Commons talk:Second Life

Issues with initial draft

Looks like decent transcription of the info, but we need more advice for users and, of course, {{Second Life}} should be brought into line with this.

The new rules should make clear that machinima is still highly restricted (as it needs permission of landowner and recognisable avatars). Not convinced the older terms of service are being accurately summarised: It focuses solely on 3rd party avatars. However, the old TOS protected pretty much all user-created content, not just other avatars. And finally we should state the change to the TOS is not retroactive (unless we think that it was - I'd strongly disagree with that).

Possible points for summary section:

1. Snapshots created after April 30, 2010: OK
2. Machinima created after April 30, 2010:  Not OK Without permission of landowner and any identifiable avatars in image.
3. Content created before April 30, 2010:  Not OK Without permission of creators of all content in image, which is not de minimis.

Am I reading that right?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that {{Second Life}} will need to be updated. Not sure what you mean by the essay focusing solely on third party avatars where the pre-30 April 2010 terms are concerned, as the "Avatars created by users" subsection deals with a user's own avatars. Yes, I haven't created a summary section, so feel free to add one. I wonder if your summary oversimplifies the situation a bit:

1. Snapshots created on or after April 30, 2010: OK even if snapshot includes third-party avatars, but only if conditions are complied with (land owner's permission if covenant for land requires it, and no copyright-infringing material included).
2. Machinima created on or after April 30, 2010: Agree with your summary.
3. Content created before April 30, 2010: OK if it only contains user's own avatar and does not make use of Linden Lab's textures or environmental content (whatever that means). If third-party avatars are in the image, permission must be obtained from the third-party users. I agree with your de minimis point.

There's nothing in the current terms and conditions stating that it is retrospective in effect, so I think it is reasonable to assume that it isn't. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my summary probably oversimplifies too much, but its clear that there are those 3 classes. The concern about section on the old ToS is it handles avatars (the users own, and others), but it does not address other content. The terms of service state "You retain copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create in Second Life, to the extent that you have such rights under applicable law." And whenever user-created content is mentioned its clear a license is granted to Linden labs; and also to all users to use solely within the service.

Therefore (apart from de minimis type) content, just about everything in game was protected. For example, File:Chat harpiste.png contains 2 items which matter: The harp and the cat costume. Both of those are user-created content and unless both were created by user (and its very unlikely that either was) we shouldn't host it. Incidentally, that costume indicates that the focus on the avatars may actually be harmful - the users only own the copyright to their own avatar's appearance if they don't make (significant) use of 3rd party material.

That is why that blog is so keen on the change, as it makes copyright-compliant screenshots of everyday scenes in game practical.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned avatars in the essay because I presumed that most of the images from Second Life that people are likely to upload to the Commons were of avatars. But you are right that this is an unwarranted assumption. In fact, the Terms of Service (both old and new) do not refer to avatars at all, but just talk about "content" which is defined very widely. Feel free to rephrase the essay to remove the inadvertent emphasis on avatars. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

a) Almost anything in File:Chat harpiste.png may matter.

b) This is so messy. It will be very hard to establish whether content was created before or after the change in the ToS. And then there is stuff like the logo in File:Bodeha zapedzki in second life cop14 poznan.jpg - "all rights reserved" according to http://www.cop14.gov.pl /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it will be quite difficult to determine if images uploaded comply with the Second Life Terms of Service because, for instance, there does not seem to be any simple way of determining when content was submitted to the Second Life service or when a snapshot or machinima was created (unlike, say, Flickr where all uploads are timestamped); and whether snapshots and machinima were taken in restricted locations or (in the case of pre-30 April 2010 material) feature Linden Lab's textures and environmental objects without permission. However, I think it is safe to assume that all images uploaded to the Commons before 30 April 2010 are governed by the old, more restrictive Terms of Service. As for material uploaded on or after 30 April, there are possibly two ways we can deal with uploads:

• Stricter method. We can insist that uploaders send an e-mail declaration to OTRS that they have complied with relevant provisions of the Terms of Service. If no declaration is sent, the image will be deleted. This will make it slightly more inconvenient for people to upload Second Life material and so act as a disincentive to drive-by uploads that may breach the Terms of Service.
• Less strict method. We can redraft {{Second Life}} in the form of a declaration that all the Terms of Service have been complied with. When uploaders apply the {{Second Life}} declaration to uploaded snapshots and machinima, we assume good faith and take them at their word unless there is something obviously wrong with the image (e.g., it contains identifiable copyrighted material, or it is a machinima featuring a number of avatars and no consents from the avatar owners have been sent to OTRS). If there is nothing obviously wrong with the image, then we only list it for deletion if we receive a third-party complaint about it.

