It looks as though OGA already does everything he recommends. An "I agree to auto-upgrade to newer versions of the license" text is right there in the submissions form. I don't know how long it's been there, but if it was there on day 1, then I guess everything on the site could be bumped from CC-BY 3.0 to CC-BY 4.0 at the click of a mouse.

Although, I wonder if sometime there might arise a reason to downgrade a license version or even substitute a whole license. E.g. a new version of a CC licence is released but it has an unfortunate "bug"; or a maliciously crafted licence is released and nobody spots it until it achieves high takeup. "Newer is not always better"... However I guess that would be a much more difficult situation than just bumping a license to a newer version of the same license.

Whoa, this is actually a pretty scary article. Thanks for sharing. 

tl;dr (though everyone should): people release things under CC licenses, then hire unscrupulous "law firms" to threaten users who fail to follow attribution requirements with legal action and extort them for payment. CC-* licenses version 1-3 include a provision that the license "terminates automatically upon any breach," so you are in violation and subject to statutory damage for copyright infringement immediately if you fail to attribute properly. Version 4 includes a grace period of 30 days for users to fix the problem following notification.

I know efforts to update/overhaul OGA have... stalled... a few times... But we should really figure out a way to implement some of these recommendations at the end of the article:

Upgrade on Upload: Anytime someone tries to upload a CC image with a pre-4.0 license to a repository like the Internet Archive, Wikimedia Commons, Thingiverse or Github, they should be asked if they are the creator, and, if so, should be prompted to upgrade the license to the current version;

Upgrade in Place: Every repository that hosts CC works that carry pre-4.0 licenses should send an email to every account holder urging them to opt into a process to upgrade them immediately to the latest license.

Warnings: Every repository that hosts CC works that carry pre-4.0 licenses should place a prominent warning on every page that includes these works, explaining that this work uses an outdated and disfavored license and that a failure to correctly attribute it could attract a $150,000 statutory damages awards.

Automated Attribution: Every repository that hosts CC works should have a one-click system to create an attribution string for each of the works it hosts, which is transferred to the user's clipboard.

 

Some of these seems straightforward, like the warnings (though I worry about the chilling effect). Perhaps those licenses could be marked as "deprecated" (in favor of 4.0), with a link to an FAQ page explaining some of the differences/advantages? 

Automated attribution functionality kind of exists through the collections feature, but it is frankly not as easy to use as it should be. There really should be an option on each submission page to copy-paste an appropriately formatted attribution statement (like on Wikimedia Commons). Perhaps this could be accomplished purely in Javascript, and thus would require minimal updates to the backend? I could prototype such functionality. 

IMO the most pressing challenge is the large body of existing work here under CC-* 3.0 licenses. While a 3.0 work can be combined with a 4.0 work, the terms of both licenses apply to the result (something OGA doesn't really allow you to accurately reflect right now), and I'm not sure what the legal implications of that are for this practice.

To "upgrade" a work from 3.0 to 4.0 would require the author's explicit permission. If the author has already given that permission by checking the "Allow later license versions" checkbox, OGA could unilaterally and automatically mark all those submissions as CC-* 4.0, and should probably start doing so.  (E.g., CC-BY 3.0 becomes CC-BY 4.0, -BY-SA 3.0 becomes -BY-SA 4.0, etc.). MedicineStorm, do you think that would be possible?

It would also be great to have visibility of that checkbox on the asset page (currently it is only available to admins), no idea what's entailed there.

Finally, it's probably time to think about an OGA-BY 4.0 license, based on CC-BY 4.0. Were any lawyers involved in writing OGA-BY 3.0, or was it just done by Bart?

Wow, this is terrifying! One thing I'd recomend is making agreeing to upgrade the licenses mandatory, as long as you are the original author, so no creep can purposely post their stuff on here and farm missattributions. Also, it would be a good idea to post warnings on old licensed posts with intructions on how to correctly attribute. As well, perhaps OGA should add a mandatory agreement that if your work is found to be being used to immoraly sue people, that the license is forced to be upgraded.

sounds like a good argument for CC0 to me.

seems like the scam is mostly being run for stock photos, but i could imagine someone doing this with game art. hire someone to make a bunch of consistently styled sprites and tiles on commission, with the caveat that they are working as your employee and the copyright to the work they produce as part of their job will be automatically transferred to you as part of the contract (par for the course with fiverr, by the way) then upload the lot of it to oga, itch, and other places as CC-BY 3.0 (nothing less than 3 is accepted on oga) then sit back and wait for some tinkerers to make some games with it and hope they attribute wrong. seems unlikely and alot of bother, compared to taking pictures of lasagna and waiting for someone to put it on their blog.

