$12256 / $11500
SAP-1 (Sapper Bot Mark 1)
Concept by: Buch
http://opengameart.org/users/buch
http://opengameart.org/content/spider-spy-drone
3D By: Quandtum
License: CC BY-SA.
Blender Version: r52859
Model Version: 2.0
Original @ http://opengameart.org/content/spider-spy-drone-0
3D preview available @ http://p3d.in/0mA6n
What is included:
1 x SAP-1 base mesh (1274 vertices, 2694 Edges, 1432 faces, 2524 Tris, UV unwrapped)
1 x Diffuse map (2048 x 2048)
1 x Normal map (2048 x 2048)
1 x Bump map (2048 x 2048)
1 x Specular map (2048 x 2048)
1 x Emission map (2048 x 2048)
1 x Animation armature
1 x NLA walk cycle
Complete model is not manifold, but rather a composition of 6 manifold "parts". Each part is manifold and all parts were combined into a single mesh named "Robot".
Maps included are all large 2048 x 2048. Reason is they can be reduced but not grown, resize them to fit as needed.
The model is rigged. The animation rig contains a control "PositionLock". When in the default "down" position, the lock is considered enabled and the robot joints will be constrained to "operational normal". In other words, the bones will not be allowed to move outside of a position that would allow the robot to perform it's normal operations. When the "PositionLock" is in the "up" position, the lock is considered disabled and the robot parts can be freely moved. This allows the robot to be animated in say a destruct or destroyed sequence.
Texture samples sourced from:
http://www.plaintextures.com/
http://www.goodtextures.com/
Textures were otherwise hand painted.
Revision History:
Version 1.0 - 12/25/2011; Initial release.
Version 1.1 - 12/26/2011; Updated animation rig. Added extra bone to ease the animation of the base can.
Version 1.2 - 12/26/2011; Added IK controls to rig. Added walk cycle.
Version 2.0 - 01/21/2013; Significant updates to the base mesh. Textures were re-painted.
Quandtum_SAP-1_v2_0.zip 12.2 Mb [1436 download(s)]
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Comments
Great model, but sadly neiter http://www.plaintextures.com/ nor http://www.goodtextures.com/ allow you to license the resulting textures as CC0 strictly legally speaking. I know it sounds stupid as the general requirements they state are fulfilled, but to relicense a copyrighted work you have to either be in full posession or have based your work only on fully compatible licenses.
You can use any textures from plaintextures.com with your models.
Hello plaintextures!
Thanks for the feedback... could you specifically state that relicensing to CC0 is allowed and change the licensing text on your website accordingly? However be aware that thus redistribution is allowed too.
It's all legal mumbo jumbo, but sadly copyrights are quite strict, and open-content sites have to have a strict policy regarding that to avoid "tainting" the contents available.
How about you just relicense all your textures to the creative common attribution (CC-by) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ )? That way people are free to use them, and you still get credit and people will link back to your page.
@ plaintextures : =D Again, thank you, I deeply appreciate your site and efforts there.
@ Julius : I have also had dialog with goodtextures.com long before I used them in any model. Reason being is about 3-4 years back I had to remove a dozen or so models due to this issue (textures were from a different site). When in doubt I have dialog with the site admin/owners to confirm (typically even when not in doubt and I save the messages). In a nutshell, goodtextures does want their textures to be used, they just don't want them to be "directly copied" and redistributed by default (i.e. me download them and put them in my website or models w/o modification). I do not just use the photo and dump UV's on it, the textures provided could not reproduce their content, to me that point has become a simple curtousey to any site willing to provide content for those of us wanting to do CC work. They want to provide the source, but they don't want to get ripped off in the process, that is their protection.
P.S. In their FAQ:
May I use these textures in my Open Source (Creative Commons, GPL, etc) project?
Yes. These textures may be used in Open-Source projects. In that case, you are allowed to bundle them and distribute them as a package. Please add the following text to the documentation of the map:
"One or more textures on this map have been created with images from Goodtextures.com. These images may not be redistributed by default. Please visit www.goodtextures.com for more information."
Hi Julius,
you're welcome...
We are very well aware of the issue you trying to point out here. The problem is to find some good textures which you can pack with your models and share on other sites. Problem with (CC-by) is that some people just download 100's of them and then put them on their own page. That simply can't work. This is only reason why we have our own "terms and conditions". We are getting this questions from people quite often but at the moment this is only way to deal with it. I'm going to look at it again and try to clarify things for all of you. For now all you need to know is that you CAN use our textures for your work and put them in here or other sites.Just don't upload them individually. Let's hope this is clear enough for now and if you know anyone who's facing some problem you can point them here.
Hi Quandtum,
thanks for response. I think you said it quite right or at least the way we see this whole issue. It simply make no sense if someone going to claim them as their own. You can always come and download them any time you want. Most of the stuff is for free and even prices for Premium membership are 'ridiculous' when you think what are you getting for your money. That is my opinion anyway...
Ok IANAL, maybe that works legally if remix into open-source textures is specifically allowed.
However then I question what would prevent an "evil doer" to change a single pixel and release the texture on their own site?
