Situation is simple. You come to the place you like, looking just as you like, you take a snapshot (or as it usually is, tons of them), you tweak and torture those pixels a bit and end up with something that we call a SL photograph, or simply (and for clarity sake) an image. Like this one
And that's where all the simplicity ends.
If you present that image in public, let it be Flickr, two questions arise:
- What is moral and ethical to do about all the people that contributed to the image? Somebody build that sim, somebody made the clothes, jewelry and accessories, WindLight settings, pose…
- What is legal state of the matter?
Answer to the first set of questions, that I am in no way the sole author of the image above, is something that makes second life so interesting and compelling to me. There is at least ten people that met here in some plane that is even more meta than metaverse itself, ten people whose creativity joined in the moment of clicking the snapshot. But that's me, idealistic and carried by enjoying the world. Take a look at the Bettina Tizzy's post Proper attribution of images taken in virtual worlds to see that things are not that simple nor pretty. Beside that it's polite and good practice to credit people that contributed, some artists might want more than that or can have special requirements about who and for which purposes can take snapshots of their work.
Now, let's try to credit that image above. Sim is Hangars Liquides. I don't know if there are any rules about taking pics there, nothing told me about it. But if we want to be correct, I should find creator's web-site and check there, right? I don't have a clue how many people was working on the sim and if they were using somebody else's prims and textures. Dog tags were made by Dinee Ghia, which I remember because they were a gift directly from her. Glasses, two sets of piercings and clothes can be traced if I log in, find them in my inventory, rezz on the ground and inspect. Wait! Hair, skin and pose should be mentioned too. Hair is easy, but I have no clue which skin am I wearing, let alone the pose. See where this is heading? If you want to share an image you need to employ three more people to do the paperwork about creators of everything around.
OK, I am exaggerating and I am in no way telling that credits shouldn't be given. Far from that! I just want to point the problem. What was supposed to be shared environment, place where ideas join, inspire and amplify each other, turned out to be a mess of bureaucracy. And we haven't call the law to the party. Yet.
Surprisingly or not, copyright law is not adding much to the mess. As usual, when artsy souls cannot make peace, law cuts sharp and close to the body. Benjamin Duranske explains the practice:
In the virtual world, however, every dress, hairstyle, avatar “skin”, and building is really a tiny piece of online software, and online software, including the output of the software to the screen, is protected by copyright… If you want to incorporate somebody else’s artistic work into your own you are supposed to seek permission from the copyright holder. And if you don’t, the copyright holder can sue you — attribution, no matter how extensive, is simply not enough.
So instead of the purple image above, I end up with the white one. I should name it "White Body on White" and Malevich would be proud of me. I made my body shape and eyes. I hope that Linden Lab is not going to sue me for using the Ruth's pose.
Most of us get away with our crimes of using other people's work in our own. That's mostly because we rarely make any money here or, when we do, L$ peanuts are not worth going to the court. But that doesn't mean that we don't have a problem. And the problem is rooted in fact that our technology develops faster than our morality and comprehension of ourselves and our world.That disproportion creates the space where two extremes flourish. One that would like to cut everything down to white, and the other that steals and declare other people's as its own. Both are ruining creative and sharing atmosphere of out environment – the essence that makes this place so interesting and productive.
to me that’s going too far.. if someone is going to argue copywrite over a snapshot because of things worn or where it was taken, then in the real world they could do this too…
you don’t see walmart suing people on flickr for taking photos wearing their clothing or nintendo suing over a photo of a family playing the wii..
and that’s how it should be in sl. if you are reviewing for a blog, yes i say credit what you are wearing.
if designers are going to make you credit what you are wearing for artistic shots, then they need to make a set of rules up and send it to their customers, like stock images are handled on deviant art.
as a content creator i love seeing photos taken with my stuff weither they mention it’s by LuNi or not.. (though i love when they do cause then i can find it and collect it but i’m not going to sue them for not mentioning lol)
My stance on it is – it behaves like clothing, it looks like clothing, it is sold and advertised as if it is clothing, therefore it is clothing and I should treat it as I can treat clothing. After all, with some things we wear sometimes in first life it’s impossible to determine if it’s clothing or not, unless the manufacturer said it was!
It behaves like land, it is bought and sold like land, it is built upon like land, therefore it is land, so, they are free to forbid me entry, but they cannot forbid me to take pictures and they don’t own any copyright to my pictures as derivative works.
And if they want it to be treated as software, then they’re free to throw in an EULA and defend it in court when I only get it AFTER opening the package. They will also have to defend advertising it as land or clothing, because that is simply a lie and is just as much an offense to the law.
Being consistent in all things is an unattainable virtue, but one I consider an important ideal.
If I’m visiting an art exhibition or place, I’ll try to label my pictures and provide links etc. Mostly I do this to be helpful to help others find it. Tellng people what hair I’m wearing, what skin and what clothes I’m wearing is, I believe, not only going a little far, but an invasion of my own privacy. AND what’s more, in real life, I take a picture – if it’s for commercial purposes, I’m expected to get permission from the location (depending if it’s public or private), get releases for anyone else in the picture yada yada. If it’s for private/personal use I don’t tell people where I purchased my clothing and accessories and where I got my hair done and I don’t intend to in the real world. It’s useful in product advertising, I agree. The reason I think it’s an invasion of privacy in terms of non-commercial/private pictures is that everyone works hard to give their avatar a certain look – they may buy shape, hair, skins, eyes, clothes, etc. They often spend days, weeks… months perfecting this. To then turn around and tell everyone how they can become your clone seems a little nuts to me. I don’t really care this much, but just because you don’t have anything to hide doesn’t mean that it’s everyone elses right to know either. Disclosure should be done with due consideration… and some form of balance in my view. If you visit an exhibition or purchase goods that have conditions about photographing them etc, then you should respect the requirements… or else skip the pictures.
I’ll try to mention (where possible):
* the names of all avatars featured in the snapshot
* the name and/or creator of an item, if it is obviously the focus of the snapshot
* the sim location (most of the time somewhere in the blogpost)
Of course, this is an ‘I try’, and I do not always succeed. But at least I do my best? ;)
Great post, but I look at it from a rl photographer’s point of view. If I take a photo in public, I don’t include facts about the architects who designed the buildings, the "extras" passing by as I took the shot, the mayor of the city, etc.
I realize virtual worlds are entirely created, but is it any difference? "Reasonable expectation of privacy", especially in Second Life, is virtually nil.
-My 2 cents playing devil’s advocate.
Nimil, now when you mentioned deviantart… I enjoyed the ever-growing stock there, and it was all fun and games until people started to be really anal about what you can do or not do with their images. Something that would really piss me off were those that insisted that work in which you used their stock should not be pubished or shown anywhere but on DA. That was simply crazy. It went to the point where it made no sense to use DA’s stock and collaborate with the people there, but simply google for the image you need and forget about all the credits, attributions and rules.
Rika, I’m afraid they can treat it as software in the court and I’m afraid we did that EULA thing somewhere with clicking ‘yes’ on ToS of SL.
Moggs, Vint… yes, attribution is nice and useful (for artist, contributors and viewers) if done right and with sense. And it’s more or less easy to be done with a image shown in the blogpost. But if the image above is a part of the comic (as it could be, it’s taken from my test-shots for the comic) then imagine the credits for all the 24 pages of the episode. It’s additional 12 pages of names and SLURL’s. Or machinima. For ten minutes movie you’ll need 3 minutes of credits scrolling at the end. And aforementioned army of people who will take care of all that.
Big production companies can (and should) afford that, but indie production is dead because of that. After I posted tis one, I sat and thought a bit about comic I am working on. If I have to mess with all this sit, isn’t it easier to fire-up the Blender, delete the default cube and start from the empty space? To create it all by myself? Sure, it’s hell lot of work, but at the end, I am the sole creator, with no problems with other people’s vanity, copyright infrigements on the horizon and with possibility to make a cartoon and any remix I might think of as time goes.
Robert, I was going my way making the same similarity between snapshot and RL photo, but as comments on Betina’s post shows many people think differently. And while everything iSL is created, there is a similarity with photography. You’re free to take pictures of buildings, statues and other artwork and feel it as your own work because you are changing the medium and context. But… some creators and law doesn’t see it that way.
everyone :)
I couldn’t care less about copyright.
(just a remark:: I agree with everything said here. As is RL, money sets the actions of all parties involved. And as d. said, it’s mostly peanuts.
Flickr and LL have the real problem, not us. They are the ones making the money so they’ll take the heat on this one, and they can’t afford to lose because photography is a popular hobby in SL, and Flickr is based solely on amateur photography.)
This is much more interesting:
d. said “our technology develops faster than our morality and comprehension of ourselves and our world”
Two things come to mind from this insight.
One, and I’m quoting Rika “…it behaves like clothing, it looks like clothing…therefore it is clothing”
‘I think therefore I am’ kind of logic, which is true in my view. Of course my avatar is digital! of course it’s a software! but not all of it, It’s also ME, really me.
So we have a new being, part human, part software, what law should it abide by? damn technology got us into trouble again (good! we deserve it)
Second, it makes me wonder, did we create the meta universe or is it an inevitable result of certain technological capabilities?
Was alt reality created only when a human first thought about it, or was it already there since the beginning of time, waiting for us, waiting for our technology?
Could we NOT have created it? Are we living in a greater meta than our own toy universes?
I always thought the universe is way, way too big for humans. Maybe technology is overwhelming us because we’re just here to carry it over to the next runner.
later :)
Envi, it’s not LL and Flickr who have the problem. They are not responsible for what we use their product and services. And that is good. The bad side is that we’re yet to learn where are limitations of our freedoms. And we are yet to learn the spectrum between pixels and us. And what are we doing here anyway? And the same question in philosophical meaning?
Yes, LL and Flickr are not responsible, but we are talking about costy real world law, and these battles are waged by those who can afford to fight and can’t afford to lose.
As for what are doing here anyway, here on SL and here on RL, well, it’s too broad. So many theories and concepts. I can only say that I don’t see any fundamental difference between SL and RL. Nothing more than a technicality. Human senses are easily fooled, and our “reality”, in many ways, is simulated BY us (such as SL) and on a universal scale (but conceptully identical) simulated FOR us (check out http://www.bottomlayer.com).
Yes, I believe it’s possible that I am an avvie of someone out of this world who’s playing me right now. He is my “soul”, I am him with fewer dimensions. It makes me want to take better care of my SL av :)
I would love to discuss it but I think it deserves a post of its own. Don’t you?
Sure there is a fundamental difference between SL and RL. One is completely created by one or more persons, other is… well (to skip the theology for now) not created by anybody who might claim copyright infringement.
I’d like to propose an imagination exercise:
Think about your favourite living artist, now imagine somebody takes a pic of a painting of that artist lighting it with a red and a blue light, then he edits the pic in Photoshop adding some filters and then he sells that image in a limited edition in an "art gallery" for 20 €, 50% for the "photographer", 50% for the gallery owner. What do you think about it?
I think "copyright laws" are sometimes ridiculous and impossible to follow, i agree with the situation needs a good solution… but i also think earning money, even not big money, using the work of others i not right.
I agree mainly with you… but for me money is the limit.
That case is obvious rip-off. Problem with copyright law is that large number of the cases are not clear by law and need case-to-case deciding. My personal rule of thumb is changing the medium of an artwork. But that one can be tricky as well.