Export Permissions

General discussions related to content creation
User avatar
Ilan Tochner
Posts: 6504
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:44 am
Has thanked: 4943 times
Been thanked: 4455 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Ilan Tochner »

Mari, CC0 and Creative Commons ShareAlike are different licenses. There is no problem with using CC0 in Kitely (as I've explained to you in our long email correspondence about the subject).

Your replies are demonstrating why I've had to spend hours explaining these issues to you in emails, forums posts, and inworld. You complain or ask questions about something, I write you long replies explaining how and why things work and you respond with agitation and an unwillingness to pay attention to the details of what I tell you.

Our policies are clear, they are on our wiki, they are linked to from our forums, our website, our blog, Kitely Market, and in my responses to people. When people have questions I reply almost 24/7. All you need to do is read them and pay attention to what they say. If you're unwilling to follow our policies or misunderstand them and refuse to let me help you understand why we do things as we do then I really can't help you further.

Good luck on whatever grid you move to.
User avatar
Marianna Monentes
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 84 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Marianna Monentes »

Ilan Tochner wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:01 pm
Mari, CC0 and Creative Commons ShareAlike are different licenses. There is no problem with using CC0 in Kitely (as I've explained to you in our long email correspondence about the subject).

Your replies are demonstrating why I've had to spend hours explaining these issues to you in emails, forums posts, and inworld. You complain or ask questions about something, I write you long replies explaining how and why things work and you respond with agitation and an unwillingness to pay attention to the details of what I tell you.

Our policies are clear, they are on our wiki, they are linked to from our forums, our website, our blog, Kitely Market, and in my responses to people. When people have questions I reply almost 24/7. All you need to do is read them and pay attention to what they say. If you're unwilling to follow our policies or misunderstand them and refuse to let me help you understand why we do things as we do then I really can't help you further.

Good luck on whatever grid you move to.
I understand you perfectly, you wanting the last word to convey to others I have it wrong to put yourself in a better light is fine, whatever sails your boat Ilan. Your Wiki, Your Policies what about MY creations? My Rules? My Rules are that if I create an item or if I have a Paramour item in my inventory I won't be banned for it your EXACT words were if I did not remove the Paramour dance machine from inventory you had no other choice than to ban me so just do it, I could at this point care less.


Hello Ilan,

I wanted to check and see about Paramour items, all of it is share alike. That means all of our dancing machines in Kitely.

I honestly don't think this is doable, it's already in Kitely.

PARAMOUR LINE-DANCE CONTROLLER v1.0
by Aine Caoimhe / Mata Hari - November 2014

Provided under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Please be sure you read and adhere to the terms of this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Paramour NPC Manager
// by Aine Caoimhe (Mata Hari)(c. LACM) April 2015
// Provided under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
// Please be sure you read and adhere to the terms of this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
//
--

With appreciation,
Mari

Monentes Jewelry, virtual now in the real...
https://monentes-jewelry.square.site/home



Ilan Tochner <ilan@kitely.com>
Fri, Jan 10, 12:48 PM
to me

If it is ShareAlike then it can't be used.

The fact that something isn't comfortable doesn't make it avoidable. People might want to use copybotted content they still aren't allowed to do it in Kitely. People might want to do ageplay but they aren't allowed to do it here. There are a lot of things that people might want to do that are not legal. We can't turn a blind eye just because something may be popular.

Cheers,

Ilan Tochner
Co-Founder and CEO
Kitely Ltd.
Last edited by Marianna Monentes on Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:59 am, edited 3 times in total.
The most talented, thought-provoking, game-changing people are never normal. Richard Branson
https://www.kitely.com/market?store=10359095&wt=os
https://monentes-jewelry.square.site/home
User avatar
Ilan Tochner
Posts: 6504
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:44 am
Has thanked: 4943 times
Been thanked: 4455 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Ilan Tochner »

I explained to you that we couldn't host something on our servers when we can't comply with the terms of its license. You told me you didn't care and that you intended to keep that content in your inventory nonetheless. I told you that if you did that then we'd be forced to suspend your account.

