@Redshrike: You're right, but certainly knowing how CC /intended/ video games to be treated under the license would be helpful. They may also be able to comment on how well their intent has held up in the courts.
@MedicineStorm: Trying not to get to excited myself (what are the odds they even respond?) but gotta admit I'm definitely very curious to hear what they have to say.
Did some spelunking through their mailing list archives the other day. Seems like just the place to look to see if they've addressed this question before. But sadly, the archives are only viewable one month at a time, and they go back to 2009, so it'll take some time to get through them all.
@DezrasDragons: Yeah. "discussed to death" is definitely the technical term for it! :)
Hopefully, we can get some clarity from CC on this. I did get a nice auto-reply message that promised a personal reply in 2-3 days so we can hope!
But if not, maybe we can just go with some suitably cautionary language, eg:
There is considerable debate about whether a video game using a work licensed as CC-SA-3.0 constitutes a 'derived' work or not by the terms of the license. Until Creative Commons issues a proper clarification on this issue, it is advised that licensees assume a video game (or similar project) would be considered a derived work under the license and therefore be required to be distributed under the same terms (ie. as CC-SA-3.0).
Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - 14:30
@DezrasDragons:
> Regarding the collage, I think the question is more whether or not the resulting collage needs to be released under -SA, given that it uses -SA images. If the images in the collage are unaltered, and simply displayed, it seems more like a collective work than a derivative to me.
The jist I got from the article was that using images in a collage is considered a copyright violation, but I guess you're right, that doesn't really address something like the CC-SA license.
Too bad the lengthy paper doesn't really delve into CC issue :(
'In short, if you use a CC-BY-SA licensed image to make a video game, the game can be commercial but it should also carry the same license, which means its source and other materials should also be available for others to use under the same terms.'
But again, I'd swear I've seen it argued the other way around here. Indeed, the OGA site FAQ, though it doesn't explicitly say so, does sort of implicitly endorse the view that CC-SA does not require an entire project to become CC-SA, since it describes the CC-SA license as:
'This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art work in question under the same license.'
I guess it kind of gets at what a creator is trying to ensure gets 'shared alike.'
If an artist submits a sprite sheet as CC-SA, do they want any games that use those sprites to be shared as CC-SA or do they only care about derivatives of the sprites themselves being shared as CC-SA?
From my reading, it seems like CC folks are after the broader definition.
I have gone ahead and written the CC folks to see if we can get any clarification out of them on this.
I just used the 'Contact Us' button on their web page, so not super hopeful but maybe we'll get something.
Monday, January 11, 2016 - 15:37
@mdwh:
Thanks very much the feedback! I am very worried about this thread falling off the radar and I do think it's important to get this stuff updated and correct, or at least as correct as we can get it.
Some itemized thoughts:
> 'Popular'
I have no problem removing this, although I do think it does serve a purpose. The idea is to alert folks that DRM is commonly used in game distribution and not just some obscure feature used in a few specialized places. Also, I don't think the word 'popular' truly constitutes peacocking here as it's pretty well an objective fact that the listed distribution services (XBL, PSN, iOS) are 'popular' by just about any definition of the word.
However, I do agree it's not the place of OGA to try in anyway to advocate for one distribution network over another and since the text does enumerate the 'popular' services, I don't think it's a big deal to drop the word 'popular' on the off chance someone might read it as an endorsement one way or the other.
> 'Google Play, DRM is only enabled if the developer wants DRM. The current wording makes it sound like DRM would be enforced if you happened to package the game in a particular way, even if you didn't want it. I'm not aware that Steam is different. I'd suggest scrapping this bit completely unless someone can show DRM might be forced on developers in some cases.'
Sorry, yeah this is not meant to imply that DRM maybe forced on a package, merely that DRM is an option on these networks. Does this phrasing clarify that:
"may or may not use DRM depending on how a developer chooses to package a particular game (ex. Steam, Google Android)."
> 'A more general point to say instead, for the point of view of artists wanting their art used in games, is that some commercial companies will want to use DRM'
If you're talking about this as a different approach to the entire section, I agree it's another way of phrasing it and a correct one, but I think it's a little too general.
I think it's important to name a few names and directly list the 'popular' distribution services and make it clear where they fall in terms of the license. Otherwise, the very next question anyone is going to ask is 'Ok, so can I use this work with my game on XYZ distribution service?' In fact, this is a question I see asked all the time around OGA, so the goal here is to help answer that question up front for people. And I think the question works the other way too, for folks submitting work, it's good for them to hear how the license impacts the potential for their work to distributed (and seen!) on the different distribution services. Again, the goal not being to advocate for one platform or another (or for DRM or no-DRM) but just to help inform people about how the platforms and licenses intersect.