Besides that, what is exactly so bad about people mirroring your textures, especially if they link back to your side? Are you actually making a significant amount of money of advertisement view inpressions (hard to believe)?
Edit: with CC-by site mirroring your textures can't legally claim that those are their own either.
Edit2: at least this from good textures:
"I have spent hours extracting a texture from its background. Surely I can sell it, now that I have spend so much time on it, right?
Sorry no. Even when you modify the images, you are not allowed to sell them. Allowing this would invite abuse: It is too difficult to define what an adequate modification is."
contradicts the allowance for open-source projects again, as commercial use is specifically allowed in libre licenses.
Edit3: I really apprechiate that both sites want to make their textures available for open-source projects... but I sadly do not see how that is legal given the current restrictions they seem to impose.
this is not about linking or mirroring this is about put it on your site and claiming them as yours...I hope we finally understand each other...
I read the terms and conditions. Redistribution part is a little ambiguous. You need to ask plaintextures' for an explicit permission for each case. This is what you should do anyway.
While I don't think it's a bad notion, the complaint will then be that I am frabricating the permission. Personally, I think plaintextures time is better spent producing textures to use and to be involved in the communities (such as they already are) than running about reviewing and approving models. Now here's a question, how do you know what any models here or on Blendswap have used for textures? How do you KNOW they are CC legal? No one else dicloses where they source, could even be Google images. I have a strong sense that some even use CGTextures (not posted here or I would report, but the users are very active here so I will not use their content since they have set precedence elsewhere), but since they disclose nothing they slink on by. Why aren't we putting pressure on them to produce a manifest?
Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for being audited and having opportunity to fix any violation I may have made (which is exactly what happened to me years ago, and I learned and is why I choose to remain transparent now). Knowing that I have spent more effort then many ensuring that I don't have my work recalled or in a position to have to rework. It doesn't mean I don't make mistakes, but I have made a point of direct conversation with both sites and that is seemingly still not adequate for the community (or they don't believe me). I suppose the easiest way to avoid the hassle and "legal risk" is just to stop making CC content all together or release untextured models.
What I am trying to beat at is plaintextures is here telling you this model is fine with its use terms and expectations. The "legal" verbage is there for them to protect their content as it should be, they produce it for us to use but also to fund their sites and new content creation. At the same time, I am sure they are no different then us in that they are not lawyers and do not have money lying about to hire one for a site they do to try to provide something to the community. So, it's up to us as a group to work it out and grow meaning.
Regarding changing a pixel vs. adjusting hue, saturation, etc... the notion isn't much different from Deviant ART stock. The idea is that you are allowed to use it in some meaningful process to produce something new. ... as opposed to some unmeaningful adjustment to simply redistribute it.
I guess the community needs to talk to me, are we saying we want this content (and related content) removed?
I dont think there is a legal problem.
If someone says he got all the permissions, we should believe him unless we have cold hard evidence for the copyright violation. It is not third parties' responsibility to make copyright claims on behalf of the copyright holders, but they might want to inform them.
This really isn't about framing you to do anything wrong, and you are right... it is hard to prove that someone is sourcing textures from a non-free source. I am really glad that you are transparent about it, and don't take any remarks about legal issues of that source as a reason to stop being transparent!
Now the things is... as you have said already... while these specific cases are probably ok since the site owners gave you explicit permission, we are getting on a slippery slope here as others might take this as prove they can use any texture from these sites for free works, which (while probably also ok with the owners) is stricktly legally speaking not allowed by their license (but IANAL).
It all gets very mushy and into grey area here, and ultimatly only a court could decide if it is ok or not (and it might be infact ok in some countries and other not). And ultimatly if there is no accuser there is no wrong-doer or victim.
But to avoid all that it is really advisable to only use textures sources that explicilty state that they are licensed under a compatible and standard license (CC, public domain etc.). However of course that can be sometimes false too (especially regarding public domain, as many people do not understand what that term means legally).
But I have to be honest too... one of the reasons I replied was also to convince the site owner to relicense to a standard CC license. Especially from what plaintextures has said and what I can see from their website, I really can't see any reason why they shouldn't. The concerns they voiced are simply not applicable in my opinion.
Hi there,
it's good to see some willingness to solve this but I must say that I'm loosing a track little bit. I'll think it over and probably try to clarify things. For now all you need to know is that as a owner I can guarantee you that if you'll use our textures with your models, art, or design no one is going to hunt you down. That is what they are for in the first place. Possible problem would be if you download textures(s) and then simply put them on your page. By this I mean literally just make a copy of our page. That is not going to work.
In terms of legal issues I own all of those pictures so I can't see any violation of any law or licence. Again I can assure you that I'll do my best to put this on page itself.
I too have taken steps to better clarify the situation (if possible).
http://quandtum.weebly.com/3d-model-cc-license-questions.html
I will grow it as needed.
Hi plaintextures,
I run OGA, and I appreciate you chiming in on this. Can we chat over IRC? I think I have a proposal that might satisfy both your needs and ours.
Thanks!
Bart
@Plaintextures:
I should be around on IRC after 2 PM eastern time. Sorry for the trouble.
Bart
It's alive, muwahahaha!
http://youtu.be/xnwi-8Z1ZLI