Wondering about Second Life Photography Ethics

Update: 1 April 2010:

Thanks to Ordinal Malaprop, I am now informed that Linden Labs has decreed a Snapshot and Machinima Policy.

Thus if I read it correctly we (although the preamble refers to artists, that term is not defined and the policy itself grants permission to "You", defined as residents who receive permission, so I guess that means anyone with a camera button) are permitted (so long as we first check in land covenant that it does not prohibit snapshots) to capture and use snapshots of anything displayed in-world.

I had to work out how to do that in the new viewer:



In January 2010 I wrote:

Since returning to Second Life I've been searching for whether there are any particular rules or ethical considerations for publishing snapshots taken within SecondLife?

Would Second Life photographers, bloggers, creators, artists who might happen this way leave a comment with their opinions?

Some of my thoughts at this point:

1. Places: there are so many beautiful places, but they are someone's intellectual property... is it permissible to go snapping shots and sending them to Flickr in admiration? Is it actually comparable to taking photos of RL private land and buildings?
   
   • Assuming this is the case, I've begun posting snapshots of my Second Life travels to Flickr.
     
     
   • Today I chatted with Pipsqueak Fiddlesticks whose elegant creativity (her own and her choice and placement of others') at College of DuPage I have recently discovered and admired. I asked, in relation to SL landscape photography: whether the fact that objects are created puts any object in SL in the same category as artworks, which I believe require (or should require) permission before and attribution with publication of snapshots.
     We briefly notioned a scale of the nature of works: from art at one end to journalism at another. Pipsqueak said: "does a painter give credit to the company who made her paint" and "did Ansell Adams credit the creator of mountains?" We agreed though, that even in landscape photography there are times when acknowledging an object creator is courteous: such as if an object (say: a tree) is the focal point of the snapshot.
     
     
2. People: my personal ethics require permission to publish from anyone of whom I take a photo or who may appear in a photo. I know the world at large does not agree, but I wish it would :D --- however this will present a challenge if/when I want to blog about an event with a photo. I spent some time pondering how to achieve getting permission from a group of people. No tidy solutions yet.
   
   • So far no groups, but in 3/4 situations where I wanted other people in my photos I have obtained their permission both for the photo and for the right to post the photo to Flickr. For example:
     
     Cardboard cuppa with Troy Aristocarnas Flickrd with permission.
   
   
   • I admit that I do not recall obtaining permission from Clarissima and Kahuna Schumann to Flickr an image of them giving a concert at Music Island. While I believe it was right to not IM them mid-performance, and probably not right to ask mid-performance? I could have asked the event organiser in IM and if I did do so I have forgotten. Another aspect involved was that I wanted to email to Flickr and didn't want to risk losing the snapshot if I was disconnected while trying to gain permission. I could have saved to disk until I had permission.
   
   
3. Things: I was viewing some wonderful sculptures the other day month... If I were in a RL museum or gallery I believe photos are a no-no. Does that apply in SL? Unresolved at that point I opted not to snap.
   
   • So far I am assuming obtaining permission is the ethical approach. Before taking photos of Ritchey's Sealey's works at his gallery in Second Life I obtained his permission to snap and display at Flickr.
   
   Walking past a "snow gum" (2010). Ritchey Sealy kindly resized Snow Gum so I could try to appear to walk among the gums, and gave permission for Flickring the snapshot.
   • Flickr description: "If you've walked through the Australian bush - Ritchey Sealy's works bring back all the sensations and memories: the heat, the dry dusty air, the prickly scratch of dry grass through sandal or socks, the smell of eucalypt, the bullants. If you're more familiar with our beaches, rocky coast, rivers or hills, Ritchey has captured those sensations too. I am very happy to have discovered Ritchey Sealy's main gallery in Second Life. I've been back a few times, and anticipate repeated visits. Ex-pats: stop by for a touch of home."
   • Interestingly, in the discussion mentioned below, Lem Skall suggested that the limitations on photography in museums may be less about copyright and more about paranoia (effect of light on exhibits, and examination of security measures).
     

Next I'll try to remember to check whether the other person prefers to limit my usual CC attrib-noncommercial-sharealike licence. Indeed I should check that with artists who give permission too.

I really ought to have read more before posting. In relation to contents 1 and 3, there was excellent discussion a couple of years ago stimulated by Bettina Tizzy in her post Proper attribution of images taken in virtual worlds at Not Possible in Real Life. Bettina asked "Where do we draw the line? What is the correct (and legal) way to attribute photography and video shot in virtual worlds?"

In the first few days of that discussion, aspects included:

• who is the artist? - with related issues of copying or the work/skill/talent involved in obtaining a good photograph of another's creation (Zha Ewry) and inspiration (Venk)
  
• who owns the image?
• what are the obligations for attribution?
  
• what are the limits of copyright (Ordinal Malaprop's opinion {expressed before Benjamin had his say} was interesting; as was Solo Mornington's on the rights obtained by purchase, although I don't agree that "come see my land" inherently includes "and take footage of it that you can use for whatever you like")
• is it simply a matter of politeness?
  
• does it ultimately all go to intention and context? (Alpha Auer)
• for example, is it really only an issue if you have a commercial objective (Lem Skall), or hope to make any sort of gain (Alpha Auer and again)? Princess Ivory, referring to the first point above about how with work and modification a piece of art becomes hers, claims commercial gain is irrelevant - ignoring the issue of whether she first had responsibility to obtain permission to make use of someone else's work to make her art.
  
• can we take guidance from the crediting practice in films: credit only those who create specifically for this film? (Zinc)
• similar notions of the scale from journalism to art that Pipsqueak and I touched on (theresecarfagno)
• methods of attribution (Alpha Auer recommends for using tags at Flickr)
• permission is separate to attribution, but here rose the issue of how onerous it would be to gain permission (Lem Skall) although neither law nor ethics read obey unless it is too hard, and as Alpha Auer pointed, if a real life photographer can do it.
  
• Does the different physics/realities between RL photography and SLcomputergraphicdisplay make a difference beyond semantics (A. Hosho thinks so, though his only point about ethics is in relation to "found art" & modification in relation to which Alpha Auer points out that SL prims are not in the public domain.)
• The Linden Labs Terms of Service (TOS) was quoted at length by A.Hosho; although it did not seem to me to support his? point of view: it gave creators intellectual property rights (but not data ownership) limited only by licence to Linden Labs to use creations at their discretion in or out-world and to other users of Second Life "to use your Content for all purposes within the Service". Within, not outside the service.
  

However, eventually a "legal mind" Benjamin Duranske took the legal thread over to his blog suggesting that attribution is irrelevant, and that copyright includes rights over derivative works and thus requires permission. Lem Skall suggested there that when SL photography is transformative (a term that I gather from his quote of wikipedia arose in a decision not in the Act, and which might be a fair use) rather than derivative then copyright is not breached. A word Lem did not highlight from that quote is aims - with which the wikipedia article identifies the purpose (particularly commercial) as a key issue. That article also suggests that if claiming fair use in this way the onus is on the creator of secondary work to "demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new".

Although Kean Kelly at Dreambits: claimed the discussion was about greed & profits I disagree - it was intended and remained mostly about acknowledgement, credit, recognition.

Please readers: help guide my ethical conduct :-D