I can separate out the "slash" sheet from the walkcycle, and put the walkcycle in the "universal" format, but the smash animation itself is oversized (128x128px), so it won't fit in the "universal" format. It will have to be a separate oversized animation, like slash or thrust.
I'd like to polish this animation a little more, make a north- and west-facing version (I don't think south-facing will really work for this animation, based on how the character's arm moves), etc. I also would like to make a less-square hammer. This was just sort of a proof of concept :)
Just to elaborate: these tileset images are really intended to be used like, well, tiles---you assemble multiple 32x32 px tiles into a larger image. I usually use Tiled https://www.mapeditor.org for this, and if you download Tiled and the example scene on my submission, you can see how the preview image was built up from tiles. Unity has a similar function, I believe it's this: https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/class-Tilemap.html . Of course, if you just want a few static objects, it would be easiest to cut them out as MedicineStorm suggests.
tl;dr: IANAL, but my analysis is that combining CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0 assets is possible; however the terms of *both* CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY-4.0 licenses are applied to the resulting asset. I believe this is consistent with guidance from the Creative Commons: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines#Dealing_with_mixed-version_.28e.g..2C_4.0_and_prior_versions.29_content . Practically speaking, this probably just means you need to include the title of the original work(s) when attributing (a good practice anyway), in addition to listing the author, the license, and the URL.
Longer answer:
Each CC-BY license governs the distribution and creation of adaptations, for works distributed under that license. To my reading, there is nothing in either CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 that prohibits different parts of a work being subject to different licenses. As a trivial example, nothing could prohibit you from creating an adaptation by combining a CC-BY 3.0 work (asset #1) with a public domain work (asset #2), to create asset #3. The inclusion of the public domain work (asset #2) does not invalidate or change the requirements of CC-BY 3.0 as they apply to asset #1---why would it? Likewise, license #1 does not affect any users' rights to use asset #2, which is in the public domain. Since asset #3 adapts asset #1, you (and any other users) must comply with the terms of CC-BY 3.0 (i.e. credit author #1, no DRM, etc.). Asset #2 does not impose any additional requirements or restrictions on users of asset #3, since it is in the public domain. An appropriate license for asset #3 would be CC-BY 3.0, which preserves author #1's rights, but CC-BY-SA 3.0 could be used as well.
Extending that logic to your original question, consider consider that there are three parts to your new combined asset (asset #4):
The original CC-BY 3.0 work (asset #1, license #1)
The original CC-BY 4.0 work (asset #2, license #2)
Your contributions, which can be licensed however you want (asset #3, license #3)
The resulting work (asset #4) is an adaptation of asset #1, so you (and anyone else) needs to comply with license #1. Likewise, it is an adaptation of asset #2, so users need to comply with license #2. Finally, you will choose to license your contributions to the artwork however you like. You could choose CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 (or 1.0 or 2.0 for that matter, but why would you?), and then users would have to comply with that license as well; you could choose OGA-BY; or you could even choose CC0 for your contributions, and impose no additional terms on the user. (Note: if asset #1 or #2 were -BY-SA, you would be required to license your _contributions_ and the resulting adaptation as -BY-SA as well.) Therefore, as long as the user complies with the terms of all 3 licenses when using asset #4, then their use is permissible. So how should asset #4 be licensed? I would argue an appropriate license is (CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0). That is, a license that requires the user to comply with the requirements of BOTH CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0. More on what that means practically below. OpenGameArt does not currently have a way of indicating that terms of multiple licenses MUST ALL be followed (e.g. conjunctive "AND"), only that users may choose from among multiple license options (e.g. disjunctive "OR"). Other groups/systems such as SPDX do allow for this distinction; see their documentation.
In many cases, a work will have multiple rights at play because there is more than one contributor to a work. This often means there are multiple license versions applicable to a work. In those cases, reusers must comply with all relevant license versions when reusing the full work.
For, example, reusing a 4.0-licensed translation of a 3.0-licensed essay would require complying with the conditions of both versions 3.0 and 4.0. This means attributing the original author as specified in v3 and attributing the translator as specified in v4.
... As a practical matter, compliance with a later version of a license is typically compliant with the earlier license. There are certain exceptions with respect to attribution. A comparison of the attribution requirements is here
Basically, if (as a user) you are following the rules of the later license, you are generally following the rules of the earlier version. The major exception is that later versions have different requirements for attribution. As far as I can tell, the only practical difference is that CC-BY 3.0 required you to include the title when attributing an asset, whereas CC-BY 4.0 does not. There are other differences about linking to the license and such, but here complying with CC-BY 4.0 should satisfy the requirements of CC-BY 3.0. See details here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribut... .
