Selling mod/copy/trans content without license agreement

Then you should contact me - I am unhappy by this:- I have tryed to get in personal contact with you by IMs, by mail (the real me) and begging for personal contact at your homepage - that part have been taken down... also without a contact.,..



/Tina (PetGirl Bergman)

Unless you have the rights direct from the author, or they are *clearly* spelled out in a liscense agreement, you don't have the rights. You may not assume you have the rights and still claim to be ethicly and legally in the right.

The poseballs, like fully mod textures, are sold for use within other people's creations. This is something which all content creators are aware of, generally in SL.

Some people set up special groups and only allow people within the groups to use their poses mod/copy/resell. Some people put notices up, some put things in their poseballs, some just assume that people have half a brain and will understand. These things only assert their rights in their creations...it isn't the copyright notice or the licence which establishes their right to their creations...that is theirs the minute they create an original item.

In the UK and in Europe and in the US, if you write, or create something, you own the copyright immediately. The only way someone else can get the right to copy it - and most especially to allow other people to copy it, is by asking the creator.

The position is a little muddied, it is true, by the SL permissions system. People like Anshe are assuming that if a creator gives them a copyable, transferable ball, it necessarily means that they can sell this on to a third party as a copyable, transferrable ball. It doesn't.

Anshe's position is clear from the thread: if you wish to protect your rights in your work, either don't sell me full rights objects, or put a big disclaimer in them which restricts the licence to use the work to the areas which are intended.

My position is also clear: anyone who wants to distribute copies of another person's work ought to check with them if that's ok, even if they possess a full mods version that they have bought from that creator.

We have argued on the forums and in IM about this, and it seems that we are not going to come to an agreement about whether the difference is ethical or legal, and whether it is possible to know.

How long does it take to check with a creator about this? A few minutes. Although I think that beginning a negotiation with a creator about using their work with a warning that you plan to sell it fully mod for 10 dollars is an odd way of going about it, most especially if it was always your intention not to do that, as Anshe now asserts.
But then I'm shady and greedy, me.
Cali

I mentioned Textures in an earlier post here and I see that thought has been expanded on albeit in a different context.

I only buy full permissions Textures, i would be mad to do otherwise. But within my lience agreement there is a specific clause that states I am allowed to resale the Textures as part of an overall project but NOT set up as a Texture retailer on the back of the Textures I have purchased.

Clearly thought has gone into creating that agreement.

If, as I have read, Anshe Chung purchased something that said full permissions then that is what it is.....full stop. The absence of a licence agreement matters not a jot imho because any such agreement usually restricts your rights.

On the other hand if something was advertised as full permissions but was not.....well she has my sympathy and should seek recourse

Finally there can be grey areas……for example suppose I purchase Textures and set myself up as a Carpet or Rug Creator, what is the position then -

Modify
Copy
Resell/Give Away

The checkbox doesn't say 'transfer', it says 'Resell/Give Away'. I think it is this wording that is driving the essential conflict expressed in this thread, and in Anshe's original post, since the permissions listing in inventory states 'no transfer' rather than 'no resell/giveaway'. These are not the same things. The terms are used in ways that give them a false equivalency, which in turn leads to serious misunderstandings as to intent.

The solution may be more granularity in the permissions system itself, to allow for transfer without reselling rights, but as it is now, ticking that checkbox allows the next owner of that object (or a copy of that object) to resell it, or copies of it, freely and openly. If this is not what you want, you do need to explicitly state your intentions at the time of sale, prior to purchase.

Hi folks

Incase you were wondering:

When Anshe first contacted me with what she was planning to do I have to admit I went a bit mad, I saw it as a personal attack mostly because of the low price and her personal ability to marginalise the ones I sell, so I did react pretty badly because I felt back against the wall a bit.

She and others here are of course right, I should have made a licence agreement so people know what is ok before buying them, it was not out of laziness that I did not, it was because I figured i could never enforce it and those who have agreements I seem to see their stuff being sold as much as mine in that way.

Anyway after I cooled down Anshe asked how I would prefer this to be sorted out, I said if they are sold non copiable(as she had said she would already), and at a price the same as I sell non copiables for, I was ok with that.

She also offered to not use them at all in return for a refund, yes i know you cannot return copiables, but I do believe if she said she would not use, she would not use.

In the end we agreed she sells non copiables at her places and has a sign to my shop there too if people want to see the rest of the things I have, this I personally think works well for both of us.


Oh I did make a big poster about how I would like them to be used now

That's not something I was aware of. There are people selling animations separately, not in poseballs. There are people selling poseballs. Poseballs are generally sold for use by themselves. Animations are (naturally) sold for use in other products.

Reselling full-perm is clearly going to harm someone's business, and it shouldn't take any thought to realise it's a no-no. Same for significantly undercutting the creator's restricted price when they're selling a restricted version along with the original. But for someone who isn't part of the animation community it's not at all unreasonable to assume that a poseball is a poseball is a poseball.

Me, I assume nothing. I go out of my way to explicitly license my scripts open-source, and ask people what rights they really want to apply their own content. But I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as you make it sound.
And that assumption is clearly mistaken. Therefore the only reasonable action is to (a) don't assume that full-rights means an open license, and (b) don't assume that the people you're selling to know the law... put a license in ANYWAY.

