Collection 'Greatest of All Time (GOAT)' created by ExtraVersion is ready for review!

Hi @Yannakis, thank you for getting back to me promptly.

I still haven’t got any of the following: an actual proof with pictures and result of your investigation, plus the exact link to the Marketplace and an actual picture of the wearable which IP’s you’re falsely accusing me of violating of. Instead, you’re suggesting I’d find the evidence of accusations by myself, using implications that it’s “clear if you compare”.

I will post my statement again, objecting to your recent comments:

  • I didn’t move "a couple vertices”. In fact, as I’ve already stated before, I have re-created the wearable from scratch.
  • It follows the main idea that I wanted to represent and also the shape of hundreds of boots on the Marketplace, including reference DCL meshes.
  • Again, as I’ve stated earlier, I did a research on terms and conditions, and I haven’t found any specific requirements and/or particular criteria creators should follow to avoid being accused in repetitive creation. I’m happy to follow them if there’re any written, please provide.

I’ll gladly comply with the rules, but accusing someone without facts using vague definitions is false, irrelevant, and cannot be considered as rightful and objective judgement at all. @Shibu, could you please help with second opinion here?

I’ll repost these here:
image
image
image
The shape of shoe is exactly the same except from the marked red areas and a couple vertices that were moved after the first notice.

You can read more about the rules here:

Thank you for screenshots of the meshes comparison, @yannakis

I have just spent 15 minutes on the DCL Marketplace, and I found this:

These 2 meshes represent 2 valid DCL Marketplace wearables approved by you:

I am confident that if I spent more time I’d find more of those. That proves my point on meshes and “shapes” itself are being irrelevant when it comes to certain market representation and IP.

Looking at my work, I see more differences than on most of the wearables presented on the market. Thus your comparative analysis leans to bring the non-objective reason to disprove a completely reasonable and fact-based solution provided by me.

Getting back to the topic from the official perspective, according to the rules:

  • Once again, in order to confirm the official claim you’re referring to, could you please provide the link to the object (aka DCL wearable on marketplace) of the IP violation?
  • The main source of the case is the DCL Marketplace where the object of violation must be presented with its certain market value. Meshes without practical business value can’t be represented as valid claim.
  • Violation of the IP assumes bringing a certain market risk to already existing and registered product, thus I’ve asked for the link several times during our conversation

I am solid on the point, that after mesh re-creating, my wearable is unique and does comply to DCL rules.

Greetings, @Yannakis

When can I expect a case update along with a link to a DCL wearable whose IP has allegedly been violated?

Thank you.

The wearable used:

You sent a picture showing the base mesh provided by dcl. In your case you’ve used a mesh from another creator.

Thank you for providing this link @Yannakis, I believe that my wearable and the one you provided are different in both terms of mesh and overall look. I do not agree with your subjective judgment and request for triage.

Any Creator may use any references they have, as long as the object is created from scratch, and the final representation and idea is different from the reference objects.

@Shibu, @Kat, your input on this dispute is required, please.

Hi everyone!

Thanks for the tag ExtraVersion. Firstly, please note I’m not currently an active curator, so my opinions don’t represent those of the Committee as a whole, but I’m glad to provide my thoughts on the topic.

I see two issues here to clarify:

  • Open-Source vs Non Open-Source Base Meshes Though model files can be accessed in Decentraland, some are made explicitly to be shared and modified, and others are not. For instance, the Decentraland base avatar meshes (as seen in the torso images above) are open-source and readily available for anyone to use. However most wearables are IP of the creator/s.

  • Were Non Open-Source Base Meshes Used From the comments above, it seems like you’re saying that you originally used DG’s shoe mesh, and then recreated the model from scratch when concerns were raised. However, in the latest shoe images shared by Yannakis, it looks like the second pair were not made from scratch and instead readjusted.

Though many shoes may look similar in essence, using a base mesh without permission is an infringement of IP. My suggestion would be to remake the shoes completely from scratch, starting from an open-source base mesh like those provided in the DCL docs, or a primitive object like a cube.

