Yeah, I'll second congusbongus. I love the idea of an RPG populated by fellow OGAers, but you should probably seek written permission from each user before using their name.
TBH, a better, safer approach would be to use parody names. For example, for meidcinestorm you could use 'medicaltempest', for EmceeFlesher you could use 'MC Fresher', etc. etc.
That way it's clear to everyone (players, OGA users, etc.) that you're just having some fun and nothing is meant to seriously reflect anyone's character, personality, etc.
That also adds an extra layer of fun for players because they can play 'spot the OGA reference' with the NPC names.
Saturday, November 5, 2022 - 17:16
> we probably just have a different perspective
I think that's probably it.
> If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
I don't think that's an entirely fair assesment. 'just go understand the licenses' would just be links to the raw license text. The proposed text provides a description of each license along with a short explanation of what that means for developers and for artists, so it's more like 'here's decription of each license and what it means, you decide what's best for you' which seems entirely fair and in keeping with the sites license agnostic policy.
I get the idea behind more conceptual dialogue, I just think it's better for spell things out as directly as possible. If we want to add a more long form discussion of the ins and outs of it all later in the doc (maybe under 'Can you talk more about the licenses and what they mean?' question) but starting with a basic, clear description of the license is going to be the most helpful approach, especially for new comers.
> "what is a derivative work"
Can we start with this:
* The section should clearly enunciate the known, well defined uses that make a derivative work (modifications, etc. etc + syncing sound with video)
It's easy to take that for granted when we get into our long disussions about copyright law, etc. etc. but truthhully, for a new comer, this is the most important thing to state. That is, what are the cases that for sure ceate a derivative work?
After that, however we want to phrase the 'everything else is ambiguous and unknown' part is fine. My only concern is that it be done in a way that is clear and doesn't unnecessarily bias readers towards or away from any particular license or licenses. To that end, I think we'll find that the less we say the better, but I could be wrong.
> If you want to be sure your art can be used in larger projects that are licensed under the GPL v3, choose CC-BY-SA 4.0; CC-BY-SA 4.0 is compatible with the GPL v3 (link) but also has terms that are more clearly applicable to art than GPL v3
This does seem like a point that's worth working in there somewhere.
Saturday, November 5, 2022 - 11:00
@bluecarrot16:
I get what you are saying but I prefer my approach.
Specifically, I like the format:
Foeach license...
* description of license
* what does license mean for developers?
* what does license mean for artists?
I think that presents the information in a way that is clear and easy to navigate.
It also minimizes the amount of redundanancy.
To whit, it's very hard to say 'what does this license mean for ...' without getting into a discussion of what the license is, so it's better to put it all in one place.
If someone reads the proposed descriptions of the license they will walk away with a good understanding of what the licenses mean and what they need to do to comply with them. So why have another section that talks about it all a bunch more and from slighlty different angles and also talks about /all/ the license at once, instead of clearly enunciating what each individual license means? I can only see this adding confusion for readers.
> Is my game a "derivative work" (also known as an "adaptation") of the artwork?
I think we are all in agreement that there should be a section discussing this topic.
I prefer my approach (from the final section of my last post) here as well.
I think this approach is better because it:
1) clearly enumerates the known and agreed up cases where a work is a derivative
2) stops there with minimal speculation as to what else might or might not be a derivative.
I actually think on point #2 my text could stand to be even more succint but it was a first draft, so maybe with a little polish we can get it there.
Here's the text so you don't have to go look it up:
Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. By some readings an entire game could be considered a derivative work.
Creative Commons has also clarified that simply using an unmodified sprite or graphic in a game would not, in their view, create a derivative work. However, they have also stated that if a given sprite or graphic came with a developed character or story line then a game using those character or story elements would be considered a derivative work.
Unfortunately, further guidance cannot be provided as there is, as of this writing, no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
> I'm submitting art/music to the site. What license should I choose?
Similar to the original proposal's approach with 'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?', I suggest this simply be handled with a redirect to the description of the licenses.
Again, once you have a good description of each license and what they mean, anything else you say is just repitition at best and more likely confusing noise.
> We do not recommend you use CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, or GPL 2.0 unless you have no other choice because you are creating a derivative...
I agree there probably should be a section that talks about the license version numbers. How about somethig simpler and more to the point, ie adding the question:
'What's with all these version numbers? Is there a reason I should chose one license version over another?'
From time to time, Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation have updated the legal language of their licenses to reflect changes in copyright case law and to better reflect the licenses' original intent.
As a rule of thumb, the newest version of a license provides the best legal protection for a work. Therefore, OGA recommends artists submit their work under the latest version of any given license. (eg. if you elect to submit a work under a CC-BY license, choose CC-BY-3.0).
It is also recommended that submitters check the "Allow later license versions" option when submitting work. This allows works to be used under newer versions of a license as those become available.
@medicinestorm: I see the proposed changes have made it up onto the site. Excelsior!! I guess we can now start calling it the 'current site text' instead of the 'proposed text' :)
Wouldn't distributing something as an NFT violate most of the licenses on OGA?
Are people providing appropriate credit for OGA stuff that they NFT?
My question with NFTs has always been, who is the market for this stuff?
Is it all just a speculation bubble?
From a technology standpoint, it seems like there ought to be someway for OGA to use NFTs to protect artists. Not sure how that would work, but my guy says some kind of unique, unassailable identifier has got to be useful for fighting off art theft.
