If you are a builder in Second Life you depend on finding nice textures on the internet.
We search for hours to get that right shade of plaster, the perfect bit of fabric or the brick wall that is not too dirty but also not too clean.
Especially if you want to build something unique and detailed, this costs a lot of time and involves much work.
Of course, many images on the internet can not be used because of copyrights or other user restrictions.
But luckily there are also websites where you can find tons of nice textures you can use in SL.
This is now about to become even harder.
On the 15th of last month, Linden Lab changed their Terms of Use in a way that will worry
many creators and those who previously gladly allowed anyone to use their textures in SL.
By uploading anything to SL, it becomes LL’s property.
It is of course unlikely that they will start to sell it or make money from our little houses
and crazy wallpaper designs, but it is scary that they own everything we make.
I quote;
2.3 You grant Linden Lab certain licenses to your User Content.
[..]you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service.[..]
In short; whatever you upload, they can do with whatever they want.
Previously Linden Lab only had permission to use our stuff in Second Life, which is reasonable.
We know it is unlikely and won’t happen, but in theory we now give them permission to sell our textures and creations.
Most SL creators will not feel comfortable with the new TOS, but well, so be it.
It isn’t big enough a problem to stop our Second Lives.
But you may see that for websites and companies who make a living selling or offering textures on the internet, are very worried about this.
Some of the bigger sites are already changing their licenses, telling us that it is no longer allowed to use any of their textures in Second Life, even the ones that you heavily edit.
The site I use for almost all my textures has also done this.
Because Linden Lab now claims unlimited redistribution rights for any uploaded content, these websites now put these new restrictions into place.
Some sites have contacted Linden Lab about the problem, trying to find a solution, but didn’t get anywhere.
I hope that Linden Lab realises that this is a big problem that damages one of the most important parts of Second Life; creativity.
Of course some people will continue to use textures they shouldn’t and it is unlikely that someone will actually come and check in your sim and then take legal action, but for those of us who take this stuff serious, it is rather annoying and scary.
I am sure that Linden Lab does not want to sell our stuff or other people’s textures, so I hope that they can get their legal team to take a new look at the Tos, talk to the owners of these texture websites and together find a solution.
this is simply about them wanting everything in their own house, just like third party viewers, cashing out, they are hoarding it all, and given the drop in traffic, it doesnt surprise me that they are doing this, collecting back as much of the lindens as they can in the process. I think what they REALLY should be doing, is running another large campaign, getting more traffic, so that businesses can thrive again, insteading of cutting off businesses at the cross path so that its harder to make original things, or use any services outside sl. This is not an invisible problem, I just wish they would deal with it properly, not to mention lack of customer service, grief protection, better standards.
LikeLike
Solution: If they want to own our shit, they should pay us for it, or at least make uploads free. You heard me, LL. How much would your income drop if YOU paid US for uploads, or, at least, made them free? Right now, you’re making us pay YOU to give you content that YOU now claim to own.
LikeLike
Old post but this is still a good question. Free uploads (like InWorldz) encourages building.
LikeLike
We just need the “solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service” phrasing back. It’s standard wording for all hosting services, and it was in the previous ToS.
I’m pretty sure it’s just a cut’n’paste screw-up in the boilerplate text, but as is, it’s a pretty bad showstopper.
LikeLike
Necro’ing an old post, but some things just never change over time. LL just keeps demonstrating it’s incredible, bloody-minded, self-harming stupidity over and over again. They just won’t learn and don’t seem to care.
That’s what happens when you suddenly find yourself with more money than you can poke a stick at – you lose perspective – and respect.
LikeLike
I read this comment in the SL feed: “That would be like Shakespeare writing a sonnet and the people who made the parchment he wrote on saying ” well seeing you wrote on our parchment we now own it.”
LikeLike
That is so horrible. Makes me want to delete all I have.. Any ideas to stop this??
LikeLike
Pingback: Stunning but easy 3D modeling from photos | Jo Yardley's Second Life
Yup, from the cgtextures.com website:
Attention Second Life Users
(06th of September 2013)
Because of the latest Terms of Use update by Linden Lab, our images may no longer be added to Second Life.
Linden Lab (the company behind Second Life) has updated their Terms of Use in a way that claims all copyright to uploaded content, giving them rights to unlimited resale and redistribution of your work.
The updated Second Life Terms of Use is no longer compatible with our own Terms of use. So starting from the 6th September, uploading our images (or derivatives) to Second Life is no longer allowed. Images previously uploaded to Second Life may continued to be used as before.
For a more detailed explanation please read this announcement.
Note that this problem impacts every other texture website that does not allow resale ‘as Textures’ (which is 99% of the free texture sites on the Internet) So before uploading new textures to Second Life you should probably check with the texture website you use for your source images.
If you have any questions about this license change, please email us at support@cgtextures.com.
LikeLike
So, clothes, furniture, artworks and any other stuff we should create would be owned by LL????
Well, clothes or furniture aren’t exploitable outside SL and i agree with Quan LL never would sell our creations in an anonymous store inworld like the worst griefer does.
But what about textures, artworks, photos, “paintings” and such printable stuff?
It’s true they’re in low resolution, ’cause their size and ’cause they have been processed by the upload algorithm; nonetheless, we could even imagine they can be exploited in some way in RL. Who could be aware her/his photos would appear on RL t-shirts sold by a company who bought them in bulk with many others from the LL “owners”?
And i don’t talk about scripts only ’cause i’m completely unaware of their tech, but i reasonably can argue they could have a value on the software market, at least as models and ideas.
Adding to TOS the key phrase Tali quoted would be a way to avoid any risk of infringing the rights authors always had had on her creations.
LikeLike
not totally true that it isn’t for fashion Melusina. I make for some customers secondlife fashion for showing patterns and models and they use it in rl so for me that ball game is over and i will remove all that content first. Also for my business i will start using another platform. For all my other content i will get that slowly out of sl too. And i wont upload anymore.