I don't know what Botanic means by "You can not use BY-SA 3.0 and BY-SA 4.0 because CC is silly in how they did the liscense." You can combine a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work and a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. The license of the resulting work is (CC-BY-SA 3.0 AND CC-BY-SA 4.0). All the same analysis above applies to combining a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work with a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. If anything, the situation is more clear, since the CC-BY-SA 3.0 says you MUST distribute an adaptation under the same license or a later version of the same license (CC-BY is silent on the exact license you can use for adaptations). See here https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7430/can-i-upgrade-the-ve... . See also this question which presents a similar analysis to mine: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6782
I do agree that "CC is silly in how they did the license," insofar as this is very confusing, and it would have been nice to have terms like "use this version or any later version of the license" in CC-BY 1.0, but nobody is perfect, and they are trying to improve the licenses over time to make it easier to use content.
Agreed with Eliza's comments. I am not aware of anything specific to this period. I don't know much about armor from this period, but a lot of stuff could likely be made to work with some modifications, and focusing on the most distinctive elements will save you lots of effort and money. For example, castelonia and I are working on some clothing for pirates, and we were able to adapt existing pants, shirts, and jackets to good effect, while focusing on adding some pirate-y details, like a peg leg, hook, and tricorne hat. See example.
Animation is laborious and therefore expensive. As she mentioned, helmets are easier/cheaper than other objects for the LPC set, since only a few frames need to be drawn and the rest can be placed automatically.
Send me a PM if you'd like to discuss commissions, I would be happy to work on this.
BTW Eliza, the armor looks awesome! Can't wait to see the full set!
Thanks! Calm down, here it is---it's really not much, and I only edited the west-facing animation. Animation order is (1-based) frames 6, 5, 2, 1. Derived from Reemax and pvigier's smash weapons here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-smash-weapons , same licenses.
As an aside, this little experiment makes me convinced that much better "smash" animations could be achieved for the axe and pickaxe, just by drawing 2-3 frames of animation per direction with motion blur, plus some very simple "impact" effects.
OK, so I was convinced by FiveBrosStopMosYT, and I hacked together a simple hammering animation. Derived from pvigier/Reemax's warhammer animation here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-smash-weapons . I think it actually works fairly well. I used 4 frames of animation, frames 6, 5, 2, 1 of the "slash" animation. (This means it would fit all existing bases, the animation is just played out-of-order). I re-drew frames 5 and 2 to add motion blur. How does it look?
Would you consider making your art here available under the OGA-BY 3.0 license---that is, waiving the restrictions in the CC licenses that prohibit your work being used in a game with DRM (i.e. on the iOS app store, or with Steamworks DRM)? DRM sucks but it is a requirement of several platforms, and many are unwilling to use CC-BY or CC-BY-SA art for this reason, even if they would otherwise be willing to provide proper credit and share the art.
As an artist, I want to make my art as easy to use as possible, so I am trying to make more stuff available under OGA-BY. But to do that, I need permission from the people whose art mine is based on :)
Hype!! The new shops and the denser towns look great (although I think the towns could use even more decorations!) I will try it out later this evening.
I can separate out the "slash" sheet from the walkcycle, and put the walkcycle in the "universal" format, but the smash animation itself is oversized (128x128px), so it won't fit in the "universal" format. It will have to be a separate oversized animation, like slash or thrust.
I'd like to polish this animation a little more, make a north- and west-facing version (I don't think south-facing will really work for this animation, based on how the character's arm moves), etc. I also would like to make a less-square hammer. This was just sort of a proof of concept :)
Just to elaborate: these tileset images are really intended to be used like, well, tiles---you assemble multiple 32x32 px tiles into a larger image. I usually use Tiled https://www.mapeditor.org for this, and if you download Tiled and the example scene on my submission, you can see how the preview image was built up from tiles. Unity has a similar function, I believe it's this: https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/class-Tilemap.html . Of course, if you just want a few static objects, it would be easiest to cut them out as MedicineStorm suggests.
Hope that helps!
tl;dr: IANAL, but my analysis is that combining CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0 assets is possible; however the terms of *both* CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY-4.0 licenses are applied to the resulting asset. I believe this is consistent with guidance from the Creative Commons: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines#Dealing_with_mixed-version_.28e.g..2C_4.0_and_prior_versions.29_content . Practically speaking, this probably just means you need to include the title of the original work(s) when attributing (a good practice anyway), in addition to listing the author, the license, and the URL.
Longer answer:
Each CC-BY license governs the distribution and creation of adaptations, for works distributed under that license. To my reading, there is nothing in either CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 that prohibits different parts of a work being subject to different licenses. As a trivial example, nothing could prohibit you from creating an adaptation by combining a CC-BY 3.0 work (asset #1) with a public domain work (asset #2), to create asset #3. The inclusion of the public domain work (asset #2) does not invalidate or change the requirements of CC-BY 3.0 as they apply to asset #1---why would it? Likewise, license #1 does not affect any users' rights to use asset #2, which is in the public domain. Since asset #3 adapts asset #1, you (and any other users) must comply with the terms of CC-BY 3.0 (i.e. credit author #1, no DRM, etc.). Asset #2 does not impose any additional requirements or restrictions on users of asset #3, since it is in the public domain. An appropriate license for asset #3 would be CC-BY 3.0, which preserves author #1's rights, but CC-BY-SA 3.0 could be used as well.