Thursday, November 3, 2022 - 23:10
> Trying to do that now
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the proposed text was perfect or come off as pushy about getting these changes in. I was thinking more like 'let's not jump down the next wormhole until we're out of this one'.
But yeah, I agree, let's get this right before we make any changes.
> This, IMO, is overly verbose.
Agree 100%.
> 'This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art work in question under the same license.'
While sound, this response seems more targeted at /artists/ than /developers/. It also substitutes the less ambiguous word 'modification' for the terms 'adaptation' and 'derivative' which is what the license actually uses. If I read this, I would never think in a million years that the license obligated a developer to release an entire game under CC-SA, and yet here we are discussing it and find that CC themselves can't say if that's true or not.
Interestingly, in writing this response I did a quick check and see that the license summary for CC-SA 3.0 actually says 'If you remix, transform, or build upon the material' and 'build upon' definitely sounds like 'if you made a game with these sprites' to me, although the license itself does not use that language at all.
Also interestingly, I notice that the license text for CC-SA 4.0 drops the term 'derivative'.
> "what constitutes a derivative work?"
Yup, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? And per our discussion both internally and now with both CC and FSF, the answer is: nobody knows.
> Given our current understanding, does CC BY-SA require projects to be fully released -SA given the most common set of circumstances for said projects?
I don't know. If you are using CC-BY-SA sound effects in a game, then the answer is almost certainly yes thanks to the specific clause in the lincense regarding that, but other than that, I don't think anybody knows. The language in the license doesn't give any guideance and neither do the people who wrote it. It'll have to be settled in court.
> Unless most projects would be required to be Shared Alike, then saying users must be prepared to do so is not general guidelines, it's niche.
Maybe it's all the boy scout meetings I've attended in recent years but I just see 'Be Prepared' as good advice. In this case, there is no easy answer so I think 'Be Prepared' really is the best thing we can give people.
I do think I see what you are getting at here though. We don't want the text to sound scary or ominous in a way that unnecissarily biases people away from using CC-SA artwork. But then the converse is also true, we don't want to imply that it's ok to use CC-SA artwork in ways that it's not. I'm going to take another crack at it below, but given the ambiguity of it all, I think it's going to be hard to come up with language that satisfies both sides of that coin.
> "Some projects as a whole may be considered derivatives of the artwork. See full license text"
I get this is more succint, but it begs all the same questions and seeing the full license will not answer the derivative question. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> For GPL art, however, the extra warning may be warranted
Agree here.
Alright, how's this for another go at the CC-SA write up?
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0)
These licenses are extensions of the CC-BY licenses (CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0) which include provisions stating that derivative works must also be distributed under the same license. Works released under these licenses maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must obey all of the restrictions of the corresponding CC-BY license (enumerated above (link))
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. As of this writing there is no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
Well that''s not too much shorter. Probably longer actually, :)
My thought was to state what is clearly a defined as a derivative under the licenses and then state that beyond that it's undefined. I guess that makes it more verbose but maybe it helps clarify things a bit more?
An alternate, shorter phrasing would be like this:
...
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work. Developers should also be aware that as of this writing there is no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
...
Maybe another approach would be to add a seprate 'Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?' section.
This section then becomes:
...
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
For information on what constitutes a derivative work under CC-BY-SA licenses see 'Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?' (link)
...
And below we have:
Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. By some readings an entire game could be considered a derivative work.
Creative Commons has also clarified that simply using an unmodified sprite or graphic in a game would not, in their view, create a derivative work. However, they have also stated that if a given sprite or graphic came with a developed character or story line then a game using those character or story elements would be considered a derivative work.
Unfortunately, further guidance cannot be provided as there is, as of this writing, no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
...
Sorry for all the thinking out loud here but maybe that last approach is the best one. Keep the license description bit short and sweet and use a separate section to get into the weeds of it all.
Final thought, should add a blurb in there somewhere about being careful about mixing CC-BY-SA and non-CC-BY-SA assets? Maybe that's a separate question, since it could be a problem more generally (eg mixing assets of different licenses).
May I suggest that we move forward with getting the updated license descriptions posted to the site and then work on any other questions/answers we want to update/add/tweak on the FAQ pages?
I don't mean to dismiss anyone else's work (far from it, I'm thrilled to see someone else jumping into the fray here!) but I do have the serious concern that if we start into other FAQ questions now, we'll get lost in the discussion of it all and go another 5 years or more with the current text.
@bluecarrot:
Wow, that's quite a list of questions you're biting off, thanks for taking on the work to do this!
I'll provide specific feedback on whichever thread you end up posting your work to, but I do have one general comment which seems appropriate for this thread:
Won't the answer to several of these questions just be a simple 'Yes', 'No', or 'Maybe', followed by 'See our description of the various license available on OGA' with a link to the proposed text from this thread?
> How should I credit the artist?
One thing I did want to work into the discussion, but have been holding off for fear igniting more discussion and postponing any actual updates to the site, is that we really ought to add a section where we provide a few concrete examples of how to properly credit a work. I've putting an example in the Game Jam descriptions for some time now and I really do think it has helped.