It all comes down to this Mari: when you use an online service you are bound by its Terms of Service. If you don't agree to them then don't use that service. It's really that simple.
User avatar
Marianna Monentes
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 84 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Marianna Monentes »

Paramour dance machine Ilan, everyone has one. Why should I be the only one to delete it?
The most talented, thought-provoking, game-changing people are never normal. Richard Branson
https://www.kitely.com/market?store=10359095&wt=os
https://monentes-jewelry.square.site/home
User avatar
Ilan Tochner
Posts: 6504
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:44 am
Has thanked: 4943 times
Been thanked: 4455 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Ilan Tochner »

Mari, I've already explained why us keeping our DMCA safe harbor protection requires that on the one hand we avoid proactively moderating what people upload but on the other hand remove any unlicensed content that is reported to us. That is the legal framework that enables online service providers to host user generated content.

As explained in the long email correspondence you partly quoted, no grid can follow the terms of CC ShareAlike license without being able to change other people's licenses to use that license as well. As grids don't have a legal basis to make such licensing changes to other people's content they don't have a valid license to distribute such ShareAlike content. Once you reported you uploaded that content into your inventory we were therefore forced to ask you to remove it.
User avatar
Marianna Monentes
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 84 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Marianna Monentes »

Nobody was making a license change, I was bringing in Content with a Share Alike Creative Commons 4.0 license at that point you told me that content would not be allowed in Kitely, I showed you that even Paramour used the same license then you said I had to remove it or be banned.

You want to imply it is a Mari issue is par for the course, people know me for what I am, I am not perfect at all but I make effort to do things correctly, I ask lots of questions to make sure I am getting it right, when people dance around issues and lie I am sorry I call it as it is.


This is the last I am saying here in Kitely, thank you to the many friends I made here, good bye.
The most talented, thought-provoking, game-changing people are never normal. Richard Branson
https://www.kitely.com/market?store=10359095&wt=os
https://monentes-jewelry.square.site/home
User avatar
Ilan Tochner
Posts: 6504
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:44 am
Has thanked: 4943 times
Been thanked: 4455 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Ilan Tochner »

Mari, as I explained in the emails and above, for us to legally host ShareAlike content we need to follow the terms of that license. The terms of that license require that any content it is combined with also use the same ShareAlike license. That is where the problem is created. We can't automatically relicense other people's content to use the ShareAlike license without the agreement of the people who created that content. As we don't have their agreement we therefore can't comply with the terms of the ShareAlike license and thus don't have a legal license to host the content that was uploaded with the ShareAlike license.

It doesn't matter what your intentions were when you uploaded the content that you obtained with a ShareAlike license or who else uses it. If we can't fulfill the terms of that license then we can't legally host content that uses it and thus, once notified of a specific copyright infringement, must act to remove that infringement from our system.
User avatar
Fred Beckhusen
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:47 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Fred Beckhusen »

Ilan, please allow me to comment here on some legal terms, as your English knowledge may be a factor in this discussion. She claims she can upload an item, and NOT download it in an OAR. That may be a bug that just cost you a customer.

Open source is not making you do any of the things you claim. Open Source is designed to allow you to pass on content without the fear of a lawsuit. So please read this carefully and remember that all these licenses allow Derivatives and for anyone, especially you, to pass on items to the next person.

To start with, CC-0 means anyone can use it for anything, and IF THEY CHOSE TO SHARE, relicense it if they want. There is no copyright on CC-0 items. I try to be courteous and always pass on the name of the creator as this credit is the only thing they get in return.

If it is CC-NC (non-commercial), it cannot be used by you, your staff, or in your advertising, web site, or on the Market. You simply cannot use it. You do not need to ban it, except in your own inventory and in your own regions. But your users can, provided they get no commercial benefit from it. As one example, my Outworldz.com distributes CC-NC items, so I cannot run ads for paid products.

CC-BY ( By Attribution) means a user can do anything with it and also relicense it under a new license, so long as they give credit.