I'm in favor of "limited" copyrights, but in the US copyright law has extended to 75 years + the natural life of the author.

"Happy Birthday To You" is still copyrighted.

That's far too much in my opinion.

As Anshe was originally selling animations in SL, well before her land business took off, I'd say that she was pretty aware of the animation community and how these things work

Anshe is correct. When you sell an item with full permissions, and advertise it as such, then you can't later inject terms to the deal that you have reserved in your mind. The law doesnt enforce mere unexpressed thoughts that arise after the fact as an implied contract.

A contract is an promise or agreement that the law will enforce. A contract for the sale of goods arises when when a seller transfers, or agrees to transfer, the ownership of goods to the buyer in return for something of value, usually money. The Buyer makes an offer to the seller to purchase and the Seller accepts. Once the Buyer performs, usually by payment of money, then the Seller must as well.

A contract does not have to be in writing in order to be enforced. The law does recognize and enforce oral and implied contracts. Some examples of implied contracts we face in our everday life would be visiting a doctor or hailing a taxi. When you visit the doctor or hail a cab, an implied contract arises where one is expected to provide a service and the other is expected to provide payment. If the service is provided but payment is not made then the law will step in to enforce the implied contract to pay even though there is no written contract.

In the situation where a representation is made that an item is being sold with full permissions, and that resale is permitted, that representation is being made to entice buyers. When a seller uses that representation to entice buyers, and charges an additional amount for the item that has full permissions, the buyer is entitled to what was represented.

In this case there were no licensing or usage restrictions connected with the item. Once the buyer offered the payment to the seller, and the seller accepted that offer, a contract was created. The seller must provide the item advertised, one with full permissions and without restriction. The seller cannot inject usage or licensing terms into the contract after the fact and any terms asserted later that were not part of the contract are unenforceable. The buyer receives the full permission item and can resell at any price, give it away, etc.

When you sell an item with "full permissions" with the intent that the buyer can resell that item, and you do not provide usage restrictions as terms of the sale, then the buyer buys the right to use the item purchased in the same way that the original owner can. To protect against this the seller must include any restrictions relating to usage at the time of the sale, and not after. This could be in the way of a licensing agreement, "boilerplate" terms to the contract, and other methods of reserving rights.

If the item had not been sold with the intent to have the buyer resell, then the situation presents a different set of facts. Not only was this item sold with the intent for resale, a higher price was charged that represented the seller's determination of the value for this, and the full permissions or resale aspect of the item was used as advertising in order to entice sellers to purchase it.

Yes, and it should be obvious to anyone but newbies that endless copies of full permission items are not to be resold as is for a fraction of the original price. A taxi is supposed to drive me if I flag it down, a doctor is supposed to treat me, and a customer isn't supposed to turn into a factory for what I sold them.

I wonder what shall Anshe do with so many animation balls..

Don't roll your eyes at me, fool-ish hu-man.

I didn't know what Anshe's original business was.

Unless you license them to. Which I do.

....as being worth the paper they're written on.

However when I fixate something (such as data on a HD or words on paper) I *am* covered by copyright...

...and derivative works - they be mine too.

A VCR doesn't trump it by virtue of it can be used to copy a tape - nor does the permissions systems.

And you can run around it all day long - it won't change the legality of it.

Enforcable of not - it still breaks it. Is this like 'its only shoplifting if you're caught?'

And licence or nor - perms broken or no - certain douchebags will always do because they can and cite some mumbo jumbo to say they're basically good people..

Which of course is bullshit.

Argent, I wasn't rolling my eyes at you, sorry if you got that impression. I was rolling my eyes at Anshe, because she obviously knows the market!

Have to tell you I really hate the way this is being made into a legal case, BUT...
I think you are wrong. Selling with full permissions to another avatar gives THEM th right to copy, mod OR trans the thing. I don't think they can then transfer that right to a third party, without agreement from the owner.
Cali

Keyword here is intent. How can you pretent to know the intent of the seller in the absence of any license/disclaimer/declaration/haiku ?

These animations
You may sell but not retail
In chairs, not cheap packs.

Dude, KatyKiwi is a lawyer. I think she knows better than you. No offense.

Yes, she has a family law practice. But that's not quite copyright, DRM and associated issues though, is it. I mean I'm sure there's some cross-over of issues and although the basics might be right, the opinion of a lawyer who does not specialise in the field should really be taken as a possibility, rather than gospel.

I'm sure most lawyers would tell you that as well.

Indeed. Reasonable expectations trump law in all kinds of situations, especially in places like the US where British common law is so much a part of legal tradition... but IIRC even in France there's been recent cases where a buyer's expectations were held to override the interest of the copyright holder.

Copyright isn't as fragile as trademark, but you can effectively lose any meaningful control of your copyright if you don't stake it out.

So does this mean that you will also be selling the items with ALL boxes checked (FULL permissions)?

(I think I already know the answer to this question)

Dude - to be really technical - noone has ever proven that.

And just saying it - don't necessarily make it so.

Case in point - theres one player that touts themselves as a 'top economic mind'

Your point being what?

I am SL's top economic mind. I plan to consult for the Lindens once they realize everything I've been saying is correct and that I have a sound plan for making SL a haven of Capitalistic enterprise.

I look forward to working with Vadushka Linden.