> FSF email
Thanks for taking the time to reach out to them! It's maybe not the answer we were hoping for, but it does provide some clarity in the sense that we can now say for sure that neither the CC nor FSF folks have a ready made answer or test for what constitutes a derivative work. All the more reason we should probably not be trying to provide any tests or answers ourselves.
@all:
On the topic of derivatives, there's another whole side to this that we haven't really discussed and that's what would the original artist consider a derivative work.
While from a purely legal and liability standpoint this question is irrelevant, from a personal and moral standpoint it's actually very important, at least to me (and I'd like to think to the OGA community generally as well).
I know this wading into murkier waters still, but it gets to the original artists intent.
If an artists posts a new tile set under CC-BY-SA it seems safe to assume they are hoping any expansions, edits, etc, to the tile set will also be shared back to the community.
But are they also hoping any games made with the tile set are shared back to the community with an open license?
That doesn't seem as clear. For some folks, the answer is plainly yes, but others might be more interested in seeing the work widely used and only concerned that the aforementioned expansions, edits, etc. are shared back to the community.
Both points of view are valid and if I was using someone's work, I'd want to know which way they felt so I wasn't using their work in a way counter to their intent. What I wouldn't want (and this applies to OGA generally too I think) is for someone to share something and then come to regret it because it was being used in a way they didn't intend. And yes, I know to some extent that's unavoidable, but I still think the point holds, the less 'sharer's remorse' out there the better since that necessarily has a negative impact on people's desire to openly share their work.
One more point I'll add is that it seems really unlikely to me that an artist sharing something under CC-BY-SA doesn't care if you release an entire game using their work under a closed license, but does really really care if you synchronize a sword swooshing sound effect to their sprite's attack animation and release that under a closed license. To me this just shows a way in which the license is out of sync with video game use cases.
Well, all I wanted to do by bringing this up was just point out another way in which CC-BY-SA is murky ground. That's not to say the license isn't useful or important, it's just to further the argument that we should probably give guarded answers about it on the FAQ.
Friday, October 28, 2022 - 15:48
> Does it, though?
How about:
'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?'
Yes, however there maybe some restrictions and requirements depending upon the license under which it is submitted. Please see ''What do the licenses mean? Explanation of the licenses allowed on OpenGameArt.org' (link) above for a summary of the supported licenses as well as links to their full text.
The main point of this section it just to link folks back to the bigger rundown of all the license, so I don't think that it matters too much how it's worded.
> "don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM" vs "distribute the work in a way that does not impose DRM"
I don't think it's hugely confusing as is, but I see your point here. However, could we stick to the word 'include', or perhaps 'use', as in "distribute the work in a way that does not use DRM"? 'Impose' sounds like it's implying a value judgement which (much as I'm sure we'd all like to) should probably avoided.
> "closed source, commercial"
The point of using these terms in this section is not to suggest that problems with CC-BY-SA are exclusive to or arise because of "closed source, commercial" projects. It's just to highlight the fact that if you are working on a 'closed source, commercial' project than you should seek legal advice before using CC-BY-SA assets. So you are correct, technically issues arise because of how the assets are used and/or mixed with other assets, the idea here is just to give fair warning that "closed source, commercial" developers should be careful with CC-BY-SA stuff. Yes, open source projects can also run afoul of CC-BY-SA too, that's why they are also mentioned.
Put another way, using the key words "closed source, commercial" here is more about making sure that "closed source, commercial" developers hear the message, that's why it's important to call them out by name instead of leaving it at a more general statement.
> I beleive closed/open source doesn't mean closed/open asset.
Yes this is correct but that's why the text just supplies a warning. It doesn't say you can't use CC-BY-SA stuff for closed or commercial development, it just says you should be sure you know what you are doing if you choose to do that.
> 'input vs output', 'just the rendering of the two together', 'the compiled game executable itself and not the source code that is the derivative'
First, I think it is VERY important to include this use case example (synchronizing sound and video) in the text because it is so explicitly enumerated in the license text. It's clear that whatever they meant by this, the CC folks thought it was really important.
Second, my understanding was that everything is output focused. The CC folks don't care about what tools or other inputs you use and there is no case where the license would claw it's way backward to include other non-CC-BY-SA art used in a project. So if you combine a CC-BY-SA work with a non-CC-BY-SA work, only the combined work must be distributed as CC-BY-SA.
Third, yes, I think the CC folks were pretty clear that they did not ever intend source code to be counted as part of a derivative work, only the final compiled game executable. In their view, source code is viewed as in 'input' like a layered PSD work file or a Blend scene file.
> There are a whole list of examples we can add to help outline what is- as is not- a derivative,
Are there? Think about how you just picked about the animation with sound example, and that one is specifically spelled out in the license! And yet still it presents all these ambiguities and questions for us. I might be wrong, but I just don't know that there are a ton of clear cut and relevant examples out there for us to expound upon for people.
Thinking about this out loud, this is a warning game not an explaining game. If the definition of a derivative work was clear cut, it'd be easy to just spell it out but since it's not, the best thing we can do is just give a fair warning: read the licenses for yourself, talk to a lawyer, make your own decisions. Maybe that's not all that useful, but it's all we really have.
Two things we don't want to do are:
1) Tell people they are ok to use assets in a way they are not actually ok to use them.
2) Tell people they are not ok to use assets in a way that they are actually ok to use them.
