oh I see... only small bits of their images could be used to create a big one, or change it enough, so such new one would not even look like any images they have... you know what.. better not even touch it :), I am already scared enough without GoodTextures hehe :/, unless I am putting it solely on a model or map bundle (what I may never do as I am mainly a coder)...

To anyone interested, I just found this:

http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary

I think I will just giveup on anything CC-BY-SA... and even CC-BY... for my commercial closed source project. Good most assets I got were CC-0!

The CC-0 databases seems the only really safe option for a closed source commercial application of a begginer indie developer.

The CC-0 databases here and in other places seems humoungously enough to keep me calm enough to be able to focus on coding...

The CC-0 licence doesnt have that specific limitation about sounds/music and its synchronization with images (what would actually be a source code in my case), that I almost overlooked...

EDIT: I am obliged to credit all the works, what is important.

EDIT(again): I can re-release everything I modify as CC-0 (not less tho, cannot release it as proprietary, must be at least CC-0), but only all the CC-0 modified content must follow that rule. I can keep my binaries proprietary, my sources closed, and my other created or bought assets proprietary too. (or not?)

The CC-0 legal code is much more readable than others, this time I did not get stunned when reaching half of it!

And... I just expect I am completely right this time? :)

this post happened quite a while ago... however I guess the whole thing is still relevant cx ^^^^^

I really like BY-SA, I always thought its limitations pretty much limited people to using it in open source games, and I'm totally fine with that. If an artist is willing to release art under an open source licence, its only fair they should be allowed to restrict its use to open source projects.

There are a lot of game developers who are scared that they can't sell games containing BY-SA works, but you can definately sell open source games.  There are also a lot of artists who don't want their work being included in a game which is then sold without giving them a cut, thats actually a really common concern from artists considering open licences. SA gives them a little peace of mind on that front.  I also really like the NC licence,  but game devs also hate that one. 

@p0ss

No no, see, I respect and even like them wanting to prevent their work from providing income to some proprietary project. I dont hate them! I myself would like to make such media if I had the skill..

My only concern is to find a way to have a quickstart to my project, I am solely a coder... and I dont want my project look like crap...

I think also that just promoting who created all that media may not be enogth for some ppl, on the other side, if I intended to pay them all, could not rest enough for myself (lol), who said I will be successful?

So basically, I need to be sure, if I can use at least CC-0 without being sued... cuz I may have no money either to pay any lawyer... AND I do NOT want to be forced to release my sorce code, where a small company could grab and create a big project and deal with all that stuff that I cannot alone, what would prevent me from get any income from my work... lead to depression and finally... if I am lucky, enlightment! and utter mind freedom from this world (heh?)

Unfortunately, till now, nobody seems able to make it clear if a indie developer can survive using any "free" media out there.

And this thing that I can sell an open source project... sorry but that makes no sense to me (I know it is wide spread and you are just saying what you read out there), it is like putting hope on something that is not granted at all...

 So, my current approach is create and sell my project with my crap media (made within my limited capabilities).

Inform the user (from my very own site) that he/she can download a free package published somewhere with CC-0 adapted content, everything properly named so my hardcoded links will find and use all the CC-0 media. So the game will actually look good. So any game that uses it will look good, because it will be a free package (I expect I can also update it instead of creating a new one, but that "I will?" discover later...)

Can I do it without trouble?

Is there any License Legal Code exerpt that can grant me that? (this humoungous FAQ https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ, may have something, still reading it (it is more readable than lecal code))

Till then I will develop my game under my limited media skills :(. I am sure I am not the only one who doesnt want to have a boss out there..

I don't understand what you're saying, Teken.  CC0 assets have absolutely no restrictions on usage.  There's no reason to not include it in your game unless you suspect the licensing wasn't legitimate (ie, it was wrongly put on by someone other than the author).

You can also use OGA-By without issue as long as you properly give credit as specified.

If I'm sharing and somebody else wants to use that content, it's only fair for them to share equally.  If not, they can hire somebody or make art themselves and use whatever licensing terms they want.  I do wish CC-by-SA were more flexible/compatible and more understable to the non-lawyer, for reasons that have already been brought up by others in this thread.  The reality of whether or not a single SA asset can be used in an "all rights reserved" game is unresolved, and if another license takes its place in the future as the standard copyleft art license, then all of the SA assets become far less useful (like an old iPhone charger).  With that said, I use such licenses for idealistic reasons because I believe in liberty and sharing.  If nobody else wants to drink the copyleft Kool-Aid, that's not my problem.

