Update, May 2017: These requirements have now been replaced. See: Second Life mesh upload prerequisites revised.
Back at the start of June, we learned that the ability to upload Mesh to SL is to be gated. You can currently take a peek at how this works by going to your Beta (aditi) Grid status page.
Click on the right-pointing arrow next to Account to display your account options, then click on MESH UPLOAD STATUS (located between SCRIPTED AGENT STATUS and CHANGE PASSWORD, as circled below).
To qualify for Mesh uploads, you must provide payment information to Linden Lab, and complete a Mesh Intellectual Property Right tutorial / questionnaire, which comprises a series of multiple-choice questions, as shown below.
The questionnaire is not mind-bogglingly difficult – and it shouldn’t be, the idea is to make people aware of what will not be tolerated and can lead to their ability to upload meshes being revoked; not to try and catch them out before they even get started. As such, it is possible to go back a step should you get any question wrong and then take the question again.
Completing the questionnaire results in you being informed that you are now cleared to upload meshes, and provides a link to some additional information related to trademarks and copyright under US law. I was actually surprised that there are (currently, at least) no links to Linden Lab’s own policies around mesh and IP.
Important Notes!
- This is still currently *only* available on beta grid dashboard pages (https://secondlife.aditi.lindenlab.com/my/).
- You won’t currently see the option if you are using your main Grid dashboard page (at https://secondlife.com/my/).
- It is possible what completing the questionnaire at this point in time may only apply to the Beta grid – you might have to complete the questionnaire again once the link is available from main Grid dashboard pages.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 
Thanks for the info Inara:)
LikeLike
You’re welcome!
LikeLike
This is so helpful, thank you Inara. 🙂 I think the questionnaire is a fantastic way for LL to help residents become more familiar with IP fair use and practices. It would be beneficial if this process were applied to all building methods prior to enabling the build capabilities within the client. It really would help people have a better understanding of what is acceptable usage. We see the results all too frequently when no information is presented in this manner to help educate new residents. The questionnaire provides a clear, concise, basic understanding of what to do and what not to do. This should be required for all building capabilities, as it applies to all types, not just mesh.
Thank you again for what you do with this post and others on your blog. Its excellent.
LikeLike
I totally agree on all build options; the thought passed through my mind when I first heard about mesh gating. Unfortunately, the horse has bolted on that one.
Glad you like the blog, and thanks for reading – I’m genuinely flattered that you do & am also looking forward to seeing your own mesh creations in the near future 🙂
LikeLike
I thought Ann O’Toole made a very good point over at SLU — they missed out one very important question:
http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/general-sl-discussion/61952-mesh-questionaire.html#post1324004
The question they missed: You downloaded a model from Turbosquid.
1. You cannot upload it to Secondlife at all
2. You can sell it in Secondlife
3. You can upload it for personal use only in Secondlife
4. You can use it yourself and give it away free to others in Secondlife.
(the correct answer is 3. The Turbosquid faq addresses Secondlife explicitly)
LikeLike
I disagree.
Section 5 of the questionnaire / tutorial clearly states:
“Use of 3D models, textures, and other content types that are purchased from web sites are subject to the terms of use posted on those web sites. It may not be appropriate to upload these items to Second Life and doing so may violate intellectual property laws.”
(Emphasis mine).
This would cover the Turbosquid example you / Anne give, would it not, as it cuts both ways: people cannot use material if clearly warned against, but obviously can where the exception is made (note the use of the term “may”, against emphasised).
LikeLike
I just wish they’d made it clearer that some websites (e.g. Turbosquid) have quite specific policies and that it would, for example, be completely wrong to assume that, since you’ve seen lots of copies of a particular Turbosquid item in world, all apparently with different creators, neither Turbosquid nor LL would have any problem with you downloading a copy from Turbosquid, uploading it to SL and giving a copy of the object to a friend.
LikeLike
You’re asking LL to police other website’s T&Cs – is that really realistic? Doesn’t it come down to the users doing so for themselves?