Since the licenses themseleves are not clear about this stuff, I think the best tact is just to say nothing. Otherwise, no matter what you say, you're taking the risk that it'll turn out to be wrong and then you've been handing out bad advice for however long.
hmm, sorry the formatting on that didn't come out too great (missing indents and new lines in a few places). I can never seem to win with OGA's text formatter.
Anyway, naturally I am ok with the proposed changes. :)
> I wonder if the language proposed for the CC-BY-SA section is really helpful to anyone.
I agree the text is long and leaves the answer ambiguos. I am open to cutting it down a bit, although I don't know it's really possible to provide much more clarity. I do think the 'synchronizing sound and video = derivative' is important to keep in there. I"m not sure what other cases can even be enumerated. It seems like even with the CC folks involved the conversation just went in circles.
I think the key point to get across is this one: '[be] prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work.'
I guess you could read that as being designed to scare people off from using CC-BY-SA stuff, but I really think that's the best advice we can give on the subject.
I know I'm tooting my own horn a bit in saying this but I think this is one where we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I know it's important to get this stuff right but on the other hand, even the original proposed text is leagues more helpful than what is currently in the FAQ.
Yay! So glad to see this thread come back to life!
Just to get us back on solid footing and kind of summarize 'the story so far...',
here's an update to my proposed text with all that incorporates all (or most) of the proposed changes/edits and adds mention of the 4.0 versions of the CC licenses. (Plus corrects many more spelling mistakes than I care to admit to ;)
For:
'What do the licenses mean? Explanation of the licenses allowed on OpenGameArt.org'
I suggest the following text:
Below are summary descriptions of the licenses supported by OGA. These are provided to help artists and developers familiarize themselves with the broad outlines of each license. Nothing written here is guaranteed to be correct or intended to be used as legal advice. Please read the complete text of each license before using it for a submission or using a work submitted under that license.
Creative Commons 0 License (CC0)
This license is the creative commons team's equivalent of public domain. Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, crediting or notifying the creating artist.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok.
If your submitting art, that means you are giving the work to the public domain.
Creative Commons Attribution Licenses (CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0)
Works released under these licenses maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must state that you have used the work and credit the original artist
Appropriate credit includes providing the title of the work, the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material.
2) You must indicate if you have made changes to the work
3) You may not impose any additional restrictions on the redistribution of the work
In practice, this means the work may not be not used on distribution networks that use some form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM).
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit and don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM.
If you are submitting work, these licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author and can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM.
Note that many game distribution networks do use DRM (ie. Apple iOS, Xbox Live, Sony PSN) and others may or may not use DRM depending on how a developer chooses to package a particular game (ex. Steam, Google Android).
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0)
These licenses are extensions of the CC-BY licenses (CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0) which include provisions stating that derivative works must also be distributed under the same license. Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must obey all of the restrictions of the corresponding CC-BY license (enumerated above (link))
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
The definition of a derivative work is not black and white and there is some ambiguity about how the term applies to using art works in a video game or related project. Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here (link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...), however they have yet to provide specific guidance for most common video game use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as CC-BY-SA). One use case is clear and spelled out explicitly by the CC-SA-BY licenses: if you synchronize a moving image to a piece of music or sound effect licensed as CC-BY-SA, then you must distribute the resultant work as CC-BY-SA also.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work. Those working on projects for which this might be an issue (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
This license is a derivative of CC-BY 3.0 which removes the restriction on placing 'additional restrictions' (eg. DRM) on the redistribution of the work. It was created to provide an option for artists wishing to be credited for their work but not wanting to restrict it's distribution on DRM using platforms.
Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must state that you have used the work and credit the original artist
Appropriate credit includes providing the title of the work, the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material.
2) You must indicate if you have made changes to the work
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author.
However, they have yet to provide specific guidance for how the licenses apply in most common video game art use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as GPL 2.0).
If you are using art, use with GPL licensed projects is ok. Those working on non-GPL licensed projects (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting art, you should use these licenses only if it is part of a bigger project that uses a GPL license and/or you have read the full license and know what you are doing.
'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?'
I suggest the following text:
This depends on the license under which it is submitted. Please see ''What do the licenses mean? Explanation of the licenses allowed on OpenGameArt.org' (link) above for a summary of the supported licenses as well as links to their full text.
Note that if a work is submitted under multiple licenses you may choose which of the selected licenses you wish to use it under.
Yeah, I'll second congusbongus. I love the idea of an RPG populated by fellow OGAers, but you should probably seek written permission from each user before using their name.
TBH, a better, safer approach would be to use parody names. For example, for meidcinestorm you could use 'medicaltempest', for EmceeFlesher you could use 'MC Fresher', etc. etc.
That way it's clear to everyone (players, OGA users, etc.) that you're just having some fun and nothing is meant to seriously reflect anyone's character, personality, etc.
That also adds an extra layer of fun for players because they can play 'spot the OGA reference' with the NPC names.
> we probably just have a different perspective
I think that's probably it.
> If I imagine answering such a question with the current text, I'm basically telling someone "look, just go understand the licenses," which feels less helpful to me than "you can use the art if you think about/address the following issues: A, B, C, D"
I don't think that's an entirely fair assesment. 'just go understand the licenses' would just be links to the raw license text. The proposed text provides a description of each license along with a short explanation of what that means for developers and for artists, so it's more like 'here's decription of each license and what it means, you decide what's best for you' which seems entirely fair and in keeping with the sites license agnostic policy.
