I'd say for a first outing this is pretty darn good work!
My only critique would be that the grass seems to have a slightly higher level of detail than the rest of the image. I don't know if that makes sense, but where most of the image has kind of a graphic novel look to it, the grass looks like it could come right out of a modern 3D game.
Sorry to be a stickler, but the license needs to specifically be one of the OGA supported licenses. Just being 'compatible' or 'friendly' with one is not enough. Can you explicitly release it as CC-BY 3.0 (or consider OGA-BY 3.0)? You can keep the NoGov license as an optional alternate license if you want, but to be on OGA it needs to specifically be one of the OGA supported licenses.
Again, sorry to be strict about this, but have a long Feedback thread going about this:
I love this! Definitely got a Robotron feel to it! Robots of the world unite, our time has come! :)
Saturday, June 6, 2015 - 05:18
Yeah, not a restriction on derivative work, but maybe just a little more explanation of what constitutes a derivative work (eg. traceovers, copies, anything that uses another work as a 'base', re-colors, etc) and following mdwh's suggestion include it in the submission guidelines as well as the FAQ.
While we are talking changes/improvements to the FAQ/submission guidelines, DezrasDragons had the great suggestion of adding some text to clarify the license/status of preview images:
One more thing I notice is that both the site FAQ and the submission guidelines are optional viewing, in fact you kind of have to seek them out. It wouldn't be the worst thing to put the submission guidelines before the submission form, or maybe just a larger call out of 'Please review the submission guidelines before submitting work.' in bold at the top of the submission form. The current location is kind of to the side and small.
So if I had to summarize this and a few other threads, I'd say:
Request for site FAQ and submission guidelines changes:
- Synchronize text between Site FAQ and Submission Guidelines, so they agrees and the same information/guidelines are present on both.
- Add/link short form license description to submission guidelines/site faq. Something like what is currently at: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary but tweaked to include all available licenses on OGA.
- Add explicit mention of anti-DRM clause in descriptions of CC-BY and CC-SA licenses.
- Add language explicitly prohibiting 're-licensed' or 'compatible' license submissions (eg. BSD submitted as CC-BY, etc. etc)
- Add language recommending (though not requiring) that submitters obtain permission before submitting someone else's work.
- Make link to submission guidelines more prominent on submission form
- Add language detailing what constitutes a derivative work (eg. traceovers, copies, anything that uses another work as a 'base', re-colors, use of trademarked characters, etc) to submission guidelines
- Add language explicitly stating that preview images fall under the same license as the submission and that they should not include copyrighted images, etc. that are not part of the submission or released under the same license as the submission.
Does that about cover it?
Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - 13:24
> Regarding the wording on the FAQ - I think the biggest improvement would be to put this text on the > "Submit art" itself. At least, put it in the "Submission guidelines" that's linked from the "Submit art" page.
I second this idea! In general, I'd say all the docs on the site could use a pass to make sure the right info is shown in the right places and that it's all in agreement with itself. I'll also add that I think of all the available solutions to this and various other problems with the site, 'Updating the Docs' is probably the best route to hope for, since anything else (mod reviewed submissions, pop-ups, etc.) will undoubtably require furhter web development which I'm guessing is in pretty short supply. I guess that's just my way of saying, as we discuss this let's not let work ourselves up to where we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> For the problem where an incorrectly licenced art (e.g., it's a derivative work of something that isn't Free) > doesn't get updated on OGA - yes, it is a problem, but I'd argue it's a problem that can occur anyway
Yeah, no doubt about it, you could easily have this and many other problems with author submitted work as well. It just seems like 3rd party submissions add that extra layer of complication to the mess. Look at the 420 icons submissions, even after contributers on the site had found and reported the issue, nobody could do anything about it (except maybe pray for a wandering mod to stop by) because the work itself was submitted by Anonymous. So again, it's not that author submitted works can't have problems, it's just that third party submissions seem to present an increase risk of having such problems.
> I think it would be sad to disallow uploading free art unless you're the author. Aside from the practical > effect of limiting the art on this site, it seems to go against one of the major benefits of Free licencing > (that a clear Free licence means I can use it without having to contact the author every time).
I hadn't really thought of it that way, and I agree it is kind of a bummer to think about a Free site where people are not allowed to submit Free stuff. On the other hand, if there's an unwritten rule (or at least a strong suggestion) that an original author's permission be sought before submitting their work, then that really ought to be made explicit in the submission guidelines. I can't see what harm it would do and I don't think it's right to wait until after somebody's submitted something to reprimand them and say you're supposed to ask permission first. Something like altering the FAQ to say:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses by the original artist(s). Relicensing, or submitting works under 'equivalent' or 'compatible' licenses is not allowed even in cases where it maybe legally acceptable to do so. Further, it is strongly recommended that you ask an artist(s) for explicit permission before posting their work here even in cases where it is not legally necessary to do so."