You stated "We can't automatically relicense other people's content to use the ShareAlike license without the agreement of the people who created that content."

First off, your comment implies there is a CC-SA license. There is no CC-SA license. Neither you or the uploader, or author are relicensing other products to use the CC-BY-SA license. The content is shared as CC-BY-SA, which is literally designed to let anyone pass it on freely.

The only difference between CC BY-SA and CC-BY is the ShareAlike clause in section 3b of the legal code. CC-BY-SA (Attribution, Share-alike) means the uploader of CC-BY-SA content including you and your staff, IF THEY CHOSE TO SHARE, must pass on the same CC-BY-SA license to others. They do not have to share it. This has no effect on an ISP such as Kitely, unless YOU OR YOUR STAFF upload the content AND share it, and then and only then you must pass along the original license and the same rights to others. It has no legal effect if the uploader/user/you choose to not share it. Wikipedia uses this license, and they do not ask permission of the original CC-BY-SA author to use it. They already have permission - the CC-BY-SA license specifically allows redistribution with credit under the same terms.

Another point you try to make is incorrect. Uploading a CC item is not "combining it". Using Opensim's link function onto another object is not combining it. The items are still separable. Combined works are not separable. I believe that under your interpretation, sitting on an object, which links an avatar into the object, would force you to code the Chair to change it's permissions to whatever the Avatars mesh body was. This is a legally unsustainable position.

From this link on CC_NC-BY https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Co ... ing_scheme


Ilan, you are free to ban anything you want, including your customers. You have a ban on Ruth and Roth Avatars. I used the AGPL license for her, which is the same license as Linux, plus 1 clause, which you incorrectly claim would force you to release your source code. That's simply not true. I am the copyright agent for Shin Ingen, and I have told you this is not a correct interpretation many times before, and my statement to you is legally binding. AGPL adds only one clause to GPL - if you modify her, you must allow others to get the same blender source code. If you do not modify her, you can keep her to yourself. If you pass her on, just pass her on under the same terms and conditions. That's it.

No legal person will tell you otherwise. I you do not agree, call and attorney and ask. It's not expensive.

regards:

Fred Beckhusen
These users thanked the author Fred Beckhusen for the post (total 2):
Marianna MonentesAda Radius
User avatar
Ilan Tochner
Posts: 6504
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:44 am
Has thanked: 4943 times
Been thanked: 4455 times
Contact:

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Ilan Tochner »

Hi Fred,

There are two separate issues in this thread, the first is about how Kitely implements export controls. This has nothing to do with licenses, and everything to do with our desire to protect content creator's content and enable them to control what can be exported from our grid. The debate on this subject was around the rules that we use to define exportability and what needs to be done to ensure things you want to be exportable will be so.

The second issue Mari raised was about a case where she reported she was using a CC ShareLike licensed item and I told her we couldn't host that on our servers.

You and I have had long conversations about the viability of ShareAlike licenses in virtual worlds via email and in other forums, so I'll just quote some of my replies to you here:
Licenses that use a ShareAlike provision permit the user to use the content only if they also relicense other content that is used with the ShareLike-licensed content using the same (or compatible) ShareAlike license. As explained below, this is a problem in a virtual world setting and as such ShareAlike-licensed content can't be legally distributed in most virtual worlds without violating the terms of the ShareAlike license. Without a ShareAlike-license's terms being followed the content that uses that license becomes as illegitimate to use as copybotted content in that you're using it without a valid legal agreement (a license) from the content creator.

Before I explain why that is, it's important to note that most licenses used for virtual world content are not ShareAlike licenses. The licenses that do have a ShareAlike provision include: GPL, AGPL, LGPL (under certain conditions), some (but not all) Creative Commons licenses (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), etc.

The reason ShareAlike-licensed content can't be used in most virtual worlds is that the definition of when something is considered to be "building upon", or "used with other content" is very broad and "viral" in nature. In affect respecting the ShareAlike license's terms requires everything that is included in the virtual world scene that uses that content to also be licensed with the ShareAlike license.

