IP rights, SLphotography and some grey areas
During December, thanks to a comment of AM Radio in his recent interview in Arthole Radio (you can listen it here), there was a really interesting debate about IP rights in SLphotography, not about the IP rights over the image, was about IP rights over what you can see in the image.
He was talking about some photographers that were selling pictures taken in one of his creations (i think he was talking about The Wheatfield). Those photographies were edited and then sold in a well known SLart gallery for quite expensive prices (around 5000 L$ the SLcopy, also there were the possibility of buying copies in the “flesh life” or “real life”). And the point is he commented he thinks is not right he didn’t received any compensations for those sales, being him the IP rights owner of the place being photographed.
First, i’d like to say something i think it must be clear, legally the concept “Public Space” is not existing in Second Life. In the flesh world the sun, the atmosphere, the nature itself, even most of the things you can see when you are walking around have not IP rights, because are natural, or are in public space, so they can’t be protected. In Second Life absolutely everything has IP rights, even the virtual sky, becuase is not natural, is created by somebody, and this is an issue that may affect photography.
In some cases, like the platform itself, Windlight, etc., the owner of the rights (in this case Linden Lab) permits the use of their rights in what we can call “fair use”. Although that, as a compensation, they have the right to use your creations using the platform for marketing and promotions purposes (find this information in the TOS). In the case of resident creations that is quite different, because that agreement with Linden Lab affects exclusively the rights owned by Linden Lab.
About stuff you can buy, like skins, hair, clothing, shapes… well, this is a grey area too, because is not clear if once you buy them you have rights over them, but well, i think it must be included (at least ethically inside what we can call “fair use” not including copying and reselling of the product itself, of course). Actually some skin makers include a license about this issue. But AM Radio was not talking about this.
I’m not a lawyer, and possibly some of you have a clearer legal vision about this, but let’s consider the building of a sim like a painting, with the difference you can go virtually inside it. If you take a picture of a painting, edit it more or less and then sell it, is not that affecting the IP rights of the painter? That’s what happened here under my point of view.
AM Radio remarks something in the interview, he likes to see people taking photographs in his creations and publishing them in Flickr, Koinup or other pages, the big point is the commerce with those images. The photographer and the art gallery had earnings with his work, or with a “manipulation” of his work. I have to agree with him about this issue, that’s not “fair use”. Specially when the works of AM Radio are free to visit, and the donations go, in some cases, to charities.
I’m not the one who will say how can we fix this issue, but i’d only like here to point at it. Maybe we can be more careful about it and try to keep the “fair use”, and the debate about this is really important, for all of us. As a reflexion about all this i’d like to say sometimes we all (or at least, most of us) can be a bit hypocritical about IP rights. We all get really upset if somebody takes a pic from DeviantArt, edit it and publish it in Flickr as if was his/her creation (that happened more than once), but, at the same time, some of the upset ones may be listening music illegaly downloaded, or using “cracked” software. IP rights are still full of grey areas…
Image by Kean Kelly published under a Creative Commons license.
13 Responses to “IP rights, SLphotography and some grey areas”
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Raul's Flickr Latest
|
As a complement to this i’d like to share a really interesting debate with different points of view that i had in Plurk.
Take a look at this link.
It remains a very intense, yet restraining topic.
Whatever the outcome in the end may be, I’m quite sure that both sides (photographer and creator) will loose from it one way or an other. And that’s coming from an optimist!
This debate has been giving me food for thought on my own account, seeing as that I love doing the more “advanced touristical photography” type of pictures (landscapes and city-scenery, less avatars).
I’ve not been doing much of that lately due to both time issues, as this topic. If I choose to sell some of those works I’ve made (whenever my store will open… and that can still be a while) I would like to do it “properly”.
So here’s my personal idea that I’ve been brewing on for the last 2 months. I don’t know if it’s something good, but whenever I plan on displaying and perhaps selling SL-photography, here’s how I think I’m gonna do it:
* If I select a picture that I want to sell, I will drop a copy of the work on the initial creator, and asks him/her if he/she allows me to sell it for a price between 500 and 2500 L$ (those prices seem more reasonable to me).
* I will ask if they prefer me to sell limited of 10 copies or unique copies. Prices will vary according to their choice. A unique piece will be more expensive then limited ones. (I personally do not believe it is good to offer unlimited copies of SL-photography).
