Primary tabs

Comments by User

Sunday, March 5, 2023 - 07:17

Maybe company name + 'Media' or 'Works ?, those cover pretty much everything, books, writing, film, games etc. 'Books' is to generic as Danimal says, and sounds more like a publisher than a creator.

Tuesday, February 28, 2023 - 11:50

these 'Add Ons' are also available on the Xbox Store and Epic.

I couldn't find anything regarding credits for the game 'Summer of Sports', which looks like its using LPC Sprites, well, i would say they are using Eliza/Deaths Darlings versions of the LPC in my opinion from what i have seen.

I would say they have been slightly modified as well, they arn't exactly the same, but they are clearly modified.

There may well be credits within the game package, but will only know if its included within the purchased files?

Thursday, February 16, 2023 - 10:51


If you downloaded the asset from here(OGA) and it was CC0, then you are only bound to CC0, no one can change that. As long as you signed in at the time of download it will give you a credits download file to prove it was CC0.
It's the responsability of the uploader to insure that they license their work correctly. If the uploading author is the real/genuine owner of the work and they have licensed it incorrectly, then that mistake is theirs not the end user. If its not a genuine owner then all bets are off and the asset will flagged until it can be sorted out.

The real/geniune owner is entitled to change the license at anytime should they realise thier mistake, but will have to concede that any of the asset downloaded before the change will remain on whatever license the agreed to previously.

That said, the Author/uploader should be respectfully treated, especially when allowing assets at no cost and if they made a msitake, end users should really uphold what the author wants, and work within the newer/updated license framework if its possible. If for any reason this makes it difficult because of the project logistics then perhaps some negotiation/leeway can be spoken about and communicated of the users intentions.

If you have treid to reach out and done what you can to ressolve your concerns and no one gets back to you, then id go with what you have, if its CC0, then so be it. You just need to make sure that the uploader is the geniune owner of uploaded works.

This is my opinion, not real legal advice :) 


Friday, November 4, 2022 - 14:33

thanks, just a misunderstanding.

"Final product is what matters" - Yes, i suppose thats right, if an NFT has been created for a purpose, what ever that purpose may be, by design, to benefit the artist, programmer, project or end user, i suppose it comes down to what we perceive that 'purpose' to be, on a 'moral' stand point. 

Friday, November 4, 2022 - 12:46

@Commander It's nothing to do with Bible, God, 666 or bloody Shamens. Unless you talking 'Morallity' values, in which case just say so mate. Your 'scriptured' type comment leaves me baffled, is it a real point of view or are you just mocking? This is a serious topic for me matey. :)

Friday, November 4, 2022 - 03:29

"Wouldn't distributing something as an NFT violate most of the licenses on OGA?"

It depends on the licenses. CC-By with stipulations or any license that allows stipulations ,and is stipulated 'no NFT use' or something like that, I believe would be in violation, at the same time, even if the license doesn't say it directly would/could depend on the license that is added either by default of the marketplace platform user agreement(if there is one) or stipulated inside a 'smart contract', with or without contracted negotiations of users/authors/contributions/commisions. Public domain assets is different story as you know, but with 'artificial scarcity' being a thing, to say something is RARE, when it isn't could/does constitute a 'fraud' bearing, if selling something like that. It may be rare when you first create it, but theres nothing stoppping anyone from creating the same thing, using the same PD assets, so claims of rarity loses its appeal, and so does the 'uniqueness', as it becomes devalued as a result. Think medicinestorm did a good write up in the links on the front page.

"Are people providing appropriate credit for OGA stuff that they NFT?"

I have no idea, I haven't seen any OGA assets on any NFT platforms thankfully.

What we have is yet more misconseption that owning an NFT gives 'owners' the copyright to that particular image/sound/film to do what they want with, BUT that isn't true. What they own is the NFT, what ever that may be. It doesn't give them the rights to edit it, make copys of it,  re uploaded it, print it on t-shirts etc. thats ONLY allowed if the creator grants that permission within its license(smart contract). Owners of the NFT are only really really allowed to sell it on as an NFT, as it is.

That is my understanding of it anyway.

"My question with NFTs has always been, who is the market for this stuff?"

Good question, and one that i would say is 'subjective'. It should of been a way for artists to sell their work and go someway to proof authorship in a digital capacity, no matter how many people copy and paste someones image/work/asset, there is now a way to say what is 'official' and have some legal stand point, proof of ownsership and license agreements.  Also creators have a say in their work being resold and can collect 'royalties' each time, another way for artists to support their work and be supported by fans. BUT, this isn't what has happened. Instead, what we have is a space that has been filled with users exploiting the system and turned it into something else, so now it is seen as nothing more than users trying to get rich quick schemes, asset flippers & scammers. so right now, the market for this stuff is those people. IMO. 

Tuesday, November 1, 2022 - 11:56

"OGA has lost a significant amount of quality assets because the artists were so frustrated by bad actors selling their assets as NFTs that they decided to erase all sources of their art from internet"

This is a good point, so how do most creators here feel about their assets hear being used for NFT's? but not neccessarily in a Jpeg/Png collection with scarcity, but  used and included as an NFT game project?

has anyone been approached here or outside OGA to be involved in such projects? Either commisioned or editing thier already made assets.

