It’s sad that such conflicts arise, but I wish you good luck with your work!

I believe if you place your art on your site under OGA-compatible license, anyone else can submit them here, right?

Tap, it is very sad to hear you make such a decission.   Looking at the comment Sharm made, it doesn't seem like to me like she intended to attack you.  It appears to be a simple misundertstanding. Since you have left the site, the link is disabled so i will repost the conversation there.

Here is what she said

"Assets made with RPG Maker's RTP cannot be posted here as the licence is completely incompatible.  Even if it's very heavily edited."

To which you replied

"Sharm, this doesn't even use anything from RPG Maker.  It is made from scratch.  You've officially made me stop using this site.  Fuck this place. -.- "

 I couldn't see any more comments from her or you,  so that is an extremely short exchange to base such a big decission off.   She hadn't even had a chance to respond to you statement,  so your leaving seems a little hasty.   Perhaps this was all just a misundertstanding?

"I believe if you place your art on your site under OGA-compatible license, anyone else can submit them here, right?"

Legally this is correct, if someone releases something under a licence, one can't retroactively revoke that.

I don't know what OGA's deletion policy is, but in my opinion, I would hope the deletion requests are only acted upon if there is a good reason, say a licensing issue (such as it using copyrighted material from elsewhere without appropriate licences, or uploaded without permission).

Whilst it might seem nice to honour an author's request to delete, it causes problems if various games are using it, and link to a webpage here that then gets deleted. (Well, it's not a problem legally - but it helps as evidence that things are properly licenced, if the originating URLs are not dead.) As Demetrius points out, someone can just come along an re-add it, but it's less hassle to not have to do that, and to avoid changing the URL; it also seems stronger legally if the uploaded is the author.

Fair enough if OGA prefers to always honour deletion request, but just putting my thoughts out there for debate :)

http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-takedown says that OGA honors requests to take down if it was uploaded without permission, but that seems to be more a case of erring on the side of caution when it comes to licencing - if someone claims it was uploaded without permission, you don't want to risk a court battle even if it seems that it was released elsewhere under a free licence. In this case though, someone can't claim it was uploaded without permission when they uploaded it!

Also of relevance perhaps: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-changelicense

The whole RPG maker thing is a big issue. Many artists create RPG maker tilesets, and leave pieces of the original tileset in. It's quite common and worth mentioning. If even one tile, from the original set, was left in, it could lead to legal issues.

From the sounds of it, it was a quick heads-up to ensure the tileset can be used by the community.

I think you would find it difficult to find a negative post by Sharm.

@Tap: Chill.  Sharm is a great person, she's not meaning to attack you or treating you like a criminal.  We have gotten a lot of RPG maker-derived assets submitted here with licenses wrongly applied to them, as I'm sure you can and have probably seen for yourself.  You haven't been penalized in any way--flagging a licensing issue is just that, putting a note on a submission that there may be a problem with it which needs to be resolved one way or another.  If there is in fact no problem it is just as quick to remove as it was to add.

So please, for a moment, look at it from her perspective.  People like her and I look through the archives with an eye out for these kinds of common issues so they can be flagged and dealt with before someone tries to use them.  So she sees this set which is obviously very similar to the proprietary set with an unusually professional look to it, it's very easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.  You did a very good job of mimicing the RPG maker's base--without putting them side by side it looks really very much like an edit of their assets rather than a from-scratch piece.

You are probably thinking that you, as a very legit artist and long-time contributor, should get preferential treatment and a bit more respect.  And yes, you should, but Sharm probably didn't see and recognize who you were when she flagged it.  She's busy these days and probably runs through the gallery quickly because of that.  So please, chill out a bit and cut her some slack.  We're all human here and trying our best in what time we have to keep the forums clear of spam and make sure that everything in the gallery is complying with the licenses applied to it.  If the site ever gets a reputation for hosting stuff that turns out to bite people later on it will rather ruin what Bart set out to do here, not to mention the pain for the devs involved.

That said, I'd recommend rephrasing a few things here.  I understand that you're upset and that one's attachment both to individual art pieces and to your hard-earned skills as a whole is a very emotional issue.  And you are of course absolutely free to host or not host your art here as you please, and I think we all appreciate you being willing to share them so freely regardless of which venue you post them on.  However, I think the general image of leaving in a huff over a minor misunderstanding may play against you if a potential employer came across this thread.  Regardless, best of luck in your future ventures.

@Demetrius: As I understand it from Bart, it is the general policy of OGA to not host art against an artist's will even if it is legal.

Oh dear.  Well, I was expecting some sort of backlash but it's too bad that it went this far.  Let me explain my reasoning.