* I will of course credit them either on the framing, or in the “description” bar, or place a notecard inside + notecard dispenser script.
* I will also offer them a cut on that price of 20% (maybe 25 or 30%, not sure yet), unless they state that I can give their cut to a charity of either my own, or their choice, in which case I will increase the cut to 40% of the price.
Think of it what you will, but I’m a guy that tries to please all… and I think this might work.
Gany, i think your porposal is quite good, and also think most of the sim owners may agree with that. Maybe it should be good also that the sim builders or owners publish someway with a note at arriving or something the limitiations about the use in photography, or the commercial limitations. But in the case there is no a statement i think your solution is pretty fair.
There are two aspects of the problem: moral and legal. Law is clear: everything in virtual environment is copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise, and to use it in your work you have to obtain an explicit written permission from the original creator. Usually that means many permissions as, for even a simple image, there is a lot of creators involved.
Moral side of the story, while may be more forgiving, is quite messy. It waits for the answer on question what is original work and where is the line between derivative work and plagiarism. And that question provoked lot of debates during the whole past century.
But one aspect is specific to second life. What makes SL so appealing for all sorts of artists is it’s collaborative nature. In every snapshot I ever took, there is several people contributing and that is exactly what makes me happy about it. Otherwise, I could fire up Blender, make the whole set and everything in it, and be the only creator. But that’s not the point. Virtual worlds are there because of shared experience, shared creativity and exchange of the ideas.
And sharing the profits of money made, right?
Thanks, dandellion, for sharing this. I agree about the collaborative nature of Second Life, maybe the best option may be a Creative Commons license, it permits the limitations about the commercial use and at the same time works really good for collaboration.
Anyway, i think the issue here is money (as Prad remarks), we are not talking about only taking a pic of a sim, we are talking also about selling it, and then we go more into legal that into moral stuff (even both are important).
Prad, I agree that if somebody make money out of images, then profit should be shared. But when I think about all the mess and paperwork I should get into in that case, I simply get back into Blender. It’s simply not workt the trouble doing it iSL.
When Tuna Oddfellow and I put on a show, part of the “spam” we say about once per hour includes:
<>
This is to say, if you use our art, we request that you publish it in a way that gives anyone — including us! — permission to resell it with attribution.
In this case, if someone follows our guidelines, they (and we) could profit from our art. We believe that this is a good way to get our images out there.
sorry, the quote I left was messed up because I tried to quote it with brackets. the bit in the brackets was:
I think the solution Shana is sharing is quite smart, we saw something similar in the NPIRL Garden of delights.
For me it is quite simple, if a sim owner, or someone that creates a specific location on SL doesn’t want the photos sold, let people know that, if they allow and want a part of it, let people know that too.
Usually most of the creators like to see their sims in Flickr or Koinup, its a way of showing the place, bring more people, but if the commercial use of the photo its not allowed I think that part of that responsability its theirs too. A simple note on arrival stating it would be enough.
Well, Tary, even i share your opinion about the promotion of places in Flickr or Koinup, and i’m sure most of the sim owners are happy about it, i think is the case money or some earnings are related is different. The commercial use in this case is not permitted legally without the explicit permission of the sim owner, or creator, or the one who owns the IP rights over the place, not in the other way.
Here i’m not talking about how it should be or how i’d like it to be, i’m talking about how it is, and the legal and moral issues about it. And taking a pic of a sim, edit it and sell it means having earning over a manipulated work, and, always speaking legally, one needs permission of the original work IP rights owner to do that. We can agree or not, we can like it or not, but that’s the way it is.
Considering all that i think there should be a way to fix all this issues, and that way exist, the Creative Commons license. It protects rights of the creators and at the same time permits the collaborative work. Anyway, there is not an easy way to use this kind of licensing in SL becuase the platform is not exactly “ready” for that. Maybe an option in Land controls may be a good idea.
Somehow i don’t think the lab will make it happen, at least in the near future
when I started doing some SL pics for fun, actually I contacted some of the creators to ask permission to go public with them because of IP rights, I don’t intend to sell any, but maybe asking them permission to sell or spliting the profit is an idea.
Anyway a note stating terms of commercial use of photos taken on a place is a way to let people know where they stand.