way" I posted then to the fact that someone did me wrong.

To think that I had to cry about all this! Geesh! Well I decided there are other things in life that are FAR more important then this.
I might ask for your help V, thank you for offering (really!).
I might just stop the fight too. to me it's not worth it to not only fight a thief, but also have to fill in a load of bureaucratic crap and on top of that being accused by other members.

I know there's legal stuff to be cared for, but attacking the victim is not the way to solve nor to stop these thiefs.

Dalriada

Good post.

I would add that another reason for now allowing this is the sheer chaos that would ensue if everyone who had a beef against someone else came in here and accused them of theft. I have NO idea what is going on in this matter but I could imagine a totally dysfunctional board where everyone and their five alts pile on ex-s.o's ex-business partners or anyone else who happened to piss them off that day.

I've been involved in helping designers track down thieves and know just how frustrating it is to attempt to get any renumeration (forget justice -- there is none in SL). I don't agree with unsubstantiated accusations on unmoderated boards but anyone who does feel the need to voice concerns should use a third-party board.

Hmmmm... maybe I missed something that has been edited out. I can't find anything in this thread that looks like an attack. And yes, I do sympathize with your problem. I hope your DMCA is successful. Good luck.

Thank you Rolig for your sympathy. Nothing has been edited out and you didn't miss anything. There has of course been no real attack, it just feels like it.
My feelings on this are very personal and you are on the sideline.
I can imagine you don't feel it that way, I do....

From your blog I noticed you list the offender's website hosted by Bravehost. Check Bravehosts terms of service and you should find something in there about copyrighted material. If so there's another avenue for you to pursue in turning up the heat on this person.

Though I know it's frustrating to someone who feels their designs have been stolen and/or used inappropriately, I'm not fond of the "court of public opinion" method for redressing the issue. You may indeed be in the right, you may indeed have "proof" that would lead people to a reasonable conclusion that you're in the right, but it's just as easy for someone else to post an accusation falsely, with seemingly genuine and similar "proofs," thereby ruining the reputation of someone who is innocent -- either intentionally or accidentally.

This is why we have legal processes, and legal definitions of proof, and in the US, the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is also why we have the DMCA process. Though it can be slow, it also ensures the content is actually taken down if the alleged perpetrator is found to have stolen content -- something that accusations in public forums cannot do, and far more effective, since forum posts are read by a small subset of those who purchase content.

Again, though I'm sure you're angry and frustrated, please consider the many abuses that could result if this were the way we handled these matters, and instead pursue the legal methods made available to handle these situations.

You do, by the way, have my sympathies. I'm glad you at least were able to find some support and assistance in filing the DMCA report.

It appears the items in question have been removed from Xstreet, I know it isn't much consolation but it's something

Thank you for pointing that out Ralekta! It IS much consolation for me, because it means the girl finally listened and that at least some of the energy I put into this has worked.
I am not after punishment, just justice and having them removed means justice for me.

As for the DMCA and the US legal system: many designers in SL have pointed to me that SL doesn't care for texture theft and whatever you do, the stolen textures won't be removed unless you start a long and slow process and indeed follow every rule to the letter.
I am not in the US, I can only see what happens with the system when it goes wrong, because that's what they show on tv here. To be honest, from what I have seen on the news, it doesn't encourage me much.

When I read that some posters here write words as alleged, may, accidentally (lol)....
I know what I have made, the proof is on my computer and if it wasn't such a hell of a lot of work I would have sent it all to SL long time ago.
I don't want to put energy, money and frustration in writing something that I don't understand. Not to mention the fact that SL expects you to give all your private information. Some people offered me help with it, and I am very thankfull for that. I might even take the offer in the future.

Think about this: why did this person not react on any of my mails (I tried the personal approach) or my accusations? If someone did this to me, I would reply very quick to prove them wrong.
This girl however has not reacted in ANY way.

Since last night, a lot of people offered me to help and I am very glad with that.
Thank you so much!!!

Dalriada

just curious, did you hand paint the textures your self? or were they photosourced from jeans you found in the web?

Just curious, why are you asking this question in this thread?
Are you really interested in the way I work, or are you trying to point out that everyone uses a picture from the web once in a while?

To reassure you, I never used pictures of other people and put them on an avy.

I'm asking because, if your designs were photo sourced, which they appear to be, then whats to say this person who "stole" them didn't use the same source you did? basically, photosourced clothing isn't truly someones personal work and can also be seen as stealing.

I'm not saying that your work didn't take time and effort, just that it's not truly something you hand drew and is unique to you. No one can call something photosourced their own, the source is available to all on the net, in the same places you found them..just a heads up though, some pictures on the net have copyright clauses...such as big name designers, their logos and itens from sources like renderosity and turbo squid, where someone created those textures themselves.

