Ryzom player housing1/11/2024 Yes, the scripting language side of things was a major driver in our thought process and, as you suggested, is most definitely not simply a reuse of Linden assets. Even more interesting, your original act of creation could have happend within Second Life (in fact, since we don't have an importer it would have had to) and you still would have those rights. The license Linden Lab keeps is as limited as we could make it and was specifically crafter to allow you to take your table to Design Within Reach and try to get them to make it. The earlier section specifically exempts copyright, and applies only to any "cash" value the specific object wearing my table's model in the game Second Life may have, it's a CYA clause for Linden Labs to avoid all the complications we've been waving our hands towards. I can use it in my demo reel (if I am a professional modeller), or even put it into another game, or sell it to someone else (although I'd probably have to disclose Linden Labs liscense, that would be between me and the third party). Under this version, uploading it gives Linden Labs a liscense to use that model in Second Life as they see fit, *but* I retain all other rights. Under the standard EULA, all rights to that model would be transferred to Linden Labs by the fact that I (the originator) uploaded it there after agreeing to the EULA. Let's say that I create a unique and new model for a table (an original creative act), and I upload that to Second Life. You have to consider the specific context here: Second Life allow players to upload original content. Or rather, it is only a big deal if virtual worlds are a big deal, and I don't think we would be reading this if we didn't think they are. So while this should not be a big deal, it is, because it is leading the way in thinking about how future virtual worlds are built, especially as more and more VWs are built more and more by the user. There is some sorting out over what "user created content" means (am I the one creating a blaster in SWG?) but I think that this will become less ambiguous as more and more play spaces allow you to customize your experience as SL and 'There' do now. SL has the advantage that it’s pretty easy to figure out what user-created content is, and reading through the "Who owns my lightsaber" thread, it seems to make sense that users should be able to retain rights to content they create. So you are right Unggi, this should not be a major change this is comparable to any 3D modeling software's TOS where the artist retains their rights. Due to this feature, Second Life is currently populated by an immense amount of content that the company played no part in besides providing the service (tools) to create. You will find that users are using a basic 3D modeling toolset to create wholly original content, not game company designed. One of the major "features" of Second Life is the ability to create content within the service. "If the section 5.3 literally means gamers retain IP right over new items they create, not ownership over conventional (gaming company designed) items they get by play, then, IMO, It would be no amazing change, but just a re-writting of what the copyright act ordained."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |