I'll bow to the majority on this particular entry, but I don't want to disallow home recordings in general based on what people happen to think of this one. My father in law has recorded some guitar music from this site in his home studio and it's gone over very well.
I've been wanting to post this sooner, but since it was an anonymous submission, I couldn't find the artist. Anyway, I found these chess pieces on google in a public domain clip art collection, so we're good to go. Sorry for the delay. :)
The UV mapping looks like it could probably be tightened up a bit. The model itself looks good, but the wires that are UV mapped on look like they're a little off.
I like the idea with the search criteria. I'll see if I can make that happen. When I first built this site, I wasn't all that great with Drupal so there are probably some things that could be done better. Having fixed most of the glaring bugs in 1.0, though, I've avoided making major changes to the way things work right now. :)
As for the dark background when the page is loading, I've made a change to the stylesheet that I hope will alleviate the problem. If you still see it, let me know.
That sounds promising. If someone can find me a working flash player that has a small form factor (like the current one) and can handle OGGs, I'll be more inclined to do this myself. :)
Trouble is, I already have to convert the audio to mp3 in order to support flash, so there's no way around supporting 2 audio formats if I support HTML5 on Firefox.
Edit: If flash can play oggs now, that would alleviate this problem. Does anyone know if it can?
WTactics: An interesting post. Here's my response.
Intellectual property, like all property, is a construct of the human mind. The universe itself has no fundamental concepts of money or property -- those are things that we came up with because they make the world run better.
One thing that people as artists (and consumers of art) have to accept is the idea that we are, as Einstein put it, "standing on the shoulders of giants." There's no denying that Einstein and his compatriots made some huge discoveries. However, he himself readily admitted that he never would have made those discoveries had the multitudes of scientists and philosophers who came before him not made discoveries of their own. In other words, Einstein didn't invent physics from the ground up -- he was building on things that we already knew.
This does not in any way diminish his accomplishment, however. Einstein took old knowledge, built on it, arranged it in a new way, and came up with new knowledge. Were someone to repeat Einstein's discoveries and claim them as their own, they'd be laughed at. On the other hand, people commonly build upon his theories and reach new and interesting conclusions. And much like Einstein, the fact that they're building on his knowledge doesn't diminish their accomplishments.
Art is the same way, really. If you copy a work verbatim, then it's not your work. If you take a tiny step by copying someone's style but not the content of their work, that tiny step is your own. You won't get a lot of recognition for it, but you've earned the right to be credited, much as the artists who came before you were credited for *their* work. No one should be expected to invent art and style from scratch.
Furthermore, the question of whose work something is if person A has an idea and hires person B to bring that idea to life is something that person A and person B have to talk about when they write up their contract. It's completely within their rights to say that it's the work of the person who commissioned the art, provided they agree on that beforehand. When I hire artists to do work for OGA, they maintain the copyright on their work -- the condition is that they *also* release their art under a license of my choosing. Some people might pay an artist for a work and give them more money on the condition that they be allowed to take credit for it. There's nothing wrong with this, provided that both parties agree.
Robin: Featured collections, for instance? I hadn't considered that, but it's a very good idea. Tentatively, yes.
Addendum: It's been suggested to me that "forl this work" may not make sense to our users who aren't FOSS coders, and also sounds vaguely obscene. :)
How do people like "remix this work" instead?
I'll bow to the majority on this particular entry, but I don't want to disallow home recordings in general based on what people happen to think of this one. My father in law has recorded some guitar music from this site in his home studio and it's gone over very well.
I've been wanting to post this sooner, but since it was an anonymous submission, I couldn't find the artist. Anyway, I found these chess pieces on google in a public domain clip art collection, so we're good to go. Sorry for the delay. :)
Source:
http://www.pdclipart.org/thumbnails.php?album=121
Bart
Yo. :)
The UV mapping looks like it could probably be tightened up a bit. The model itself looks good, but the wires that are UV mapped on look like they're a little off.
Thanks!
Bart
Thanks for the suggestions!
I like the idea with the search criteria. I'll see if I can make that happen. When I first built this site, I wasn't all that great with Drupal so there are probably some things that could be done better. Having fixed most of the glaring bugs in 1.0, though, I've avoided making major changes to the way things work right now. :)
As for the dark background when the page is loading, I've made a change to the stylesheet that I hope will alleviate the problem. If you still see it, let me know.
Bart
That sounds promising. If someone can find me a working flash player that has a small form factor (like the current one) and can handle OGGs, I'll be more inclined to do this myself. :)
Bart
Win!!
Trouble is, I already have to convert the audio to mp3 in order to support flash, so there's no way around supporting 2 audio formats if I support HTML5 on Firefox.
Edit: If flash can play oggs now, that would alleviate this problem. Does anyone know if it can?
WTactics: An interesting post. Here's my response.
Intellectual property, like all property, is a construct of the human mind. The universe itself has no fundamental concepts of money or property -- those are things that we came up with because they make the world run better.
One thing that people as artists (and consumers of art) have to accept is the idea that we are, as Einstein put it, "standing on the shoulders of giants." There's no denying that Einstein and his compatriots made some huge discoveries. However, he himself readily admitted that he never would have made those discoveries had the multitudes of scientists and philosophers who came before him not made discoveries of their own. In other words, Einstein didn't invent physics from the ground up -- he was building on things that we already knew.
This does not in any way diminish his accomplishment, however. Einstein took old knowledge, built on it, arranged it in a new way, and came up with new knowledge. Were someone to repeat Einstein's discoveries and claim them as their own, they'd be laughed at. On the other hand, people commonly build upon his theories and reach new and interesting conclusions. And much like Einstein, the fact that they're building on his knowledge doesn't diminish their accomplishments.
Art is the same way, really. If you copy a work verbatim, then it's not your work. If you take a tiny step by copying someone's style but not the content of their work, that tiny step is your own. You won't get a lot of recognition for it, but you've earned the right to be credited, much as the artists who came before you were credited for *their* work. No one should be expected to invent art and style from scratch.
Furthermore, the question of whose work something is if person A has an idea and hires person B to bring that idea to life is something that person A and person B have to talk about when they write up their contract. It's completely within their rights to say that it's the work of the person who commissioned the art, provided they agree on that beforehand. When I hire artists to do work for OGA, they maintain the copyright on their work -- the condition is that they *also* release their art under a license of my choosing. Some people might pay an artist for a work and give them more money on the condition that they be allowed to take credit for it. There's nothing wrong with this, provided that both parties agree.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. :)
Pages