> Much of the benefit of OGA is that it has become a go-to site for Free game art, rather than > having to search the web because lots of artists have different places they like to upload to.
Well, I think the real strength of OGA is the community of artists and developers who come here and the amount of high quality, original artwork that they submit almost daily now. That's how the site can grow and prosper into the future. Just being a good dumping ground for art from various other Free projects is really not enough, it's the community here that makes OGA what it is. In that sense, I'm not sure how important third party submitted art is to the site. That's not to disparage the efforts of Nikita_Sadkov or others, I actually think it's great that folks have brought alot of really good Free art to the site, both for the sake of the site and for archival reasons. It's just that if you asked me to rate how important that was vs. say not pissing off original artists, I'd have to go with the later. Indeed, the site's existing policy of removing work upon an artists' request is an implicit acknowledgement that keeping contributors happy is more important than hosting any one work on the site.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - 04:50
Yeah, that's what I meant by 'removed pieces of the work because they were ultimately not his to share'.
I do think it was an honest mistake on the original author's part and he did make an effort to correct it on the deviant art page.
My point was that because he didn't post the work to OGA himself (it's not even clear he was even aware of the OGA posting), there was little chance of the correction making it's way back to OGA. So it's just another potential issue with accepting 3rd party submissions.
but yeah, if any of the mods are still listening, that submission should probably flagged. Indeed, myabe it ought to just be removed outright considering gnola14 has posted a corrected submission.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - 02:48
I was just thinking that for group projects it doesn't seem unreasonable to have the work collected up under one submission. Another good exception would be if you'd gotten explicit written permission from the original artist(s).
I think it's more a matter of distinguising between what is legally possible and what is acceptable under the site's policies. As you and others have pointed out, there are plenty of legal manuevers one can perform to try and re-jigger a license in one way or another. However, the site is under no obligation to accept such submissions. It should, however, be explicit about what sort of submissions it will and will not take. blasphmer assets are a good example of the confused state that currently reigns, with one mod saying submitting BSD as CC-BY was ok and another later saying it was not. I don't expect the site mods or the FAQ language to be perfect, but I do think there is room for improvement.
And just to make it clear that I am not out to pick on Nikita_Sadkov or his submissions, here's an alternate example of the issues presented by allowing third party submissions:
Here you have a bundle that the original artist changed the license on but the OGA copy was not updated because the work was submitted by a 3rd party. And the original artist removed pieces of the work because they were ultimately not his to share, but these were not removed from the OGA version. Finally, a helpful OGA contributor posted a correted bundle under the correct license, but had to do so as a new submission and so the original incorrectly licensed bundle with improperly copyrighted pieces in it is still up on OGA.
@Clint Bellanger: Guess you are not a fan of OGA-BY huh? ;)
I do think an 'Other' with a mandatory review by a MOD would be a pretty good solution. So the work doesn't even appear on the site until a moderator approves it. Although, I'm guessing that would require some further web development which I'm also going to guess makes it a non-starter.
At the very least, in the meantime, perhaps we could just update the site FAQ to clearly state the policy against 'equivalent' licensing? eg. where it now says:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses"
it could read:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses by the original artist(s). Relicensing, or submitting works under 'equivalent' or 'compatible' licenses is not allowed even in cases where it maybe legally acceptable to do so. "
As an addendum, while we are on the topic of this phrase from the FAQ and again not to pick on Nikita_Sadkov's posts specifically, but the way the discussion in the Blasphmer assets and a few other submissions blew up, has made me wonder if there shouldn't be a more explicit restriction on submitting the works of others. Something like, 'You may only submit the works of other artists if the work is part of a larger project for which you yourself are also a contributor.' The idea being that it's ok for one artist on a team to submit works on behalf of the entire team, but otherwise folks shouldn't be submitting works that are not their own. Well, maybe that's too restrictive, but like I say a few of the recent discussions show the dangers of accepting submissions from uninvolved 3rd parties.
In general, I think there's a lot that can be done just by clarifying the language of the site faq a little.
Very pretty! I love the dinosaur egg, nice touch!
I'd say for a first outing this is pretty darn good work!
My only critique would be that the grass seems to have a slightly higher level of detail than the rest of the image. I don't know if that makes sense, but where most of the image has kind of a graphic novel look to it, the grass looks like it could come right out of a modern 3D game.
yeah, I hear castlevania with those organ lines at the start, but then that bass throb kicks in, I love it!
