If it helps, I've given permission to use my LPC artwork as CC-BY 3.0.

Uhmm, the code is most likely not effected by the art-work license, but I guess it would go against the idea of most LPC contributors (unlike Sharm) to include them in a closed source & for-profit game.

Beside that, IANAL but I think you will actually have more trouble with the additional artwork you plan to add and sale, which in my oppinion will likely be effected by the CC-By-SA, especially if it is something directly based on the LPC artwork (for example additional outfits or equipment of the characters, or additional well integrated tileset parts).

tl-dr: Legally it might be possible, but most of your additional artwork will probably have to be CC-by-SA also.

For the record, the original character bases are also available under CC-By.  Note that this doesn't include any expansions done by others during the contest.

Re: CC-By-SA: it's a mess for the reasons you stated, and I generally don't use it myself.  I think copyleft is a great idea, but -SA doesn't do it for me.

Haha, yes, I ran across the same issue when i first joined OGA and caused a lot of commotion.  As far as it goes, I'd say that if you'd like to be safe, either only use CC-by-3.0 or assume they want you to release your source code.  

However, you can do what I did and ask the artists on a person-by-person basis if they'd either release their artwork to you under CC-BY-3.0, or waive the SA clause pertaining to code.  Although I'm not sure how legal it is to only waive one part of an SA clause.. only the artist can try to go after you.. and if they are ok with it, you're pretty safe.  Also, if you had them telling you that it was ok in writing.. it'd most likely hold up in court, though I'm not a lawyer..

If you're writing a web game, there's no obligation to release the source code of the backend under a free software license just because the artwork is CC BY-SA.  For the most part, artwork and source are considered separate layers... there are some areas where this can get a bit messy: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_con...

But any derivative artwork you are obligated to release under CC BY-SA or GPLv3 or later... some of the original artwork has also been released by redshrike and sharm under CC BY also, but generally if you're going to make use of the full set of LPC things out there, you might as well just consider the whole bulk of things under such copyleft.  It sounds like you're interested in giving back on that layer anyway, so great!

BTW, you're under no obligation to release the source code under a free software license, but I think it would be pretty compelling if you did!

I normally use the CC-BY-SA license on OGA because I want the art based on my art to be shared as well.  You do not need to share the code of the game that uses the art, just the derivative art assets.  There are some who would argue otherwise, but if it really worries you, contact me (or whatever other artist) privately and negotiate on a different license, as Curt suggested.

It's a difficult license because the definition of 'derivative work' is not well put.

I fail to see how the plain text representation of code could at all derive its function from art. Maybe the compiled binary if you package the art with your distribution, but releasing the source code does nothing to the cause.

It's probably safe. Worst case, they'll contact you and ask you to remove it. Everyone i've seen distribute CC-BY-SA has the intentions of just keeping their work under the license (i.e, just the art, not the code)

IANAL, but I believe that game is not considered derivative work, and neither are other game assets used with "Work", unless it's synchronized with "Work" (like using soundtrack with video to create cutscene).

To me it seems that game is considered "Collection", not "Adaptation". Here's how Collection is defined:

"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.

 Since game assets are separate and independent of each other and together assembled into a collective whole, game itself is "Collection", just like encyclopedia is.

 Section 4(a) of the license contains following:

This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License.

Full legal code can be found here

Can anyone point me in the right direction to find the original LPC assets that are available for commercial use? having a hard time finding them..

Any of the LPC sprites are; they're all released under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.

There's some confusion about the "SA" part about the license, but the license makes it pretty clear overall; if you make a derivative of an "SA" asset and want to release it online (or show it publicly) it must be released under the same SA license.

The confusion stems from what a derivative is, but I don't get why this is considered as such. I've read online a bunch and Will on here agrees with me; a derivative work only applies to directly extending or modifying the asset itself.

Putting an "SA" asset into a program, game, or any other kind of application does NOT make that game a derivative. You just need to specify that the assets are released under a different license as the source code.

And yes, the "BY" part of the CC forces you to attribute the original artist(s) in the way they specify. Oftentimes this also requires you to link back to a website; I think LPC requires you to link back to OpenGameArt.

If you use CC-BY assets in a commercial game and do not attribute them properly, it is illegal. If you use CC-SA assets in a commercial game and create derivative works of them but do not release them in the same license (if its CC-BY-SA for example, it must be released under CC-BY-SA), it is also illegal, regardless of whether its attributed or not.

