Selling mod/copy/trans content without license agreement

Today Guni and I have come accross some content that was for sale as modify/copy/transfer and even advertised as all permissions and copyable. There was no hint available to the buyer about possible restrictions or license terms.

I think every content creator should know that when you willingly (as opposed to by mistake) set permissions on some object in SL and then sell that object without any other clearly visible information, that you enter into contract with the buyer that allow the buyer to use the object accordingly. Specifically, if you sell something with full copy/transfer permissions, then you can no longer claim copyright when the buyer begins to sell copies of the items for whatever price!

If you don't want somebody resell your content or use it in certain ways, then you need to either set object permissions accordingly, or make sure the buyer first agrees to some license agreement. This can easily be done, e.g. with scripted vendor device. Some clearly visible signs in this case are also better than nothing.

Otherwise, if you sell things with full permissions and no further information, then business people will have to assume they can copy, transfer and sell that content to whomever they want at whatever price they want!

Please help avoid problems by making restrictions/terms with your content clear before any sale occures. If you give something away for free that is maybe different case, but if you click this little checkbox "copy" and "transfer" and you SELL item that way, then you pass on the right to sell copies of that object.

Honorable business people will of course respect any special terms or restrictions that you make clear before the purchase.

To make it clear again:

If you sell content with full modify/copy/transfer premissions but no license agreement, the buyer can assume the full rights to alter, resell or otherwise redistribute that content!

If we are the buyer, but then find license information or special terms in the content package after purchase that was not made clear before purchase, then we will still be fine to undo purchase if you reimburse what we paid.

Most business people are friendly people and try work things out if there was mistakes on your part. However, nobody is oblieged to, neither legally nor morally. So please make sure beforehand what you want to sell, under what terms and make those clearly visible to the buyer! Otherwise after the sale you do not have any rights. You have full control and set terms of purchase before the transaction. But after purchase deal is deal and any alterations after is personal favor and leway.

Wow, I just can't see someone doing that on purpose unless it was a glitch.

Some people do it. If it is glitch, then I agree everybody should work together to fix problems. But my post is really specifically about the people who don't do it as glitch, often even advertise as "full permissions".

And even if you sell it with a license agreement, that's still no guarantee because there is no enforcement.

This is why I don't have a license agreement on the textures I sell.

I sell full permission textures -- not so that people can turn around and resell them as is, but so that builders can use them in buildings they're selling, if they so desire. (I'm assuming this fits with how the permissions system works, since most other textures I've seen are full permissions.) There's really no point in me bothering to come up with a licensing agreement right now, since there's no enforcement. Frankly, most people who would honor a voluntary agreement probably wouldn't need to read one, anyway.

Selling copies of other people's work without their express permission, is wrong.

It is obvious that if you wish to sell full mods animations for other creators to use in their derivative works, you can have no control over people who abuse this trust and thern see this as a green light for reselling the item. Craig could have notices the size of Dreamland in his shops, but if someone takes his balls to a yard sale, the fact that there is no sign does NOT make it ok to sell copies.

Anyone with half a brain can see that it would be ridiculous to intentionally sell someone an item and then happily see them take off into the sunset with it to sell at 100th of the price you are asking for it. It is plain that creators who sell animations for use in other people's furniture do not intend that, any more than people who sell fully-mod textures intend for the buyers to set themselves up in the textures business reselling the textures.

You are looking at this as a negative - unless you outlaw this behaviour it is allowed. In fact the opposite is true - you need permission to sell copies of another person's work in this way. The burden isn't on the creator to protect their copyright, they have that without asserting it, in the items they make, because Linden Labs say they do. The fact that some items have full perms on them, does not mean that you can do what you like with them.

We need to turn this culture around to make it essential that people obtain full permission from a creator to resell their items, whatever the perms may say. If this were the acceptedrule, there would be no problem with people selling items which have become copyable due to the perms bug, no problem with people selling freebies, and no problem with people selling items which are meant to be used in creations made by other people, not resold untouched.

I worry about you if you cannot see that it is morally wrong to take pose balls and resell them in this way, without express permission. Anyone who does this is robbing the animator of their rights, robbing the people who pay the full price in order to include good anims in their furniture (by devaluing the anim balls), and defrauding customers who think they are buying a bone fide item.

Doing it with permission is a whole other thing.
Cali

If some creator want make his work available for resale in one way, such as included in furniture, but not in some other way, then he need include some license agreement and make it clear to the buyer.

You can not expect people try read your mind, nor should somebody whom you sold full copy/mod/transfer objects have to ask you for permissions on how to use or redistribute the items. The responsibility to make clear what rights/limitations apply to the content clearly rest with the seller and before the purchase.

It is unethical to sell something, then after the deal try to enforce restrictions on the buyer that have not been made clear up front. Resorting to mobbing, threats, attempts of character assassination and accusation of "unethical" behaviour when you hear somebody intends to use the copy/mod/transfer rights to make some content affordable for newbies, after she purchase those rights from your friend, is also very shady. And why all this? Because you are too lazy to bother to write down the usage terms of some content before you sell it?