Let's look at why that is using a common example:

You have an animation that is shared using a ShareAlike license. Any object (HUD, dancing ball, etc.) that includes that animation also needs to be licensed using the ShareAlike license for the terms of the animation's ShareAlike license to be respected. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they are. Now the animation is used to animate an avatar. That avatar and all the content that is used with it then also need to be relicensed using the ShareAlike license for the now ShareAlike-licensed avatar's license to be respected. If that doesn't happen then the animation's ShareAlike license terms can't be respected as well.

Let's continue looking at this scenario and assume that the animation, script, avatar and everything it is using (clothes, attachments, scripts, etc.) are also relicensed using the ShareAlike license. However, we're not done. The avatar isn't in an empty void, it's rezzed in a world that contains other content: land, trees, houses, other avatars, etc. Those are now used in the world server (the sim) and on people's viewers to create a single "work" (which in this case is a virtual world scene) that includes the ShareAlike-licensed avatar. To respect the license of the ShareAlike animation, all the objects in that virtual world scene have to be relicensed as ShareAlike as well. Some directly because they interact with the avatar in some way, and others because they interact with things that interact with the avatar, or interact with things that interact with things that interact with the avatar, etc.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because it's very unlikely that neither the person who operates the servers (the grid owner) nor the person who uses the ShareAlike-licensed content inworld has the legal right to change the licenses used in everything that is used inside the same scene as the ShareAlike-licensed content. You can't, for example, say that since you used this ShareAlike-licensed script that now everyone else's content around you is also legally sharable using the same ShareAlike license that your script is using. In other words, one person's content choice can't force other people to change the licenses with which the content they own or created is now distributed with. Because this isn't something you can legally do, you can't follow the terms of the ShareAlike-licensed content and therefore you have to either stop using it (to respect the terms of its license) or you continue using it without a legal license to do so. If you chose the later option then it's exactly the same as copying someones content without their permission (i.e. copybotting or using copybotted content) - you knowingly use content in a way that is forbidden by the people who created it.

As grid owners can't rely on the ShareAlike license's terms being met, they don't have a legal license to rely on to distribute ShareAlike-licensed content to others (e.g. by having it sent from their servers to people's viewers). Without such a license, grid owners must treat ShareAlike-licensed content the same as they would treat any other unlicensed content. In practical terms in the US it means following the DMCA and thus responding to IP violation reports that are filed against specific instances of unlicensed content on their grid.

This license virality is why ShareAlike licenses can't be legally used with any software that is created using professional game engines such as Unreal Engine. Unreal Engine's TOS specifically prohibits using any ShareAlike-licensed content with anything that uses their game engine (see (ii) Non-Compatible Licenses section of https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/creators).

The content creators who distribute their own content using a ShareAlike license either understand the implications of their license choice and expect this license virality to be enforced or they assume the license they are selecting has a much smaller scope and only applies to direct changes made to their content. Unfortunately, the legal language used in these common licenses isn't limited by people's intentions. It is what it is and it means what its legal language states. If you wish to avoid this license virality and the problems it causes with using your content inworld then please distribute your content using a different license. As the content creator you have the freedom to redistribute your content using a non ShareAlike license if you respect the terms of all the content you included (specifically you didn't include any ShareAlike licensed content in your creation).
Not all CC licenses are the same (we're talking about CC SA licenses so you replying with "Your words are not in in CC-BY-NC " is either the result of confusion or deliberately avoiding the issue). There is a big difference between licenses that include ShareAlike provisions and ones that don't. The ones that include ShareAlike provisions, such as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by ... /legalcode , have a section that defines part of your requirements to actually share alike (see section 3b in the aforementioned link as an example). Giving attribution is a requirement defined by the "BY" section of the license (Attribution, section 3a) but it is not sufficient for complying with the "SA" requirement of using the license (ShareAlike, section 3b). Your claims to the contrary are in direct contradiction to the license's actual legal phrasing. You continue to ignore the ShareAlike requirements for using content that you got with a CC SA license.