What do you think? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The second approach sounds like a sensible approach for recent snapshots: The only problem there is if a landowner ban on snapshots is in effect (aside use of copyrighted objects from outside the game world), and if the area is not identified (or identifiable) there is no way that anyone can tell that a ban has been ignored, that is practically impossible to enforce. On the other hand, machinima should require a statement of landowner and 3rd party avatar permission - through OTRS, simple statement, link to the land's convenant or whatever. That way our default behaviour matched the default conditions in SL.

The bit I'm not sure about is the change in TOS. Screenshots created before that date are obviously only any good if they meet the (almost impossible) permission requirements. As for content created before the change, but the image taken after - I think that may be ok. In the older TOS Linden Labs "may amend this Agreement at any time in its sole discretion". As the new TOS only talks about content and not content created after X, the change in TOS was meant to apply to all content. The act of logging into SL after the change of TOS probably counts as explicit acceptance of the new terms by the user. That only leaves the problem of users who last logged into SL before the change, but I'd imagine as those accounts are stale there shouldn't be much of their content live in game.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the second point you made is a reasonable interpretation of the Terms of Service. The relevant date is when the snapshot or machinima is made, not when the content is uploaded to the service. I'll update the wording of the essay. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New "Second Life" template

I have created an amended Second Life template which can be viewed at {{Second Life/sandbox}} and tried out at {{Second Life/testcases}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the formulation of the template, and this page are getting a bit messy now; I'll have a look at that over weekend (when I have a bit more time). Two concerns are the landowner mentions: for snapshots "The snapshot was taken on land where it is not expressly forbidden" and machinima "The machinima was taken on land where it is permitted, or is owned by me" might be better working points. (Incidentally is Linden Labs controlled land ok for snapshots and not for machinima?).

Other issue is this only really handles the case where the uploader to Commons is the creator of the screenshot. It doesn't give a mechanism for uploads via (for example) Flickr; it should be possible to upload recent images through that route (but not older ones).

We can probably drop the "content from outside SL" part from the template, as if the image is in violation of that its just another copyvio to be handled according to normal procedure.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. Some responses to your points:

• It seems the requirements are generally stricter for machinima. Here's my summary of the position about land owner permissions at "Commons:Second Life":

• Snapshots. If the covenant for the land prohibits snapshots, permission from the land owner is required for the snapshot. If the covenant for the land says nothing about snapshots, or for Mainland or Linden Homes parcels where Linden Lab is the estate owner, no permission is required.
• Machinima. If the covenant for the land prohibits or says nothing about machinima, permission from the land owner is required for the machinima. Permission is also required from the land owner for Mainland or Linden Homes parcels where Linden Lab is the estate owner: Snapshot and Machinima Policy, clause 2(a).

• Uploads from Flickr are tricky. Is it fair to assume that if a person uploads snapshots and machinima to Flickr and releases them under a free licence, the person has complied with Second Life's Terms of Service? I think it comes down to whether we decide to take the stricter or less strict approach I mentioned previously.
• Concerning content from outside Second Life, the Terms of Service make non-infringement of intellectual property rights in such content a condition of having a License to Capture and License to Use in-world content: see the Snapshot and Machinima Policy, clauses 1 and 2(c). In other words, if a user includes infringing content in a snapshot or machinima, he or she does not have a right from Linden Lab to create or use the snapshot or machinima. Therefore, I'd say that if {{Second Life}} is to be recast as a declaration by a Second Life user that he or she has the right to make a snapshot or machinima and upload it to the Commons, this has to be included.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should try and present this page as following a permissive model, which means uploads through Flickr are possible.

As for content outside from SL, as you are forbidden to do so by the terms of service (without authorisation) its not really necessary to say beyond "compliant with TOS", though it may be helpful to say so of course.

Incidentally, the Linden Labs TOS and policies themselves are not freely licensed, so we should avoid copying entire sections of that text: paraphrasing and referencing back (like with a WP article) will be fine.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Current files

I think its obvious that a large proportion of currently uploaded files may be copyright violations (the permission requirement for older imagery makes it practically impossible most of the time). However, some of the images are certainly less clear cut than others. For example: File:Sl hurricane.jpg. If it was created by a NOAA employee, it would be as part of his duties and so PD-USGov. However it may have been created by someone else, and if even if it was it may have been derived from some other aircraft created in-game.

At the other extreme is stuff like File:In Secondlife as Na'vi.jpg, which (as you can tell from the name) is a clear copyvio and I've deleted it accordingly.

As there is such a variety of situations, a single blanket deletion request is inappropriate and it probably makes sense to do preparatory work first to try and split them into similar cases.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And as users will want to know the reason for the deletions, the deletion requests should probably only take place after "Commons:Second Life" has been publicized at "Category:Second Life" and elsewhere, and an amended version of {{Second Life}} has been implemented. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)