Recently, I came across a tweet about a photo taken at a Second Life event. The photographer had used AI to enhance the image, and the creator of the build featured in the photo was upset. That moment sparked a deeper question for me about how AI is affecting our community, both in Second Life and in the real world.
As a journalist and the owner of one of Second Life’s longest-running feeds, I believe this is an issue worth exploring. AI is no longer a futuristic concept; it’s here, shaping our virtual and creative spaces right now. So, I did what any curious person might: I asked a question.
I tweeted to Philip Rosedale, tagging him in a repost of the original tweet by the designer, and asked for his thoughts on designers banning paying customers from their stores simply for using AI to edit photos featuring their products.
Let’s be clear. This was a paying customer, not a sponsored blogger who received the item for free in exchange for promotional content.
I also asked the designer a few respectful follow-up questions to better understand the situation:
- Was the anti-AI policy made clear before the purchase?
- Was the person in question a store blogger or an event blogger?
Rather than engage in dialogue, the response was swift and hostile. The store owner became aggressive, and what followed was an organized harassment campaign: blocking, banning, public call-outs, and social media attacks from the designer and her circle. All of this over a question and a public repost.
Now, let’s talk about rights.
As a store owner, you absolutely have the right to decide who shops at your store. But does that extend to controlling how your customers use the items they’ve purchased, especially when they’re not violating any of Linden Lab’s platform rules?
Think about it: if you buy a designer dress in real life and enhance a photo of yourself in it using AI tools, can that designer dictate what tools you use? Should they?
That’s the heart of the issue.
We’re at a turning point. AI is a powerful tool, and it’s not going away. We need to find ways to integrate it thoughtfully and responsibly. Yes, AI raises valid concerns. Artists have every right to protect their work. But the real conflict is with the AI platforms and usage terms, not individual customers using generative tools for fun or creative expression.
What happened to open discussion?
Instead of resorting to harassment and public bans, we need honest conversations about how AI fits into our world. Shutting down discourse through bullying only creates more tension and alienates those who genuinely want to engage.
Second Life has always prided itself on freedom and creativity. Its slogan says it best: Your world, your imagination. That imagination now includes AI for many users, especially those who’ve found new joy and creative flow through it. If that’s discouraged or punished, we risk losing more of the vibrant community that keeps SL alive.
Let’s talk about it:
- Should a customer be banned for using AI on a photo featuring a purchased item?
- Should designers disclose AI-related policies before selling items?
- What are reasonable boundaries for creators who don’t want their products used with AI?
These are real, evolving questions, and the answers deserve more than a block button.
I’ve included screenshots and a timeline below of the events that unfolded. At no point did I attack or harass anyone. I simply asked questions and engaged with the issue thoughtfully.
I understand people want to support their friends, but inflating a single tweet into a campaign of harassment doesn’t help anyone. If anything, it shows just how badly we need open conversations around these new challenges.
Because one thing is clear: if people aren’t allowed to express themselves or explore creatively, they won’t need to be banned. They’ll just log out and may not come back.
Timeline of Events
April 23, 2025
- I respond to a Tweet posted by @goodwitchSL (SoapBerry) https://x.com/gogolita/status/1915041034901377122
- I repost the Tweet and ask Philip Rosedale a question
https://x.com/gogolita/status/1915088837681783050
- I wrote a blog post about it: Banned for Wearing It: How Second Life Creators Are Punishing Their Own Customers
What I’m Wearing:
Sparkle Skye – Amalie Headband @ The Fifty
Red Blossom – Cutest Diva Top @ Anthology
Red Blossom – Cutest Diva Skirt @ Anthology
Dust Bunny – Blooming Holdables (Bouquet Cone)
LeLutka – Billie Mesh Head
Glam Affair – Felt (L005)
I am a professional RL illustrator and published novelist. I hate the use of generative AI, and I am against any commercial use of it (generative AI is being trained on my work without my consent or compensation). However, my rejection of these technologies stops at their commercial exploitation. A reaction such as the one described in the article is completely disproportionate.
Can you imagine??
– “I bought a product at a store. When I went back, they refused to do business with me! They said I had used the product in a way they do not approve!”
– “I took a picture at a sim. When I tried to go back, I found out I had been banned! They said I had used a picture I took there in a way they do not approve!”
Fine. Just make sure your special conditions are very well communicated.
Well, Kiss Spicoli, whether you know or not, Ferrari does it, and prob many more.
The first issue with this blog post is saying the photographer used AI to enhance the image.
AI scrapes the internet for people’s art, whether that’s in the form of hand drawn art, photos or whatever else, including the work that is fed into it. AI doesn’t ask for people’s permission to use their work/art. That’s where the main issue lies. I think anyone who considers themself an artist or isn’t morally bankrupt would disagree with what AI is/does, which is steal.