there is a large body of work here that is cc-by 3.0, and many of the authors have allowed it to be upgraded to cc-by 4.0. BUT we can't see that under the current system, one has to contact MedicineStorm and ask her if you can upgrade licenses. a system wide upgrade for everything that was ticked with "The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above." would be feasible i think? then what do we do about all the cc-by 3.0 stuff from 2012 made by some obscure japanese artist whose original webpage exists only on the wayback machine?

i don't know what the answer is. as an aside, the only thing i have on here that is not CC0 is this which inherited CC-BY 3.0 from this. i have no worry that surt is gonna sue me or anyone else over the use of twin dragon's head and the turtle sprite, but if surt checked twin dragons as upgradeable to later version of license, i will update rynosaur to by 4. problem is, this is just one derivative work by one frankenspriter, among thousands of great cc-by 3 artwork made by real artists. how do we fix this? is it even fixable?

again, sounds like a good argument for CC0 to me. attribution is nice, and everyone deserves credit for their work. but i personally would rather my work have more utility and be more free in exchange for not demanding credit.

If someone changes the license on the uploaded work now then anyone that have already downloaded it on a previous versions of the license(and can prove it) then they a free to use it under that license. If some one creates a deriative from a cc-by-3.0 they can upload and use a cc-by-4 license if the original author allows it, or ticked the box. (how do we know) if not, then you can't, your have to use cc-by-3.0. anyone downloading after the change then they will be bound by that updated license. Thats probably why we have so much cc-by-3.0 assets, as others havn't known they could use a newer license, and cc-by-4.0 isn't that old is it?

I not sure medicinestorm could upgrade licenses for works even if they wanted to, i beleieve that would be up to the author to decide to do that.

yeah but medicinestorm can tell who ticked the box for agree to license under later version. it's just that we can't. so a system wide update could only work for those who had checked that box. i'm kinda in the camp that the site is fine, authors license however they want, end users of assets are bound to do their homework.

if someone wants to upload their artwork to oga, license it as cc-by 3.0, then get a sleaze lawyer to troll the internet looking for games that used that artwork but didn't attribute the original work "perfectly" then that would suck, but i think it is unlikely. as i said before, this is more of an issue with stock photos.

if i got a letter from a copyleft troll "law firm" as described in the article, i would wipe my butt with it, then call the aclu and see if they could hook me up with some liberal young lawyer to defend me if it ever came to actual legal proceedings. i highly doubt it ever would, this is an attempt to extort people into paying out of fear that they will get sued. my take anyways.

but perhaps a header warning similar to the one about nfts could be an easy compromise? "If you are intending to upload artwork to OGA under CC-By 3.0 license with the intention of engaging in what is colloquially known as 'copyleft trolling' then you may be commiting fraud."

One thing I'd recomend is making agreeing to upgrade the licenses mandatory, as long as you are the original author, so no creep can purposely post their stuff on here and farm missattributions

I'm not sure how well this would work for remixes/derivatives. For instance, I always mark "Yes, this is my own work," even though it's often a derivative of someone else's work. In that case, I can say whether my contributions should be available under later licenses, but I don't have the same authority for others... Seems like another argument for figuring out how to make the "Allow later license versions" checkbox visible to regular users...

"Allow later license versions" is checked by default and has been for some time, which is good... maybe there could be a popup warning if someone clicks to disable it, explaining that it should ONLY be unchecked if you are submitting a derivative work that you are sure can't be upgraded... or something like that?

If someone changes the license on the uploaded work now then anyone that have already downloaded it on a previous versions of the license(and can prove it) then they a free to use it under that license ... Thats probably why we have so much cc-by-3.0 assets, as others havn't known they could use a newer license...

I don't totally understand your point... but I think you are saying that, for many assets, the author originally selected CC-BY[-SA] 3.0 and "Allow later license versions", and never bothered to go back to add 4.0... but we users can't see that "Allow later license versions," so we are  stuck using 3.0, making derivatives that are released under 3.0, etc. Therefore figuring out how to make that "Allow later license versions" visible to users would be helpful and should be prioritized. If so, I agree :)

As well, perhaps OGA should add a mandatory agreement that if your work is found to be being used to immoraly sue people, that the license is forced to be upgraded.

I don't know how that would work legally or technically, and that seems like a bit of a rabbit hole to me. But certainly OGA can remove/refuse to host works if the admins determine someone is not acting in good faith (e.g. that guy mentioned in the article who was uploading stuff to Wikimedia Commons, seemingly for the purpose of luring people into making minor attribution errors, then suing/extorting them). Maybe that could be made an official statement/position somewhere, similar to what they have done with NFTs. 

there is a large body of work here that is cc-by 3.0, and many of the authors have allowed it to be upgraded to cc-by 4.0. BUT we can't see that under the current system, one has to contact MedicineStorm and ask her if you can upgrade licenses. a system wide upgrade for everything that was ticked with "The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above." would be feasible i think?