I get the idea behind more conceptual dialogue, I just think it's better for spell things out as directly as possible. If we want to add a more long form discussion of the ins and outs of it all later in the doc (maybe under 'Can you talk more about the licenses and what they mean?' question) but starting with a basic, clear description of the license is going to be the most helpful approach, especially for new comers.
> "what is a derivative work"
Can we start with this:
* The section should clearly enunciate the known, well defined uses that make a derivative work (modifications, etc. etc + syncing sound with video)
It's easy to take that for granted when we get into our long disussions about copyright law, etc. etc. but truthhully, for a new comer, this is the most important thing to state. That is, what are the cases that for sure ceate a derivative work?
After that, however we want to phrase the 'everything else is ambiguous and unknown' part is fine. My only concern is that it be done in a way that is clear and doesn't unnecessarily bias readers towards or away from any particular license or licenses. To that end, I think we'll find that the less we say the better, but I could be wrong.
> If you want to be sure your art can be used in larger projects that are licensed under the GPL v3, choose CC-BY-SA 4.0; CC-BY-SA 4.0 is compatible with the GPL v3 (link) but also has terms that are more clearly applicable to art than GPL v3
This does seem like a point that's worth working in there somewhere.
@bluecarrot16:
I get what you are saying but I prefer my approach.
Specifically, I like the format:
Foeach license...
* description of license
* what does license mean for developers?
* what does license mean for artists?
I think that presents the information in a way that is clear and easy to navigate.
It also minimizes the amount of redundanancy.
To whit, it's very hard to say 'what does this license mean for ...' without getting into a discussion of what the license is, so it's better to put it all in one place.
If someone reads the proposed descriptions of the license they will walk away with a good understanding of what the licenses mean and what they need to do to comply with them. So why have another section that talks about it all a bunch more and from slighlty different angles and also talks about /all/ the license at once, instead of clearly enunciating what each individual license means? I can only see this adding confusion for readers.
> Is my game a "derivative work" (also known as an "adaptation") of the artwork?
I think we are all in agreement that there should be a section discussing this topic.
I prefer my approach (from the final section of my last post) here as well.
I think this approach is better because it:
1) clearly enumerates the known and agreed up cases where a work is a derivative
2) stops there with minimal speculation as to what else might or might not be a derivative.
I actually think on point #2 my text could stand to be even more succint but it was a first draft, so maybe with a little polish we can get it there.
Here's the text so you don't have to go look it up:
Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. By some readings an entire game could be considered a derivative work.
Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here (link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...)
Creative Commons has also clarified that simply using an unmodified sprite or graphic in a game would not, in their view, create a derivative work. However, they have also stated that if a given sprite or graphic came with a developed character or story line then a game using those character or story elements would be considered a derivative work.
Unfortunately, further guidance cannot be provided as there is, as of this writing, no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
> I'm submitting art/music to the site. What license should I choose?
Similar to the original proposal's approach with 'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?', I suggest this simply be handled with a redirect to the description of the licenses.
Again, once you have a good description of each license and what they mean, anything else you say is just repitition at best and more likely confusing noise.
> We do not recommend you use CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, or GPL 2.0 unless you have no other choice because you are creating a derivative...
I agree there probably should be a section that talks about the license version numbers. How about somethig simpler and more to the point, ie adding the question:
'What's with all these version numbers? Is there a reason I should chose one license version over another?'
From time to time, Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation have updated the legal language of their licenses to reflect changes in copyright case law and to better reflect the licenses' original intent.
As a rule of thumb, the newest version of a license provides the best legal protection for a work. Therefore, OGA recommends artists submit their work under the latest version of any given license. (eg. if you elect to submit a work under a CC-BY license, choose CC-BY-3.0).
It is also recommended that submitters check the "Allow later license versions" option when submitting work. This allows works to be used under newer versions of a license as those become available.
@medicinestorm: I see the proposed changes have made it up onto the site. Excelsior!! I guess we can now start calling it the 'current site text' instead of the 'proposed text' :)
Wouldn't distributing something as an NFT violate most of the licenses on OGA?
Are people providing appropriate credit for OGA stuff that they NFT?
My question with NFTs has always been, who is the market for this stuff?
Is it all just a speculation bubble?
From a technology standpoint, it seems like there ought to be someway for OGA to use NFTs to protect artists. Not sure how that would work, but my guy says some kind of unique, unassailable identifier has got to be useful for fighting off art theft.
> Trying to do that now
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the proposed text was perfect or come off as pushy about getting these changes in. I was thinking more like 'let's not jump down the next wormhole until we're out of this one'.
But yeah, I agree, let's get this right before we make any changes.
> This, IMO, is overly verbose.
Agree 100%.
> 'This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art work in question under the same license.'
While sound, this response seems more targeted at /artists/ than /developers/. It also substitutes the less ambiguous word 'modification' for the terms 'adaptation' and 'derivative' which is what the license actually uses. If I read this, I would never think in a million years that the license obligated a developer to release an entire game under CC-SA, and yet here we are discussing it and find that CC themselves can't say if that's true or not.
Interestingly, in writing this response I did a quick check and see that the license summary for CC-SA 3.0 actually says 'If you remix, transform, or build upon the material' and 'build upon' definitely sounds like 'if you made a game with these sprites' to me, although the license itself does not use that language at all.