I can provide an example of how attribution would look like if you want. Unfortunately, this whole dilemma has caused much confusion and has caused a ton of users not to use -SA assets at all. I originally got confused by this as well, but I'm not afraid of using -SA assets anymore.

Now, on the other hand, if the assets have things like -NC or -ND, that's a different story. I don't think OGA allows those types, though. -NC means non-commercial, so no commercial usage whatsoever. -ND means no derivatives. You can make a derivative if you want, but you can't release it publicly. Again, though, I don't think OGA has these licenses.

@Dwapoon

Here are the base LPC assets:

http://lpc.opengameart.org/static/lpc-style-guide/

Wow and here I've been avoiding -SA-assets like the plague just because I sometime in the future MIGHT earn a buck from any of my games :)

But on this site, in the FAG, there is stated that

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL. If you're trying to sell a game, this is probably something you want to avoid, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well.

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

I don't think I would want to go against that even if the license could be interpreted otherwise as artists who have put assets here might have read the same thing and did not expect the asset to be used in closed source projects...

I'm well aware of the fact, and I've found that a lot of artists on here have been noticing this fact and have been rethinking the idea to use CC-BY-SA because of it. Several other people have pointed out the flaw in the fact that the FAQ is heavily misleading in that regard, and the one concern I have is people releasing their assets under CC-BY-SA thinking that it forces developers to share the source code of any project they include the assets in.

And either way, neither CC-BY nor CC-BY-SA say you can't sell anything with the content in it. In fact, you could actually sell the assets directly if you wanted to, TECHNICALLY its legal, but the assets are already available online for free anyway so its really pointless. And that is the problem if the FAQ is correct; its kinda pointless trying to sell a game if the source code is freely available online.

I'm still trying to avoid some -SA assets, but for the most part I'm not really too worried about it anymore. Mainly because I REALLY want to use LPC sprites.

Granted, my idea for trying to make money off of my games is get my games on as many platforms as possible for free, then provide a subscription service for cloud save files. In other words, you can play for free, but for a monthly subscription you can just login and load your save file on any available platform instead of the save files being restricted to just one at a time. So you could jump from the PC to console if you wanted, or take it on your phone on the go.

I would be sharing part of my source code (namely the engine) as open source anyway, though the full game I wouldn't want to be open source.

Wow that's a really cool business idea!

Its only an idea right now. I want to make games, and if I want to make games more often, I'd need to find some way of making at least a little money off of them. Of course they'd also have ads and the subscription would remove the ads, but the bigger idea I had of course is cloud save files.

Naturally I hate microtransactions and don't want users to be able to pay to win. Actual DLC would be a different story, but I still have concerns about that idea as well.

I'd like to make games too. If I manage to make good games that can make money in some way I like the idea of not getting sued for using free assets on OGA. I'd like to think people put things on OGA because they want to see them used in a game somewhere, not because they want to set a legal trap. Any time I have questions I ask the artist who made something I want to use. That seems to be the only sure method of making games 100% safely.

That's a really good point, I guess artists do want their stuff to be used. I just wish that there was a 100% way to be sure using SA-art was ok, right now I filter it away in my searches but that might be a bit stupid, lots of really nice stuff on here :) 

There is one 100% way to be sure it's OK--ask the artist.  It's annoying, especially on some LPC assets with multiple authors, but if you get individual permissions from them you are as much in the clear as you ever can be (I guess short of a formal written contract, anyway).

The SA stipulation just means that any art you base specifically on the art needs to be shared under the same license.  That does not mean you have to make your games use the same license.  That said, not everyone understands the license when they use it, so you should ask the artists, anyway.

I would love to hear that someone was using my art.  It's the ultimate form of flattery to me.

Eh.. but the problem with asking artists is sometimes they take a very long time to respond or never respond at all..

I'm not in a position where I can start working of an art asset and then be able to easily replace it if the artist comes forward and says no, or never answers me at all..

I don't want a whole project to hinge on whether or not certain artists get back to me with their consent..

..and messaging each artist, waiting in hopes to hear from them.. It just takes too much time and energy away from actually working on the game..

It's my opinion but I tend to see things similar to Dwapook. If an artist lists their stuff on a public website with an open license they've already gone through the trouble of releasing it to the world. If I have to go to each artist and ask permission to use their stuff (and possibly never get a response) it's torture; I don't want to be that fat kid staring through a candy store window drooling on the glass because I can't have any. I'm happy when I get a response but I'm fearful to use something if the artist hasn't been active for a while.