As stated previously, there is a difference between collective work and derivative work. Including an unmodified SA-licensed image in a web page may result in the work being a collective work and it may result it in being a derivative work, depending on what other content is present on the page and its relationship to the ShareAlike-licensed image. In the case of Wikipedia where images are not manipulated in any way, they can be considered a collective work and so the webpage they are included in doesn't have to be relicensed as ShareAlike.

As stated previously, this is not the same as how images are handled when they are mapped onto a mesh inworld. The image the user sees is one that uses some of the color values that were defined in the image file but mapped onto a 3D shape and then projects onto a 2D screen, the result is not an unmodified image. It's one that is a derivative of the image. That is what forces the mesh to also be licensed as ShareAlike for the SA requirement of the image to be met. If the mesh isn't relicensed as ShareAlike then the image's license terms are not met and therefor you have no legal right to use that license to use/distribute the image.

In other words, in 3D virtual worlds:

(a) Many of the ways content is used inworld create a combined derivative work of the used content, and
(b) You have the legal right to use a license if and only if you follow all the requirements stated in that license, and
(c) Derivative work that includes ShareAlike components needs to all be licensed as ShareAlike in order to follow the requirements defined by the licenses of those ShareAlike components, and
(d) You can't legally follow the ShareAlike requirement of the ShareAlike license where it would require you to change the license that other people defined without their explicit permission.

Therefore you can't legally use ShareAlike-licensed content inside 3D virtual worlds that include user-generated content unless you have the right to relicense third-party content to ensure compliance with all the licenses (assuming that their requirements don't contradict each other, for example ShareAlike commercial, and ShareAlike non-commercial).
Read the definitions of the terms as defined in the actual CC SA license please, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by ... /legalcode

Section 1k:

"Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them."

Section 1a:

"Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image."

Section 6a:

"This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically. "

You (the grid owner) are sharing the image by sending it from your grid servers to people's viewers. The viewer then displays the image in modified form as a texture on a mesh which you also sent to people's viewers. You shared both of these copyrighted content items with people by sending them to their viewers and you (via your grid server) created a derivative work (referred to as Adapted Work in the license) by instructing their viewer to map the image on top of the mesh using the mesh's UV mapping.

Your right to distribute that content to people's viewers relies on you having a valid license for doing so. Your license for the image is a ShareAlike license which, according to the definitions of the ShareAlike license, is being shared as part of an Adapted Material that includes the model, and thus requires that the model also be shared using the ShareAlike license. If you don't have the legal right to force such a license change for the model then you can't comply with the image's ShareAlike license terms and thus you can't use that license to distribute the ShareAlike-licensed image (as per Section 6a of the license):

The CC ShareAlike license is defined by legal language, please read the entire license legalese to better understand why your reasoning is faulty.
Our email thread includes a lot more, so if you wish to rehash that conversation here I can start quoting the rest of my replies. Suffice it to say that I'm basing my replies on the actual legalese used in the CC ShareAlike licenses and that Epic's lawyers shared our interpretation of that legal language when they decided not to allow any ShareAlike-licensed content to be distributed with any software that uses their Unreal Engine.
User avatar
Tess Juel
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 249 times
Been thanked: 438 times

Re: Export Permissions

Post by Tess Juel »

Ilan Tochner wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:11 pm
People who know how to follow guidance have no issues Mari. You're free to take your business elsewhere if you don't find our service to your liking.
I think there is a bug there, Ilan. I have a similar problem and posted a thread about it two weeks ago: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5402

I upload a mesh as full perm, rez it to check the permissions are ok and try to give a backup copy of it to my OS Grid alt. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.
One thing I notice is that exporting is more likely to fail for linksets and for boxed items than for single meshes. That is, if I take several meshes that are exportable and link them together or put them in a box, suddenly they aren't exportable anymore.

This seems to be a new issue, so maybe it's a glitch that happened when the software was upgraded a month ago?
These users thanked the author Tess Juel for the post:
Marianna Monentes
Post Reply