So yes this if for me also fashion related and a huge impact for me as designer.
will develop my own open sim to work for me like that. Because i don’t agree with this at all. But Lindenlab wont listen to anybody…why should they? They have your stuff you have to agree when log on You cant choose it is agreeing or losing it all. I earn my money here, so the there was no choice i had to log on. But they don’t get anything anymore.
LikeLike
That would certainly qualify as agreement under duress and disqualify the agreement, defaulting to the previous agreement, if anything.
LikeLike
Congrats LL, you are finally making more and more aware of how greedy your board is!
LikeLike
Face it they charge horrendously high tier fees,
upload charges for everything you load to the
system and varying price levels for uploading your
dae files and now claim they own everything you
worked very hard on and spend many many hours on,,,
and they can do as they wish with, what is next from them….
screwing with all of your pricing vendors and taking 10%
right off the top of every sale you make? hmmmmmm maybe
even open a place right next to yours giving away free
all of your creations and FP, what can stop them?
They played on your “addiction” to the “game” for
you to pass by this little ditty in the TOS as just
another annoyance knowing full well you would all
agree to it just to get logged in and get on with
your Second Life
Only a mass exodus from SL would stop this and stab
them right in the wallet where it hurts them worse
LL has gotten extremely cocky because they feel they
are the best and only game in town they got there because
of you and can be stopped by you… they live in the world
of they will never go anywhere we have them all hooked
they are a corporate “crack dealer” They take, take , take
and have you ever tried to get any kind of re-numeration from
then on inventory of yours that THEY lost? Yet they do have it
in their system because now they want to market it because they now own it.
LikeLike
I damn well want any profit from my intellectual property if someone else is using it for their personal or corporate profit. everything I currently have in SL was uploaded before this change and could take many months to sort through all of it and contact people I have given copies to…. we’ll see LL in court more then once on this, because they played this card to get full copyright to the hard work of others.
LikeLike
I think everyone is missing a possible HUGE issue. If Linden Labs creates a new virtual world to replace Second Life, they will be starting with a full library of content created in Second Life. Granted, much of it will be incompatible, but it cuts out all the existing content creators and gives LL a ton of stuff to either give away or sell in the “new world.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed Lee and i was saying this for a couple of years now.
LikeLike
The problem with that is that there will be no confidence in any new project that can be connected in any way with Linden Research, now that it has become globally exposed as existing for no other purpose than to steal content–which sec 2.3 of the current LL ToS proves utterly. I love Second Life and until this idiocy had been fully committed to it, but unless the change to the User Content section of the LL ToS was immediately retracted and replaced with a carefully worded very precise return to the original spec, and I mean in the first days of the controversy (which is now over a week old and just beginning to pick up steam), SL never had any hope of surviving this. The Lab were fully aware of that when they pulled this stunt. Second Life is being deliberately sabotaged by LL, by now that must be plainly obvious The only gamble in this adventure is whether LL will survive it. Does anyone really think anyone will hire Rod after coming this far and then tanking it deliberately? Me neither. What a waste.
LikeLike
I really think we need to invoke Hanlon’s razor on this one:
Some lawyer screwed up the wording when cut’n’pasting.
They *could* potentially have *some* idea for linking some of their products, so, say, your Patterns builds could show up in SL, but I really, really don’t think LL is lining up to steal everybody’s content and run away giggling. It just doesn’t make sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, I think it wasn’t done with evil plans in mind.
However, it has to be fixed soon because as it is now it is worrying creators and those supplying us with the much needed materials to create with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Definitely. And I really do mean it when I say Hanlon’s razor: It is an amazingly incompetent mistake by a company which specializes in user-generated content.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Second Life “Their World, Your Imagination.”
LikeLike
Given Hanlon’s Razor, etc., rather than add to the speculation over the change, I contacted Linden Lab directly on the matter, and they replied with an official statement. You can read it in full here:
http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/tos-change-and-content-rights-lab-provides-statement/
LikeLiked by 1 person
They can say what they want but as long as the TOS does not support their recent statement and still has the same wording, people will still be worried and websites will still not allow us to use their textures.
They have to put the old phrase back or nothing will change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an official statement and would very well be accepted in court. However, they really need to restore paragraph 1 of the old Section 7.1.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Still one really needs to wonder, is the Tos just so vague that none of us where aware of its implications for such a long period, or its legality is as vague!
LikeLike
Speaking for myself, I can say that the change simply went under my radar. There were a lot of changes at that point and whole sections were moved around, and the discussion primarily focused on age-related issues.
It never occurred to me that they would change the standard “for the purpose of providing the service” phrasing, so I didn’t look for a change there. (And I am rather beating myself up over it).
LikeLike
btw anyone thought of this concept?…..Lots of us are using our content in other virtual worlds too, with this new policies Lindenlab can say ” we don’t want you to upload “our” content in competitive worlds. The more i think of it, the more i think that this is one of the reasons they do this too. And that they will enroll this rule in the future.
LikeLike
Giving up copyrights of your creations to a corporation is something nobody should do. They should pay you a high price for that and at least ask your permission clearly.
LikeLike
“How much would your income drop if YOU paid US for uploads” i know that back in 2007 they were making $90,000 USD a month on the $10L upload fee . . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a little off topic, but still has some in second life frustrated. It has to do with original content creators using the term “Full Permission”. When in fact they are putting restrictions in their terms of service which seems to me and others that they
are using the term misleadingly. When they are putting restrictions such as price, and weather you can use the items for mania board, gifts.. freebies etc. Stating that you cant resell the actual product or parts to the package as full permission is completely understandable. However if you are selling items listed as “Full Perm” they should be just that. Regardless of rules you put in your TOS. They should instead be selling them with the term “Restricted Permissions”. Just food for though.. I mean really, it is not a “Full Perm” item and should be not be sold as such with the term.