Also interestingly, I notice that the license text for CC-SA 4.0 drops the term 'derivative'.
> "what constitutes a derivative work?"
Yup, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? And per our discussion both internally and now with both CC and FSF, the answer is: nobody knows.
> Given our current understanding, does CC BY-SA require projects to be fully released -SA given the most common set of circumstances for said projects?
I don't know. If you are using CC-BY-SA sound effects in a game, then the answer is almost certainly yes thanks to the specific clause in the lincense regarding that, but other than that, I don't think anybody knows. The language in the license doesn't give any guideance and neither do the people who wrote it. It'll have to be settled in court.
> Unless most projects would be required to be Shared Alike, then saying users must be prepared to do so is not general guidelines, it's niche.
Maybe it's all the boy scout meetings I've attended in recent years but I just see 'Be Prepared' as good advice. In this case, there is no easy answer so I think 'Be Prepared' really is the best thing we can give people.
I do think I see what you are getting at here though. We don't want the text to sound scary or ominous in a way that unnecissarily biases people away from using CC-SA artwork. But then the converse is also true, we don't want to imply that it's ok to use CC-SA artwork in ways that it's not. I'm going to take another crack at it below, but given the ambiguity of it all, I think it's going to be hard to come up with language that satisfies both sides of that coin.
> "Some projects as a whole may be considered derivatives of the artwork. See full license text"
I get this is more succint, but it begs all the same questions and seeing the full license will not answer the derivative question. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> For GPL art, however, the extra warning may be warranted
Agree here.
Alright, how's this for another go at the CC-SA write up?
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0)
These licenses are extensions of the CC-BY licenses (CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0) which include provisions stating that derivative works must also be distributed under the same license. Works released under these licenses maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must obey all of the restrictions of the corresponding CC-BY license (enumerated above (link))
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. As of this writing there is no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
Full license text available here CC-SA-3.0 (link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), CC-SA-4.0 (link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)
hmmm...
Well that''s not too much shorter. Probably longer actually, :)
My thought was to state what is clearly a defined as a derivative under the licenses and then state that beyond that it's undefined. I guess that makes it more verbose but maybe it helps clarify things a bit more?
An alternate, shorter phrasing would be like this:
...
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work. Developers should also be aware that as of this writing there is no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
...
Maybe another approach would be to add a seprate 'Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?' section.
This section then becomes:
...
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
For information on what constitutes a derivative work under CC-BY-SA licenses see 'Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?' (link)
...
And below we have:
Is my work/game a derivative work under CC-BY-SA?
The CC-BY-SA licenses clearly define altering, translating, remixing, re-arraning, or otherwise modifying a CC-BY-SA work as making a derivative work.
Additionally, the licenses specifically define syncronizing a CC-SA-BY licensed sound or music work to a moving image as creating a derivative work.
Beyond this, different readings of the licenses may produce more or less expansive definitions of what consititutes a derivative work. By some readings an entire game could be considered a derivative work.
Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here (link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...)
Creative Commons has also clarified that simply using an unmodified sprite or graphic in a game would not, in their view, create a derivative work. However, they have also stated that if a given sprite or graphic came with a developed character or story line then a game using those character or story elements would be considered a derivative work.
Unfortunately, further guidance cannot be provided as there is, as of this writing, no settled case law regarding what constitutes a derivative work when using CC-SA-BY licensed artwork in a video game context.
...
Sorry for all the thinking out loud here but maybe that last approach is the best one. Keep the license description bit short and sweet and use a separate section to get into the weeds of it all.
Final thought, should add a blurb in there somewhere about being careful about mixing CC-BY-SA and non-CC-BY-SA assets? Maybe that's a separate question, since it could be a problem more generally (eg mixing assets of different licenses).
@all:
May I suggest that we move forward with getting the updated license descriptions posted to the site and then work on any other questions/answers we want to update/add/tweak on the FAQ pages?
I don't mean to dismiss anyone else's work (far from it, I'm thrilled to see someone else jumping into the fray here!) but I do have the serious concern that if we start into other FAQ questions now, we'll get lost in the discussion of it all and go another 5 years or more with the current text.
@bluecarrot:
Wow, that's quite a list of questions you're biting off, thanks for taking on the work to do this!
I'll provide specific feedback on whichever thread you end up posting your work to, but I do have one general comment which seems appropriate for this thread:
Won't the answer to several of these questions just be a simple 'Yes', 'No', or 'Maybe', followed by 'See our description of the various license available on OGA' with a link to the proposed text from this thread?
> How should I credit the artist?
One thing I did want to work into the discussion, but have been holding off for fear igniting more discussion and postponing any actual updates to the site, is that we really ought to add a section where we provide a few concrete examples of how to properly credit a work. I've putting an example in the Game Jam descriptions for some time now and I really do think it has helped.
> FSF email
Thanks for taking the time to reach out to them! It's maybe not the answer we were hoping for, but it does provide some clarity in the sense that we can now say for sure that neither the CC nor FSF folks have a ready made answer or test for what constitutes a derivative work. All the more reason we should probably not be trying to provide any tests or answers ourselves.
@all:
On the topic of derivatives, there's another whole side to this that we haven't really discussed and that's what would the original artist consider a derivative work.