Sorry to be a stickler, but the license needs to specifically be one of the OGA supported licenses. Just being 'compatible' or 'friendly' with one is not enough. Can you explicitly release it as CC-BY 3.0 (or consider OGA-BY 3.0)? You can keep the NoGov license as an optional alternate license if you want, but to be on OGA it needs to specifically be one of the OGA supported licenses.
Again, sorry to be strict about this, but have a long Feedback thread going about this:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/add-additional-licenses-or-other-licen...
and a bunch of recent submissions were pulled for this same reason, so feel it's only fair to mention it to you.
I do like the track, the big bass that comes in late is fun, gives it a little spice for the last section.
I love this! Definitely got a Robotron feel to it! Robots of the world unite, our time has come! :)
Yeah, not a restriction on derivative work, but maybe just a little more explanation of what constitutes a derivative work (eg. traceovers, copies, anything that uses another work as a 'base', re-colors, etc) and following mdwh's suggestion include it in the submission guidelines as well as the FAQ.
While we are talking changes/improvements to the FAQ/submission guidelines, DezrasDragons had the great suggestion of adding some text to clarify the license/status of preview images:
http://opengameart.org/content/dialog-box
One more thing I notice is that both the site FAQ and the submission guidelines are optional viewing, in fact you kind of have to seek them out. It wouldn't be the worst thing to put the submission guidelines before the submission form, or maybe just a larger call out of 'Please review the submission guidelines before submitting work.' in bold at the top of the submission form. The current location is kind of to the side and small.
So if I had to summarize this and a few other threads, I'd say:
Request for site FAQ and submission guidelines changes:
- Synchronize text between Site FAQ and Submission Guidelines, so they agrees and the same information/guidelines are present on both.
- Add/link short form license description to submission guidelines/site faq. Something like what is currently at: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary but tweaked to include all available licenses on OGA.
- Add explicit mention of anti-DRM clause in descriptions of CC-BY and CC-SA licenses.
- Add language explicitly prohibiting 're-licensed' or 'compatible' license submissions (eg. BSD submitted as CC-BY, etc. etc)
- Add language recommending (though not requiring) that submitters obtain permission before submitting someone else's work.
- Make link to submission guidelines more prominent on submission form
- Add language detailing what constitutes a derivative work (eg. traceovers, copies, anything that uses another work as a 'base', re-colors, use of trademarked characters, etc) to submission guidelines
- Add language explicitly stating that preview images fall under the same license as the submission and that they should not include copyrighted images, etc. that are not part of the submission or released under the same license as the submission.
Does that about cover it?
> Regarding the wording on the FAQ - I think the biggest improvement would be to put this text on the
> "Submit art" itself. At least, put it in the "Submission guidelines" that's linked from the "Submit art" page.
I second this idea! In general, I'd say all the docs on the site could use a pass to make sure the right info is shown in the right places and that it's all in agreement with itself. I'll also add that I think of all the available solutions to this and various other problems with the site, 'Updating the Docs' is probably the best route to hope for, since anything else (mod reviewed submissions, pop-ups, etc.) will undoubtably require furhter web development which I'm guessing is in pretty short supply. I guess that's just my way of saying, as we discuss this let's not let work ourselves up to where we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> For the problem where an incorrectly licenced art (e.g., it's a derivative work of something that isn't Free)
> doesn't get updated on OGA - yes, it is a problem, but I'd argue it's a problem that can occur anyway
Yeah, no doubt about it, you could easily have this and many other problems with author submitted work as well. It just seems like 3rd party submissions add that extra layer of complication to the mess. Look at the 420 icons submissions, even after contributers on the site had found and reported the issue, nobody could do anything about it (except maybe pray for a wandering mod to stop by) because the work itself was submitted by Anonymous. So again, it's not that author submitted works can't have problems, it's just that third party submissions seem to present an increase risk of having such problems.
> I think it would be sad to disallow uploading free art unless you're the author. Aside from the practical
> effect of limiting the art on this site, it seems to go against one of the major benefits of Free licencing
> (that a clear Free licence means I can use it without having to contact the author every time).