LikeLike
“Full Permission” is a term which aplies only within the context of the permissions system that governs asset rights in virtual worlds. Full permission means you have copy, modify, and transfer permissions for that asset within that virtual world. It doesn’t grant you every right under the sun.
Specific usage rights, restrictions, and limitations are always granted separately in an End-User License Agreement.
You’re confusing object/asset permissions as they pertain to a virtual world’s inventory system, with real-world legal permissions as allowed by EULA license. They’re two separate things.
LikeLike
then its not full permissions period
LikeLike
Hi everyone. well I really wonder why nobody is posting this in the SL merchant forum. Are you guys afraid of being censored or attacked by others? I mean if you guys want to do something why not deactivating all items on their marketplace for some time and see what will happen…The new ToS of LL are illegal, funny thing is that you had no chance to decline them, nor you have seen an announcement 30 days before…I think you have missed that LL have to care for much more projects than SL, their newest one is Desura and probably you will find your stuff there sooner or later…In my opinion the only thing what you can do is to shut down the business on MP, inform your customers they can buy your stuff (what’s released already) inworld. Let’s LL rot in their own muddy ToS sauce!
LikeLike
Pingback: SL advertised on CG textures site | Jo Yardley's Second Life
Guys… take a deep breath.
You have it ALL WRONG. Listen to someone who has worked as a producer in film and TV for three decades as I explain to you the process of Chain of Title, and why this step is and was and will be necessary in the days to come…
It’s NOT what Jo and some others seem to think it is.
What Mr. Humble is doing here is making life easier for media content creators. For producers, directors webzine and, comic book publishers, film and tv distributors, and bloggers from all walks of life.
This MUST be done in order to comply with legal Chain of Title requirements, especially in cases of live broadcast or re-broadcast, from a club holding an event, for example.
I made a movie in 1995 called For a Few Lousy Dollars. During the filming of this show over an 18 day period, I got a crash course in “the process of paperwork from Hell for fun and profit”….
We shot on location in the home of a friend of the Director. But despite this person being a friend and signing the photographic release for the location, we had to take several pieces of art off the walls. Paintings.
We had to remove them because the artists couldn’t be located, and thus Chain of Title, a “FULL NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE FOR EXPLOITATION RIGHTS IN ALL MEDIUMS IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE”, could not be attained for the individual pieces of art from the individual artists.
Which means I couldn’t use the paintings because I couldn’t demonstrate Chain of Title for an original artwork to the Distributor. And without a proof of purchase receipt from the owner, or a photo release from the artist, that media content COULD NOT BE USED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, because it would have contaminated the entire movie’s ability to have clear Chain of Title.
I have to let my dog out. She’s crying to go pee, lol.
I’ll post this and then come back and explain further… stay tuned…
Peace
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but no. Just no.
You can try to whitewash it with all the labels you want (Chain of Title, my patoot!), but all this amounts to – quite literally – is ‘legal theft’ by a now-lazy (and incredibly greedy) company – LindenLabs.
Wealthy businesses will stop at nothing to steal and profit from what doesn’t belong to them. One rule for the rich, another for the poor. As in real life, so in SecondLife.
LikeLike
to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service.[..] ”
OK… it’s like this… you are granting them a LICENSE.
“…[..]you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license…”
The word itself… LICENSE, implies that YOU retain all rights, get it?
The title of the paragraph even tells you so….
“…“2.3 You grant Linden Lab certain licenses to your User Content…”
It’s not a buyout of ownership of the intellectual property itself… YOU grant LL license to YOUR user content.
It’s still YOUR content, not theirs.
And the phrase NON-EXCLUSIVE implies that you not only retain all rights, but that you retain the right to assign and re-assign rights for the intellectual property, and in the event of breach of contract, nullify an assignment of rights to a third party.
It’s a case of you assigning them the necessary rights to act as agent for purpose of getting your intellectual property to the end users or repackagers.
If you don’t assign those rights, it becomes a nightmare for someone wanting to do a TV show, or a movie, like me.
And that would be good, right?
I mean, wouldn’t it be good to have broadcast TV stations in Second Life, live video broadcast quality music feeds in clubs that someone like DirecTV would pay big money for to Club Owners, to add as videologue music channels to their music feed catalog?
If you don’t let LL have this re-distribution license, I cannot use ANY of the textures without tracking each and every last one of you down individually to get a photo release.
My avatar is a good example of this particular nightmare, lol.
27 layers base naked.
That’s 27 textures, some of which are composited. Multiply that by 10 actors. That’s potentially 270 people I’d have to track down and get to sign documents.
I’D SPEND MY ENTIRE LIFE TRYING TO GET IM’S RETURNED AND NEVER FIND THE TIME TO MAKE MY ROCK OPERA!!!!
Now, put Yin’s Jewelry and full Pleasure Girl regalia on her…. Yin Yang, my other avi… one of them anyway lol…
33 layers base naked, 15000 prims or so, max attachment slots, and something like 300+ individual textures.
For ONE AVATAR.
If y’all don’t give LL the license they need to make my job actually do-able, I can’t use my avatars. If I can’t use my avatars, I can’t do a show. If I can’t do a show, I can’t hire people at real world rates, I can’t open Synergy Learning Institute, I can’t see SL as a wise investment, I can’t get Errors and Omissions Insurance, I can’t get a Completion Bond, I can’t inject hundreds of thousands of dollars into the grid, and get all my friends and associates, and their friends and associates to do the same.. we NEED THIS to get us past the legal red tape in one shot.
And without it, we’re just pissing in the wind if we’re serious about wanting to revive the grid off of life support and secure Second Life’s future.
OK, lol, REALLY going to walk the dog now. I had to get that onto the page before I lost the groove mojo…
Peace
LikeLike
You may want to look up Treet TV, they have long been making shows in Second Life. There is also a long history of machinima in Second Life, these sort of projects were made possible by the old TOS, which also allows people to post snapshots to sites like Flickr.