While from a purely legal and liability standpoint this question is irrelevant, from a personal and moral standpoint it's actually very important, at least to me (and I'd like to think to the OGA community generally as well).
I know this wading into murkier waters still, but it gets to the original artists intent.
If an artists posts a new tile set under CC-BY-SA it seems safe to assume they are hoping any expansions, edits, etc, to the tile set will also be shared back to the community.
But are they also hoping any games made with the tile set are shared back to the community with an open license?
That doesn't seem as clear. For some folks, the answer is plainly yes, but others might be more interested in seeing the work widely used and only concerned that the aforementioned expansions, edits, etc. are shared back to the community.
Both points of view are valid and if I was using someone's work, I'd want to know which way they felt so I wasn't using their work in a way counter to their intent. What I wouldn't want (and this applies to OGA generally too I think) is for someone to share something and then come to regret it because it was being used in a way they didn't intend. And yes, I know to some extent that's unavoidable, but I still think the point holds, the less 'sharer's remorse' out there the better since that necessarily has a negative impact on people's desire to openly share their work.
One more point I'll add is that it seems really unlikely to me that an artist sharing something under CC-BY-SA doesn't care if you release an entire game using their work under a closed license, but does really really care if you synchronize a sword swooshing sound effect to their sprite's attack animation and release that under a closed license. To me this just shows a way in which the license is out of sync with video game use cases.
Well, all I wanted to do by bringing this up was just point out another way in which CC-BY-SA is murky ground. That's not to say the license isn't useful or important, it's just to further the argument that we should probably give guarded answers about it on the FAQ.
> Does it, though?
How about:
'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?'
Yes, however there maybe some restrictions and requirements depending upon the license under which it is submitted. Please see ''What do the licenses mean? Explanation of the licenses allowed on OpenGameArt.org' (link) above for a summary of the supported licenses as well as links to their full text.
The main point of this section it just to link folks back to the bigger rundown of all the license, so I don't think that it matters too much how it's worded.
> "don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM" vs "distribute the work in a way that does not impose DRM"
I don't think it's hugely confusing as is, but I see your point here. However, could we stick to the word 'include', or perhaps 'use', as in "distribute the work in a way that does not use DRM"? 'Impose' sounds like it's implying a value judgement which (much as I'm sure we'd all like to) should probably avoided.
> "closed source, commercial"
The point of using these terms in this section is not to suggest that problems with CC-BY-SA are exclusive to or arise because of "closed source, commercial" projects. It's just to highlight the fact that if you are working on a 'closed source, commercial' project than you should seek legal advice before using CC-BY-SA assets. So you are correct, technically issues arise because of how the assets are used and/or mixed with other assets, the idea here is just to give fair warning that "closed source, commercial" developers should be careful with CC-BY-SA stuff. Yes, open source projects can also run afoul of CC-BY-SA too, that's why they are also mentioned.
Put another way, using the key words "closed source, commercial" here is more about making sure that "closed source, commercial" developers hear the message, that's why it's important to call them out by name instead of leaving it at a more general statement.
> I beleive closed/open source doesn't mean closed/open asset.
Yes this is correct but that's why the text just supplies a warning. It doesn't say you can't use CC-BY-SA stuff for closed or commercial development, it just says you should be sure you know what you are doing if you choose to do that.
> 'input vs output', 'just the rendering of the two together', 'the compiled game executable itself and not the source code that is the derivative'
First, I think it is VERY important to include this use case example (synchronizing sound and video) in the text because it is so explicitly enumerated in the license text. It's clear that whatever they meant by this, the CC folks thought it was really important.
Second, my understanding was that everything is output focused. The CC folks don't care about what tools or other inputs you use and there is no case where the license would claw it's way backward to include other non-CC-BY-SA art used in a project. So if you combine a CC-BY-SA work with a non-CC-BY-SA work, only the combined work must be distributed as CC-BY-SA.
Third, yes, I think the CC folks were pretty clear that they did not ever intend source code to be counted as part of a derivative work, only the final compiled game executable. In their view, source code is viewed as in 'input' like a layered PSD work file or a Blend scene file.
> There are a whole list of examples we can add to help outline what is- as is not- a derivative,
Are there? Think about how you just picked about the animation with sound example, and that one is specifically spelled out in the license! And yet still it presents all these ambiguities and questions for us. I might be wrong, but I just don't know that there are a ton of clear cut and relevant examples out there for us to expound upon for people.
Thinking about this out loud, this is a warning game not an explaining game. If the definition of a derivative work was clear cut, it'd be easy to just spell it out but since it's not, the best thing we can do is just give a fair warning: read the licenses for yourself, talk to a lawyer, make your own decisions. Maybe that's not all that useful, but it's all we really have.
Two things we don't want to do are:
1) Tell people they are ok to use assets in a way they are not actually ok to use them.
2) Tell people they are not ok to use assets in a way that they are actually ok to use them.
Since the licenses themseleves are not clear about this stuff, I think the best tact is just to say nothing. Otherwise, no matter what you say, you're taking the risk that it'll turn out to be wrong and then you've been handing out bad advice for however long.
hmm, sorry the formatting on that didn't come out too great (missing indents and new lines in a few places). I can never seem to win with OGA's text formatter.
Anyway, naturally I am ok with the proposed changes. :)
> I wonder if the language proposed for the CC-BY-SA section is really helpful to anyone.