What happens if today Turbosquid (to use your original example) are “OK” with SL use, but then next month change their policy and say “no” to SL use – are LL expected to revise the tutorial / questionnaire? How do they then go about informing people? Revoke people’s upload status until they have completed the questionnaire once more?
LL cannot be expected to cover every single permutation; that’s unfair and unreal. Common sense has to prevail on both sides.
That said, it might be potentially beneficial for LL to possibly offer a list of mesh repositories for people to peruse (outside of the tutorial itself), again providing they give the required caveats (people need to read the individual T&Cs of use for the sites, LL will not be held responsible for any content obtained / uploaded from such sites, people must remain aware of and adhere to LL’s own requirements on IP rights, etc.).
LikeLike
I’m not asking them to police anything.
I simply think it would be helpful if they emphasised to people that it’s very unsafe indeed to infer, because an item is freely available for download from an external website and its widely seen in SL, that there aren’t still various restrictions associated with its use, and that finding out what these restrictions actually are can involve some time and research.
The reason, I think, that the example of Turbosquid came up was that, some time ago, someone asked in SLU what would be the position if somebody were to upload free content they’d taken from Turbosquid and made it free to copy in SL (no money involved). I was one of the people who thought to check with Turbosquid what they thought the position was (as opposed to get into a theoretical discussion of what it might be) and still had to check the answer with their live help because I wan’t at all sure I’d correctly understood their licences.
I’m just worried that, before too long, we’re going to see a lot of stuff from Turbosquid and elsewhere circulating in SL contrary to the licence terms on which it was released. Artists who’ve seen their work for sale in the SL marketplace will complain to the repository, who — as well as pursuing the matter with LL though the normal DMCA take-down procedure — may very well decide all this is far more trouble than it’s worth, so let’s avoid any confusion in future by changing our licence to say something like “on no account may any material from this site be uploaded to SL without the prior written agreement of the artist concerned” rather than “you’ve welcome to upload it without reference to anyone, so long as you don’t share it with anybody”.
It would be regrettable, though perfectly understandable, if that happened, and I’d just like LL to do more to emphasise to people the importance of checking the — often quite complex — conditions imposed by repositories to which people normally agree without properly reading them.
To my mind, the majority of complaints received by LL about IP infringement are more likely to be from free repositories complaining someone’s selling copies of furniture take from their site rather than from the agents of some well-known actor complaining that someone’s made, and is selling, an unauthorised likeness of their client, if only because it’s far easier to download a nice model of a sofa from Turbosquid than it is to spend ages trying to make an avatar that looks like your favourite film-star.
And I came away from the tutorial thinking that, while I’d been very well-instructed about the dangers of doing stuff I was unlikely to do because — like most people — I lack the necessary technical and artistic skills, the dangers of doing something I’d otherwise be quite likely to do hadn’t been sufficiently emphasised. That’s all.
LikeLike
OK, “policing” was a strong, emotive term.
But again, surely, the emphasis is on the likes of Turbosquid (and any other sites like it) to ensure all allowances / limitations on the usage of material found on their site are put up in lights for all to see before they can commence downloading, rather than buried in T&Cs? That would do as much – if not more – to avoid misunderstandings as anything else.
Unlike you, I came away with a very clear understanding of what would be tolerated and what would not be tolerated, including the need for *me* to make sure as far as I possibly can that any mesh I’m likely to obtain from elsewhere (purchased or on a free repository) can uploaded/used in the manner I want, by checking with the website’s T&Cs.
That said, if it is widely felt that things aren’t sufficiently clear, perhaps LL could be approached with a suggestion that the emphasis in Section 5 in broadened. How about re-wording it to:
“Use of 3D models, textures, and other content types that are made available or offered for sale on web sites are subject to the terms of use posted on those web sites. It may not be appropriate to upload these items to Second Life and doing so may violate intellectual property laws. You should therefore make sure you have read and understood all such terms of use before obtaining such content for upload to Second Life.”
(changes / additions in emphases).
Worth a JIRA?
LikeLike