Big Troubles for Second Life builders #CG Textures

“From 6 September 2013 you are no longer permitted to add our images to Second Life or other Linden Labs products. The use of textures downloaded prior to this date is allowed.” Read on:

  1. “We will sell you back the rope to hang ourselves with!”

2 Comments to “Big Troubles for Second Life builders #CG Textures”

  1. Hmm. Those terms sound similar to Facebook’s terms which is why when I do post pictures that aren’t profile pictures I create a link for friends then take the pictures down after a week.

    That said, I don’t claim to be in the circles of the people in the know but one would think that there should be a big stink about this. There are people who refuse to have anything to do with the open sims because they claim to be worried about theft from the end user. Yet the Terms of Use at LL literally gives LL the right to take ANYTHING they want and use it any way they see fit including modifying it and using it in a way that you find morally objectionable while LL merely grants you a “license” so long as you give away any rights to your own stuff and without compensation or even so much as attribution.

    This reminds me of earlier debates of those who prefer the closed system of a Linden Labs to the open metaverse. The claims were that open worlds were rife with theft that people just want free stuff and don’t want to pay for it. Which is the bigger threat to the for-profit content creator? People who freely share and attempt to do so in good faith while staying within the terms of the creator of the original item or a for-profit corporation that encourages its users to “create your world” whilst changing the TOS to basically make the concept of actually owning your work moot. Last I checked in order to be an owner of intellectual property one has to have control over it and an “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.” is not you controlling your content.

    It reads to me that someone just jacked your work for their own purposes and has no intention of compensating or even acknowledging your efforts in creating whatever it is they jacked. But then I suppose it’s better when couched in legalese?

    Some might read my comments as hypocritical given my stance on the so-called security of closed sims but I don’t think it is. I am all for people sharing if they so desire without being called communists or freaks if they choose to. And many do. However, a corporation using its terms of use in order to basically turn its users into unpaid providers of content for its own use? That is not not cool and seems to me to be a much bigger threat to those who think to make a living in the closed grids than anything the people in the open sims have been accused of accepting vis a vis content.

You are welcome to leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: