Copyright abuse? Right or Wrong?

[EDIT] This is mainly aimed for LL [/EDIT]


To make this really easy I would set up the following rulez:

- The creator is responsible for the origin

Meaning, when I upload anything it's my responsibility to make sure it's not copyrighted.

- Distributed content within games always fall back on the creator

If content found or reported by any user (or external part) violating outside world rulez, then creator will be accused. No one else is to blame. Action for Linden is easy, delete the item key.

- Modify, Copy- rulez set within game ALWAYS applies as valid copyright rulez within the game itself!

Meaning. It's the creators responsibility to set properties on items they upload/create. Failing to do so, eg setting free to copy/modify for everyone is making the object/texture free to everyone.

Mod-settings in game MUST be the rulez that everyone relies on!
Outworld copyright rulez applies ONLY to the uploader (creator).

As I see it, this is the only way to make this legaly clear and obvious to everyone.

I've made some textures by my own hand, and I'll happily distribute any of them (save for, of course, my West Trade marque).

Woopsy, consider this permission to do what you like with them - I have many already out in an area labeled 'freebies' in my profile classifieds so you can grab them there. Feel free to spread the joy. I don't get offline IM's (they cap out quick) but drop me a notecard if you like if you can't find them.

Some of these textures I'm not entirely proud of but they are historic to my efforts; others seem to have been 'good enough' to propel my business along its merry way.

By all means, continue your Wall with newfound understanding, and you'll find yourself to be a guardian and friend of resident creators new and old.

Poor Whoopsy. Nice try though. The wall was a wonderful toy. Actually, I would be willing to buy an empty copy just to store my own textures.

So far as I can tell, SL is rife with textures that have been...uuummm....borrowed from other places. i don't see how your wall can be blamed, no more than SL can.

If a texture creator can show that one of their textures is being distributed without their permission, then they can object. The distributor can stop. End of story.

LET's SHUT SL DOWN COMPLETELY. It contains stolen textures...

The person who uploaded someone else's copyrighted material isn't in any position to place restrictions on it, and it's one of the reasons I think LL's planned watermarking is going to cause more harm than it will prevent.

It's also rather important to note that "free to use" doesn't necessarily extends you a right to distribute, that's up to the copyright owner or whatever copyright waiver they have on their site.

If someone who isn't the original creator is filing a DMCA when the other has a license to use the content, make sure that your own use is actually valid, keep proof of it, and file a counter-claim and nothing happens unless they decide to take you to court in which case you have the evidence to back up your rightful use.
Meanwhile, if you know the filer is in violation (distributing free to use only, or selling for non-commercial use only), report them to the copyright owner and hopefully they'll get a DMCA slapped on them.

It's essential to create a distinct line between game and real world. Everything that passes that line is the line-passers responsibility.

Everything that's uploaded into the game is legaly the uploaders responsibility.

Easy as that!

But that's just sort of the problem.. how can you make sure? If it was something big, like a song or a piece of music or similar, they'd be registrations to check. But if someone who you've never met or heard of says, "That texture is from the background of my website and I drew it 4 months ago", how can you possibly check that? It might indeed be on their website, but how can you check that they drew it? You can only do that by going to court - and if you do that, it might turn out that they did draw it, and you get stuck paying legal fees. Plus for an international user, they might even wind up having to travel to the US for the trial!

@coco
I think tiering texture prices by use would be bad, for honest builders who follow the rules.. not sure it's the answer for honest mistakes like whoopsy's either.

If you have ever shopped for textures at Textures R Us, you'll have noticed that the owner of that store does an outstanding job outlining exactly what your rights are and are not as far as using the textures.. an End User Licence Agreement is sent to you via notecard giver on arrival, and is included in each box of texures sold. It's absolutely the right way to properly license the use of your textures, and if everyone followed that model, there would be far less confusion.

And to reiterate a very important point brought up earlier, you generally should avoid inferring your usage rights from how the permissions are set.. textures in particular present a challenge that the existing permissions system does not accomodate: Selling textures to builders for distribution/resale in their builds. The only way to facilitate this is to flag the texture as "resell/give away". Without an accompanying EULA, or some other form of clear communication at the point of sale that the textures are not to be given away or resold on their own, but only as part of a build, the buyer can easily be confused, as in this case.

Bottom line, you figured out there was a problem with what you were doing, and shut down the wall. You took proactive steps to discontinue the distribution, and that is all you can really do. That is all a DMCA action would compel you to do as well.

The claimant sure didn't handle him/herself very well in the complaint either.

They could probably argue that since you sold it to them with full permissions you allowed for that possibility because by default prims are created with no-mod/no-copy/transfer rights and you had to consciously make it full permission.

Where textures sold in world differ is that they come with a license agreement, if you sold your chair with a similar agreement and explicitly forbid resale then you might have a good cause to sue.

I did point out that you need to have some basis to think that you do have a right to use it. If I just hand you a texture (and I didn't even upload it), then that's going to be pretty shaky unless you'd IM the uploader and asked if the texture was indeed free to use (which still doesn't give you any kind of guarantee, but it's better than me telling you it's fine to do).

If you buy a texture from someone, and suddenly I come along and IM you with "I'm sorry, but I created that texture and it's not supposed to be reused, why is it on your build?" then you do have a very hard to solve situation unless I could show you some proof.

I was really referring to the fact that if you know what site the uploaded texture comes from, and you both got it from the same place, and you know that you're free to use it. You can just file a counter-claim because you can point to a copyright waiver that legitimizes your use of it.

Simple Solution Don't share ANYTHING that you didn't create, or was Submitted to you by any person Other than the creator along with Express permission In Writing that you may share the Object, or Texture.

and i said this in another thread,

Note to Content Creators;

PAY ATTENTION to the Permissions you provide with any content you create. MAKE sure the Copy, Mod, and Transfer Permissions Reflect your True Intent for your product. DO NOT rely on other people to be On the same Wavelength as you if you have Not set up your permissions properly.

Permissions are Just That. PERMISSION.

If you tell people it's Ok to Copy, your object, and Transfer Ownership that is EXACTLY what they will do, and you will not Transfer isn't just Passing for free, the permission says "RESELL/Transfer" so if you Click that box you hAVE given your permission for another party to Profit by your work. You Cannot come back Later and say "You've stolen my work." No, they haven't, they are exercising the Rights YOU have Given them. You can't really claim you Indicated one thing in the permissions, but Intended another, it's what you Put in writing that Matters.

Angel.

See my post a few up. It isn't that simple with textures.

You are right there, but as i Posted in another thread, Textures (And i'm Not talking about clothing) for the Most Part in SL have Not been created by the people who have Uploaded them. i explained how i Ran into conflict with another person who had sourced the Same Egyptian style Textures i had from the Same 3D graphics software. Most of the others i have seen for sale have been borrowed from Various On Line or Clip art texture resources. They are Not original.

There ARE a Great many exceptions to this rule. There ARE texture artists out there who do Good work. The problem is, If they attempt to use the permission Restrictions on thier textures, thier textures become Unsalable, because they are Primarily bought by Builders. Make a Texture No Copy, and the Builder gets to use it on One Prim, and Poof, it's Gone from his Inventory. How useful is that? Not at all. Make them No Transfer, and ANYTHING the Builder applies them to becomes Unsalable, and Once done to a Build it CANNOT be Undone. If a Builder is making an Object for Sale, Adding a No Transfer Texture can waste for him Hours or Days of Meticulous work.

I've had a Great deal of work Ruined by textures that turned out to be No Transfer, or No Copy. My response is to Dump those textures once i find out thier Limits, and Not Purchase from that vendor again because no matter how skillfully executed the art is, thier Product is Inferior. If i've paid Money for a Texture, and it Vanishes after being used on only one prim (And the creator Knows that will happen with No Copy) i Feel that i have been deliberately Cheated.

The Market for Textures, Unlike ANY other commodity is VERY sensative due to the Limitations of permissions that Can, or should be Placed upon them. it Puts the texture creators in a Difficult Position, and i Sympathize But Until the SL software can differentiate between a texture File, and an applied Texture, this Limit will continue to exist. I've noted that Many Texture dealers make up for the relative openness of thier permissions by doing Volume Business. Offering large, relatively expensive Packages, or simply having a Huge selection.
All i can say is, there MUST still be Profit in Textures, because they are still being sold, and offered in Great Number and Variety.

Angel.

If properties on textures clearly states "Resell/Give Away", then I see no legal right to prevent anyone from doing so. The creator has clearly stated that the texture is okey to give away.