(emphasis added by me)

Agreed. I think the key issue is the abilty to COPY and resell, not resell by itself. I agree that it's wrong to take someone's creation, make a bunch of copies and resell them...becoming basically a factory for the creator's items without the creators permission.
However I do believe people have the right to resell or give away to someone anything that I bought once they are done with it (e.g. yard sales or resale shops). I've heard the arguments about this being wrong because items don't degrade in SL like they do in RL, and I understand that argument, I just don't happen to agree with it.





Also true, sadly enough. One reason that the creator would probably best be advised not to sell their full mod versions on the open market, but only to selected resellers they have agreements with. Open market versions sold for individual use would not allow you to copy them. It not a perfect solution, one of those selected resellers could still decide to screw you, but it would reduce the problem until a "more perfect" solution comes along like more flexible rights managements.





Errr...not really as absolutely black and white as all that. For example, I've made and given away or sold cheaply several little items or a few full rights textures of mine over the years that I've been here. I honestly never gave a second thought to people selling my cheesy little doodads, scripts or textures for more money than they paid for it. I gave them away freely or cheaply afterall, what did I care? As such, I was actually surprised when I first saw how worked up people were on the forums about the issue of freebies being resold, and it took a few threads to see why it was such a hot-button issue for some creators.

So I say all that to point out that this is not something you can just presume every person playing SL just instinctively knows is a hot issue or that by not knowing that they are some sort of booger-eating moron.




Plain perhaps to the minority of SL players/users like us who read the forums and have been seeing these threads come up over and over for years now. Not necessarily so for the rest of the people who don't spend much or any time in the forums...or to Joe or Jane newbie who just got here.




No. I'm not going to spend a week or more trying to chase a bunch of people down in IM and get their permission everytime I decide to unload inventory by resell. Thats rediculous. However, I do intend to make sure anything I unload that I got from someone else, is set to no copy if I have the perms to do that. That to me is a reasonable step to expect from people who are doing yardsales or resell shops.

We all know that content creators (furniture makers, house designers etc.) sometimes require the benefit of the talents of other content creators (scripters, animators, texture designers etc.). However, the limitations of the permissions system don't allow for a means of transferring content in a way, which is both useful to a value-added reseller…
1) It has to be copiable, or they can't use it more than once.
2) It has to be transferable otherwise their new content cannot be sold with it embedded.
…and not open to abuse or exploitation by the less scrupulous 'business people' out there. Therefore it has to be an issue of trust.

To buy someone's content with the explicit intention of re-selling in competition to, and undercutting the creator is a massive abuse of that trust. If you have put nothing into content, what moral right have you to take ANY credit, let alone financial reward? To undercut the creator serves to devalue their content; effectively reducing their income from their content. To use someone’s own content against them in this way is indefensible.

P.S. I trust this thread is a purely theoretical exercise, designed to highlight this exploit so that the Lindens can deal with it. Seriously, you wouldn't be considering taking part in such activities yourself would you?

I have had an item set itself to mod/copy/transfer and free to copy before. The item was Not intended to be but mod/transfer. It was out for months without me knowing when it changed itself. Luckily a resident notified me of this and asked if it was correct.

I know it also happened to Nicola when she had set boxes out at The Galleria. Briana notified Nicola in time to correct this before too many sets were sold.

Perhaps when you come upon something for sale and it has all boxes checked that you should contact the creator just in case the server reset permissions for them. Surely it is something we have to live with in an unstable environment.

Seeing as how this particular item you speak of was even advertised as having all permissions you should contact the creator before reselling. I absolutely think the item should Not be resold regardless. Anyone with a morals wouldn't.

It seem some poster here seem to miss the real point.

There are content creators who are happy to sell copy/mod/transfer content and have business people do the reselling. They get quick income without risk, save time they would have to put in marketing and don't have to wait and hope their product really sell often enough.

Now every business person with some business ethics will of course respect license agreements or terms set forth and made known by seller before the transaction. But if somebody is too lazy or stubborn to even write down whatever special terms (such as not resell to people with blue glasses and red shirt), then the terms is what is coded in the SL software. It is the seller's responsibility to inform the buyer about any special restriction. If you click "copy" and "transfer" and don't tell me anything else, then I assume that you made the concious decision to let me give copies of the product to other people, for free or for any price I go charge.

well, real copyright law is sticky. but yeah, if resell is clicked on, that kinda leaves you screwed. unfortunately, the permissions systems in SL are weak that way, but what can you do.

This is completely backwards. In American law, the exact opposite is true.
A work is copyrighted by default, from the moment of its creation. In order to acquire the rights to a work, you must explicitly license it. No work falls into the public domain automatically before the author dies and 75 years pass.
Indeed, the burden of proof lies on the suspected pirate to present his license for that work.

Not just in America either, Eggy. In Europe too.

What this comes down to is that the rights to allow copies of their work belong to the creators. If they sell you a copyable texture or ball, that does NOT give you an automatic right to sell copyable balls or textures to other people. The rights to the work belong to them. It doesn't matter what signs are put up, what the perms say or what you think, really, because it is a matter of copyright. It isn't a matter for them to outlaw everything you might think of to do with their work. It is for you to get permission to do it.
Cali

What Caliandris said. Also, it applies in every country that signed the Bern Convention, not just USA or Europe.