The part that has people up in arms is the section about selling and re-selling, that’s the cause of alarm and that’s why both CG Textures and Renderosity have announced their items can no longer be uploaded to Second Life.
The issues you largely raise,such as seeking permission from texture creators to broadcast or make shows were already dealt with by the old TOS and perfectly permissable under the old TOS. The nightmare you talk of about sending IM’s to get permission was not a problem, you did not need to seek their permission.
LikeLike
I know Treet TV, I’ve been on there a few times myself.
But yes, if only we could get (some of) the old TOS back.
LikeLike
The fact that you use the word “machinima” pretty much says it all.
Does Treet TV have worldwide distribution deals with multiple foreign markets, for broadcast and video rights?
Are their shows broadcast on TV, on a major network or syndicated cable TV network?
If so, let’s see their E&O insurance papers, which are MANDATORY for producers to have, for any distribution deal, for any given market.
You’re comparing apples and oranges here, sorry.
Not even going to bother repeating myself. Keep reading, further down, lol.
I can’t address CG Bytes cuz I know nothing about them.
But I DO know that there are sellers at Renderosity who have been back dating stuff much further back to lay claim to it as their work.
I know because some of it is based on or derived from MY textures, lol.
What’s REALLY happening with these vendors is that they now know just how thorough the forensic art DNA analysis is at Linden Labs, and they know how much of their stuff will get sniffed out as being dodgy, so they’re trying to use and confuse a lot of you, by giving you absurdly off track misinterpretations of the EULA.
But hey, it’s your life, not mine. go on and keep on stepping over dollars to pick up dimes, on the advice of people whose penny ante small minded short sighted business tactics have had what could have been a mushrooming economic community stagnating for years now.
Whatever floats your boat, Ciaran.
Peace
LikeLike
If this was Mr. Humble’s intention, he should have clarified that by now and changed the TOS to remove the unclear language. We are not forced to agree with his “intention” when we log in, we are forced to agree with the legal terminology. Right now, those terms give him permission to do anything he wants with our creation, including buying and selling our images. That is a big turnoff to content creators.
LikeLike
So if you ever show your movie in SL, you’re happy to give LL the right to take it and sell it to theaters worldwide without involving you in any way? Because that’s what the ToS says. That simply cannot be the right solution to the problem you outline here (which, by the way, is a pretty common issue for photographers), irrespective of whether some people confuse license and ownership in this discussion.
LikeLike
excellent question Tali… I was hoping someone would bring it up so I could explain this without talking to thin air any further…
Take a close look at what’s said in that sec 2.3… the specificity of it.
Grant to Linden Lab. Not to Second Life, or Linden Research, or the NSA, or Oak Ridge, or Argonne Labs.
I’ll admit, on second glance, this caught me off-guard for a second. And I can see why it seems to be scam.
OK… we have to go off course for a minute and talk about the idea of Personhood. The definition of a Person, from a legal standpoint, which is required in order for a contract to be binding and enforceable by the Courts.
For 12 decades now, the US Courts have held the position, and created legal precedents, which recognize a corporate entity as a Person.
People have made a big fuss over it, myself included. In my case it was because of the issue of how it affects the electoral process.
But corporations MUST be a person from a legal standpoint, or we can’t hold them to any agreements we sign with them.
Now, based on this, and based on a framework created by the US Air Force for its Distance Learning program, I’m fairly sure that there is already a mechanism in place for Avatars to be recognized – legally recognized – as persons under US Law.
In California, if you do business as ” Inc”, even if you don’t do the incorporation paperwork, the courts Deem the business to be incorporated for legal purposes, in civil or criminal court.
And the Distance Learning program has a method in place to grant all participants a Tax ID Number…. TIN# they call it, which is the equivalent of a Social Insurance Number… You SIN#.
Which makes that participant a legal taxpaying entity in the USA.
A Person, for all intents and purposes.
So what this Paragraph 2.3 is doing is making a clear distinction between you – YES, YOU, BEHIND THE KEYBOARD – and the ‘you’ in Second Life, who in reality is being recognized by Linden Lab and Second Life and Linden Research as a Person in their own right (especially if they have scripted agent status)… a person who resides at Linden Lab, and is enjoined to Linden Lab.
See, when you upload, they’re saying that this constitutes you granting the other you, who is with them, these exploitation rights.
And this is necessary because if you don’t grant the other you the exploitation rights, then your other you, and Linden Lab, would be in violation of your rights as owner of the copyright material.
Think about it… when you list stuff on the Marketplace… whose name appears there?
If Loki Mortmagus lists something, it’s Loki Mortmagus listing it, not Shao Hsing Lee.
So if you haven’t agreed to give Linden Labs proxy you… your avatar, your other you, the right to act on your behalf, there’s no clear chain of title behind the transaction and no legally clean transfer of rights from the behind the keyboard you to your other you to the end user.
Get it?
In the paragraph 2.3 above, the Linden Lab is you, lol. Sort of. Your avatar.
And the paragraph is describing your relationship with your avatar, as your representative and proxy for business transactions who you, behind the keyboard, empower to do business on your behalf.
It’s actually a very elegant solution to this problem, and well constructed, and thought out, with thorough due diligence given to researching the legal issues, and what chain of events are necessary for everyone to show as having happened, if these things ever need to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
They’re protected, and you’re protected. And your avatar, the middleman between you and Second Life, is legally empowered to set the wheels in motion and pave the way between physical reality, and virtuality, so the twain can meet and do business.
Whew.
I think that nails it.
If there are more questions or more requests for clarification, please speak up guys… questions are NEVER stupid…
Ignorance is.
Peace
LikeLike
You, the owner of your intellectual property, gives LL the right to use your work as they please, including passing that right on to others. No amount of verbal tapdancing changes that. That is not “elegant” or “necessary personhood” or any such thing. That is giving away all rights to your work.
Practically all other services use some limiting clause; not granting carte blanche for the provider to use the content as they please. I see no reason why LL should be any different.
Also, dealing under pseudonym has *nothing* to do with LL “representing” you. An author writing under pseudonym does not need to grant her publisher all rights to use her work as they please because “they need to represent her pseudonym”.
– And neither does she need to hand off all rights to her work on the off-chance that somebody wants to make a movie including a shot where her book is on the bookshelf.
LikeLike
OK… let me address this point by point…
“…You, the owner of your intellectual property, gives LL the right to use your work as they please, including passing that right on to others. No amount of verbal tapdancing changes that…”
No, you’re correct, no amount of verbal tapdancing changes that.
Which means that if my avatar sells something a producer as full permission on the marketplace, and they put it in a movie, I cannot screw that producer over later on by claiming that I, Shao Hsing Lee, the owner of the copyright, never gave them a license or release, my avatar did, so now you have to pay me as well.
The only reason one would object to this is if one was thinking they were being very clever by waiting on people to purchase full permission rights, and then later on, after they publish something, try and screw them over by double dipping and demanding more money to compensate the “other person” behind the keyboard.
“…That is not “elegant” or “necessary personhood” or any such thing. That is giving away all rights to your work…”
No, it’s not actually.
And now you’re flat out lying.
Why do you feel a need to lie?
You are NOT “giving away all rights”.
You are, and I quote, giving a license for the exploitation of rights still owned by YOU… “[..]you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license ”
Non-exclusive, meaning YOU still retain the rights, and the right to assign those rights to other parties, and still own the rights… you’re not granting them sole and exclusive exploitation rights, and it’s there in black and white, plain as day, and no getting around or tapdancing around what it says.
“… Practically all other services use some limiting clause; not granting carte blanche for the provider to use the content as they please. I see no reason why LL should be any different…”
Yeah, you’re right about that. Most want their cake and eat it too, and want to try and put content creators in a bind, so they can arm twist them later on for big money, as part of their business strategy.
A whole lot of companies flat out prohibit the use of certain well known widely used 3D modeling platforms because of this.
Which is why it would be stupid to do things their way, if Second Life wants to become a Virtual Hollywood, and have service industry cash injections replace the dead and never coming back retail sales model.
“…Also, dealing under pseudonym has *nothing* to do with LL “representing” you. An author writing under pseudonym does not need to grant her publisher all rights to use her work as they please because “they need to represent her pseudonym..”.
Of course it does… it has EVERYTHING to do with LL’s avatar, your personal representative, representing you.
You’re trying to compare apples and oranges here.
An author writing under a pseudonum doesn’t need to grant her publisher all rights to use her work as they please, because publishing deals don’t include broadcast rights and film options, which the author retains in virtually all cases.
And the deal made by the publisher with you is with YOU, in YOUR NAME, not with the pseudonym.
The use of the pseudonym for the publication, as standard practice, is written into the deal itself, with the name to be used printed in the contract, as part of the memorandum of agreement.
The deal is still signed and agreed to by you, in your proper name.
Second Life, on the other hand, and your avatar, need full exploitation rights. If you don’t want to grant your avatar those exploitation rights so you can sell stuff, then don’t upload, and don’t sell stuff. That’s up to you.
No one is twisting your arm or forcing you to upload, or sell stuff on the marketplace, or create videos in Second Life.
But if you do, and want those videos to be shown on TV or on a commercial website, then there needs to be clean Chain of Title from your avatar’s marketplace sale to the end user/distributor in some other location around the world.
And if you don’t want to give them those rights, they can’t use the video.
That’s why your avatar, as Linden Labs rep and go-between, has to have this license.
“…- And neither does she need to hand off all rights to her work on the off-chance that somebody wants to make a movie including a shot where her book is on the bookshelf…”
No, she doesn’t need to hand off all rights to her work for that.
Again, you’re telling an outright lie… this paragraph is clear in what it says… granting a license. It’s NOT a transfer of rights. It’s not a sale of the intellectual property’s copyright. It’s not exclusive.
So it’s not a hand off of ANY rights.
Get it?
LikeLike
A license grants you the right to do something. In this case, granting LL the right to do anything they please with your work. You’re the one confusing terms here; rights doesn’t mean ownership.
But since I am a “liar” who doesn’t “get it”, I’ll bow out now.
LikeLike
hmmm… ok… maybe you’re getting tripped up on terminology here… on the word usage of a word which has too many different contexts, and not seeing the nuanced differences in its use.
right, rights, copyright, right as in direction or relative position, right as in vector, Right as in the political inclination of a person or group, right as in correct….
ok. it’s a fucked up and overused and thus potentially disastrously ambiguous word, lol..
so let’s backpedal and go through this usage issue.
my apologies… sometimes I take for granted my ability to see linguistic context and cut to the precise heart of a thing.
1. “right” can mean a direction or vector, or relative position when we talk about spatial relationships.
2. “right” can also be a political leaning or inclination of a person or group.
3. “right” can also mean “correct”
4. “right” can also mean “permission”
5. “right” can also mean “implied and underlying natural ability and freedom which is inherent within a given context”
The last one is what we mean when we say Constitutional rights… things which are inherent and understood and agreed upon as being sacred and implied abilities and freedoms which we are all endowed with at birth.
They’re not privileges someone can take away from you… they’re your inalienable “rights”.
To be “right” about something is to be correct, which is a bit easier and self explanatory.
But in terms of Second Life, and object permissions for example, by granting someone full permissions when they buy an object, you’re granting them a non-exclusive right – a “permission and license”, or “right and license” as Linden Labs put it, to exploit the object for your own purposes.
That’s the usage implied in that sentence, in that context, in terms of a legally binding contract.