As far as commercialization, FOSS games can be sold but I haven't really seen any good examples of them doing very well.  Crowdfunding seems somewhat promising in this regard.

@Teken It seems like you might be confused.  CC0, CC-by, and CC-by-SA are three different licenses.  If something is CC0, you can use it for any purpose whatsoever.  You can put them in your own work and slap "all rights reserved" on them if you want, whether modified or not.  Of course, the ethical thing to do would be to release them under a permissive license, but it's not a legal requirement.

@Teken. Its very hard for an indie developer to live from free assets alone with all of the legal stuff that needs to be considered, also limitations. You have to just read licenses. Sometimes you have to give credit, sometimes all you have to do is say if it wasmodified, if was. I honestly dont think you should worry about being sued. A really good thing you may want to do is list all of the free assets you use for a project, each row indicating the asset (and name) the name or aliasof the owner or publisher and the license it is under . After that by each asset I put a small bit of text saying what can be done with it. If its public domain I put a Check or something.

@Redshrike I new CC-BY had some catch, I am reading OGA-By now thx!

   @johndh,

 I thought any CC0 were obliged to be redistributed as CC0 at least see here https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offer...

Btw, just thinking it simple, CC0 is already available on internet as CC0, so ppl getting it from my project or somewhere else would make no difference; unless I modify it, but then, according o that wiki, I will be forced to re-share it at least as CC0.

And just thinking more, if I modify it so much that I create something so cool that I would like it to be unique on my project, then I would be messed hehe.. better not even consider using that, may be take some few photographs of your own that looks like what you want, and do the work on that one. Just leave that one for later, and use a placeholder til then. 

 @vipergames,

thats the point, I am just studing how shall I behave/do things, to not have trouble later, and til now CC0 will be my primer choice. And if I find something impressive on CC-BY or OGA-By, I will consider it too but I will re-read both licenses to make it sure I wont mess up later.

I do not intend to live from free assets alone, unless.. they are good enough! and, til now, I am impressed, even with CC0 content!

I consider that if a game becomes very successful using CC content, that would be a great promotion to all such content, and for the license itself btw.

The CC package made available at release time would be re-usable by anyone, may be my project is visually unique (as overall) on the beggining only, but that's ok. I think that is part of deal. Also, if my project gets great acceptance, such package could be even improved further by others that one day I could download it back and see my project looking even better without I even touching it. Becase ppl using that package got inspired and improved on it, and keeping each asset on the same license I will be able to re-use it, as anyone will :).

My current credits line is like this (as was specified at CC site as sufficing atribution):

This work, 'assets/Sounds/Effects/MyRenamedFile.ogg', is a derivative of 'CC0downloadedAndExtractedFile.wav' by Author (usernameOnTheSiteIfDiffersFromAuthor), downloaded from 'https://someUrlWhereYouCanSeeTheUsernameAtLeastAndTheFileOrPackage', used under CC-0. "MyRenamedFile.ogg" is licensed under CC-0 by MyName.

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution

Being both a content creator, and an indie game designer, I don't automatically write off the BY-SA license, though I do get how people would be apprehensive of using content under it. It's supremely vague whether someone must submit their work into the CC-BY-SA license upon using BY-SA works within it, however, my understanding is (and I don't claim to be a legal expert, it just makes sense) that the only time someone must put something under the BY-SA license, is if they've modified or used that work exclussively for the purpose of re-releasing that single work into the public. I don't think it can dictate how users release their own works, as far as I know, the only thing that can dictate release is NC (non-commercial), since the work cannot legally be used to make money. But even that doesn't dictate that the user's work MUST be BY-SA or similar.
For example:
A user is making a game that has both BY-SA and BY-NC (or similar) works attatched to it, the user cannot sell the game, but to my knowledge they don't have to release it to CC-BY-SA either. However, they must attribute each work used, and what license each work falls under.

  @Jaden,    

 the package with that content must be BY or BY-NC (in case there is any NC on it) https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_create_a_collection_that_inclu...

I think also, we could prepare several smaller packages with specific licenses for the package, all being used by the same applciation, but still several different packages.

EDIT: also CC-BY-SA dictates all further media generated based on these works, like videos, screenshots, sound music etc.

EDIT: also, what do you think about usage of any CC content on a proprietary closed source application? see previous comments with further thoughts 

  For anyone interested, I just found some interesting common sense notions to CC0 (public domain) media, just to be aware of in case someone identifies their property and want to mess with you (and they will be able to).

