Didn't see capbros post, hmmmmm, it is a bit murky isn't it?, think as a developer looking for artwork to use, it just creates a minefield to both developer and artist.
if I upload a work to a service with the EULA, advertise CCO, it's downloaded, end user then puts it on a site like OGA under a new license, in theory they haven't broke my license requirement but have broken the EULA agreement? and could be marked as a licensing issue by an administrator, if for example they find out it has originally come from the service?
although the asset may be available CCO and as you say is irrevocable, does that mean uploading as a publisher I am also breaking the terms of the EULA agreement on the service used?
i suppose it doesn't really matter either way, proving where it came from seems daft as its in public domain, I was just curious.
the common sense in me says not its nothing More than a temper tantrum and really don't see your argument about loss of earnings or being shown in a bad light,it wouldn't wash hear in the UK.
if You was as educated as you think you are in law and civil courts then for me to take you serouisly I would expect you to behave in a professional manner in tune with how a lawyer would conduct themselves when planning on taking anyone to court. Make your statement, then say no more.
i will watch this thread and see what aspires. I will go on record here and say that I fully support Medicinestorms decision to ban a member for constant rule breaking.
OGA does not "entice" others to use libre licenses, OGA did not find you, you find OGA. OGA doesn't force you to spend hours creating works and uploading to its servers in exchange for a portfolio, you choose to for your own reasons, OGA makes no promises to you as a user, only that if you use it then you agree to follow the rules.
the user has portrayed himself in bad light, he was not banned because his comments were disliked by someone, he was banned for making comments that were against the rules, and continued to make comments against the rules, even after several warnings. The actions taken by medicinestorm were forthcoming with that continued rule breaking, and all those comments will be documented/archived, these documents would actually strengthen his action, and could be seen as 'protecting' the user from any more bad light, so an answer to your question about "is this the action of a reasonable man?" Yes, I believe it is, and I think others on here will think so too, OGA has been more than reasonable.
Didn't see capbros post, hmmmmm, it is a bit murky isn't it?, think as a developer looking for artwork to use, it just creates a minefield to both developer and artist.
I kinda see what your saying,
if I upload a work to a service with the EULA, advertise CCO, it's downloaded, end user then puts it on a site like OGA under a new license, in theory they haven't broke my license requirement but have broken the EULA agreement? and could be marked as a licensing issue by an administrator, if for example they find out it has originally come from the service?
although the asset may be available CCO and as you say is irrevocable, does that mean uploading as a publisher I am also breaking the terms of the EULA agreement on the service used?
i suppose it doesn't really matter either way, proving where it came from seems daft as its in public domain, I was just curious.
Could you perhaps show an example of what you require? It would help us as artists,
"realistically drawn" with "minimal detail" on 128x128 pixel space, sounds tough.:)
thanks!, il redo the control page to make it more better, thanks for the feedback and nice comment.:)
Well done on your first game, looks very cool!
That's cool, I thought about something like this, what a great way to get your artwork out there and have some fun with it, well done!
Yes let's see what they say.
the common sense in me says not its nothing More than a temper tantrum and really don't see your argument about loss of earnings or being shown in a bad light,it wouldn't wash hear in the UK.
if You was as educated as you think you are in law and civil courts then for me to take you serouisly I would expect you to behave in a professional manner in tune with how a lawyer would conduct themselves when planning on taking anyone to court. Make your statement, then say no more.
i will watch this thread and see what aspires. I will go on record here and say that I fully support Medicinestorms decision to ban a member for constant rule breaking.
Sounds good, I'm sure if one is started, artist will contribute,.:)
You can't, only admins can do that, you can edit though, you would have to ask admin or mark as Spam any comments you would liker to have removed.:)
OGA does not "entice" others to use libre licenses, OGA did not find you, you find OGA. OGA doesn't force you to spend hours creating works and uploading to its servers in exchange for a portfolio, you choose to for your own reasons, OGA makes no promises to you as a user, only that if you use it then you agree to follow the rules.
the user has portrayed himself in bad light, he was not banned because his comments were disliked by someone, he was banned for making comments that were against the rules, and continued to make comments against the rules, even after several warnings. The actions taken by medicinestorm were forthcoming with that continued rule breaking, and all those comments will be documented/archived, these documents would actually strengthen his action, and could be seen as 'protecting' the user from any more bad light, so an answer to your question about "is this the action of a reasonable man?" Yes, I believe it is, and I think others on here will think so too, OGA has been more than reasonable.
Pages