I not sure medicinestorm could upgrade licenses for works even if they wanted to, i beleieve that would be up to the author to decide to do that.

For any submission where the author checked "Allow later license versions" but only selected CC-BY-* 3.0 as the license, the author has essentially agreed to CC-BY-* 4.0 (and 5.0, 6.0, etc. if they are ever released). So yes, I think the site could automatically add the 4.0 license to those submissions (and ideally deprecate/warn against use of the content under the CC-BY-* 3.0 license). (Again, setting aside whether this is technically feasible with the current setup, it seems legally/morally sound). 

what do we do about all the cc-by 3.0 stuff from 2012 made by some obscure japanese artist whose original webpage exists only on the wayback machine? 

Be super careful and deliberate about attribution, I guess. If you attribute correctly, you should be protected from this behavior. Should...

again, sounds like a good argument for CC0 to me. attribution is nice, and everyone deserves credit for their work. but i personally would rather my work have more utility and be more free in exchange for not demanding credit.

Increasingly I'm inclined to agree... between the whole stupid DRM issue, the issue of license compatibility between different share-alike licenses, and now this nonsense... However, there is lots of great stuff here that it would be a shame to lose that stuff. And I understand that some people are more committed to "share-alike" as part of the FOSS ethos. Just seems increasingly clear that that principle comes with some costs. 

And I understand that some people are more committed to "share-alike" as part of the FOSS ethos. Just seems increasingly clear that that principle comes with some costs.

Yeah, I understand why people use SA for art and GPL for code, strong copyleft keeps derivatives "libre" as well. I just disagree with it. My opinion is, if it is Public Domain, it is libre. If there are restrictions on it, it's not. Restrictions = Not free.

I don't think the 2011 version of Drupal is gonna make this proposed update easy though........

I agree it is morally sound to automatically add the upgraded version of licenses anywhere the author checked the "allow later version..." box. The technological feasibility is ...  not impossible, but it will take some work to get a script in place to handle something like that. 

There are several features of the site that are in need of address. Namely, the fact the aforementioned checkbox is not visible to anyone but admins and the submitter, plus the broken "is this your work?" feature. In addition, I look forward to seeing a quick "copy attribution text to clipboard" button and some form of automatic derivative linking.

Interestingly, any CC-BY-SA 3.0 license can be upgraded to CC-BY-SA 4.0 already, even without the "allow later versions..." checkbox; -SA has an upgrade clause built-in, but CC-BY does not. :/

All this being said, this may be less of a risk here than many suspect/fear, for several reasons: 

As many of you have pointed out, this is predominantly affecting stock images. Copyleft trolls have a lot harder time automating the process of identifying content from OGA being used in the wild since most of it is being used in video games. As of yet, there is no "reverse video game lookup" like there is for stock images.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the "minor attribution errors" are the very thing we're obsessively clear about. Although it would be ideal to have a quick "attribution text" button, the suggested attribution guidelines in the FAQ are highly resistant to the kind of thing the article is talking about. I have no idea how often people follow those guidelines, but provided you do follow them, you have very little to worry about. 

Thirdly, I (and many of you) watch for bad experiences coming back to OGA. Any time someone says something like "I used this in a youtube video, but I got a content ID strike" You can be sure I take notice. It doesn't mean the submitter is a copyleft troll. Sometimes it's just a mistake. But we always take them down immediately until it's resolved. If anyone comes across a "bad experience" leading from OGA in your internet travels, let me know right away. We've seen a few copyright trolls, and they were quickly dealt with, but I have yet to encounter even a rumor of copyleft trolling on OGA. Let me know if you see something suspicious.

Lastly, if you think you may be the target of a copyleft/right troll, inform me so that I may unleash the full force of righteous wrath upon the evildoers! We have access to legal resources, and my rage fuels pro-bono defenses.

and the firmament opened up, and the goddess did showether her handiwork

This sounds very similar to copyleft trolling in the software space. The GPLv2 has a termination clause as well, and the troll can demand licensing fees if some minor error was made in attribution or source/modification distribution. Even with the GPLv3 it can happen (GPLv3 has a "curing" clause) with users who simply don't understand the legal-ese of the license and take the troll at their word.

I for one welcome any efforts to head this threat off before anything bad happens involving open game art, however unlikely it seems. I'll try to make better use of the Copyright/Attribution section on mine and other's content here, and pay closer attention to whether content is licensed with the latest (4.0) version of CC or simply CC0.