If unchecking "Resell/Give Away" makes textures worthless to others is not an issue here. Unchecking it however clearly states that the creator wants to protect his/her rights.

If the options provided with textures isn't good enough, forcing texture creators to check all boxes, is an issue that should be brought up with Linden Labs.

You could argue that in absence of a license, but textures are in most cases distributed with a license.

You can't do whatever you wish with a full permission texture the same way you can't copy, modify and resell/distribute an audio CD you buy any way you wish (you can copy and modify for your own use). In most cases there's nothing that stops you from making unlimited copies of the CD and sell or give them away for free, but you can't argue that the lack of copy protection gives you a legal right to do so. You'd clearly be in the wrong.

If someone hands you a full permission texture they didn't create, assume they weren't supposed to pass it around in the first place until you find evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand I've found textures in there explicitly matching textures I uploaded from off the internet, with no changed made. Someone even once threatened me with a DMCA for giving it away. When I uploaded it.

The EULA given at that shop doesn't matter a wit if they didnt create the entire thing. The original creator of every piece of image used in the layers is the one holding the copyright, not TRU

I couldn't agree more with that. My comments carried an assumption of originality all the way back to the offline creation point.

I've seen the texture in dispute. If the "creator" did NOT simply pull that off a website that sells children's wallpaper/wrapping paper I will eat every Linden's hat.

So how does this person claim copy rights? Because he/she resized it, changed it from a JPEG to a Targa file and paid L$10 to upload it? Wouldn't the person have to have actually painted it or paid for the rights from the painter/wallpaper maker?

And why go through the hassle of suing Whoopsy when the value of the texture (if sold in the bundle I saw advertised in the plaintiff's store) is worth less than a Linden dollar?

And someone please explain to me (because I just don't get this) how giving away something that was donated to a not-for-profit site is infringement? If it is the responsibility of a non-profit to prove they have resale/give away rights for anonymously donated items, there would be no Goodwill or Salvation Army stores in the US.

Like most simple solutions, that's not workable. NCI (and many other places) have thousands of freebie items available to new players. Are you suggesting I should IM every listed creator and seek permission to continue distributing their freebies?

What you're not grasping is that there is no technical solution here. Having separate checkboxes for "resell" and "giveaway" would be meaningless, because there is no way to tell when someone handing an object to someone else is doing it as a gift or as a sale. This, like most copyright matter in RL, is only enforceable through non-technical means. So, explicit agreements and group action by people who actually care about copyright, that sort of thing.

If you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't want their creative work raped shouldn't sell it to other builders, well that's a defensible argument I suppose but it directly contradicts the whole point of copyright, to ensure that creators will contribute their work to the community at large.

ADDITION: Textures specifically may in fact have a technical solution to this, but the issue still remains for other sorts of content (ie. if a furniture maker buys a full-perms animation from me to use in their furniture, they can't just resell the animation as a standalone product.) For textures, the solution would be something like if a builder has a copy/no-trans texture then prims they make with the texture on it can still be transferred, just the new owner can't get at the textures applied to the prim.

Yes. The DMCA dance steps are like this:

1 - JoBob Bloofus files a DMCA notice with LL (formally, in writing, or they ignore it) about Dervish Doogle using his supposedly copyrighted texture

2 - LL notifies Dervish about the claim, and probably temporarily removes the texture (Ginsu Linden had a long post about what they do)

3a - Dervish can cave in, and JoBob has prevented further use of the texture bu Dervish.
or
3b - If Dervish is sure about the texture, Dervish can respond to LL with a reply (the "counter notification" that states they ARE the copyright holder, or have some other legal right to use the texture (maybe it's from a photo that's availablefor free use) and gives their RL name and address for JoBob's attorney to file a formal copyright lawsuit.

At this point, LL provides JoBob with a copy of the counter notification, and informs him LL will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days.

4 - Now JoBob has a TOUGH decision to make ... and it's gonna be expensive and involve lawyers. Having made a DMCA complaint that got a counter notification, JoBob has to take it to the courts or shut up.

He can go get a court order to keep Dervish from using the material ... and he's going to have to prove copyright to get the court order. JoBob can sue Dervish for infringing the copyright ... it's a Federal court case, and JoBob has to sue Dervish in the district closest to Dervish's home.

Can JoBob do nothing, and then do another DMCA complaint? Yes, but repeated complaints over the same material, and not following through on the lawsuit part, get you a reputaiton as a chronic complainer.