I couldn't tell if they were hand drawn or not from the blog cause the pics were small and my eyes are...I have age related optical degeneratvie disease

wtb laser

I have hand drawn and photosourced textures in There. As there is a submission progress in There that is very strict on copyrighted textures (unlike SL), I would think that I have no copyrighted stuff there.

There are rules about copyrighted material and photosourcing. If you use material from the web and change it for at least 30% it is yours. There are also artists in RL that use photosourcing. You would say they are not genuine?
According to There I have the copyright on these textures. I use a combination of photos from the web (esp the ones in the public domain but also bits and pieces of others), hand drawn art and photos I took myself.

If this person used the same sources then she copied my designs exactly using these sources. There's no way she could have done that, because I have hand drawn items in it too. She just used the png files in There and put them on a SL avy.
Her textures are far more blurry. Besides, I have the PSD (with all the layers), Jpeg and png files to prove it and I doubt that she has.

That's not true, legally. If There has that as a rule, they're not being very smart about things. That's certainly not what US copyright law says.

If you source your image from someone else's photograph, you are creating what's known as a derivative work. That's not allowed unless the original author gives permission. There's no such thing as a magical percentage that makes the work "yours".

Think about it logically for a second. What could constitute ___% of an image anyway? Is it the number of pixels? If that were the case, then you could copy absolutely anything, change the color scheme, and call it yours. How about the physical dimensions? Nope, that doesn't work either. You can't just slice away or paint over part of a copyrighted work and claim the remainder of the original is yours. In order for your work to be yours, it has to be a brand new original, not a derivative.

Photosourced textures could very well be (and very often ARE) considered derivatives of the original photos. The judgments on these things are always subjective, and have nothing to do with math or percentages. The relevant questions are whether or not the second piece of work was based on the first, and whether it is substantially different enough from the original, so as to be considered wholly new. In most cases, simply chopping/distorting a photo so that it fits onto a template for a texture would not constitute doing new original work.

Quite obviously, if there's a photo of a pair of jeans, and you use it to create a jeans texture, your texture was based on the photo. They're both representations of the same subject, and one wouldn't have come into being without the other. Now, on the other hand, what if the photo wasn't really "of the jeans"? In other words, what if it was depicting an event, and a person present at the event happened to be wearing jeans, and you extracted a swatch of denim from the photo and used it to create your jeans? In that case, you've got a compelling argument that your work is brand new. The jeans weren't substantively relevant to the original photo in the first place, while your image is of just jeans and nothing else. I'd suspect a court would rule in your favor in a case like that. But they certainly wouldn't in the first case.

I'd encourage you to read the following:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works

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

http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/

I realize you're not in the US, and that everything I've been talking about (and that those links talk about) has to do with US copyright law. But as I'm sure you know, when you signed up for SL, you agreed that all your activities within the service would be in compliance with the laws of the United States, and specifically of the State of California. I would imagine There probably has similar terms. Most services do.

By the way, speaking of things like Terms of Service, I poked around There's website, looking for that rule about percentages you mentioned. Not surprisingly, I couldn't find it. If it actually does exist, could you please provide a link to it? I suspect it's not actually there, and that you simply fell prey to one of the most common misconceptions about how copyright works, but if it I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

Whatever the case may be, though, the fact that There might or might not happen to have that or any other particular rule can't change the law. Illegal activity is just as illegal, whether private parties make rules that say otherwise or not. I couldn't make a rule that says you get to commit murder in my house, for example, just as There can't make a rule that says you get to commit copyright infringement on their service.


Senari's question was very important. First, as he/she mentioned, it's entirely possible that you and the person you think copied you both happened to have stumbled on the same source, so of course your results look similar. Second, if your copying of the original source wasn't legal to begin with, you can't rightly complain that someone else in turn illegally copied your illegal copy.

Please understand, I'm not casting any judgment, or trying in anyway to say that your work is or isn't legitimate. I'm just explaining the various scenarios. Ultimately, these things are for courts, not any of us, to decide.

Have anyone considered writing a basic summary of US (since LL is based there) copyright law with regard to textures online? It could then be stickied. Chosen and others have been doing a yeoman job of writing responses to these questions, but the issue of copyright comes up again and again and again and again on these forums.

I know the subject can be controversial, and there are a lot of gray areas, but if it was restricted to the "on the book" definitions of fair use, as well as some generic caveats, it would probably go a long way towards dispelling the frequently held misconceptions around here such as: "It's a non-commercial site, so everything on it is fair game", "Copyright only exists if you do some expensive legal filing", and the ever popular "If it's online, it's fair game" (related to "Copyright doesn't exist in SL because it's a game, so it's not real"

Anyone out there with background in this willing to take a poke at it?