> ' 'additional restictions' (ie. DRM)'
Yes. Since the point of the OGA-BY was explicitly to remove the DRM restriction, my mind went to 'ie.', but you're right, I think an 'eg.' would be more correct here. So:
' 'additional restictions' (eg. DRM)'
Does that work?
> It might be worth mentioning that OGA-BY can be relicensed as CC-BY (this is useful for anyone worried about licence compatibility/proliferation, or sticking to more well known licences or those approved by OSI, FSF, Debian, etc).'
I'd prefer to leave any mention of re-licensing out of this part of the FAQ. I just think it opens a whole other can of worms that's best left for another part of the docs.
@mdwh & DezrasDragons:
> Whilst I would hope this is the case (if not, it makes CC BY-SA useless for most games, commercial or open source), unless we have a reference from creative commons or a legal opinion, I'm not sure this is known?
hmm... Yeah, you make me wish I knew where I'd read that because re-reading the license now, it seems pretty clear to me that a video game would constitute a 'Derivative Work'.
About 'Collective Work', by my reading all they mean by 'Collective Work' is anthologies, clip art collections, font packs, etc. Stuff where you're just bundling up a bunch of works and re-distributing them. I don't think a video game falls in this category, because it does not present the works independently from one another. Although, this category does seem to include using images in a book:
But it begins with the line: 'Whether a modification of licensed material is considered an adaptation for the purpose of CC licenses depends primarily on the applicable copyright law.' Which certainly sets off some warning bells for me! :)
It does go on to say: 'Generally, a modification rises to the level of an adaptation under copyright law when the modified work is based on the prior work but manifests sufficient new creativity to be copyrightable, such as a translation of a novel from one language to another, or the creation of a screenplay based on a novel.'
Hard to say if using sprites in a video game meets that bar or not. I can say, I personally would not chance it. That is to say, if I was working on a closed source (or otherwise non-CC-SA licensed) work, I don't think I would use CC-SA stuff with it.
The closest 'art' analogy I could think of would be a collage. Do collages count as 'derivative' or 'collective' works?
Found at least one site that defines collage as clearly derivative and states:
'Most important to the collage artist is that a derivative work can only include copyrighted material if it is created by the owner of the copyright on the original material, or with that person's permission. This means that making a collage that includes photos from National Geographic, Rand McNally maps, or pictures of Andy Warhol paintings, is illegal unless you have obtained permission from whoever owns the copyright on those works.'
hmm... Anyone out there want to argue the other side of this?
> I would interpret this to mean that the "slash SFX / slash sprite" combination is a derivative of the SFX, and must be released under a compatible license.
Yeah, this is exactly how I'd interpret that also. The FAQ linked above) also goes out of it's way to re-state this point, 'synching' is always considered a derivative work.
@DARKAGEGAMES: Thanks! Just by reading the post and commenting that it was helpful you've already helped out plenty! :)
@DezrasDragons:
About the legal advice bit, the opening paragraph I've proposed is:
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 gaurenteed 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.
Does that cover your 'not legal advice' concerns ok?
thanks again to all for the feedback! Will bundle it all up and post back an update to the whole thing shortly.
Sunday, January 10, 2016 - 18:47
lol, no problem, and very glad you found my write up useful, you seriously just made it all worth while! :)
Now if this post could just catch the attention of some of the admins... ;)
Sunday, January 10, 2016 - 09:15
I had a go at explaining this in lamens terms in my re-work of the site faq/docs:
Here's the language about share-alike for CC-SA-3.0:
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-SA-3.0)
Derivative works inlcude modifications of the original work, but do not include entire projects or games which merely use the work in it's original form.
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 release any derivative works as CC-SA 3.0.
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 they make under the same license.
Does that help clarify things at all? Curious if it helps because the goal of my effort on this is to make the site docs/faqs more clear for people not yet steeped in license babble. :)
Monday, December 21, 2015 - 09:40
I think this what the tags system is supposed to cover.
There was a pretty good discussion recently on how to improve the tag system, but I'm not sure if anything came of it. :(
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 - 09:33
thanks! I'll have to check out the forums, and make a point to follow a few more devs on there!
Monday, December 14, 2015 - 17:40
@claudeb: is there a community over there? wondering if I missed some forums or something, I thought it was just a store front...
Monday, December 14, 2015 - 11:30
> This may have something to do with the Patreon hack
Hadn't thought of that, but come to think of it, I just had to cancel my card due to some fraudulent charges.
Now you've made me nervous about updating my Patreon account with the new info...