I agree the text is long and leaves the answer ambiguos. I am open to cutting it down a bit, although I don't know it's really possible to provide much more clarity. I do think the 'synchronizing sound and video = derivative' is important to keep in there. I"m not sure what other cases can even be enumerated. It seems like even with the CC folks involved the conversation just went in circles.
I think the key point to get across is this one: '[be] prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work.'
I guess you could read that as being designed to scare people off from using CC-BY-SA stuff, but I really think that's the best advice we can give on the subject.
I know I'm tooting my own horn a bit in saying this but I think this is one where we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I know it's important to get this stuff right but on the other hand, even the original proposed text is leagues more helpful than what is currently in the FAQ.
Yay! So glad to see this thread come back to life!
Just to get us back on solid footing and kind of summarize 'the story so far...',
here's an update to my proposed text with all that incorporates all (or most) of the proposed changes/edits and adds mention of the 4.0 versions of the CC licenses. (Plus corrects many more spelling mistakes than I care to admit to ;)
For:
'What do the licenses mean? Explanation of the licenses allowed on OpenGameArt.org'
I suggest the following text:
Below are summary descriptions of the licenses supported by OGA. These are provided to help artists and developers familiarize themselves with the broad outlines of each license. Nothing written here is guaranteed to be correct or intended to be used as legal advice. Please read the complete text of each license before using it for a submission or using a work submitted under that license.
Creative Commons 0 License (CC0)
This license is the creative commons team's equivalent of public domain. Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, crediting or notifying the creating artist.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok.
If your submitting art, that means you are giving the work to the public domain.
Full license text available here (link to http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
Creative Commons Attribution Licenses (CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0)
Works released under these licenses maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must state that you have used the work and credit the original artist
Appropriate credit includes providing the title of the work, the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material.
2) You must indicate if you have made changes to the work
3) You may not impose any additional restrictions on the redistribution of the work
In practice, this means the work may not be not used on distribution networks that use some form of 'Digital Rights Management' (DRM).
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit and don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM.
If you are submitting work, these licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author and can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM.
Note that many game distribution networks do use DRM (ie. Apple iOS, Xbox Live, Sony PSN) and others may or may not use DRM depending on how a developer chooses to package a particular game (ex. Steam, Google Android).
Full license texts available here CC-BY-3.0(link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), CC-BY-4.0 (link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0)
These licenses are extensions of the CC-BY licenses (CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0) which include provisions stating that derivative works must also be distributed under the same license. Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must obey all of the restrictions of the corresponding CC-BY license (enumerated above (link))
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-SA 4.0)
The definition of a derivative work is not black and white and there is some ambiguity about how the term applies to using art works in a video game or related project. Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here (link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...), however they have yet to provide specific guidance for most common video game use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as CC-BY-SA). One use case is clear and spelled out explicitly by the CC-SA-BY licenses: if you synchronize a moving image to a piece of music or sound effect licensed as CC-BY-SA, then you must distribute the resultant work as CC-BY-SA also.
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit, don't distribute the work in a way that includes DRM, and are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work. Those working on projects for which this might be an issue (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author, can not use it on platforms that impose some form of DRM, and must distribute any changes or otherwise derivative works they make under the same license.
Full license text available here CC-SA-3.0 (link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), CC-SA-4.0 (link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)
OGA-BY 3.0 License
This license is a derivative of CC-BY 3.0 which removes the restriction on placing 'additional restrictions' (eg. DRM) on the redistribution of the work. It was created to provide an option for artists wishing to be credited for their work but not wanting to restrict it's distribution on DRM using platforms.
Works released under this license maybe copied, modified, distributed, performed or otherwise used in anyway without asking, subject to following restrictions:
1) You must state that you have used the work and credit the original artist
Appropriate credit includes providing the title of the work, the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material.
2) You must indicate if you have made changes to the work
If you are using art, that means commercial use is ok, so long as you provide appropriate credit.
If you are submitting work, this licenses means people are free to use your work but must credit you as it's author.
Full license text available here (link to http://opengameart.org/content/oga-by-30-faq)
GNU GPL 2.0 and GNU GPL 3.0
These licenses were written with source code in mind, and are included on OGA for compatibility with projects that use GPL licenses.
GNU has provided some guidance for how these licenses may apply to art or other 'non-source-code' items here (link to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware).
However, they have yet to provide specific guidance for how the licenses apply in most common video game art use scenarios (eg. using a sprite sheet licensed as GPL 2.0).
If you are using art, use with GPL licensed projects is ok. Those working on non-GPL licensed projects (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 works in their project.
If you are submitting art, you should use these licenses only if it is part of a bigger project that uses a GPL license and/or you have read the full license and know what you are doing.
Full license texts available here (link to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html)
For:
'I'm a commercial (closed-source) game developer. Can I use this art?'
I suggest the following text:
This depends on the license under which it is submitted. Please see ''What do the licenses mean? Explanation of the licenses allowed on OpenGameArt.org' (link) above for a summary of the supported licenses as well as links to their full text.
Note that if a work is submitted under multiple licenses you may choose which of the selected licenses you wish to use it under.
Very cute!
I gave this little goober a cameo in the logo OpenGameArt.org's Summer Game Jam 2022.
https://itch.io/jam/opengamearts-summer-game-jam-2022
thanks for sharing!
Pages