The “right and license” is NOT a transfer of the copyright or copyrights – which is what the short form “rights” refers to in terms of a contract… your copyrights – to Linden Lab… it’s a permission and license to exploit.
Any lawyer or court will look at it and tell you the same thing. It’s just a standard phrase which is used all the time in contracts.
When you use the word “rights” when we discuss these legal matters, copyright and intellectual property, I instantly understand that word to mean “intellectual property copyrights”.
So if you say “giving away all rights”, or “handing over all rights”, it means that you’re implying that you are surrendering and transferring all copyrights.
Which you’re not, in this case, and that’s very clear in the way this thing is written.
I think you just got caught up in this word usage issue.
peace
LikeLike
Glad you have figured it out. Now how, exactly is Linden Lab planning to reimburse me when it buys, sells, or licenses my images? Is there a mechanism in place? Will they be paying me in Lindens? They are free to send the money directly to Paypal if that is easier.
LikeLike
he doesn’t need to change it.
it’s crystal – 100% absolutely crystal – clear.
I read it and understood the intent immediately, without any ambiguity or misunderstanding.
you’re just not reading it correctly.
and no, you are NOT giving HIM permission…. you are giving Linden Lab a non-exclusive license.
If you don’t, your avatar can’t list stuff on the marketplace, and have that stuff give the buyer a clear chain of title back to you, the original content creator.
well, your avatar could list the stuff but then you could turn around and sue.
“…Now how, exactly is Linden Lab planning to reimburse me when it buys, sells, or licenses my images? Is there a mechanism in place? Will they be paying me in Lindens?…”
Yes, they have a two mechanisms in place for selling your good and getting paid… the first is in-world sales at a retail location, a physical in-world location.
the second is the Second Life marketplace, where your AVATAR – the one enjoined to Linden Lab who will be the one listing the goods and getting the payment – who is acting as your agent, but taking no commission for it other than the small commission (very small lol) taken by Linden Lab on all marketplace sales, will collect the money and then you can buy or sell Lindens on the Linden Exchange, the Lindex.
This was a necessary step to make the process clean, and secure, and protect the heavyweights from losers who would otherwise try and double dip, and claim Warner or Disney or whoever owes them money, cuz they never gave permission or a license to use their stuff… their avatar did, and their avatar isn’t them.
peace
LikeLike
Please mind your language.
LikeLike
I should add one more thing here…
I have been trying to sell some 3D resource agents, online retail websites, and Second Life, on the idea of a HUD driven multi license tier market which will let media content producers search, demo, and buy licenses from a catalog on location, on the fly, to reduce downtime and speed up productivity and drive more sales.
I gave the model to the Kitely owner at his kitely blog too, but thus far, it hasn’t been adopted.
Hopefully someone will take the initiative on it soon.
I have a plan D for that already in the works, so stay tuned.
peace
LikeLike
OK.
So the REAL reason these sites are doing what they’re doing…
1) Ignorance of the legal requirements needed for the paper bureaucracies of various nations to allow us to make broadcast media.
2) A desire to hide the fact that they’ve been ripping off the original content creators of stuff they’ve been pushing on the public as being owned by them for years, while making Linden Labs look like the bad guy
3) Both number 1 and number 2 combined.
I have run into more than one website which has been trying to pass off other people’s content as their own, and then trying to claim ownership rights on the use of that content which originated from someone else’s freebies, as their original work.
One guy used gentials I created in Utherverse’s Redlightcenter as creative commons public domain content to make a whole bunch of female genital textures, but when I contacted him, he tried to claim ownership rights on the stuff and tell me it can’t be used outside the intended purpose, for which he receives financial compensation he shouldn’t be asking for in the first place.
Another site then used this first guy’s work and freebies and claimed it as original content, and tried to enforce ownership rights and prohibitions on me, for a package which has content that I originally created.
They said I couldn’t use the content in Second Life, despite the fact that my intention was to use it in a proprietary game format in Second Life, and not as content for resale, on the grounds that it was “a well established prohibition against using content in Second Life”
A thief who ripped off a thief who ripped me off, claiming I had no right to use something which used my textures to make commercial content.
THAT is what happens when we don’t have a watchdog with teeth guys.
But you know what?
I don’t begrudge the guy using my textures so much. Not really.
And I don’t begrudge the other artist and their web content people at this very large, very “well established” (LOL) 3D content resource online marketplace having my content in the artists package.
Not really.
What DOES piss me off is their attempts to claim the work as commercial content they owned rights to, along with the right to grant license for commercial use to other parties.
The number of derivative works which originated from stuff I did in RLC and Second Life is mind blowing.
I could have a field day with these people if I wanted to.
But it’s not what I want. It’s not what I’ve EVER wanted.
All I want is to let each one have a right to do their own thing, free of interference.
Let those who want to do public domain creative commons work do so.
Let those who want to exploit original content commercially, let them do so.
Let those who want to grant unrestricted commercial license on their original public domain works do so, and make that clear from the get-go when these freebies are put out in the public domain.
Let those who want to make use of public domain stuff for commercial purposes respect the line in the sand between Creative Commons works which give express permission for commercial use, and those which do not specifically grant permission for commercial use, and respect that, and stop trying to claim those works as their own.
Is that so much to ask?
I hope not.
Because if it’s too much for people to respect one another in this way, I’m, gonna have to start going from website to website, and page to page, and start making the mother of all lists of people to sue, from here to eternity.
But I hope we never have to do that.
OK?
LikeLike
One more thing.
My response to those calling Linden Labs power-mad megalomaniacs who only want things to be done their way, and don’t listen or entertain or tolerate other points of view.