"Understand "public domain" as the permission to freely use an image without asking permission from the photographer or the illustrator. Thus, the creator of the work will not sue you for violating his/her copyrights. The creator, however, is not responsible for the content of the picture. It is your responsibility to make sure, displaying the image does not violate any other law. That is the essence of public domain images."

http://pixabay.com/en/blog/posts/public-domain-images-what-is-allowed-an...

I have been licensing my art by-sa with the idea that it encourages people to pay it forward. I had not considered that it would limit or complicate their ability to use the art.

To my knowledge none of my art has been used in a project. I'll change the license to CC-BY and see what happens.

 @ulf,

I understand the CC-BY-SA restriction only apply to proprietary projects indie developers that doesnt want to release all (or some part of) their work under any CC license, keeping some of it proprietary what will make the project unique.

Also, I think you can/should only add a license, not change, as ppl that may have already downloaded it will credit you under that old selected license. 

EDIT: btw, consider OGA-By :)

Going back to Kaetemi's "ten cutouts" analogy - I'd agree with Kaetemi's later comment that it's only when the game is run that they are combined into an adapted work. To go back to the analogy, whilst distributing a landscape created from the cutouts would be an adaption, suppose instead I distribute the cutouts, along with a set of instructions for how to arrange those cutouts into a landscape?

Though yes, the lack of clarity does mean that BY-SA isn't ideal for games.

p0ss: "I really like BY-SA, I always thought its limitations pretty much limited people to using it in open source games"

There is nothing in BY-SA that suggest it can only be used for Open Source. Even if a game is considered an Adaption, that means the game (at least in binary form) has to be released as BY-SA (which would be problematic for many Open Source projects too).

Teken: "I thought any CC0 were obliged to be redistributed as CC0 at least see here https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offer..."

Which bit are you referring to? The chart says that PD (CC0) can be relicenced in an adaption as any licence.

Note that in some countries like the US, you can't claim copyright on a copy of public domain material, but that doesn't mean you'd be sued for not marking the files as CC0, it just means you won't successfully be able to sue other people. (See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs .)

@mdwh +1

That link considering differences between countries is very interesting indeed.

So It seems that, if a developer doesnt attribute a CC0 work (even supperficially) to its author, it is hard to have any problem.

Also, if in the list of credits, one or another is missing (no matter why), there will be hard to have any problems either.

Tho, I believe, if we redistribute a work and say it is of our authorship, without providing proper (or at least supperficial) credits to the real authors of each specific work, that specific situation could be an easily sueable one, as a non attributed work could fall under self attribution.

So, what I actually do, that I think is fair enough and even a good thing, is to create my credits txt file in a "proper credit" mode, for all CC0 content, as specified at the CC-BY rules: with author name, download link, adaptation information and so on. I think is a good way to retribute something to the real authors: recognition. :)

Can I use a game asset under the CC BY SA in a commerical mobile game? premium or free with ads?

Just limit the content you use to CC-BY and CC0 and you will be fine, CC-BY just requires you to give credit and CC0 has no restrictions.

Monetizing CC-BY-SA or GPL content is hard to impossible, so do not bother with it.

or you just ask the creator for permission and then you can monetize it 

While it generally works, I would not recommend it, it just generates drama in many cases.

...I honestly interpreted Share-Alike to mean, for example, if I made a piece of art and someone reskinned it, that they release that planet under the same license as the original. I had no idea that it restricted everything including projects down to "If you use my art, you must release the entire project as Share-alike." That was never my intention.

Now I know why my resources are barely used. I wish I had this clarification sooner and I will change my license requirements as soon as possible to make it more like how I envisioned it: As long as you credit me, do as you will; all I ask is that you share minor edits under the same licence if you edit anything I make.

I'm going to start changing everything to CC-BY now.

@Cougarmint

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-...

to be recomended against applying CC to software clearly means it is possible and.. as I understood, CC-BY-SA spreading over any remaining bundled parts is possible too :/

A bit more of the same: "Note: Bintray does not accept Creative Commons licenses for packages; these licenses were never meant to be used for software. For more information, please visit the Creative Commons website." - https://bintray.com/docs/usermanual/uploads/uploads_uploads.html (not meant doesnt mean not allowed :/)

Actually, I found this:

"While we recommend against using a CC license on software itself, CC licenses may be used for software documentation, as well as for separate artistic elements such as game art or music."