I've been into pixel art for a very long time and as such I've noticed some very common logical fallacies that are applied when people use pixel art.  (Other times too, just way more often with pixels for some reason.)

• If it's edited over a certain amount that copyright no longer applies.  This is only true if you've edited to the point where you can put the two side by side and have no clue that one came from the other.
• It's mine as long as I place all the pixels by myself even if I copy it pixel perfect so that it's exactly the same.  Not true at all, I'm not sure why people think that would change anything.  Copying it by hand is the same as copying it by computer, especially in pixel art where you have to try to introduce your own flaws or artistic flair.
• It's okay because I got the base from somewhere other than RM/Ripped source/ect.  This is most commonly thought because someone violated copyright in the first place to put it online then posted it under a free license.  Just because you weren't the one to steal it doesn't mean it wasn't stolen.

I am also a mod at the official RPG Maker forums, and because of this I've gotten very, very familiar with the RTP's look.   Your sprite's face and a few other features are the same as the RTP.  The shape, a large portion of pixel placements, and even the colors are exactly the same.  I've opened it up in photoshop and double checked.  It is enough that if someone used your artwork they could get DMCA'd.  Because of that, I had to flag it.  I don't think you violated copyright purposefully, or that you were being malicious in any way, but it is a violation and the download had to be removed as quickly as possible to prevent anyone else from making the same mistake.

I'm sorry you feel treated like a criminal, that was never my intent.  I'm sorry you've left.  Good luck with your other endeavors.

Putting them side by side, I'm not 100% sure that it would actually constitute a copyright violation, but you're right that it might be seen as constituting one by the right judge.  The internal clusters are clearly different to the point that I don't think Tap did any direct copying, but I can see how to the layman (laylawyer) that might not matter at all with how obvious the proportional sameness is.  I mean, to some extent there's a limit to how many unique character base looks you can get in this resolution range, but it probably needs to be more different than this.  So yeah, despite the lack of shenanigans I'll have to agree with that.

"That there, that's a conflict of interest if I ever saw one."

Sharm is clearly acting in the interests of the OGA community here.  Please don't impinge her motives.

""lack of shenanigans"
Say what?"

To clarify, I was saying that it's clear you didn't do anything wrong or malicious.  I'll have to agree with Sharm that it's probably too close for comfort, and the similarity obviously goes well beyond general inspiration, but I think it's obvious you placed every pixel by hand.

"If you deleted this so easily, what's to stop you from deleting anything else?"

First, it hasn't been deleted per se, it's just deactivated.  And I think that the reasons for it have been very specifically laid out.  But I think that you have it reversed--nobody wants to have to remove good assets from the archive.  We all love to see quality assets go into the archives--it's great for the site, great for devs and great for us artists who want to have more things to play with.  Unfortunately thanks to the legal realities we have to deal with stuff like this sometimes happens.

For people's reference, this is the asset in question with a quick comparison to an RPG Maker character:

As you can see the similarities are initially obvious (which isn't helped by the skin palette being identical, though of course palettes aren't copyrightable on their own).  There are also significant differences even aside from the obvious ones of hair and outfit--but it's hard to get over that initial impression, and it may be close enough to be legally challenged.  Bart may have a different take on it, but I suspect he will feel similarly.

So the rpgmaker guys have copyrighted a particular way of how to draw an eye? Is that so?

I am just picking the most obvious example from the gif in the post above, of course.

Also, are they interested in going to court to clarify officially how far copyright in pixel art goes? Or not?

Maybe this should be evaluated, there are a lot of potential similar conflicts of interest, IMO.

> So the rpgmaker guys have copyrighted a particular way of how to draw an eye? Is that so?

Well, I think no one here is a lawyer? :) But as I understand it, the danger is that courts do argue about "similarity" (I dont understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity ) so if something is pretty obviously very similar, it's dangerous. And this is a whole spritesheet, laid out in a particular size and format.

A bit like disney has a copyright on mouse ears ;)

@riidom: the problem is that the similarities go well beyond just how the eye is drawn--the proportions and overall appearance of the face (including the exact or near-exact palette for the skin tone) are identical, with the exception of the ear which is moved over one pixel.  While the internal clusters are different they're still placed to closely mimic the look of the proprietary assets.  The result is that when you put them side by side it's very clear that it has similarities which go beyond inspiration--there is some careful copying of features here.  It's not the same as directly tracing or anything like that, but at the same time it's not the same as making a completely different face either.  It seems to me as it did to Sharm that there is enough similarity that it might, in its current form, plausibly be considered a derivative work in a legal sense.  That is something that we generally want to avoid having in the archive here.  We don't want to expose devs to that kind of risk if it's avoidble.  Of course since there is an element of speculation here it really is a bit of a judgment call rather than something completely hard and fast.  That's just the way it has to be.  (Now of course if Bart thinks otherwise what he says goes--it's his site and he has the final say.)