In 2006, at the Height of the hot warfighting in Iraq, at a time when public opinion was still in flux, at a time when I still felt a need to use literary shock treatment as a way of getting through to people, the angrier, younger me posted the words you see on my Profile below…
https://my.secondlife.com/yin.yang/#about_tab
Despite this, despite all my shenanigans before and since, I have never at any time been prevented, or felt like I was being prevented, from speaking my mind or engaging in conscious acts of creation in-world in Second Life.
Now, consider that they have every reason imaginable, from a public relations POV, from a political convenience POV with a Republican in the Whtie House who started the wars I mentioned, from an internal harmony within the company POV – believe it or not, unknown to me at the time, I was put on a GIT list without my knowledge lol – they had all the justification in the world to shut me up, and shut me down, and be done with it.
But I am still here. I can still log in whenever I want. I can still do what I like, despite my engaging in shockingly bad behavior on a consistent and daily – hell, hourly – basis.
What does that tell you about their commitment to our right to privacy?
ANd what does it tell you that they respect that right, and my right to free speech, even though I’m not an American?
To me, it says that these people take the ideals represented in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights seriously. And they take the idea of being guardians of the public trust even more seriously.
And they believe that these rights must apply universally – UNIVERSALLY – or they are meaningless, and the spirit of the Constitution is not being upheld.
So say what you want. Say I’ve sold out (for the record, the offer of godhood was made, and rejected by me, in summer of 2012). Say I’m being manipulated into a context where I’d say these things.
You’re entitled to those opinions. And who I am to argue with that?
But my opinion is simply this…
Building a new world, and a new dawn, and a future for all beings endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights – among these Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – which is NOT built on the tears of an unborn child, requires a leap of faith on the part of each person.
A willingness to take the risk to try, and trust, and reserve judgment till after we see what happens.
At some point guys, we need to start giving each other the benefit of the doubt, and see where it takes us.
And if we can’t do that?
Then the future is already lost.
That choice, that chance at a better world, is up to YOU…
Get it?
Peace
LikeLike
Shao, I think you don’t understand the problem. The language is ambiguous at best. I showed it to 2 copyright lawyers and they laughed. They both assumed it was a draft by someone new to the area of copyright law. The document as it stands is a lawsuit troll. The class actions will be huge.
I built stuff based on the “you own what you build” agreement. Now they want to own it, lease it, rent it, whatever – all without my permission and without reimbursing me. I say no. And also how stupid is Linden Lab deliberately reaching out to creatives for years, and then slapping us all in the face and saying they own our stuff. They are being bullies at best. Mafia at worse. Sued for sure.
LikeLike
This is going to be my last reply or post here, if my comments are censored again without valid reason. The use of an accurate description of the public perception of the previous CEO, simply because it contained one expletive, is not a valid reason to stomp on my right to free speech.
Shawn… you’re the one not understanding the problem.
You have a nationalist centrist world view which puts far too much importance and contextual weight on the absurdities of a sloppyEnglish dialect as being the “real” and “proper” English, and dismisses actual English as being wrong in any place that word usage or definitions do not conform to the dialect spoken in a country whose dictionary redefines almost every single important ideological word, from cover to cover.
Which two copyright lawyers?
Could we see a written opinion on letterhead?
And you DO realize that you’re commiting an act of libel by claiming they want to “own it”, when P2.3 clearly states “non-exclusive license”, with not a single phrase anywhere in the paragraph describing irrevocable transfer of Chain of Title to Linden Lab from the end user, right?
Shawn, it is not my fault that you and your “lawyer” friends do not speak, read, or write English with sufficient skill to interpret a contract with any degree of accuracy.
It is also not my fault that you seem to think that this dialectical interpretation which is unique to one single nation, which will most likely account for a much smaller market share of broadcast media rights licensing than we usually see from episodic productions, due to the film cast and crew related unions in California and the ridiculous scale rates they think they’re entitled to, when the reality is that in the other distribution territories in the British Commonwealth, and Asia, and Japan, and Europe, there will likely be little or no misunderstanding of what the document says, because they don’t speak American… their market reps speak, read and write English.
Have a nice day.
Peace
LikeLike
ps-> One brief question for you… how is it that your so-called “lawyer” friends who you claim to be expert authorities on copyright issues could be practicing lawyers, and NOT be aware that as of 2011, software IP owners have been using the term “Scripted Agent”, or “Agent”, or “Agent Entity” to refer to a software based learning capable script, or series of script modules, who can, under US law, control an incorporated, or deemed to be incorporated entity, apply for a TIN# from IRS, and legally have status as a US Person?
And how, if they ARE aware of the above, could they claim a chain of title from you to the collective scripted agent pool at Linden Lab is not necessary to demonstrate clear chain of title in a distribution contract?
Two pretty basic questions, the first of which goes back to like 1891 I think, or something like that… a fairly well established precedent of corporate personhood.
So how do these 2 guys not know this?
LikeLike
Pingback: Beware the Metamonster #SecondLife #SL | Sabra Speak
——————————————————————————–
chain of title n. the succession of title ownership to real property from the present owner back to the original owner at some distant time. Chains of title include notations of deeds, judgments of distribution from estates, certificates of death of a joint tenant, foreclosures, judgments of quiet title (lawsuit to prove one’s right to property title) and other recorded transfers (conveyances) of title to real property. Usually title companies or abstractors are the professionals who search out the chain of title and provide a report so that a purchaser will be sure the title is clear of any claims. (See: title, foreclosure)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
OK SO IT’S YOUR COPYRIGHTED STUFF…
You upload it, but you want to do that WITHOUT empowering your avatar, a California resident US person, with non-exclusive license to act as agent, and WITHOUT empowering Linden Lab instead of your avatar, which would allow any subsequent avatars you create to also act as agent on your behalf.
Noo….. you want wiggle room, so you can upload, then use your avatar to sell a full perm piece of art to Warner Brothers, wait for them to make a movie which has your art in it, and then turn around and sue them for big money, right?