@Redshrike: You're right, but certainly knowing how CC /intended/ video games to be treated under the license would be helpful. They may also be able to comment on how well their intent has held up in the courts.
@MedicineStorm: Trying not to get to excited myself (what are the odds they even respond?) but gotta admit I'm definitely very curious to hear what they have to say.
Did some spelunking through their mailing list archives the other day. Seems like just the place to look to see if they've addressed this question before. But sadly, the archives are only viewable one month at a time, and they go back to 2009, so it'll take some time to get through them all.
Archives here, if anyone else is interested:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/
@DezrasDragons: Yeah. "discussed to death" is definitely the technical term for it! :)
Hopefully, we can get some clarity from CC on this. I did get a nice auto-reply message that promised a personal reply in 2-3 days so we can hope!
But if not, maybe we can just go with some suitably cautionary language, eg:
There is considerable debate about whether a video game using a work licensed as CC-SA-3.0 constitutes a 'derived' work or not by the terms of the license. Until Creative Commons issues a proper clarification on this issue, it is advised that licensees assume a video game (or similar project) would be considered a derived work under the license and therefore be required to be distributed under the same terms (ie. as CC-SA-3.0).
@DezrasDragons:
> Regarding the collage, I think the question is more whether or not the resulting collage needs to be released under -SA, given that it uses -SA images. If the images in the collage are unaltered, and simply displayed, it seems more like a collective work than a derivative to me.
The jist I got from the article was that using images in a collage is considered a copyright violation, but I guess you're right, that doesn't really address something like the CC-SA license.
Too bad the lengthy paper doesn't really delve into CC issue :(
Googling, I did find this question:
http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/92536/is-it-legal-to-use-crea...
The last answer for which states:
'In short, if you use a CC-BY-SA licensed image to make a video game, the game can be commercial but it should also carry the same license, which means its source and other materials should also be available for others to use under the same terms.'
But again, I'd swear I've seen it argued the other way around here. Indeed, the OGA site FAQ, though it doesn't explicitly say so, does sort of implicitly endorse the view that CC-SA does not require an entire project to become CC-SA, since it describes the CC-SA license as:
'This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art work in question under the same license.'
I guess it kind of gets at what a creator is trying to ensure gets 'shared alike.'
If an artist submits a sprite sheet as CC-SA, do they want any games that use those sprites to be shared as CC-SA or do they only care about derivatives of the sprites themselves being shared as CC-SA?
From my reading, it seems like CC folks are after the broader definition.
I have gone ahead and written the CC folks to see if we can get any clarification out of them on this.
I just used the 'Contact Us' button on their web page, so not super hopeful but maybe we'll get something.
@mdwh:
Thanks very much the feedback! I am very worried about this thread falling off the radar and I do think it's important to get this stuff updated and correct, or at least as correct as we can get it.
Some itemized thoughts:
> 'Popular'
I have no problem removing this, although I do think it does serve a purpose. The idea is to alert folks that DRM is commonly used in game distribution and not just some obscure feature used in a few specialized places. Also, I don't think the word 'popular' truly constitutes peacocking here as it's pretty well an objective fact that the listed distribution services (XBL, PSN, iOS) are 'popular' by just about any definition of the word.
However, I do agree it's not the place of OGA to try in anyway to advocate for one distribution network over another and since the text does enumerate the 'popular' services, I don't think it's a big deal to drop the word 'popular' on the off chance someone might read it as an endorsement one way or the other.
> 'Google Play, DRM is only enabled if the developer wants DRM. The current wording makes it sound like DRM would be enforced if you happened to package the game in a particular way, even if you didn't want it. I'm not aware that Steam is different. I'd suggest scrapping this bit completely unless someone can show DRM might be forced on developers in some cases.'
Sorry, yeah this is not meant to imply that DRM maybe forced on a package, merely that DRM is an option on these networks. Does this phrasing clarify that:
"may or may not use DRM depending on how a developer chooses to package a particular game (ex. Steam, Google Android)."
> 'A more general point to say instead, for the point of view of artists wanting their art used in games, is that some commercial companies will want to use DRM'
If you're talking about this as a different approach to the entire section, I agree it's another way of phrasing it and a correct one, but I think it's a little too general.
I think it's important to name a few names and directly list the 'popular' distribution services and make it clear where they fall in terms of the license. Otherwise, the very next question anyone is going to ask is 'Ok, so can I use this work with my game on XYZ distribution service?' In fact, this is a question I see asked all the time around OGA, so the goal here is to help answer that question up front for people. And I think the question works the other way too, for folks submitting work, it's good for them to hear how the license impacts the potential for their work to distributed (and seen!) on the different distribution services. Again, the goal not being to advocate for one platform or another (or for DRM or no-DRM) but just to help inform people about how the platforms and licenses intersect.