The artwork is all I am actually applying the license to. Code would fall under GPL (or whatever the game studio software license is.) So in reference to my work, as long as you credit me, I could care less if you use it in software or even in a Graphics Editor to make a greeting card.

When a software uses CC-BY-SA art does the software also become CC-BY-SA then and the art also become GPL as the software?

 No. The software is not a derivative of the art so the software is not subject to the Share Alike clause. 

If that is true the share alike clause has no meaning and you could use it in proprietary software as well without limitations.

It might not have the meaning you expect it to, but I wouldn't say it has no meaning. Yes, you could use CC-BY-SA licensed art in proprietary licensed, closed-source, commercial software... but the artwork would still have to be CC-BY-SA, and therefore freely available even if the rest of the software isn't. All derivatives of that art must also be CC-BY-SA and freely available, even if the person making the derivatives were the proprietary closed-source commercial company. My point was it is the derivatives of the asset that inherit the license. It is really unlikely anyone will adapt an art asset into computer code. They are both together in the same product, sure. But that doesn't make one a derivative of the other.

You'll note my above statement is only my opinion on the topic. I'm not a lawyer, and even small changes to the scenario can change the answer to the question. You'll also note my opinion disagrees with Clint's opinion on the topic above. He's been doing this a lot longer than I have, so keep that in mind.

That being said, I think my scenario assumes the license on the game binary is separate from the art asset collections. If you wanted to use all one license for everything, that's a different story.

So it only counts for derivative works and everything else is meaningless as the original thing is still available under CC-BY-SA?

I don't think this is true, since it would make most of the CC license meaningless, it would then just apply for the rare case someone creates a derivative and then you have problems defining a derivative again.

Why is computer code so much different and does not influence the whole creation? A digital image consists of computer code as well.

Why does the license apply to the whole work, if you mix an art with art, but not if you mix it with "code"?

All this logic does not add up.

I see CC-BY-SA as similar to GPL, if you use it the WHOLE thing becomes GPL, same with CC-BY-SA.

The license doesn't always apply to the whole "work" even when art is mixed with art. If I have a cc-by asset AND a cc-by-sa assset, and I use them both in one project- depending on how the asset collections are arranged- that doesn't make both assets cc-by-sa. If I DERIVE new art from the cc-by-sa asset, yes; both the original and derived assets are cc-by-sa. I'm not trying to skirt the law or suggest you should disregard what the artist intended. I'm saying, legally, licenses can be kept separate by individual "collections" of assets, even within a single project.

If you mix art with code, yes that might make cc-by-sa apply to the output product. My scenario does not mix art with code. My hypothetical game engine remains separate from the art. One uses the other, but it does not derive one from the other. If all it takes to constitute a derivation is to have software display an asset in various ways, then whatever operating system and browser you use to display this website should be subject to CC-BY-SA. If you took a screenshot of my game, where cc-by-sa art was displayed along with other art, I suppose that screenshot might be considered a derivative. But I didn't make the screenshot. You did. I just made the game engine. That's where it gets sticky. There are a lot of fringe cases or weird scenarios where the answer changes.

There are existing cases where a cc-by-sa photo was used in a commercial photo album not licensed cc-by-sa. The courts considered the photo album to not be in violation of the photo's license. The main takeaway from this discussion (that's been going since 2012 at least) is that it is unclear.

Every situation is different and not subject to generalization. The only thing you can do to be sure is to consult a lawyer. That is exactly what I did. The lawyer specializing in intellectual property law advised me of roughly what I stated above: "art is not a derivative of game code, even if the game code uses the art". However, this was very specific to the way I used my hypothetical assets and it won't apply to everyone.

Or better yet, ask the artist(s). Clint intended his -SA art to be viral and inherited by the game engine. Out of respect for his wishes, I would license my entire game engine as -SA if I used any of his assets in my game... Or simply not use his assets.

So making a screenshot is a derivative art and the license applys? This is one of the most ridiculous things I heard so far, since making screenshots of anything is always fine, even with the most proprietary stuff.

So suddenly a free open source game becomes much more restrictive than everything else? That did not work out as intended then.

What you do is writing a game engine, which is a software, that is why it is called game engine and not game, but a game is significantly defined through the art and cannot be used without it and I guess we are talking about games here. You probably just distribute some example art with your product, but the product does work without it, but a game does not.

