OSC can't guarantee the provenance of its creations?

[VanishMember]

“Freebies are plentiful throughout OpenSim grids, where uploads are free and land is cheap — anyone can put up a freebie store.

But most freebie stores can’t guarantee the provenance of their content. Grid owners and content creators fight to remove infringing content, but that’s no comfort to a business or educational institution that gets content and takes it back to their own grid in between the time it’s uploaded and is taken down for infringement. The downside of having infringing content on your private grid? Best case, public embarrassment. Worst case — copyright infringement lawsuit.

There are a few sites offering free content (see Where to get content for OpenSim) but some have the same problems as in-world freebies stores. OpenSim Creations, for example, allows anyone to upload content to the site. Even some single-creator sites don’t have proof of provenance of each item. For example, on FleepGrid Shop, the description of its Garden-in-a-Box says “ All landscaping packages and items are believed to be distributed under open source or Creative Commons licensing” and urges creators to contact the site owner if they see infringing content.”

- Hypergridbusiness

No comment on my part on the above, but I’d like to hear opinions on whether or not the “provenance” of OSC is in question and if something should be done about it (and what).

• This topic was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by  Vanish.

[jamiewrightMember]

I think this is something you could apply to almost anything on the web that can get into the hands of the public. While I’d never say it’s OK to rip someone off, I make anything I create Public Domain because I’m fully aware of what it means to make it available to the public. I do give credit and site source materials when a creation is based on someone else’s template. Maybe sources could be a category to fill out both for interest and integrity’s sake.

Have you been getting feedback concerning items posted here or are you just wanting consensus on the ethics surrounding it in general?

I personally think as the site operator you can simply delete anything that seems questionable to you and leave it at that. If you get someone repeatedly posting stuff that totally seems ripped off then delete their profile. I’ve been a moderator on a blog for a RPG for years. We didn’t have copyright issues but sometimes it sucks to be the heavy even when it’s justified. I don’t envy the role here.

[keithselmesMember]

I think OSC is covered by the terms on the about page. This is very similar to photography websites, where it is the responsibility of the uploader to ensure they have necessary rights.

If there are doubts that material is being uploaded which doesn’t have correct provenance, it might be worth asking that uploaders always provide details of the source. Thus far I think all the items I’ve noticed either are the work of the uploader, or they have specific references to the creator in the comments, so there probably isn’t a problem yet, and downloaders would know who to contact if they need verification.

Personally, I would say if a downloader is caught out by bad provenance, i.e. thay have to stop using some content they obtained from OSC, that is to some extent their own problem. If it’s purely a hobby usage, the damage to them should be minimal anyway. If it’s serious usage, e.g. in an educational project, I would hope they would check provenance as seriously as they would check any other source material, possibly to the extent of contacting the listed creator. Whether they need to do that will depend on the importance, e.g. in time and money, of their project. If they need to be squeaky clean, thay will probably choose to check with the original source and ensure their usage is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

One thing to bear in mind is a legality issue – put simply – if they sell their works under the guise that it is copyable modifiable and transferable, and provide no public end user license agreement, it is a foreseeable liablity on their part that their works may be used openly.

This is the type of thing that keeps non-educated citizens from practicing law as a bar examined lawyer.

I don’t get it, I mean if they don’t tell me that I am buying a license to use, and they don’t tell me what the terms of that license is before I buy it (within reasonable means), why should I pay attention to a NC left in a package trying to get me to agree to something after I have bought it?

Now I know what you are going to say, well when you install windows, you buy it then agree to the eula after having bought it, this is not kosher – MS$ makes sure that they have their EULA public and browsable within reasonable means before the user purchases the product, and even then they are covered by a 90 day excahange policy under law….

So I guess what I am saying is …

If some of these screwballs don’t want to trust their users? why are they offering it full perm in the first place? And in that case, with lack of EULA avaialable before purchase, isn’t it fraud on their part to sell something that says, “full permission”.

I urge you to read carefully how sloppy some of the MP people are … again … it took me 10 years to get my divorce … I needed to make sure I said exactly the right words to the judge …. when it comes to law … this “it may be used in your own creations” doesn’t count when it is said after the sale.

Nuff said,

Tina

[virtualcloverMember]

I agree with Tina on this one. If it’s full perm, then that pretty much entails no restrictions. It’s transferrable without any designated location for being transferred “to” specified. It’s modifiable, without any implicit or explicit restrictions on how it can be changed, even to the degree it no longer resembles the original (and then is it their stuff or do we share as collaborative partners where my option to present my work is equally valid?), and full perm means to most lucid people if someone wants to resell it, that’s their option.

I’m about to organize a gazillion textures I’ve collected from a variety or sources, freebies in SL included. I don’t have the time or inclination to chase down the person who uploaded it to make sure they’re the one who made it. In other cases, such as TRU textures which I purchased, the “license” is pretty clear so I won’t include those. But those full perm nameless freebies are going up.