> ' 'additional restictions' (ie. DRM)'
Yes. Since the point of the OGA-BY was explicitly to remove the DRM restriction, my mind went to 'ie.', but you're right, I think an 'eg.' would be more correct here. So:
' 'additional restictions' (eg. DRM)'
Does that work?
> It might be worth mentioning that OGA-BY can be relicensed as CC-BY (this is useful for anyone worried about licence compatibility/proliferation, or sticking to more well known licences or those approved by OSI, FSF, Debian, etc).'
I'd prefer to leave any mention of re-licensing out of this part of the FAQ. I just think it opens a whole other can of worms that's best left for another part of the docs.
@mdwh & DezrasDragons:
> Whilst I would hope this is the case (if not, it makes CC BY-SA useless for most games, commercial or open source), unless we have a reference from creative commons or a legal opinion, I'm not sure this is known?
hmm... Yeah, you make me wish I knew where I'd read that because re-reading the license now, it seems pretty clear to me that a video game would constitute a 'Derivative Work'.
About 'Collective Work', by my reading all they mean by 'Collective Work' is anthologies, clip art collections, font packs, etc. Stuff where you're just bundling up a bunch of works and re-distributing them. I don't think a video game falls in this category, because it does not present the works independently from one another. Although, this category does seem to include using images in a book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Drauglis_v._Kappa...
Which is somewhat analogous to sprites in a video game.
The CC Faq does attempt to address when a work constitutes an adaptation:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Wh...
But it begins with the line: 'Whether a modification of licensed material is considered an adaptation for the purpose of CC licenses depends primarily on the applicable copyright law.' Which certainly sets off some warning bells for me! :)
It does go on to say: 'Generally, a modification rises to the level of an adaptation under copyright law when the modified work is based on the prior work but manifests sufficient new creativity to be copyrightable, such as a translation of a novel from one language to another, or the creation of a screenplay based on a novel.'
Hard to say if using sprites in a video game meets that bar or not. I can say, I personally would not chance it. That is to say, if I was working on a closed source (or otherwise non-CC-SA licensed) work, I don't think I would use CC-SA stuff with it.
The closest 'art' analogy I could think of would be a collage. Do collages count as 'derivative' or 'collective' works?
Found at least one site that defines collage as clearly derivative and states:
http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/derivative.htm
'Most important to the collage artist is that a derivative work can only include copyrighted material if it is created by the owner of the copyright on the original material, or with that person's permission. This means that making a collage that includes photos from National Geographic, Rand McNally maps, or pictures of Andy Warhol paintings, is illegal unless you have obtained permission from whoever owns the copyright on those works.'
hmm... Anyone out there want to argue the other side of this?
> I would interpret this to mean that the "slash SFX / slash sprite" combination is a derivative of the SFX, and must be released under a compatible license.
Yeah, this is exactly how I'd interpret that also. The FAQ linked above) also goes out of it's way to re-state this point, 'synching' is always considered a derivative work.
@DARKAGEGAMES: Thanks! Just by reading the post and commenting that it was helpful you've already helped out plenty! :)
@DezrasDragons:
About the legal advice bit, the opening paragraph I've proposed is:
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 gaurenteed 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.
Does that cover your 'not legal advice' concerns ok?
thanks again to all for the feedback! Will bundle it all up and post back an update to the whole thing shortly.
lol, no problem, and very glad you found my write up useful, you seriously just made it all worth while! :)
Now if this post could just catch the attention of some of the admins... ;)
I had a go at explaining this in lamens terms in my re-work of the site faq/docs:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
Here's the language about share-alike for CC-SA-3.0:
2) If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license (CC-SA-3.0)
Derivative works inlcude modifications of the original work, but do not include entire projects or games which merely use the work in it's original form.
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 release any derivative works as CC-SA 3.0.
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 they make under the same license.
Does that help clarify things at all? Curious if it helps because the goal of my effort on this is to make the site docs/faqs more clear for people not yet steeped in license babble. :)
I think this what the tags system is supposed to cover.
There was a pretty good discussion recently on how to improve the tag system, but I'm not sure if anything came of it. :(
thanks! I'll have to check out the forums, and make a point to follow a few more devs on there!
@claudeb: is there a community over there? wondering if I missed some forums or something, I thought it was just a store front...
> This may have something to do with the Patreon hack
Hadn't thought of that, but come to think of it, I just had to cancel my card due to some fraudulent charges.
Now you've made me nervous about updating my Patreon account with the new info...
Pages