If you didn’t use someone else’s base mesh to create these shoes, a great way to prove that could be with some proof of work, like any images or videos you may have of the creative process.

Hope this helps and best wishes.

3 Likes

Hi @Kat

First of all, thank you for your time and detailed prompt response. Your points are transparent, and I fully agree with them. Like I said before, I always respect the rules and happy to comply with them. However, in this particular case, I would like to solidify my position by answering to your comments with the following facts:

1 - Initially I took the mesh as a base from the open source, and I was completely sure that it was one of Decentraland’s shared meshes, available for everyone. It is currently shared in GitHub in the “decentraland/avatar-assets” folder:

It is under Apache Licence 2.0 (which "allows users to use the software for any purpose, to distribute it, to modify it, and to distribute modified versions of the software under the terms of the license, without concern for royalties”):

2 - Despite it is an Open-Source mesh and, even when no any actual links were provided to me at that time as an evidence of IP violation. I took the warning with respect and I have re-created my new pair of shoes from scratch (starting from a cube). If @Yannakis would show the meshes side by side, any Creator would clearly see, that the new mesh I created is not adjusted, it’s a completely different mesh. Please see this by yourself (green=mine, red=DG):

I am glad that I’m being reviewed and that my work is scrutinised, and I’m always open to comments and critique - but I do still stand on the point that my creation is unique.

I do hope that my arguments are sufficient, please tell me, if they are not.

1 Like

Thanks ExtraVersion for the detailed response and images, from the look of the information above it would seem you are legally correct. It would be great if @Shibu or a representative of the Foundation’s legal team could confirm and provide more info.

The extra pictures are helpful and show more difference between the two meshes.

However, ethically it’s a deeper issue as the creator of the base mesh (and/or a representative of DG’s IP) has raised concerns. This could be a great time to clarify which base meshes can be used and make that information as transparent as possible. In the meantime it could be good practise to contact the creator of the base mesh in advance if possible to avoid any issues.

Hope this helps and everything gets cleared up soon.

2 Likes

Foundation Legal team doesn’t care about users being treated unfairly by dao or foundation employees. They exist to protect DCL and nothing else.

1 Like

I think this collection should be disabled or rejected for more important reason than indentical meshes.

And the reason is: collection is approved with missing IP rights for famous person/song names. And as i see, @Yannakis never asked publisher of this collection to send IP rights to legal@decentraland.org

What about shoes. My opinion: we have a lot of standard recolored wearables with custom logos, etc. Sneakers shape seems identical, but back part is changed, as well as color of sneakers. This is enough change to avoid similarity issues. (as for me.)

Thank you everyone for the input and opinions, it’s very much appreciated. I am open to comments and critiques, and I think that the whole Community should have the same mindset to be able to progress and evolve.

@Kat, thank you for taking my argument into consideration. I was obviously never aware of the IP concern - similar to DCL meshes, it’s a public open-sourced link, anyone can use it.

I do agree with you that the DCL community needs strictly defined professional regulations that are communicated and shared with everyone in the most transparent way possible.

Answering the point raised by @theankou:

  • In my collection, I see no IP rights violation.
  • If there’s a concern, this should have been highlighted, communicated and managed properly on the stage of approval, since it’s clearly declared that DCL approval is a fee collection’s Creator pays during publishing.
  • Disabling a collection is a decision that should be properly communicated and should be based on facts, and it should be done by a dedicated committee.

Adding to the DCL community improvements:

  • Approval and review process should be taken to a certain professional bar. I spent 5 minutes on checking my new mesh and doing screenshots to confirm the obvious. I’m confident that if @yannakis would do the same without confirmation bias, this would resolve the issue in a heartbeat.
  • A Creator should not be forced to prove their innocence and should not be bluntly accused of something without proof. There should be a certain, clearly defined procedure for that.
  • There should not be a possibility to disable approved and published Creator’s work by one’s wish with a single click. The Community needs properly documented and regulated rules for that.

It would be absolutely wonderful to bring this discussion to a certain closure. As @kat said, we would need an official statement from @shibu or a representative of the Foundation legal team.