Are you really saying that you have absolutely no moral values or ethics unless someone specifically tells you that you MUST have them?

Are you telling me that you don't know right from wrong?

The examples I gave (above in my previous post) were purely theoretical. Items of content that are frankly only useful to someone who wishes to embed them in their own content/work. i.e. not a whole lot of use on their own. Therefore obviously sold as a component, which due to the restrictions of the permissions system in SL, have to be sold with ALL permissions.

To buy other people's content purely as a means of making a quick-buck (at the expense of the content creator) is a REALLY shitty thing to do.

You're probably right in a sense, there is nothing 'legally' to stop you doing this... but one person's greed, sadly, will inevitably lead to the loss of such components being readily available to other residents.

How exactly are those content creators going to make a quick buck if some unrelated sleazeball (please don't sully the term "business person" with the criminal behavior you're describing) with no ethics or respect for the law buys the item once, then makes and sells a thousand duplicates? How is that going to make them "happy"?

Items are made copy/mod/transfer because the creators intend them to be used in other works, not resold directly.

Like Eggy said, all works are copyrighted by default. ALL WORKS. Whether or not you have the technical ability to copy a work is irrelevant, because you are ethically and legally bound not to do so except for the very limited area called "Fair Use", which covers academic and personal use.

First Life books are easily copied with a photocopier, but if someone copies and sells a book, they will be hit with an injunction, sued, and arrested if they ignore the injunction. They will also be seen as a scumbag who cannot be trusted with the most basic principles of integrity, someone to be shunned and driven homeless into the alleyways.

Is that really the message you're trying to send here? That you want every single one of your tenants to decide that you have zero respect for law and ethics and will fuck them over at a moment's notice?

Well one business douchebag always see thing with one eye that look good for her.

That much never changes.

"The law according to Anshe" would make a great read.

so where is the new freebie selling store in dreamland?

Of course they are. Exactly until you decide to click the "copy" and the "transfer" checkbox and sell the content with the permissions of "copy" and "transfer" to somebody.

I must say I am kinda disappoint by some responses here. The various insults and personal attacks really don't help any discussion.

I have been trying to make the legal/moral situation clear and offer one easy solution to the problem: make your terms clear up front to the buyer, add license agreement when you sell copy/transfer content. These should be no brainers and I really don't understand why some people here seem to take issue.

Pointing this problem out to people definitely do not increase my bottom line. I just consider it the right thing to do.

We don't sell freebies.

So I take it what I've been told about you either selling already or preparing to sell such items in one or a chain of stores has no bearing on this argument?

To be honest Anshe, I'm quite suprised at what you're saying here. Do you remember when you said this in November:



That was in response to this:



The thread is here: /108/3f/69324/1.html

Could I ask how you could possibly believe that selling other people's hard work, without their permission, undercutting them and taking business away from them is not acting like a parasite? And the person above was owning up to what was basically peanuts, what you're trying to justify potentially is not peanuts. So, how to you marry your hate of "parasites" whilst arguing about the morality of a parasitic action? Is it because you stand to benefit, rather than stand to lose?

For the record, I've only ever publicly stated one problem with you/your company's actions - which was over unsolicited notecards. Apart from that I've really not gotten involved in the smoke about you on forums. But I'm sorry, your stark hypocricy over this is astounding.

I am, I'll admit, starting to wonder if you wouldn't argue that grass was bright purple if there was a way to make money out of proving it was so.

maybe people are taking offence because you are preaching your version of the law as if it is fact.

I don't think that obtaining an object that is MOD/COPY/TRANS is a legal ground for reselling it.

This is rather delicate territory, IMHO, though. As others mentioned in this thread, it is not necessary to mark a work as "copyrighted" to have it protected by copyright law. If I create a novel, a piece of visual art or another work that is worthy of a copyright (this can be debated) it is protected, no matter what information is included when I give it to someone.

I would very much doubt that the purely technical act of setting the permissions to COPY and TRANSFER in SL can be interpreted as "do with it as you please". These permissions are necessary for some purposes besides reselling.

If I show a piece of art at an exhibition, it is possible to make a picture of it. If I want to resell the picture, alone or as part of another work, I need an agreement with the copyright owner. ...). In this case it is completely irrelevant, if picture taking was allowed or forbidden at this exhibition. Allowing pictures does not make selling them legal.

This is the same when I create a piece of work that can easily copied by a copy machine or even easier in digital form (software, digital artwork). It is not necessary to write "do not copy and resell" on it.

But I would not question the moral values of someone who does it. Sometimes it is just lack of knowledge. It is a common misunderstanding that everything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. Therefore it would be a good idea for all creators to include a license stating what is allowed and what is not with copy/trans or mod/copy/trans items. It is not necessary to have their works protected by copyright, though.

Fact: you make it copy/transfer or full perms people will sell it

Fact: SL is not a nation, and even if ti where, did not sign the agreememnt mentioned previously in thsi thread

Fact: Until permission changes and elaborate permissions come into play, you must work with what is available. If you can't figure something out, don't whine and cry foul.