Because of license concerns I tend to use the most generic size assets (16x16, 32x32, or vector assets). They can be swapped if needed. I don't like starting a project with one set of assets and having to shift in the middle because of license issues, it defeats the purpose of using open game art.

@William.Thompsonj: I really don't see open licenses as a way to justify not asking for permission, but if you're working on a hobbyist or non-commercial project, I doubt permissions really matter.  In most scenarios, the artist would not have the means to take you to court, and if he did file a claim, you wouldn't be able to pay him anything after he won.  Therein lies the problem, accountability.

Of course, your plan of using only generic art is silly to me for another reason.  I can swap any art for any other art with enough knowledge of how to do so.  For example, 3D models can be scaled up/down if needed, and 2D assets can also be shrunk to smaller sizes without much loss of detail thanks to anti-aliasing algorithms.  Upscaling is the only reason vector art is better in that regard.

@Tap

If someone posts art publicly with an open license they want people to use it. I'm pretty sure nobody will be upset if you use it in a project as long as you follow the terms of the license. If someone did get upset about their stuff being used according to the terms they chose they shouldn't post their work publicly with an open license in a place that's meant to give away their work. That would be the same as me posting code somewhere very public (like GitHub) and getting upset because someone used it to make something else.

@Tap

The bit about swapping art - I agree with you, it's reasonable to resize and swap stuff. It's just not convenient and can ultimately stop a hobby project dead in it's tracks if you're doing it for fun. Plus, if it's a semi-serious project and you weren't anticipating the swap it can put a serious hamper in the process since you either have to resize the art or refactor the code to account for new assets. It's always easier if you can keep what you started using until the end because it creates less shuffling and less needless work to fix things.

I agree with your comment about asking permission too by the way - there is no substitute for asking permission when you're not sure. If something is questionable or there is any measure of doubt it's always best to ask. When it's cut and dry it's easy to take what you see and go with it though; no need to ask if the artist has made it easy.

"I really don't see open licenses as a way to justify not asking for permission"

I don't remember when or where, but I'm pretty sure bart said one of the main points of how OGA is set up is so artists can release art without having to be constantly bugged by people asking them the same thing over and over: "Can I use your art for xyz?". In which case, open licenses here are very much intended to justify not asking for permission, no? ...assuming the person who would need permission is not violating any of the terms of the license.

I don't think people should avoid asking permission, especially when they are in doubt, but sometimes the point of the license is so people don't have to.

Yeah, if you're asking a question that I've already explained clearly in the rules or author comments I get annoyed.  It's like saying "You're not important enough for me to read your rules, but I'm important enough that you should drop everything and restate them just for me."  If you've read them and just need clarification or are asking something new, that's fine.  I answer those right away.

Aye.. Without a more clear definition of what constitutes a derivative within the license itself, it kind of seems pointless,, and at this point altering the license would cause problems because of the differing interpretations the artists had when consenting to it.. x.X!

Its really not hard to find online at all. GPL makes it very clear that anything you use a GPL asset in, whether it be some code or an actual asset (code snippets are considered to short to be warranted for usage in GPL, although you could license them as such) must be used in a free (open source) application.

CC-BY (including -SA) says nothing about source code whatsoever and everywhere I've looked indicates that source code has nothing to do with derivatives. Derivatives are only created by altering the individual asset itself or extending it in such a way that an asset directly relies on it. People are constantly assuming that derivatives are much broader than they really are.

e.g. You can make magic animations that could work with LPC characters but could work with other things as well. That's not a derivative and doesn't need to be released under the same license, although it COULD be used with LPC if you really wanted to. If you took an LPC magic animation and updated it to create a new one, that is a derivative.

At the same time, people shouldn't use a license if they don't understand exactly what it entails. Personally I think it makes itself very clear. What does source code have to do with using LPC sprites in it? You can use literally anything with source code.

If you want to force an asset to be used in free/open source applications (the application can still be paid, it just must be open source; which notably an HTML5 application would be no matter what anyway), you should just use GPL, not CC-BY-SA.

EDIT: There are questions as to what would count as a derivative and what wouldn't, but not really when it comes to differentiating between source code and assets used in a game. This is really when it comes to "is this asset a derivative of another asset or no?"

This can even come in the form of source code, but only making derivatives of the source code directly. For example, you've got an open source application. You write an extension for that open source application, but the extension could possibly be used in something else and is not necessarily directly tied to that application. This is where it becomes questionable if its a derivative or not.