Secondly, whether you agree on someone being banned or not is your opinion but you cannot and should not try to dictate what people decide to do with their business. Attempting contact with the owner of second life to try and bully a store owner into running their business how you want them to is disgusting.
On top of that, you call yourself a journalist when this blog post is clearly manipulative and trying to paint yourself as some helpful vigilante when you’re advocating for art theft at the least and actively bullying someone on the internet. The screenshots you picked are a terrible attempt at painting the person you’re bullying as a horrible person and even that isn’t working.
If you have such an issue with all of this, make your own store and run it how you want to. But you’re extremely full of yourself and hypocritical – why should someone be allowed to run someone’s hard work through AI, while the same person who is having the work stolen and altered can’t take steps to prevent it from happening?
Your example of a real life designer dress is also ridiculous, given the fact that AI cannot try to replicate that piece in real life. You have stated anti bullying in this blog post yourself, yet you’re sitting here harassing someone over their own store policy and have been for days. You need to find another hobby because unbiased journalism is surely not your forte or at least surround yourself with people who will tell you when you’re making yourself look a fool on the internet.
AI is killing creativity and has wider effects on climate due to the unnecessary amounts of power it needs for processing. But you’re okay with cutting down forests of trees and stealing from artists for your uncanny photo edits, not to mention trying to bully designers into submission.
How is she harassing anyone?
She hasn’t called anyone names, cussed anyone out, or even really been rude. She asked some questions (all valid), tagged Philip Linden because he’s leading a conversation about AI in SL, responded to a ton of hateful messages, and wrote two blog posts.
Don’t we want Philip Rosedale to see how people feel about AI in the community? Don’t we want him yo know that a lot of people hate it? What is wrong with showing him an example and asking him what he thinks about it?
Misleading??? Did you read the string of tweets that started this whole thing where it took a bunch of people directly asking the creator if it was a ‘blogger’ or a ‘customer’? Or if she had in her TOS she would humiliate you if you took a picture with one of her products and used AI?
The lady even took the pics down and people are going to OTHER pictures and are STILL harassing her! Stuff without AI!
We get it – you hate AI. But, the only people being vicious harassers here are you guys.
Honestly, all this is doing is making everyone else hate AI haters, killing education, killing conversation, and making people not want to ever tag creators or share their pics of the stuff they have made.
And to ban someone from a vendor because they asked a question? Super gross mean girl bullying nonsense.
If you cared, you’d talk about it. But ‘the mob’ doesn’t want to talk – they want to be pissed off and call names and cuss people out.
You guys aren’t saving the world here from AI – you are just being mean.
The thing that is bothering me most about this is that no one is allowed to talk about it or ask questions without, literally, being verbally attacked, cussed out, or called names.
Everyone is upset that Philip got tagged (weird considering the huge AI meeting that just happened?), and that they feel the blog post is ‘misleading’….
……..but the very first post on Twitter that started everything was misleading! Why say ‘blogger’ instead of customer?
To use ‘blogger’ (as a creator in a social media post to their followers) to the SL community 100% implies it was their blogger.
The whole thing has gone entirely too far.
I mean ultimately this creator is an outlier and rather unhinged. Their social media posts suggests they are – let’s be polite – a bit over the top (check the pinned post). Seems a large element of the Fantasy Faire creators are into bullying so this person’s behaviour is no surprise. The creator just comes out of this looking weird and laughable.
As you say in your post, creators can do as they like, but to react with a ban when it comes to a customer using AI on a photo is hardly beneficial fortheir business. It makes perfect sense to ask bloggers not to use AI that may affect how the product looks, but a regular customer is not a blogger and cannot be held accountable for how they present the product.
I also find that some creators go to far when it comes to bloggers — how does it affect the presentation of your product if the photo is taken against a generated background that was uploaded into SL? That said, I don’t do that myself because I like my SL photos to be purely inworld. However, I have experimented with creating textures and creating assets for EEP (like clouds), and I am sure some would feel that I should not use those assets when taking pictures of their products. And that, IMO, is going way too far.
I do not personally agree with the point of view that AI is content theft (that simply isn’t true, nothing is being stolen or copied) or even that using content for training AI is wrong. The jury is still out (quite literally) on whether the training aspect is legal or not. I am very dubious that the result will be that training is illegal, but that remains to be seen.
I think a discussion about this is great. I am not a content creator (obvs) but I have learned a lot from these few threads (and thank you for doing asking the questions).
I am a blogger – though I blog independently and am not part of any paid/sponsored relationship. If I was to be banned from a store after giving the creator good publicity (generally speaking, I blog things I love), I would definitely want to understand why so I could evaluate and learn – and even potentially make changes. But, the way this was handled – I was not familiar with the creator – but I am now and will likely remember the brand in this context. I would think that the way the response was handled – a disproportionate reaction to what clearly is a neutral question – does far more harm to a brand than someone blogging an AI-enhanced image?