$12256 / $11500
There are some services out there that you have to agree to the EULA license agreement.
This agreement can sometimes contradict those creating works for CCO license, either for free or selling, as in most cases doesn't allow for what the CCO license allows.
copy, deretive, distrubution etc.
although this doesn't have any bearing on OGA, I just wonder how many other artists create CCO work and advertise as such, but don't actually know that by making available using a service with an EULA, the end user can't actually do with it what you may be advertising.
what license would it be under?
Which license takes priority over another in circumstances like this?
thoughts anyone?
:)
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
CC0 assets should be safe to use anywhere or re-license anyway. It's not that the EULA supersedes the CC0 license, it's just that the CC0 asset is being delivered with a different license, which can never supersede a previous license. Once a work has been legally licensed CC0, that is irrevocable.
This becomes trickier with CC-BY(-SA) which specifically contain a clause prohibiting distributing the assets with technological or legal restrictions prohibiting end-users from exercising the full rights laid out by CC (commonly referred to as the anti-DRM clause). This is a problem, for instance, with distributing apps that use CC-BY(-SA) assets on the Apple iOS store, which imposes an end user license violating this clause.
Because CC0 (and OGA-BY) do not have an anti-DRM clause, then restrictive EULAs just serve as another license. However anyone may still refer to the original CC0 or OGA-BY licenses and safely disregard the EULA terms (regarding those assets).
interesting question. I would assume if you the artists are intending to distribute the work as CC0 then that takes precendence over anything else. In practical terms, this must be true as only the copyright owner could ever bring suit for a license violation. So unless an EULA actually has you giving up ownership of a work (in which case RUN!) then no matter what restrictions the EULA tried to put on users, nothing could apply beyond what you personally were willing to try and enforce.
On the otherhand, from the user's perspective, it's a bit murkier. If you obtain something as CC0 from a site like OGA where that's clearly the license, then no matter how an artist feels later, they have distributed the work as CC0 and they can't take that back, you are free to use the work however you please. But grab the work from a site with a wonky EULA, then you've agreed to that EULA and that may well set the terms of use, even if the work is listed as CC0. If an artist ever did want to enforce some term of the EULA they may be able to. You also can't rule out the possibility that the site might try to enforce the EULA and restrict how you use a work even if they don't really have standing to do so.
I kinda see what your saying,
if I upload a work to a service with the EULA, advertise CCO, it's downloaded, end user then puts it on a site like OGA under a new license, in theory they haven't broke my license requirement but have broken the EULA agreement? and could be marked as a licensing issue by an administrator, if for example they find out it has originally come from the service?
although the asset may be available CCO and as you say is irrevocable, does that mean uploading as a publisher I am also breaking the terms of the EULA agreement on the service used?
i suppose it doesn't really matter either way, proving where it came from seems daft as its in public domain, I was just curious.
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
Didn't see capbros post, hmmmmm, it is a bit murky isn't it?, think as a developer looking for artwork to use, it just creates a minefield to both developer and artist.
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
May be relevant to check out Carol Highsmith vs Getty Images. Highsmith is a famous photographer who released images to public domain. Getty of course scooped them up to relicense as stock photos. Their big mistake was sending Highsmith herself a cease and desist order for illegally using images from Getty. Prompted a big lawsuit that recently settled.
It just seems a little crazy, that if I make a game using a software, and then use a public domain asset in that game, release on itch or something, because the asset was downloaded using a service which EULA agreed upon, I am breaking the rule of distrubution and could get in trouble, but maybe not me maybe another developer, using the same asset downloaded from the same service but I say the license is CCO, I mean who's getting in trouble there then?
i don't get it, I have made inquires on the marketplace I use, so hopefully they look into it.
i am just over thinking this stuff or have a place for thought here?
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
Definitely something worh investigating. I personally would be extremely leary of any site that simultaneously allowed artists to distribute works labelled as CC0 or CC-BY or what have you AND asked users to accept an EULA that imposed its own set of restrictions on how a work could be redistributed. That seems poorly thought out at best and disingenuous at worst.
I guess the high level question is, does it matter where and under what terms you obtained a work if it is available elsewhere under a different license?
I guess the high level question is, does it matter where and under what terms you obtained a work if it is available elsewhere under a different license?
i think it will with regards to those enforcing the EULA, i think most that use EULA are a service that would charge a percentage of any sales made with regards to selling assets, which would explain the no selling,distrubution etc rule as it takes away that chance of them earning, or the charge for the platform service, whichever they they look at it, "free assets", no charge. but having the same assets elsewhere on another platform where those assets are not free, either by the author or by third party would probly put whoever in breach of the EULA, of which the assets are loaded to, and could spark some sort of liability, or something else for want of a better word. a big pain in the backside for the artist and developer using the work.
thas an example i can think of, i could be wrong, thats my best understanding of it so far.
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
I would be surprised if a EULA can specifically require end-users to forfeit rights to ever use the licensed assets under alternative licenses.
I suppose that if these services require content creators to give up all rights, or transfer ownership of the assets in exchange for some percentage of proceeds, then the content could not be released CC0. Or if it had already been released CC0 previously, the artist would not be legally able to transfer exclusive rights to the EULA service.
I found a ALTERNATE EULA on the agreement which says, you publisher can use his own license and that will take precedent over the agreed EULA, so worry over now, I suppose best just to check that all EULA has that statement as I don't know if all EULA are the same.
apoligise for worrying anyone if I did, and thanks to those who commented and looked into it.
i tried to copy paste the statement but the spam filter won't let me.
:)
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
was the EULA for itch.io? Just curious what site prompted the question.
I would be amazed if an EULA really tried to lock an artist down and prevent them from distributing a work elsewhere under whatever terms they wanted. Basically that would amount to granting the site some form of 'exclusive' distribution rights for a work. As a developer, I would not generally accept that sort of arrangement just to post a game to a storefront, and I really can't imagine artists doing the same. It's certainly the sort of arrangement you'd want to think long and hard about before agreeing too and I really can't imagine it being slipped into an EULA that realistically 90% of folks aren't going to read anyway.
i noticed it on the Gamemaker forum, someone mentioned something to do with CCO licensing, i cant find the post,(i wasnt signed in at the time).
https://marketplace.yoyogames.com/eula
it mentions on paragraph 6 what the end user cannot do with the assets, which sparked my question, but on later reading i found out on paragraph 1) that you can use another license and have the EULA ignored, but you must put it in the description of your asset for it to take effect, if you dont then the EULA agreement will be in force.
Itch to my knowledge doesnt have a EULA, only a Terms of Service, which is ok, but its worth mentioning that UNITY has a EULA, which says a simular thing, but i didnt notice anything about using an Alternatate license though, as yet anyway, i dont use unity so that doesnt effect me but may effect others, so i would say this:
I think its important that those of us that use services to sell assets(even for free), check whether or not there is a EULA in place, and to check if you can use an alternate license, and what you need to do to make it take effect, if not then those end users wont be able to actually use it on a CCO basis(only if they download from that service), which could be a put off for developers wanting to use the work, but wont take the risk of potential licensing issues later on down the line.
However don't take my word for this, thats just my view really.
:)
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |