Seems that if we’re left to ourselves and free to customise, our avatars reflect our personalities.
|
|
Jump to the new comic, or new readers can click the banner to begin at the rather rough beginning: Jump to the new comic, or click the banner to begin at the first one: Thanks for everyone who came in-world for John Jainschigg and Kim Smith’s interview with me about the comic and whatnot. It was scary and great talking with you all! Human physiology and psychology is endlessly fascinating. We hold the notion that there’s a clean distinction between the mind and the body, when no such division seems to exist while at the same time we hold some fairly fuzzy notions about selfhood and how we think it’s tangled up with aspects of the body that aren’t really all that relevant. NaiveteBy: Tateru NinoMmm. I love this. Got it from SilentSparrow. I feel like Alice! 500 ellz of yummy demure gorgeousness. VarietyBy: Tateru NinoMade a new avatar variation. Liked this scene, and thought I’d share. I took this at Caledon Castle, where I happened to already be. Anshe Chung will likely be remembered by many as the “cyber rape porn star” over coming months and years, thanks to Guntram Graef. “Cyber Rape Porn” is just too memorable a triplet of words to sink out of sight. It’s the sort of thing most people call a meme. It’s going to leave a mark. The contention is that an avatar is a copyright body of work, and as we all know, a copyright body of work may not be duplicated or derived from except as granted by the copyright holder, or as provided by law. Guntram Graef considers this grounds to suggest that an avatar’s controller has the right to exercise editorial control over images of that avatar. This raises the question whether a photograph of a copyrighted work is a derived work or not, because there seems little doubt that an avatar is a copyrighted work, possibly a work that is composed of works of others, and thus a derived work, but a work nonetheless. Is a photograph/print of a painting a derived work? Surely, though the law allows some personal-use exceptions in some places and locations.
I think a more interesting question is raised. Is this a work of parody, and thus potentially an exemption to the DMCA? Is flinging flying penises at a copyright image inherently satirical, in this context? If so, then there’s potentially no breach here, and Graef’s emails about “cyber rape porn” are misrepresentational, while still remaining an indelible mark on Anshe Chung. Now, don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be thrilled if that were me up there. I’ve had enough penises flung at me inworld, thankyou very much, as well as quite a few offered to me for one reason or another. The first person to whom I showed alt-mousing the camera took a snapshot up my skirt and spread a few thousand copies of that image all over the grid. I wasn’t very happy about that, no, but it’s not something I was going to treat as a copyright issue. Anshe, I’m sorry that this incident happened to you. I’m sorry that Guntram has attached ‘Cyber Rape Porn’ to your name. If he hadn’t, everyone would have forgotten all about this by next week. You’re probably stuck with it now. Various companies have learned since the inception of the DMCA that it is a double-edged sword. It needs to be handled carefully, and with great delicacy, or it does more damage to those who use it than it does to those against whom it is used. So..are these images and videos construable as parody? And has Graef done more damage to Anshe’s long-term image than the images and videos ever could? How about this, Erbo?
“Don’t judge a book by its cover.” -Proverb Of course we all know that we shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover – a person by their appearance, race or colour – because they couldn’t choose or change that, right? Well, ahoy Second Life! How can racism, chromatic prejudice or appearance-based bigotry survive in a world where we may all change our face and form and colour at will. From human to robot to animal to ball-of-light to…whatever we please. “What you see is what you get.” -Proverb To whatever we please is the key notion here. The shape you choose says something about you (as does your Second Life last name). The choice is not unlimited, and neither are our selection criteria, which further limits the options. You won’t see Tateru as a dancing pile of poop – because I wouldn’t choose an appearance like that. Even if you change avatars and appearances at will, on a whim without care for the content, you’re exposing yourself. Because you’re the kind of person who would do that. The act shows your personality – perhaps more clearly than settling on a single avatar and sticking with it. The green, red-headed, hairy, overweight misshapen dwarf in lingerie who appeared about two thirds of the way through my class… Is he going to disrupt it? Answers on a postcard. In RL we power-dress, and accessorise We select clothing, hairstyles, make-up that projects an image, and makes us feel more confident, in-control, relaxed, whatever. The psychological feedback effects on us are clear, well-documented and very powerful. In Second Life, we do that with our whole bodies. We not only clothe our avatars, but make them short, tall, old, young, male, female, black, white, blue, green…whatever. When we present ourselves in the outside world, we select our clothing based on our personality and on the image we want to project. We flip through magazines, watch films and television, and oftentimes select an outfit based on a celebrity or fictional character whose image we want to project. It colours our thinking and allows us to more readily assume the qualities and traits that we want people to see in us – whether we think those traits are there or not. Sexier, cooler, more confident, jaded… In Second Life, we can turn the volume up. “Are you ready to rock and roll?” -Star Child But appearance isn’t the only factor here. Just as telling is the dichotomy, when the words and actions of the person don’t match the avatar you see. Again, you’ve exposed a bit more of yourself than you realise. “On the internet, everyone knows you’re a dog.” -Modern Proverb Second Life last names fall into a similar category. Given the list, many of us chose a specific name for a specific reason. And many of those reasons are the same – though there are always some exceptions. Look at the Overlords, many of whom turned out to be troublesome and/or underage. Or the Alphabetas whose name was first on the list – many of them chose the name because it was first, and they had no special preference. Random choice, of name or appearance still says something about you. Everyone knows you’re a dog. The more we try to hide ourselves, the more obvious our inner selves become to everyone else. “It’s funny how heterosexuals have lives and the rest of us have ‘lifestyles.’” -Sonia Johnson And that brings us full circle. Residents aren’t, of course, prejudiced about colour, appearance or race. They’re prejudiced about the personalities, priorities, creeds, and conscious or unconscious motivations that that cause us to select those colours, appearances or races. Oftentimes it happens out of ignorance – but more often from a bipolar certainty about the world. If you’re right, then I’m wrong. Certainty allows for no half-measures, or shades of grey, or complex multi-dimensional decision surfaces. If you’re not right, you must be wrong – and that would be intolerable. That’s the sort of thing that breeds crusades, jihads, oppression based on gender or sexual orientation, Christmas guilt syndrome, or widespread griefing of furry sims. Just plain, pig-headed certainty that your choices and your views are the right ones, coupled with an unwillingness to question and re-evaluate your position, and a touch of insecurity about your fundamental self-worth. But don’t take my word for it. Use your brain. Look around you. Think. Question yourself and your actions, and look at things from someone else’s point of view whenever you can. “With all things and in all things, we are relatives.” -Sioux saying
|
Support us |