Well thanks but I didn't want to distract the thread in the direction of explaining the issue. Let's rather think about constructive ways to solve it, for example: Instead of guessing about potential threats and issues, maybe someone could just ask the copyright holders how their stance is to art that aims at extending their own work? Or whatever else might be fruitful, I came here to share my suggestion.

I don't have any direct experience, but I believe the RPG maker people charge money to license their assets for non-RPG-Maker usage, so I think we can guess pretty quickly what their resposne would be.  I think the only solution would be to change the parts that are currently too similar.  This is clearly not something that would be too difficult for Tap, but that's entirely up to him.

fwiw I think Sharm made the right call. Unless the rpg maker copyright holders have explicitly said otherwise, you have to assume that they reserve all rights. And granting rights to use their assets royalty free does not automatically make them public domain.

If you really believe the style to be generic, perhaps you could find some other art in a similar style that pre-date the rpg maker assets.

Maybe it would be enough to deactivate submissions where the case is unclear, only when a (maybe-)copyright holder shows up and asks to take it down? Being too defensive in advance just doesn't look that good.

Because of the type of site OGA is we have to be proactive about copyright violations.  If we were to wait until the actual creator was upset not only could that potentially land the site and anyone who downloaded the files into legal trouble, it would also tarnish our reputation.  That would in turn make artists who would otherwise support us only come to the site to make sure someone isn't stealing their stuff too.  There are loads of sites out there where you can find art for games with questionable copyright, what makes this site different is that it isn't questionable.  It's important to keep it that way, even if we accidentally hurt some feelings as a result.

Wait, the art can be attempted or recreated originally, but not the technique used to make it? I still think it is a possible shut on all creativity's doors. The thing about making your mark on a breakthrough is nice, but  there must be a way you can still do that without any more obvious, yet uncalled countermeasures. For instance, no person is perfectly the same as another, so the hand they draw or write with might be just as different. Keep it in mind. Karma rather than originality needs a say on this, and not every battlefield needs a hero/villain/monstrosity.  A better idea would include unremoveable credit and not the royalty by default.

Funny that. I posted about these and everyone turns a blind eye.    Eventually a persecution complex appears and i'm a big jerk because this system doesn't have a report button for infractions.  By the way that's not the first FF6 sprite edit on OGA that had gotten overly defensive (before being removed).

...or even a working report button for spam, since this spammer still has his mark. and even their 'project site' approved

Each to its own, I am out of here, bye.

Why is there a report spam for comments but not art submissions anyway?

I've no comment on if the asset in question constitutes "Substantial similarity" or not, but I have some experience with Enterbrain's legal department.

Tap: "... the copyright holder actually shares their sprites for royalty-free distribution and does not even expect a credit for the work.  In that sense, the art is actually public domain except that there is the added condition that you have to buy RPG Maker. ..."

riidom a.k.a. byeOGA: "maybe someone could just ask the copyright holders how their stance is to art that aims at extending their own work?"

Jaden: "...About RPG Maker's License to use it's artwork: The end-user license agreement states that you can use any of their artwork from the RPG Maker Series, interchangably, as long as you own a copy of both the maker in which it is used, and the maker from which it came. So if you want to use the hero sprite from RPG Maker VX Ace in IG Maker, you'd have to own a copy of both programs to do so. But this only applies to the RPG Maker Series, and IG Maker...."

I have indeed contacted Enterbrain about this: http://opengameart.org/comment/22426#comment-22426

Enterbrain, the RPGMaker copyright holder, was very clear about this. To my disappointment, you can't just buy RPGMaker, then use the assets in non-RPGMaker projects. The license only allows for those assets to be used in RPGMaker, regardless of the royalty-free commercially-allowed state of those assets. No derivatives are allowed unless those derivatives are ONLY being used in RPGMaker.

Again, this is not a comment on wether the asset in question is considered a derivative, just a note on Enterbrain's stance on licensing.

@medicinestorm: wow thanks for asking. now we know for sure.

@Jaden: I think you are underestimating how many possibilities there are even in a limited space.  Statements like "there is literally no other means of drawing high quality pixel art in those dimensions" are completely hyperbolic.  Let me reiterate: there is no question that this was intended to be a close copy of the RPG Maker base and that the similarities go well beyond coincidence.  This is simply not a matter of limited creative space.  That becomes a serious factor at very small resolutions (16x16, etc) but at this size it isn't really that relevant.

