Selling mod/copy/trans content without license agreement

Anshe,


What happens when you buy an account but don't buy exclusive rights to all of the content?

If there is no separate agreement (written or verbal), then I would think it is like this: The creator and owner of the exclusive content rights is still the same avatar. Whoever real person control/own the avatar also control/own the avatar's rights. It seem to me as like buying one business.

There is still many open question though, some of which I don't have easy answers myself. I am sure it would make one interesting thesis for one law student to research this.

Anshe it could be likened to a franchise (UK Law) where you purchase the rights to a creation and your own rights and obligations are legally expressed by another agreement (franchise)

For example to return to my texture post I have the right to sell on my textures as part of an overall project but NOT the right to sell them as pure textures. That's a franchiase agreement.

Or another example could be that I buy a prefab house and I could have the right to use it in any social, domestic, and pleasure useage, and in conjunction with my business within or outside Second Life. However I may not have the right to back engineer it and sell on multipal copies of it (the house).

In essence if I buy either a house or a texture, UNLESS it is sold with all permissions for a fungible value without any restrictions, I cannot set myself up as either a house salesman or Texture store on the back of that deal.

Finally it is a bit like buying a software programe. I can use Windows in any way I like which includes legally selling my copy on but I cannot duplicate it and become another Bill Gates (sad to relate)

Unless the seller includes a written agreement of transfer of ownership for all IP related to the avatar, you'd be exposing yourself to potentially serious legal trouble.

In the absence of any agreement the "default" is copyright law. And copyright is attached to the person, not the brand.

The same is true for buying a business, see for example the Novell-SCO buyout of UNIX: SCO (then Caldera) bought the rights to the UNIX trademark and took a UNIX license, but that didn't include the copyright on UNIX code, a little overlooked legality that came back to bite them when they tried to sue IBM.

Ask any copright-specialised lawyer, you'll get a much more reliable answer than anything posted here anyway.

Can someone please tell what the exact settings are for this permission level. I would like to avoid this problem. I make stuff and give away. I want everyone to be able to enjoy. But I do not want to cause legal disputes.

Please IM me with instructions. I will be away for the rest of the day.

Thank you.

WebMo

Leaving a work in a mode that is easily copiable does NOT constitute a license under U.S. copyright law. For years, music vendors left their CDs unprotected against copying, and now regret it. Same for video. The fact that a work is not "copy-protected" does not constitute a license to copy.

This is a long-running issue that has come to national prominence in recent years with the lawsuits by the various trade associations for music producers, and is part of the reason the U.S. government tightened up the Copyright Act with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

The issue is not that the object is copiable. This I agree do not matter in this case. People do not automatically gain the right to copy something just because they can do it technically.

What matter is that the seller has actively and knowingly clicked one checkbox to give the "permission" of "copy, resell/give away" to the buyer. This has happen on the same window that he enter the price of the object and set it for sale and thus it is part of the terms/contract of the sale. Any special terms or limitations to this must be made clear separately and before the purchase, or this is what the buy contract is: "permission: copy, resell/give away".

My point is that you could both very well be full of shit.

Actually let me rephrase that.

You are full of shit... theres a good chance that our 'intarweb lawyers' are too.

I also think An$he would shit a miata if she read what happens with copyright and derivative works too.

Sure it does.

It doesn't constitute a license to resell or redistribute, but in the US you still have the right to copy for personal use. Even if the product is copy protected.

The DMCA doesn't actually take that right away. It just means you have to make the copy without technically bypassing the copy protection mechanism. For example, playing the music and making a recording of the sound produced.

We may be dickering over nomenclature. "Fair use" does not derive from a license, in the sense I understand it ... fair use derives from interpretation of the logical and constitutional limits of the Copyright Act and DMCA. As I understand it, a license is a knowing and voluntary grant of permissions. Fair use is a right. One of the criticisms of DMCA is its strictures against defeating copy protection may conflict with fair use rights to copy without a license.

Frank

Anshe Chung wrote:
01-03-2005:
/130/c1/31715/1.html

That's a nice piece of detective work Kaz

Apparently the OP was quite aware that the creator's permission should be sought.

Anshe did never say anything different in this thread, Kazanture. It is just a matter of interpretation.