This could come in the form of assets, too. Creating sprites that work with LPC, and perhaps even look similar to LPC, but aren't necessarily tied directly to LPC and could be used elsewhere. Most people just consider it LPC and must be CC-BY-SA, but its questionable if that's the case.

I found examples like this online, but I barely found anything related to using free assets in commercial games, and when I did find something, it all indicated that source code and assets are counted separately and can be licensed separately.

This thread prompted someone to ask me (in private) to clarify the situation with respect to my LPC artwork. I answer them here, so that the next person does not have to go through the trouble of private contact again.

First off, I am not a lawyer and all that I write here is not legal advice; it is merely my personal opinion. And one opinion I have is that, as soon as someone grants a license, their opinion about what that license means does not matter anymore. What matters is what a court would decide what the license means. So there is no legal need to contact authors. If you think they might have been misled about the license, it is still courteous, though.

A propos asking for permission: Most of my LPC artwork is based on prior work. So if you think you have to ask me, you might also want to ask further upstream. And with some LPC base assets having a copyright no more specific than by 11 authors, you have a can of worms...

I have not read CC-BY-SA 3.0 in detail. My intention when using that license was to provide the derivative under the same licenses as the original. My understanding of the license was based on the short summary at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. The essence of which was that CC-BY-SA is not more restrictive that GPL.

I have read GPL 3.0 in detail. I do not think that using the art in a game would trigger the copyleft (i.e. make the game a derivative of the art). In normal cases, that is.

So if you want to use the art without publishing the source of your game engine:
- Read the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and judge for yourself,
- or just use the GPL 3.0. After all you have the option to accept either license.

If you use the art under the GPL, you have to make sure, though, to publish the source code of the art. That's no big deal, really. When I put art under the GPL I usually specify what I consider to be the source form.

I can understand why you wanted clarifications. Thanks for asking.

I had an idea(it's kinda crude, I admit), what if you distributed the game and the Stallmanized assets separately? Then make a system that implements the art assets(can be replaced with user-made ones too, think resource packs in Minecraft) and then you have not made the game a derivative, the end-user has made a derivative using the program. Any asset with the same name in the data structure or whatever can replace it. Could have an alternate or default one, too.

(I personally think all-or-nothing copyleft is good for large code projects like Linux, not art assets that a corporation can hire someone to make. This seems to only really be useful to make someone's art require it be bought and relicensed or the project to be GPL-ified. Art for a polished AAA game really has to be tailor-made, anyway. If they made it clearly a "LGPL" instead of "GPL" version, working with games, it would be better IMO. Then it would be re-used and re-contributed to, instead of being avoided like the plague. Maybe it's time for a OGA-BY-SA, though making the distinction of derivatives might be too much for the non-lawyer crew of OGA.)

(With really, really, good assets, this might change. Right now, it's just a lockout for small devs, that gets artists some money. Kinda useful, I guess. Not so where you have tons of people on the SA credits list, though. Another problem is that proprietary assets are one of the proposed open-source moneymaking strategies.)

I had an idea(it's kinda crude, I admit), what if you distributed the game and the Stallmanized assets separately? Then make a system that implements the art assets(can be replaced with user-made ones too, think resource packs in Minecraft)

I understand this is a common(ish?) way to get around the anti-DRM clause in CC licenced material (actually, it probably applies to GPL too): after the (DRM'ed) program is installed, it downloads tha artwork, which is then not distributed under DRM as required per the licence.

It's really jumping through hoops though.

and then you have not made the game a derivative

The definition of "derivative" in CC licences is vague, but I don't think anyone would consider a full game as a derivative of the art under any reasonable definition of "derivative".

It's a legal grey area but the situation is pretty simple.

If you are a scrupulous Indie you don't use it untill you can contact the owner and get permission to use.

If you are unscrupulous you just use it and pray the owner finds the situation too confusing to enforce the copyright.

Same problem here. I'd really love to use these great assets in my first closed source commercial game. I've done open source projects before (no games), but now I am developing an android game, releasing it in the android shop, not releasing the source code.

I'd be happy to release any changes I made to the artwork here under the same license and some additional artwork too, just not the source code of the game.

I am sooo confused from all the discussion I read here ... not being a native speaker makes it even worse. I guess I'll have to ask most of the artists directly for permission, as it seems everyone here has a different opinion about the LPC artwork and its usage.

Cheers,

Gem