I hadn't really thought of it that way, and I agree it is kind of a bummer to think about a Free site where people are not allowed to submit Free stuff. On the other hand, if there's an unwritten rule (or at least a strong suggestion) that an original author's permission be sought before submitting their work, then that really ought to be made explicit in the submission guidelines. I can't see what harm it would do and I don't think it's right to wait until after somebody's submitted something to reprimand them and say you're supposed to ask permission first. Something like altering the FAQ to say:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses by the original artist(s). Relicensing, or submitting works under 'equivalent' or 'compatible' licenses is not allowed even in cases where it maybe legally acceptable to do so. Further, it is strongly recommended that you ask an artist(s) for explicit permission before posting their work here even in cases where it is not legally necessary to do so."
> Much of the benefit of OGA is that it has become a go-to site for Free game art, rather than
> having to search the web because lots of artists have different places they like to upload to.
Well, I think the real strength of OGA is the community of artists and developers who come here and the amount of high quality, original artwork that they submit almost daily now. That's how the site can grow and prosper into the future. Just being a good dumping ground for art from various other Free projects is really not enough, it's the community here that makes OGA what it is. In that sense, I'm not sure how important third party submitted art is to the site. That's not to disparage the efforts of Nikita_Sadkov or others, I actually think it's great that folks have brought alot of really good Free art to the site, both for the sake of the site and for archival reasons. It's just that if you asked me to rate how important that was vs. say not pissing off original artists, I'd have to go with the later. Indeed, the site's existing policy of removing work upon an artists' request is an implicit acknowledgement that keeping contributors happy is more important than hosting any one work on the site.
Yeah, that's what I meant by 'removed pieces of the work because they were ultimately not his to share'.
I do think it was an honest mistake on the original author's part and he did make an effort to correct it on the deviant art page.
My point was that because he didn't post the work to OGA himself (it's not even clear he was even aware of the OGA posting), there was little chance of the correction making it's way back to OGA. So it's just another potential issue with accepting 3rd party submissions.
but yeah, if any of the mods are still listening, that submission should probably flagged. Indeed, myabe it ought to just be removed outright considering gnola14 has posted a corrected submission.
I was just thinking that for group projects it doesn't seem unreasonable to have the work collected up under one submission. Another good exception would be if you'd gotten explicit written permission from the original artist(s).
I think it's more a matter of distinguising between what is legally possible and what is acceptable under the site's policies. As you and others have pointed out, there are plenty of legal manuevers one can perform to try and re-jigger a license in one way or another. However, the site is under no obligation to accept such submissions. It should, however, be explicit about what sort of submissions it will and will not take. blasphmer assets are a good example of the confused state that currently reigns, with one mod saying submitting BSD as CC-BY was ok and another later saying it was not. I don't expect the site mods or the FAQ language to be perfect, but I do think there is room for improvement.
And just to make it clear that I am not out to pick on Nikita_Sadkov or his submissions, here's an alternate example of the issues presented by allowing third party submissions:
http://opengameart.org/content/420-pixel-art-icons-for-medievalfantasy-rpg
Here you have a bundle that the original artist changed the license on but the OGA copy was not updated because the work was submitted by a 3rd party. And the original artist removed pieces of the work because they were ultimately not his to share, but these were not removed from the OGA version. Finally, a helpful OGA contributor posted a correted bundle under the correct license, but had to do so as a new submission and so the original incorrectly licensed bundle with improperly copyrighted pieces in it is still up on OGA.
@Clint Bellanger: Guess you are not a fan of OGA-BY huh? ;)
I do think an 'Other' with a mandatory review by a MOD would be a pretty good solution. So the work doesn't even appear on the site until a moderator approves it. Although, I'm guessing that would require some further web development which I'm also going to guess makes it a non-starter.
At the very least, in the meantime, perhaps we could just update the site FAQ to clearly state the policy against 'equivalent' licensing? eg. where it now says:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses"
it could read:
"To upload content created by someone other than yourself, you must first make absolutely certain that the content has been released under one of the allowed licenses by the original artist(s). Relicensing, or submitting works under 'equivalent' or 'compatible' licenses is not allowed even in cases where it maybe legally acceptable to do so. "
As an addendum, while we are on the topic of this phrase from the FAQ and again not to pick on Nikita_Sadkov's posts specifically, but the way the discussion in the Blasphmer assets and a few other submissions blew up, has made me wonder if there shouldn't be a more explicit restriction on submitting the works of others. Something like, 'You may only submit the works of other artists if the work is part of a larger project for which you yourself are also a contributor.' The idea being that it's ok for one artist on a team to submit works on behalf of the entire team, but otherwise folks shouldn't be submitting works that are not their own. Well, maybe that's too restrictive, but like I say a few of the recent discussions show the dangers of accepting submissions from uninvolved 3rd parties.
In general, I think there's a lot that can be done just by clarifying the language of the site faq a little.
Pages