On the grounds that you never transferred the intellectual property Chain of title, and never granted your avatar or LL a license to act as agent. So Warner has to pay you because you’re so damn clever and sneaky, and a true genius with this legal loophole stuff.
And you expect the big players to be so shockingly stupid that they’d invest time and money into a virtual world that would let you get away with trying to rob them.
AND… if Linden Labs persists in… what?
Persists in trying to make sure you can continue selling on the marketplace, and selling to bigger and bigger spending heavyweight clients, by way of making sure all the legal papers are in order on your behalf.,.. you’re going to class action sue them so you can retain the right to try and hold Warner brothers hostage, and cross your fingers behind your back and giggle when they buy your stuff?
You’re right. Maybe I don’t understand, Shawn.
You’re just way too smart for me.
I give up, you win.
wow, you’re brilliant.
you should be a lawyer, for all the people who want to sue me.
please?
peace
LikeLike
Shao, if you are trying to convince me that the purpose of this change in the TOS is simply to establish that the chain of title comes straight back to me, I am unconvinced. It does not say that. Period. If this WAS Linden Lab’s intention, let them come out and say it in public, clarify the TOS to eliminate the ambiguous language, and we can all go forward. It’s all in their hands.
LikeLike
Pingback: Beware the Metamonster #SecondLife #SL « United Content Creators of Second Life
Sorry but all the sources i know, believe that LL position regarding this subject is made and will not change, its a matter of accepting or move!
LikeLike
Just a small note to clarify the legal position.
No they don’t own it. Even if they make you tick an agreement to say that you do.
There are laws covering “standard form” contracts. There is no option for users to review and modify the contract into a form that they would find acceptable. Therefore LL are using undue strength of position with regard to rights issues.
They can’t force you to give up rights to your content by taking away access to it unless you do. It wouldn’t be supported by a court.
Research contract law in more detail and you’ll see this.
LikeLike
Until someone convinced third party websites about this, it will still stifle our creativity.
LikeLike
Pingback: Second Life TOS – In the News « United Content Creators of Second Life
This is so extremely wrong Linden Lab, change the TOS you evil sob’s!
. What is really sad is it seems everyone I talked to doesn’t even realize what they agreed to in this last tos. The masses seem oblivious. What the grid needs is to set up a black out day. Just don’t log in. Spam the entire grid with posters saying why there is a black out. Get the attention of the masses. They have no idea they are about to lose the entire creative force in SL. If ppl thought they would lose content they will fight this.
LikeLike
Its been over 2 years since I left SecondLife, after the viewer 2 fiasco i realized that trying to run a business based on someone elses grid doesn’t make sense. I knew then it was time to look to the future and use better tools. Unity3d has served my purposes as a content creator for education and training projects and as an artist and filmmaker. We at Extreme Reality have worked hard to create multi-user and other features that makes SL seem antique already. LL has never communicated properly with its users which is why we created a solution to allow people to run a virtual world on their own servers. Check out http://www.unity3d.com then you will realize that its time to let go of the old to make room for the new.
LikeLike
SL to me is not about the technology, the viewer, Linden Lab or even the tos.
It is about the people, the people stay in SL, I stay in SL.
LikeLike
Linden Lab is pretty dumb for this what they do not understand is that the (CopyBot) Completely in my eyes Cripple the entire grid. Then we had CDS, Red Zone, completely destroy the grid by data mine, spyware and so on. Yes I know this is a bit unrelated, but it caused a lot of people to just want to quit Second Life.
Now the new threat, is this new TOS that Linden Lab stupidly released taking away the rights from all the fellow merchants I grew to Love in Second Life, what if a merchant does not agree and wants all their data deleted from the grid instead of being used by Linden Lab, what about all the weapon, and clothing designers I love what will become of them like 3 major merchants I know of have quit the grid some due to CopyBot, others likely to this.
To make things worse I quit Second Life except for my Estates I rent to others at GF pricing because of the Security Linden Lab has, my account got Hacked and when LL was notified less than 24 hours they failed to recover any inventory, all asset data completely wiped why? Because they keep no back-up, and should any view you ever use off the TPV site ever become compromised and someone do this to you goodbye Second Life inventory. You see a lot of the merchants I bought stuff from no longer exist in Second Life, sure data still on LL’s servers I just can’t legally access it anymore because the assets are no longer in my inventory.
But you want to know a secret its possible for LL to restore anyone’s data they just refuse to.
“Second Life has run its time, but I fear it is done for, Second Life needs new management, and better security.”
And you want to know the Truth, my World OF Warcraft account has better account security than Linden Lab which has direct access to you’re bank accounts, PayPal, and so on when put on file, isn’t that just pathetic?
LikeLike
Perhaps, but in the last 5 years I’ve had almost no problems at all with any of the things you mentioned.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that this TOS is even legal – at least, not completely.
If you had to sign paperwork in RL that included this kind of clause, it would be challenged in a court. Some states don’t even allow this kind of clause.
Well, you actually do have to agree with this in RL, before you get onto SL. So, any laws disallowing this kind of thing in RL should still apply, right?
Any attorneys out there who are willing to sail this boat, and see if it floats?
LikeLike
I’m so with Jo on this!
LikeLike
Pingback: CGtextures responds to new Second Life Terms of Service | Jo Yardley's Second Life
Second Life is a separate community and it has it’s own rules . I think is better than USA laws, the ones that trample the most basic rights, such as private copying for personal use without profit, without money interchange. You must to accept not only Linden rules but the personal users right to copy an use for their self, without profit.
There are more mentalities outside of your world, mostly people prefix creation over economical profit and you cannot avoid.
LikeLike
Pingback: Outrage grows over new Second Life termsHypergrid Business
2 years on, SL hasn’t stolen a damn thing.
the reason they do that is so that people won’t sue when they have stuff legitimately taken from them.
10 and a half years, “the sky is falling.” gets old.
LikeLiked by 1 person