Anshe's point of view - which she clearly stated - is, that setting an item for sale with "transfer" (which is called "resell/give away"!) is this "explicit permission". I don't agree with this interpretation. But one certainly see it this way. So ... no contradiction here.

You are wrong, this "explicit permission" is not it, if so there was no need to write a post about such a permission:
"Business ethic.... no selling items....." you already cant sell if creater didnt click it lol:) She was talking about a different kind of permission.
The funny thing is i agree with anshe about this topic, if you click resell/trans it means permission to resell/trans if anything else is not pointed while selling.
I didnt send my previous post to disagree with her:)
I was searching forums to find her first post to write a congrulation message about businessweek cover with some nostalgy:)But I saw the post about permissions and remembered the permission discussion in last weeks and laughed then sent it:D People can change their ideas with time, she learned the game much more better since the previous post she sent about permissions.
btw congrulations Anshe Chung, when i saw the cover of businessweek i felt one thing only: YAY!:)

I think you may be right Pham. I don't agree with the interpretation either, but this could be an accurate description of her opinion.

I well remember this thread and the debates about transfer/permissions.

I believe the conclusions we all reached (which was correctly highlighted by Anshe Chung) was if you sell an object/build/script with full permissions it is exactly that unless that is modified by any type of licence agreement obvious to the purchaser at the time of sale.

As it happens I sell prefab Houses with full file permissions enabled.

But thanks to the issues raised in this thread I do modify those future transfer rights by an explicit statement within the instructions to buy vendor machine, insomuch as I limit all future use or modify/copy/transfer rights to be wholly and solely within the virtual reality world known as Second Life owned by Linden Labs or its legal successor

Finally I also admit certain issues were not completely resolved, one example is individual parts of any object/build/script can be subject to different file restrictions within Second Life. I wonder if that is fair and equitable in real life legal terms although I suppose you could say your rights are subject to a restrictive covenant, a term UK House owners in real life will understand. For example I own a real life house with a restrictive covenant insomuch as I am not allowed to make or sell candles from within the house

I wonder, if "we all" (all?) is a legislative body of SL. And I reserve the right to have a different opinion on the issue on hand.

My opinion is, that if I want to copy and resell an object, that I have not created myself, the right way is to ask the creator (like Anshe did).

I havent had time to read all the posts in this thread so I apologise in advance if I miss some valid points.

As a texture creator in SL I am faced with people informing me that my hand made textures were found either free or sold for dramaticlay less in various locations around SL.
This happens about once a week.

As pointed out I have to set full perms on textures as my customers would not be able to resell anything they create using my textures and 'copy' has to be ticked on a texture for obvious reasons.

Modify, I have to tick as many ppl need to use fabrics in their fashion creation and need to modify it in their paint program, the same appies to builders.

My observations on the ppl I find giving or selling my work is 90% dont give it a 2nd thought.
They see it as harmless. Or " i paid for them Ill do what I want'
They assume they have paid and OWN it. They also assume full perms means they were sold allowing them to resell or give. DESPITE the fact all my bundles are sold with a EUAL clearly stating no one but myself or the texture creator has the right to sell or give the texture and in fact they are buying the right to use it not own it. The texture creator will always remain the true 'owner' of any original texture.

Education is the issue here. Why would anyone not in the business of creating textures from scratch know anything about RL copyright laws?
They live by the law of the land....that being LL law ' perms '

I get ' Im giving them away not asking for money!? '
to
' You shouldnt sell with full perms then!'
and
' I was given a bunch of textures so I didnt get your licence ' OR ' I bought them 2nd hand at a yard sale...so assumed if he was selling them I could do the same'

I try to explain it matters not where they aquired them free or for money from myself or someone else...bottom line is its my work and as such its copy written to me the creator.

Its a NEVER ENDING WAR and it breeds... a person buys from another who sells from a yard sale and then another buys from them and BTT I find them I have a chain of 5 ppl to track down issuing Take Down Orders to which I normally get a mouth full of abuse or told to ' get a life'

Ive been where they are... ' its just a game' Ive been on both sides of this fence...in the early days a texture buyer and now a texture creator so I can see it from their eyes and now from a creators.

The never ending war would all stop tomorow if LL would simpy add an extra perm on a texture saying
" No Transfer As Raw Texture "

But until it becomes a problem to them ie: myself sending them the DMCA form/letters every week were they have to go remove my textures from some-one then its not their problem.

