Whoops, I missed that legal disclaimer. I think that is sufficient.
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.
Insofar as a video game just displays unaltered -SA images (or plays sounds, ignoring for the moment synchronization), I think it falls under similar use to the book you refer to, in which the -SA image was incorporated (and displayed) into a larger work, but the larger work was not an adaptation - just a means to display the -SA content.
Conversely, it may be argued that the way the code displays the art is a derivative. For instance, nobody ever displays the entire spritesheet in its original form - code chops it up, and dynamically cycles through frames depending on the state of the object, which depends on user input. I would argue that this still doesn't count as a derivative though. If it did, and somebody released a spritesheet under CC-BY, then some jerk might come along, arange the sprites in order of the animation sequence, produce an animation and call it a new work, slapping a proprietary license on it, and making the original CC-BY asset unusable for everyone else, including the original creator. So I think that the types of remixes applied in games cannot reasonably be considered derivatives, but rather just means of displaying the original content.
It's definitely not clear though. I also found this page which states
Share-Alike (SA) – You can use this asset (or a version of it that you have modified) in your game, but your game must be released under a similar license to the asset in question.
No Derivative Works – You can use this asset in your game, but only if the original work was not modified in any way.
Clearly (at least) one of those is wrong - if the game is a derivative then you cannot use -ND content in it. If the game is NOT a derivative, then you don't have to release the game under a similar license. So I guess the question of whether or not -SA content may be used in a non-freely licensed game is identical whether or not -ND content may be used in games.
Great points mdwh, all of them. In addition to confusion around GPL, I know there has also been a lot of confusion here regarding CC-BY-SA in closed source games. I did a little digging (all emphasis below is mine). Keep in mind that I am definitely not a lawyer.
First, see here under Potential Compatible Licenses (I know it's listed as for 4.0 versions, but it's not a legal document, rather it just expresses how CC thinks about things).
[While] CC is suitable for content and not software, the reality is that increasingly, people are creating works that mix content and code in ways that create uncertainty around how the licenses interact.
So they at least acknowledge possible ambiguities.
Another is interactive games and art, which generate new artistic works by using code to combine existing smaller works. Video games are code, but also art, and some blur the distinction so much that you can’t separate out the elements to treat them as a simple aggregation. Many generate new, original graphics or music based on the underlying code and the player’s actions; where they are built from BY or BY-SA licensed pieces, it may be necessary to ensure that they are compatible.
I read this as "if your code uses CC content to produce new, original graphics or sounds, then your code may need to be licensed compatibally with CC." However, a video game does not by definition appear to trigger this. My (definitely non-lawyer) interpretation is that code moving graphics around, or cycling through animation frames, does not constitute creating new, original art, and therefore does not need to be compatible.
"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with one or more other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
Further down, looking at "Derivative Work" I think the most telling lines are
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted
In my opinion, none of the examples they list here seem similar to "inclusion in a video game" (except perhaps "motion picture version"???), whereas I think that a "Collective Work" is a better maatch for video games, at least insofar as the game code is not manipulating the CC-BY-SA content to produce novel art (I doubt that moving a sprite, or animating a sprite counts as sufficiently novel), as discussed above. If however, the sprites were provided as a spritesheet and you split them up to display individually, I believe that the inidividually split sprites are a derivative work, and you would be requried to release them under a compatible license.
For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work
So interestingly, I would say that if you download a sword-slash sound effect licensed under CC-BY-SA, and create your own custom sword-slashing animted sprite, and your game synchronizes the playing of the sound over the animation, then 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.
tl;dr - Looking at how CC thinks about compatibility, and the text of the license, I (who am definitely not a lawyer) would interpret that under most cases, it is safe to use CC-BY-SA 3.0 content in closed source games, as CC seems to think of code (including video games) and content separately. Instead, I think that video games may more closely resemble "Collective Works". You may run into trouble if your gameplay mechanic focusses on manipulating artwork to create original art. You may also run into trouble if you synchronize sound effects or music to non-freely licensed art.
Again though... I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. In fact, I think that no matter what goes into the FAQ, it deserves to have a warning saying that it is not legal advice, and it is the responsibility of the user to make sure that they are using the artwork in a way that is compatible with the appropriate license.
Yes, you can use CC content in a game with code released under MIT license, but the artwork would still be covered by CC, and you have to follow its rules (e.g. attribution).
You can also mix in non CC content with no trouble. Just be sure that in your LICENSE.TXT (or whatever) you specify exactly what license applies to what content. The other stuff can be totally non-free as long as you hold the rights to use it, and you can mix it in with no problem.
So, for instance, your LICENST.TXT might say something like:
The source code is released under MIT license. See MIT_LICENSE.TXT for full license text.
The game also uses the following artwork under the terms of the CC-BY-3.0 license. See CCBY30.TXT for the full license text.
