I would agree it's kind of a moot point now, but I have no idea what MedicineStorm is saying.
"You can relicense that without changing the asset at all." Public domain is public domain. You can give credit like OGA-By or whatnot -- voluntarily -- but you can't force anyone to follow your lead. You can't own it. Doesn't work that way. That's copyfraud, which is illegal.
"So, really someone would only need to deviate from the original asset enough for others to take notice of it despite the more restrictive license." Taking notice of a change doesn't give you or anyone else copyright. Copyright is solely for artistic work. If you haven't done any (or paid to license someone else's), you don't get it even if you claim it. Color change does not rise to the level required. "Sweat of the brow" work is explicitly not covered. Changing a JPG to PNG does not count. Photographing a two dimensional object without additions does not cut it. Artistic changes would (but the original still exists as CC0).
I use Clickteam already and paid full price for the developer version a while ago. Was a couple hundred I think. That's now included in the $15 humble set. But even with just the exporters contributing anything new to me it was still a great deal.
Heck, buy it just for the included games and try out the game making end if you feel like it. You'll still be ahead.
And those modifications would have to rise to the level of being a "new artistic creation" to be elligible for a new copyright. Simple color changes, as one example, would not cut it, because anyone could do that.
>Based on the Patreon funding drive, the community haven't deemed it worthwhile to fund OGA >development, so there has been no OGA development.
I think this is a vicious cycle. I personally see no updates for a while on the Patreon page, so I wonder why I should donate more. It seems like giving money away for nothing new. I understand as someone who had sites in the past that there are expenses, but I can't see backend costs. A typical user here would understand even less.
I also wonder how much the hosting is. If high traffic is really a problem, then why do we pay for lots of people to get stuff for free and expect a small number of people to pay for it?
I know I am more coder art than real artist, but a few favorites doesn't really equate to making people want to submit much., It can be hard to repay them for their effort and time also. And it could be more a problem for the real artists, who are the lifeblood of this site.
Feel free to private message me or email me about donations, if you want. I'd rather that stuff not be public. Or if there's a private forum with only friends of the site on it, please add me to that.
>When you click on latest art link, it will bring up all art that has been submitted recently.
But if you click 2-D art as a category, which is usually what I did because the rest interests me less, the More option always defaults to showing the oldest stuff instead of the most recent, which made that feature useless to me because it was always old, old stuff instead of new stuff.
From what I understand (as a non-lawyer, but "who read some stuff"TM) it's based upon how much creative work you add, instead of just "sweat of the brow" work. So, if not really adding enough that anyone would recognize, I think it would still be CC0. If it's substantial and "non-obvious", then it would count as a newly copyrighted work that could be licensed any which way you wanted, from holding it compltely to yourself to any of the others that are here (and some that are not).
Note that that woul not change the orginal. It would still be CC0, and anyone could use it. In fact they could make modifications similar to yours. Only the new part would be protected in it's artistic sense instead of just the "idea" (which is never covered by copyrights anyway). In practice you would have to prove they ripped off your work instead of just independently adding whatever they wanted to.
Something so largely based upon private domain work often is labeled CC0 too just to make it easier for everyone involved, but that's a choice. Small changes and you're better off just doing that anyway. If you made a big change I'm sure no one would care if you copyrighted it and gave it CC-By, or whatever. It's the middle ground that's rough, and it would really take an expensive court case to find out. And nobody wants that.
Hey, welcome. I think the planet designs you do are a welcome addition here. (Thought I commented to that effect, but don't see it.)
I think contributing here is a "long tail" interaction, because you might over time get a lot more people downloading something than at first. There's so much to see here, and it's difficult to do something to recognize it all and encourage people. But I think something specific can find the right person later, and really sometimes all it takes is one. And the reason for doing it should always be that hope. Just giving my philosophy I guess.
OGA is a cool place, but it doesn't seem to be overly social. It's rare to see people just having a discussion somewhere. The ones we do, though, are usually pretty good. We need some welcome threads sometimes to liven things up.
I'm going to assume the question is rhetorical (or maybe a troll). So I'll be polite (and risk feeding the troll, if that's it).
You can't prevent everyone else from doing anything they want to do with CC0 art, period. Not even if you originally made it. Once the copyright owner releases it as CC0, other people can use it for anything at all. Trying to prevent anyone from using it is a thing called copyfraud. That's both bad and illegal. (Since sometimes there's a difference I have to point out that it's both.) That could lead to a hefty legal fee and your heart shriveling up like a pea drying in the hot sands, metaphorically speaking.
If you own copyright to another batch of art and want to use it and say that nobody else can, you need to ether do the work or pay for the work to be done for you. And then sue out of existence anyone who tries to anyway, because sometimes people do (those with pea hearts).
It's not just a legal thing but a moral thing. If you lack both you'd have to own several judges outright to even maybe make some headway. But since you can't simply pay for art I'm assuming mass legal corruption isn't possible for you right now.
Huh. I bought the thing and didn't even realize you made it, unless I read it here somewhere, got the idea, and then forgot the source. Not sure now.
Good job and great info, by the way.