Tuesday, November 1, 2022 - 11:30

Medicinestorm, Thanks for your input there, some great points, and examples. I share your view on the 'attitudes' of users within the space. Peter said 'imorallic', which i would also agreee with in most cases. 

This is, in my opinion, the most biggest problem in the space, very closely followed by its enviromental impact. A lot of the things negative, sort of go hand in hand par se, i find it hard to talk about a specific thing, when a lot of it stems from something else. 'Morality' & 'attitudes', bad players, actors that choose to use the tech in a way where most find it 'immoral', for violating IP's, or using creators work in a way that it wasn't intended for, creating 'artificial scarcity' to drive a selfish narrative, which becomes a benefit for the users selling art, and not the creator that created the art, which in the beginning, that was it was sold to us as. This just annoys creators and in most cases forces them to 'remove' their creations, or be reactive to a situation thet don't want to be a part, for their own reasons, or for the very reasons we have mentioned. The end result is bitterness and resentment for the NFT space in general, because of this 'culture' thats has driven it and continues to drive it.

I myself have changed my License to CC-BY-4.0, I didn't want to, i never wanted to create assets that gave any sort of restriction or insist on anything for its use, but i felt/feel that it gives me some protection, or at least a choice to be a part of, or not be a part of the NFT scene, should my work find itself on the platforms either through myself or someone else doing it. claiming it as their own, or assumptions being made that its acttually me, or an imposter, causing some reputational damage, given the feelings around the scene at the moment. With the CC-BY-4 licesne i can stipulilate a condition where no NFT's can be made with them, doesn't mean it might not happen, because its happening now regardless of licensed work, but i can make a DMCA claim. I shouldn't have to though, its a lot of unesscessry work, and is just another thing to drive hatred towards the users and the platforms that let them, the bad immoral players, continue to do it. It's certainly driven creators to leave and/or erase their assets from platforms as you say, which is a terrible consequense. :(

This problem could of been stamped out from the very beginning, if the powers that be, the platforms, such as Opensea, Rarible etc, did what they could to protect the creators, with better verifications, proof of author, punishments for offenders, better officiation, and not make it so easy, then we would have a very different NFT space right now, but sadly, it would appear the very people that plague the space with bad players, are the same people that are running and driving the NFT space, all in it to make vasts amount of money off the back whomever uses thier platforms, be them legitiment or not.

I have been one of those people that is angered by all the stolen art and thrown mud at some that have involved themselves with the NFT space, and i have regretted some things, and feel somewhat embaressed about it, now that i have taken the time to take a step back and look into it a bit more with a different set of eyes, ones that arn't blinded by the hatred, and so far i have to ask myself that "do i really hate the tech that NFT's are, or the people doing immoral things with the tech that is"

I can definetely for sure say it's the latter currently. The tech though isn't without its problems of coarse. there is still its environmental impact, which is well documentated these days, and no secret that a lot of people around the world hate it for this reason. But like most things in its early days, start off bad, then improve over time and get better, thats development. In this case, the 'Blockchain'. There are many blockchains now, some are still gas guzzling machines, but there are now less enviromental impactful Blockchains(i.e Etherium 2.0), which i would say is a good thing, (im not going to go into all that here), but for those that were against NFT's for the enviromental reasons, now have options to consider NFT's as a option, without potential backlash from haters? I say potential, as NFT's are now very stigmatised, and it still leaves the question of receiving payments in cryptocurrency form, which is a whole other segment itself, which brings in the same arguments to a degree becuase of its 'history'.



Monday, October 31, 2022 - 14:27

Yep, i hear you there. thats definetely creating the 'artificial scarcity' that is suppose to give an NFT it's 'uniqueness' and/or appeal.(to some at least)

'unique items' and having 'only one'. There doesn't have to be only one, there can be muiltle numbers of the same thing. I would say that was a concious decision made by the author/team/board/corporate to implement them that way for whatever their reasons. (greed, sustainability) Would you agree?

As for the Frida Kalo example, yeah, a foolish act, and shockingly sad in my opinion, but a decision made by someone to 'push' the price up of thier NFT in hope it would sell making them a profit. Greed at its finest, a total disregard and unapreciation for the authors work. which is very sad to see.


Theres a lot of this 'behaviour' in the scene, including many other things, which dominates the NFT space, the 'jerks', but there is a small number of creators that are genuine, and genuinely believe creating NFT type of work will help them continue doing what they do as an added way to benefit from thier works alongside current ways. How do we feel about these creators? 'its a scam' is a phrase i hear a lot, and i often ask myself 'is it fair' to assume that every creator that enters the NFT space be tarnished.

Just so you know Danimal, i'm responding to your comments, (which are apreciatted by the way) and asking 'open ended' questions for anyone to jump in on, and i may be playing devils advocate on occasion as well, so i hope im not coming across as an arse. :) I'm not advacating NFT's, just trying to get a 'feel of the room' :) 

Monday, October 31, 2022 - 07:45

I think about it quite a lot. lol.
Good points there. 'artificial scarcity', 'IP violations', 'Licensing' & 'enviromental impact'. interestingly you didn't mention 'fraud/scams'. It would say that your comments seem more directed at collections of images. would that be fair?  What about NFT's as Utility's? Trading cards or in game purchases as an example.

'benefits a tiny amount of people'. :) so there is a benefit to NFT's you would say? If its the creator that benefits that surely a good thing?