I'm against those separations since they make the whole open source concept mostly useless with games. Since I cannot just go and modify the game and make a derivative for myself, I would have to remove a significant part of the game, then rebuild it all by myself again and after all this work I can start to modify it, so why I would want to use it to begin with? Since game engines are available already and rebuilding some game logic is basically a similar amount of work than to strip art from a game with game logic and rebuilding that art again just to recycle the game logic.

Many of those open source licenses sound nice in theory, but in practice they sometimes become even worse than proprietary content, so where is the whole point then?

"So making a screenshot is a derivative art and the license applys? This is one of the most ridiculous things I heard so far..."

I agree.

"So suddenly a free open source game becomes much more restrictive than everything else? That did not work out as intended then."

I agree.

"Many of those open source licenses sound nice in theory, but in practice they sometimes become even worse than proprietary content, so where is the whole point then?"

I agree. Even in open source games I avoid using GPL or CC-BY-SA for exactly the reasons you stated. I wasn't saying this is what I would do. Only that it is something people might do.

Yes strictly legally speaking a lot of stuff is not okay, but practically it is almost always fine, just when you make money it can become a problem sometimes.

But so many people do lets plays and take donations or get advertismenet money on their videos etc and lets plays are also copyright infringement,  but they are tolerated in almost all cases.

Same goes with modding proprietary games, which is also fine in most cases and that is what counts for most people, can you do it or not.

I'm getting confused by all this mess -- I can see why SA is hardly used in anything.

So, what is the best license then? Would CC-BY allow others to sell their games, make screenshots featuring the art used, etc without all this mess? As I said before, I don't care if they sell their game, make promotional stuff with my art, etc, just as long as my name and the pack they used is in the credits and a link back to the pack so that others can use it.

The reason I am so adamant about due credit is because I've been a victim of Art Theft before (it was a high school project) and I had little recourse to defend myself. Since then, I've been reluctant to share my stuff without due credit; that's why I'm weary of CC-0. My fear with CC-0 is that someone will take my art, copyright it under their name (for instance, taking a planet and copyrighting it along with their other game assets) and then turn around and slam me with Copyright Infringement, forcing me to take my work off this site. Of course, I would fight tooth and nail in court, but really, that's what I want to avoid in the first place. And unfortunately, there are greedy people out there who can/will do just that.

I'm sorry if I sound paranoid; I just want to make sure I am protected from that and I get credit for the effort I put in to making my free assets, but I don't want people to feel like they can't use my resources in a closed-source game, either.

I went to use CC0 for everything I do since I had people asking me if they had to credit me if they would use my stuff and then show screenshots or videos of it and I thought it was common sense that showing stuff is always fine without credit, but it looks like it is not.

Regarding art theft, even with CC0 people cannot just take your stuff, claim they have made it and copyright it, however they can copyright their derivative work made from yours.

You even keep so called "moral rights" of your work, so even with CC0 you still remain moral rights and have some control over where your art is used.

But this all depends on the country you live in and the laws, for example in Germany, where I live, making something public domain is not possible by law. If you made something then you are author and copyright holder with all the rights, no matter what happens. CC0 is basically just a promise made by you, that you will not make use of your copyright rights.

And regarding the fear in your content being used in a commercial closed source project is very small, since people in the business who make money with it, usually have better art themselves and do not rely on stealing from amateurs.

On the other hand if someone really wants to, he will steal your stuff anyway, does not matter what license and if it is not possible, he will just copy/rebuild it as best as he can.

There is a slight misunderstanding here. I have no fear of my art being used in a closed commercial project or even a full DRM AAA title (for which I would feel honored) if they really wanted. All I ask in return is for my name to be slapped on their end credits.

@Courgarmint: In my opinion, CC-BY sounds ideal for your desires. Or possibly OGA-BY since it has no DRM restriction. I'd dual-license cc-by+oga-by, then everyone's happy.

Though I should say there is very low risk of someone flipping the license on one of your cc0 works and suing you for it. Besides the obvious "the law doesn't allow that" thing, I think it would be trivially easy to get the suit dismissed with nothing more than a motion of summary judgment showing you released it CC0 before they released it proprietary. All the judges I know would be like "WTF? Case dismissed." without you even being in a courtroom.

Edit: Also, as Clint Bellanger said, screenshots and the like are only a problem if they aren't fair use.

Thank you for clarifying that for me, Medicine. I appreciate it. I think CC-BY is exactly what I was looking for, and I will tag OGA-BY when I get the chance to make it more clear that I am OK with DRM stuff. I also added a FAQ to all my released art so that I can hopefully clarify my intent. <3