And don’t get me started on the content creators whining about “their” stuff when there is also another party involved: the consumer of that stuff who then owns said stuff and thus have equally valid rights. If I buy it, I’m using it – regardless of where, how, or when – that’s my choice. My money didn’t come with a license on how they can spend it – and they wouldn’t have any money if nobody bought their stuff.

I’ve about had my fill of these creators thinking that whatever they create is their exclusive thing when they put it up on the market and if someone buys a copy – which is all it’ll be is a copy – and takes it off wherever, deal with it.

I do NOT support or condone someone ripping off the content and then taking it off to resell as their own. That much I’d protest. It’s the ones who refuse to acknowledge their customers’ rights that tend to make me yawn with indifference as I take my stuff I paid for with real money to use as I see fit. If they don’t like it, they can give me back my real money and we’ll call it square. Until they’re willing to do that much, squawk away. I bought it, I own it, and if I want to copy and share it, so be it.

Here’s what people should start doing – since the virtual currency can be exchanged for real currency while digital products cannot, let’s instead impose licensing restrictions on our virtual currency when we make a purchase – sending them a notecard license that states explicitly that they are not allowed to transfer nor modify said currency. If they wish full perm currency, then they hand over full perm content. Otherwise, they cannot modify the currency (change it to real currency) nor can they transfer it – turn it over to LL or whatever grid, or give it to anyone else…

See how they like choking down a little taste of their own nonsense.

*let the feathers fly!*

[VanishMember]

Hehe, I kinda like the idea of monetary licenses.

[virtualcloverMember]

I do too…and since it’s as “virtual” as the products themselves, it cuts both ways. They have to agree to the currency license else they get nada ;-p Plus, I think it would send a strong message that customers rights are just as important as those who create. To treat customers like content thieves (especially when they’re handing out copies regardless) just makes them all look petty and short sighted.

It’s a two way street. Sure, I may purchase X from someone who has a skill I don’t have, but they’re not doing me the favor. I can always learn that skill and then they get nothing at all. Might take me awhile but still. I’m paying for the convenience to my own gratification more than their skill. Their content would be gathering cobwebs if nobody gave them a cent for it.

At this point with all this ranting about the issue, I will only purchase when I get full perms or the actual download file…and if it’s cc or free license, then I’d rather donate it to the creator out of appreciation than pay some uptight pompous intolerant content creator who’ll get all snide and act like the second I take that cartoon shirt to another grid, it’ll be pirate city.

But yeah, we definitely need virtual currency licensing…and if they don’t agree, they lose that sale regardless ;-p

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  virtualclover.

[aviaMember]

As a creator I have suffered a lot from ppl ‘taking’ my stuff.
What bothers me on that is that they steal my ideas and get away with it.
This took me to decide to confront them with public embarresment, which I think is very usefull.
For me personally, I don’t care about where or in what world my freebies will be used.
Ppl are free to use them as long as they keep my name on it as the creator. Cooperation, communication and sharing are keywords in the VW’s.
My experience is that the geeks have a huge kind of knowledge of developing in open sims.
But unfortunately they never have found the key to keep the name of the creator burned into the content, so, that if you export it, the creators name will always excists. Licenses then are no need anymore.
Did I turn somebodies light on now? I do hope so

[garryMember]

I get my retribution by putting Easter Eggs into my builds.
Then when you come across someone claiming to be the creator of your build, you can ask them what the egg is.
It’s a mischievous thing to do, but self gratifying.

[garryMember]

PS
There is a Avia Bonne Easter Egg in the Old Town Hall and it is not hidden.

[aviaMember]

Now the only question is; Where do we find that Old Town hall?

[garryMember]

SEARCH, top of screen.

[robincMember]

I came to this site because some friends told me about it. I’m not a big fan of using other peoples creations, and my friends know that. But after I had some time to explore the site, I really liked it.

Can this site garantee anything? Prob not. But it so far it is one of the only sites that is very clear about how to use the content provided here. There’s not much more you can do. Most people looking for free ‘open source’ content, dont read the details.

A good example for that is, that after i visited this site, i told my friends (who adviced it to me) that not everything is completely full perm on this site. They didnt know… And they are my friends, so they’re not stupid lol. And they really did not have the intention to make any commercial use of anything they uploaded here. They just didn’t know it.

How to be even more clear about what license creations have, I dont really know. Maybe make the first tab to choose from: Licenses. But I’m really not sure that will work.

[hanheldMember]

I’ve been confronted with this issue recently, please read my thread for details: http://opensim-creations.com/forums/topic/opensim-creations-legally-unsafe-to-reuse/

[Author]

Posts