I would agree it's kind of a moot point now, but I have no idea what MedicineStorm is saying.
"You can relicense that without changing the asset at all." Public domain is public domain. You can give credit like OGA-By or whatnot -- voluntarily -- but you can't force anyone to follow your lead. You can't own it. Doesn't work that way. That's copyfraud, which is illegal.
"So, really someone would only need to deviate from the original asset enough for others to take notice of it despite the more restrictive license." Taking notice of a change doesn't give you or anyone else copyright. Copyright is solely for artistic work. If you haven't done any (or paid to license someone else's), you don't get it even if you claim it. Color change does not rise to the level required. "Sweat of the brow" work is explicitly not covered. Changing a JPG to PNG does not count. Photographing a two dimensional object without additions does not cut it. Artistic changes would (but the original still exists as CC0).
I know it's cliche, but "me too".
I use Clickteam already and paid full price for the developer version a while ago. Was a couple hundred I think. That's now included in the $15 humble set. But even with just the exporters contributing anything new to me it was still a great deal.
Heck, buy it just for the included games and try out the game making end if you feel like it. You'll still be ahead.
And those modifications would have to rise to the level of being a "new artistic creation" to be elligible for a new copyright. Simple color changes, as one example, would not cut it, because anyone could do that.
>Based on the Patreon funding drive, the community haven't deemed it worthwhile to fund OGA >development, so there has been no OGA development.
I think this is a vicious cycle. I personally see no updates for a while on the Patreon page, so I wonder why I should donate more. It seems like giving money away for nothing new. I understand as someone who had sites in the past that there are expenses, but I can't see backend costs. A typical user here would understand even less.
I also wonder how much the hosting is. If high traffic is really a problem, then why do we pay for lots of people to get stuff for free and expect a small number of people to pay for it?
I know I am more coder art than real artist, but a few favorites doesn't really equate to making people want to submit much., It can be hard to repay them for their effort and time also. And it could be more a problem for the real artists, who are the lifeblood of this site.
Feel free to private message me or email me about donations, if you want. I'd rather that stuff not be public. Or if there's a private forum with only friends of the site on it, please add me to that.
>When you click on latest art link, it will bring up all art that has been submitted recently.
But if you click 2-D art as a category, which is usually what I did because the rest interests me less, the More option always defaults to showing the oldest stuff instead of the most recent, which made that feature useless to me because it was always old, old stuff instead of new stuff.
From what I understand (as a non-lawyer, but "who read some stuff"TM) it's based upon how much creative work you add, instead of just "sweat of the brow" work. So, if not really adding enough that anyone would recognize, I think it would still be CC0. If it's substantial and "non-obvious", then it would count as a newly copyrighted work that could be licensed any which way you wanted, from holding it compltely to yourself to any of the others that are here (and some that are not).
Note that that woul not change the orginal. It would still be CC0, and anyone could use it. In fact they could make modifications similar to yours. Only the new part would be protected in it's artistic sense instead of just the "idea" (which is never covered by copyrights anyway). In practice you would have to prove they ripped off your work instead of just independently adding whatever they wanted to.
Something so largely based upon private domain work often is labeled CC0 too just to make it easier for everyone involved, but that's a choice. Small changes and you're better off just doing that anyway. If you made a big change I'm sure no one would care if you copyrighted it and gave it CC-By, or whatever. It's the middle ground that's rough, and it would really take an expensive court case to find out. And nobody wants that.
Hey, welcome. I think the planet designs you do are a welcome addition here. (Thought I commented to that effect, but don't see it.)
I think contributing here is a "long tail" interaction, because you might over time get a lot more people downloading something than at first. There's so much to see here, and it's difficult to do something to recognize it all and encourage people. But I think something specific can find the right person later, and really sometimes all it takes is one. And the reason for doing it should always be that hope. Just giving my philosophy I guess.
OGA is a cool place, but it doesn't seem to be overly social. It's rare to see people just having a discussion somewhere. The ones we do, though, are usually pretty good. We need some welcome threads sometimes to liven things up.
I'm going to assume the question is rhetorical (or maybe a troll). So I'll be polite (and risk feeding the troll, if that's it).
You can't prevent everyone else from doing anything they want to do with CC0 art, period. Not even if you originally made it. Once the copyright owner releases it as CC0, other people can use it for anything at all. Trying to prevent anyone from using it is a thing called copyfraud. That's both bad and illegal. (Since sometimes there's a difference I have to point out that it's both.) That could lead to a hefty legal fee and your heart shriveling up like a pea drying in the hot sands, metaphorically speaking.
If you own copyright to another batch of art and want to use it and say that nobody else can, you need to ether do the work or pay for the work to be done for you. And then sue out of existence anyone who tries to anyway, because sometimes people do (those with pea hearts).
It's not just a legal thing but a moral thing. If you lack both you'd have to own several judges outright to even maybe make some headway. But since you can't simply pay for art I'm assuming mass legal corruption isn't possible for you right now.
What other people say, basically.
Also one in http://opengameart.org/content/hill-climb-racing-car-sprites depending upon if you want a guy sticking out of it and to play with the parts.
Pages