@Undesired: First, stuff sometimes gets missed.  Just making a post on the art itself may or may not get the attention of someone who can deal with it, and just making an allegation of copying without substantiation isn't really enough.  For instance, on the sprites that you say are derived from FF6, while the faces do look similar the sprite as a whole doesn't really.  As I mentioned above similarities like that are not terribly remarkable at very low resolutions--with a symmetrical face the effective pixel area is something like 3x4, which does impose serious limitations on what's possible.  As as to the freezalike... it's a totally different kind of edge case which I feel even less confident about.  I'll try to bring it to Bart's attention if I see him on the IRC.  Btw, thanks for pointing out the spammer, I have deleted it.

@byeOGA: uh, bye.  Sorry you feel like you need to leave.  But making sure that the assets here are safe to use is a non-negotiable priority.  I'd rather that we lean towards caution rather than endangering devs down the line.

@Gnudist: good question.  OGA doesn't get that many spam submissions and they're usually caught pretty quickly, but it might be a good feature to request of Bart.

@smonos: :)  ...mind you, that is only in regards to the various RTP stuff. As Jaden indicated, there are separately licensed/priced packages which can be used in non-RPGMaker projects.

By the way, speaking of the Terra-like sprites, they use non-OGA license, AGPL.

• Because of the type of site OGA is we have to be proactive about copyright violations.  If we were to wait until the actual creator was upset not only could that potentially land the site and anyone who downloaded the files into legal trouble

How does that work with safe-harbor protection?

OGA has safe-harbor provisions? Cool! What/where are they?

Or are you referring to OCILLA § 512(c)? I think that might protect OGA, but it wouldn't protect anyone who downloaded and/or used the files, which would still suck for OGA since the community would lose trust.

Edit: Besides, to be protected by OCILLA § 512(c), OGA would have to proactively remove repeat offenders and/or be unaware of the offending material.

...and/or!

I doubt OGA itself would run into serious legal trouble, but there would be plenty of the normal sort of trouble if a dev ever had legal trouble from using an asset hosted on OGA.

IMO OGA would only lose trust in the more straightforward case of copyright infringement - where it is someone else's work, or an edited version of it.

If someone sues because of a vague "similarity" or the copyright holder believes they own the rights to a "style", then I don't think people are going to say OGA should have known and removed the art, when it's impossible to make that judgement. If people are concerned there is a similarity, that can be discussed in the comments, and anyone deciding to use it can choose for themselves. I fear that a lot of art would end up being deleted if anything that might result in someone suing over a vague similarity was deleted.

Should all the art submitted as part of http://itch.io/jam/candyjam be deleted? I mean, this was a jam actively encouraging developers to create games which King believes would be infringing. That was trademark issues rather than copyright, though a similar principle applied, plus "the art looks a similar style" may often end up being a trademark issue rather than a copyright one - should the art be deleted, because someone might use a candy image from OGA, that King then decide to sue them for?

its not just about whether the site gets in trouble. the whole point of the site is to provide assets which can be used in games with an open licence. questionable content undermines all of the content on the site if game creators can no longer be confident abou which assets are safe to use. As far as i can see, theres more than a passing reseblence and the base sprite appears to be near identical, regardless of whether the pixels were placed by hand. if it is a mere coincidence, it should be easy to find other similar sprites from before the rpg maker ones with the same base.

"@Jaden: I think you are underestimating how many possibilities there are even in a limited space.  Statements like "there is literally no other means of drawing high quality pixel art in those dimensions" are completely hyperbolic.  Let me reiterate: there is no question that this was intended to be a close copy of the RPG Maker base and that the similarities go well beyond coincidence.  This is simply not a matter of limited creative space.  That becomes a serious factor at very small resolutions (16x16, etc) but at this size it isn't really that relevant."

I wasn't exaggerating, but if you think I'm wrong, perhaps you could show us all at least 10 different ways to make a face that doesn't infringe any supposed copyright claim, on a pixel character using the same dimentions as the art in question, and in a way that can be incorporated into commonly used engines without a noticble difference? I wager you can't.

And while we're on that note, perhaps you could share your wisdom on how individuals are supposed to create a game, using limited amounts of graphics, all from different people, without them looking remotely similar in any way to each other, and actually make the game good? Afterall, this is a common problem amongst indie developers who have no money, who have no artists, and no way of drawing their own assets (either by limited time or experience or both). Graphical assets are next to impossible to find in sets, from a single artist, or even looking similar enough to use with each other, so what would you recommend? Again in the example; the developer has no money to work with.

I think that people making a huge deal out of a face (again, only one part of the sprite) is asinine. You show me in copyright where you can claim a few pixels like that, and I will gladly reassess my views on the matter. Until then, I will still say that this similarity is only that.
Again, I understand why the decision was made, and for safety is was a good call because you know corporations will use anything they can, but I don't agree that it was infringement.