Extending that logic to your original question, consider consider that there are three parts to your new combined asset (asset #4):
The resulting work (asset #4) is an adaptation of asset #1, so you (and anyone else) needs to comply with license #1. Likewise, it is an adaptation of asset #2, so users need to comply with license #2. Finally, you will choose to license your contributions to the artwork however you like. You could choose CC-BY 3.0 or 4.0 (or 1.0 or 2.0 for that matter, but why would you?), and then users would have to comply with that license as well; you could choose OGA-BY; or you could even choose CC0 for your contributions, and impose no additional terms on the user. (Note: if asset #1 or #2 were -BY-SA, you would be required to license your _contributions_ and the resulting adaptation as -BY-SA as well.) Therefore, as long as the user complies with the terms of all 3 licenses when using asset #4, then their use is permissible. So how should asset #4 be licensed? I would argue an appropriate license is (CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0). That is, a license that requires the user to comply with the requirements of BOTH CC-BY 3.0 AND CC-BY 4.0. More on what that means practically below. OpenGameArt does not currently have a way of indicating that terms of multiple licenses MUST ALL be followed (e.g. conjunctive "AND"), only that users may choose from among multiple license options (e.g. disjunctive "OR"). Other groups/systems such as SPDX do allow for this distinction; see their documentation.
Practically speaking, what does it mean to comply with CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY 4.0? From the Creative Commons Upgrade Guide for v4.0 :
Basically, if (as a user) you are following the rules of the later license, you are generally following the rules of the earlier version. The major exception is that later versions have different requirements for attribution. As far as I can tell, the only practical difference is that CC-BY 3.0 required you to include the title when attributing an asset, whereas CC-BY 4.0 does not. There are other differences about linking to the license and such, but here complying with CC-BY 4.0 should satisfy the requirements of CC-BY 3.0. See details here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribut... .
I don't know what Botanic means by "You can not use BY-SA 3.0 and BY-SA 4.0 because CC is silly in how they did the liscense." You can combine a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work and a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. The license of the resulting work is (CC-BY-SA 3.0 AND CC-BY-SA 4.0). All the same analysis above applies to combining a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work with a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work. If anything, the situation is more clear, since the CC-BY-SA 3.0 says you MUST distribute an adaptation under the same license or a later version of the same license (CC-BY is silent on the exact license you can use for adaptations). See here https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7430/can-i-upgrade-the-ve... . See also this question which presents a similar analysis to mine: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6782
I do agree that "CC is silly in how they did the license," insofar as this is very confusing, and it would have been nice to have terms like "use this version or any later version of the license" in CC-BY 1.0, but nobody is perfect, and they are trying to improve the licenses over time to make it easier to use content.
A prudent and reasonable plan! Let us know how we can help as your project develops :)
Agreed with Eliza's comments. I am not aware of anything specific to this period. I don't know much about armor from this period, but a lot of stuff could likely be made to work with some modifications, and focusing on the most distinctive elements will save you lots of effort and money. For example, castelonia and I are working on some clothing for pirates, and we were able to adapt existing pants, shirts, and jackets to good effect, while focusing on adding some pirate-y details, like a peg leg, hook, and tricorne hat. See example.
Animation is laborious and therefore expensive. As she mentioned, helmets are easier/cheaper than other objects for the LPC set, since only a few frames need to be drawn and the rest can be placed automatically.
Send me a PM if you'd like to discuss commissions, I would be happy to work on this.
BTW Eliza, the armor looks awesome! Can't wait to see the full set!
Thanks! Calm down, here it is---it's really not much, and I only edited the west-facing animation. Animation order is (1-based) frames 6, 5, 2, 1. Derived from Reemax and pvigier's smash weapons here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-smash-weapons , same licenses.
As an aside, this little experiment makes me convinced that much better "smash" animations could be achieved for the axe and pickaxe, just by drawing 2-3 frames of animation per direction with motion blur, plus some very simple "impact" effects.
OK, so I was convinced by FiveBrosStopMosYT, and I hacked together a simple hammering animation. Derived from pvigier/Reemax's warhammer animation here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-smash-weapons . I think it actually works fairly well. I used 4 frames of animation, frames 6, 5, 2, 1 of the "slash" animation. (This means it would fit all existing bases, the animation is just played out-of-order). I re-drew frames 5 and 2 to add motion blur. How does it look?
Hello! I used your bottles fairly extensively here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-containers and here https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-alchemy to make a bunch of different glassware. Thanks so much!
Would you consider making your art here available under the OGA-BY 3.0 license---that is, waiving the restrictions in the CC licenses that prohibit your work being used in a game with DRM (i.e. on the iOS app store, or with Steamworks DRM)? DRM sucks but it is a requirement of several platforms, and many are unwilling to use CC-BY or CC-BY-SA art for this reason, even if they would otherwise be willing to provide proper credit and share the art.
As an artist, I want to make my art as easy to use as possible, so I am trying to make more stuff available under OGA-BY. But to do that, I need permission from the people whose art mine is based on :)
Let me know what you think!
Hype!! The new shops and the denser towns look great (although I think the towns could use even more decorations!) I will try it out later this evening.
Pages