********
Counter notifications are FUN if you know what your legal rights are on the material.

WRONG! See my earlier post about the DMCA "put up or shut up" clause.

It's up to them to PROVE infringement ...

Unfortunately no The problem is, LL will take down JoBob's texture as soon as Dervish files his complaint.

Dervish can counter-claim, but a) he's running the risk that maybe the texture really is JoBob's copyright, so he'd lose very badly if he took it to count - and unlike for larger pieces of intellectual property, there isn't any central impartial registry where he can check this; and b) he'll have to go through a court trial process, which is a lot of time and effort for him, especially if he's not in the US (since I believe LL insist that the counter-claim has to be filed in a US court). And we get the whole issue of, what if JoBob is much richer than he is, or what if JoBob's a student but Dervish has a full time job that he has to take time out from to go to court, etc..

This means that anyone distributing textures is open to a DMCA "SLAPP". If LL asked for proof before taking things down, this wouldn't be the case..

If you are really worried about the Copyright Issue, and want to be "Safe" then the answer is simple.

Yes.

Otherwise, In the words of Superchicken; "You knew the job was dangerous when you Took it Fred."

If YOU are the one distributing materials then the responsibility to see that you are doing so legally is YOURS. The Simple Idea IS workable IF you begin doing it at the start of your Business when your stock is small, then it becomes a matter of simple routine procedure as your Business Grows. If you just Grow, and trust to Luck, then by the time a Problem DOES occur, your stock is so large the Task becomes Insurmountable. The idea behind the Barn Door is, it should be closed BEFORE the horse takes French Leave.

AckAck and Banking, I see we have hit on the same point. Being the First to Upload a Texture that one has taken from a Net source does NOT grant one exclusive Copyright. Those materials were distributed on the Net with Open privilages but ALL ownership is still retained by the ORIGINAL creator or Distributer. In order to Enforce Ownership under DMCA you had better be able to PROVE Legal ownership.

Woopsy, No one has suggested that Content creators be Forced to Check or Uncheck anything. But the REALITY of the Texture Market makes distributing Textures with out Copy Completely pointless. Would YOU pay Twenty Five, Fifty, or a Hundred Lindens for a Texture that you can apply to Only One Prim? Now if i'm a Hobby Builder, or doing extensive construction on my Own property then No Transfer on a texture makes No Difference, But a Large Majority of Builders Build for Profit. There is NO profit in Objects you CANNOT Sell.

No ONE is Forcing Texture creators to do anything, But Practicalities permit only so many Options IF a texture creator wishes to have a saleable product.

Like i said, working out SL so it can differentiate between a Texture File, and an Applied Texture Might be one solution, but it would mean the Format of the Texture File would need to Change during the Application Process. and Once applied, the texture would be deleted rather than returned to Inventory by the act of applying a second texture, or returning to Default. I think this would perhaps be Too complex an action for the program to do, But i'd need the Opinion of a Programmer on that.

Angel.

First of all, rulez may look cool but my dictionary tells me the correct spelling is still "rules".

Second, every texture that's up for sale in SL has full permissions. Simply because textures are useless with limited permissions. What good is a texture that you can only use once? In order for the customer to re-use the texture as often as needed and also sell prim objects created with the purchased texture (if the texture creator permits that, which they usually do), you can't leave out any of the three permissions.
So that's a clear No to your statement: full permissions or both copy+resell permission does not mean that any object becomes a freebie, just as a copyable software or music CD isn't freeware. You should be aware of that before you attempt to resell or give away other's work.

Third, whatever you give away or sell, it's your obligation to make sure that you're allowed to do so and that the person who appears to be the creator is indeed the creator and copyright holder. You can download a pirate copy from a filesharing service that someone else uploaded - if you're caught using it or even sharing it you're the one who might end up in jail. No matter if you were aware of the copyright or not.

Conclusion: Angelique posted an easy solution for the problem already. Simply don't give anything away that you didn't create yourself (other than the one and only copy you purchased). Arguments like "a friend gave it to me, how should I know he stole it" or "the creator did steal somewhere too" are meaningless - it's up to you to make sure that you don't pass on pirate copies, period.

So you would like every single place in SL distributing freebies to shut down. That's the problem with simple solutions. They usually fall apart in practice.