I am aware they do get involved with removal of copy written materials and so far its not come to that for me... but at the same time Im 100% sure my textures are still being sold and/or given some -where in SL as I write this.

Some ppl think my store signs and (now) automatic EUAL issued as they land is over the top but if they were in my shoes they would understand hhow upsetting it is to track down these ppl to hand out my work as freebies ( which is FAR more damaging to me than if they sold them! which they dont seem to understand) and start arguing with them , having them say I am harrasing them? Or asking to see my Copy Right certifiacte ( no joke )
Or recently " Ill remove because its morally wrong but legally im doing nothing wrong and 2 close members of my family are lawers so you wouldnt win!"

A tutor was handing out mine and other ppls textures in her class i was informed and they argued they didnt make any money and apparently had asked for my permission to do so and I agreed. I didnt and never would
That has turned out well...I will sponser ANY tutor in building classes or educational org's in return for a LM being placed at their land and a sign saying TRU sponsers them as well as a Free Bundle for Newbies voucher dispenser I have

I sponser ASL and provide free txtrs to them as long as they untick the 'transfer' b4 they give txtrs to their students.

textures are unique. They have no value to most buyers w/o full perms so we are the content creators that get hurt the most.

Yes it would be good manners to ask the creator of any content ticked full perms if its ok to give/sell copies but 'meanwhile back in the real world' were dealing with human beings.
As people we tend to act b4 we think.
In SL assume we're invisable and untouchable and hold onto a belief ' its just a game'

To the type of person who knowingly does resell or give others work away, they are usualy talentless uncreative types who just want to make enough L$ so they dont need to buy it ( thats some-thing for LL to think about )

I know a new texture store whos displaying & selling the entire range of Total Textures CDs 1 - 15.
I approached him/her and notified I recognised them. I was told he/she had the 'release form' which is pure BS no way woudl Total Textures let ANYONE resell or distribute any of their work theyre running a business!

The store is still trading but I doubt it will ever amount to anything 'major'...he/she has no texture creation skill to come up with unique to SL content or do custom requests at the drop of a hat and thats the key to any SL business success.

Just my 2 pennies worth

LB

Actually, I have run across a bug where items sitting in a vendor and/or even in your own inventory changes it's own permisions spontaneously. I have had a bug hunter there seing things change. It was reproduced. The "word" on it was the fix is for me to pull every single item from my vendors every single time there's an "upgrade" ( and I use the term upgrade loosely) and check and/or reset permisions then repack the vendors/items. This solution was toally unacceptable to me, tehrefore good chance that LL has once again shown me that no matter how I turn or try to make L's even just trying top get by, I will get forced into a corner where I lose L's and am forced to buy them to rent or stay in SL. I do plan on sdtaying in SL but I am probably going to cease all content creation for any kind of gain, since it's become obvious that Linden is much more interested in ading bells adn whistles and NOT fixing bugs like this, rather puting it on the content creators to chase thier tails because LL wants to screw things up on a weekly basis and NOT repair issues that are pointed out to them.

I do however have dated, time stamped snapshots of all my items and if I find them for sale in other shops, or even in use in any other 3D chat platform, will follow legal recourses and options. They are my work and I am damned if they are going to turn up in one of the multiple frebie reselling shops that call themselves distributors.

If these items were found after Wednesday's update, it's very possible that the permissions were reset unintentionally by the update. Several malls shut down yesterday to give vendors time to fix permissions that were reset.

Actually it has occurred on every update and patch since version 1.9 was upgraded the first time. About the samae time all the database issues started. Which means that lately about once a week I have to check every single item. LL's solution is the standard non solution of puting it on us and making it so we have to pull each and every item one at a time and reset premissions with the objects rezzed in world. Not an acceptable solution IMHO. Personally I think they should fix whatever database bug keeps causing this.

That would fix nothing. The textures are downloaded to their client no matter what. They can copy it. There's nothing LL or anyone can do to stop it from a technical perspective.




Excellent! You are doing the right thing. Keep filing those DMCA takedowns. I might suggest renaming it from EULA to just simple copyright license terms. You own the copyright, and you are free to license it as you see fit. Copyright license terms are enforcable, EULAs are probably not, unless your state passed the UCITA (only two did).