LPC_Atlas_0.png was created by XXXXX and hosted at opengameart.org/blah/blah
....
The game also uses the following artwork under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license...
The game also uses the following artwork under the terms of NONFREE-LICENSE-X license...
I am not legal expert, but I think that something like this would cover all your bases, including the text of each appropriate license.
You may want to read the FAQ to clarify some of these issues. However the notes there are pretty short, and somebody has proposed some updates which (I think) are much clearer regarding these issues.
@capbros
Whoops, I missed that legal disclaimer. I think that is sufficient.
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.
Insofar as a video game just displays unaltered -SA images (or plays sounds, ignoring for the moment synchronization), I think it falls under similar use to the book you refer to, in which the -SA image was incorporated (and displayed) into a larger work, but the larger work was not an adaptation - just a means to display the -SA content.
Conversely, it may be argued that the way the code displays the art is a derivative. For instance, nobody ever displays the entire spritesheet in its original form - code chops it up, and dynamically cycles through frames depending on the state of the object, which depends on user input. I would argue that this still doesn't count as a derivative though. If it did, and somebody released a spritesheet under CC-BY, then some jerk might come along, arange the sprites in order of the animation sequence, produce an animation and call it a new work, slapping a proprietary license on it, and making the original CC-BY asset unusable for everyone else, including the original creator. So I think that the types of remixes applied in games cannot reasonably be considered derivatives, but rather just means of displaying the original content.
It's definitely not clear though. I also found this page which states
Clearly (at least) one of those is wrong - if the game is a derivative then you cannot use -ND content in it. If the game is NOT a derivative, then you don't have to release the game under a similar license. So I guess the question of whether or not -SA content may be used in a non-freely licensed game is identical whether or not -ND content may be used in games.
I also found this paper: Computer Games and Intellectual Property Law: Derivative Works, Copyright and Copyleft. It can be downloaded for free by connecting with google+ info. I'll hopefully read through it when I have time, but I imagine it may have some useful nuggets.
Great points mdwh, all of them. In addition to confusion around GPL, I know there has also been a lot of confusion here regarding CC-BY-SA in closed source games. I did a little digging (all emphasis below is mine). Keep in mind that I am definitely not a lawyer.
First, see here under Potential Compatible Licenses (I know it's listed as for 4.0 versions, but it's not a legal document, rather it just expresses how CC thinks about things).
So they at least acknowledge possible ambiguities.
I read this as "if your code uses CC content to produce new, original graphics or sounds, then your code may need to be licensed compatibally with CC." However, a video game does not by definition appear to trigger this. My (definitely non-lawyer) interpretation is that code moving graphics around, or cycling through animation frames, does not constitute creating new, original art, and therefore does not need to be compatible.
Now, looking at the actual CC-BY-SA 3.0 license:
Further down, looking at "Derivative Work" I think the most telling lines are
In my opinion, none of the examples they list here seem similar to "inclusion in a video game" (except perhaps "motion picture version"???), whereas I think that a "Collective Work" is a better maatch for video games, at least insofar as the game code is not manipulating the CC-BY-SA content to produce novel art (I doubt that moving a sprite, or animating a sprite counts as sufficiently novel), as discussed above. If however, the sprites were provided as a spritesheet and you split them up to display individually, I believe that the inidividually split sprites are a derivative work, and you would be requried to release them under a compatible license.
So interestingly, I would say that if you download a sword-slash sound effect licensed under CC-BY-SA, and create your own custom sword-slashing animted sprite, and your game synchronizes the playing of the sound over the animation, then 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.
tl;dr - Looking at how CC thinks about compatibility, and the text of the license, I (who am definitely not a lawyer) would interpret that under most cases, it is safe to use CC-BY-SA 3.0 content in closed source games, as CC seems to think of code (including video games) and content separately. Instead, I think that video games may more closely resemble "Collective Works". You may run into trouble if your gameplay mechanic focusses on manipulating artwork to create original art. You may also run into trouble if you synchronize sound effects or music to non-freely licensed art.
Again though... I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. In fact, I think that no matter what goes into the FAQ, it deserves to have a warning saying that it is not legal advice, and it is the responsibility of the user to make sure that they are using the artwork in a way that is compatible with the appropriate license.
Awesome, thanks for sharing! I just played it, and got smashed with more fireballs than I'd like to admit. I liked the music and sounds a lot too.
Good luck as you continue making games.
There have been a few new ones produced - you might want to also check out this other collection: http://opengameart.org/content/jason-ems-classic-hero-edits
I have at least continued receiving email notifications of comments.
I agree with Zuxal, this is great!
This is great, thanks for sharing!
^^^ Hahaha, oh the irony. :)
Yes, you can use CC content in a game with code released under MIT license, but the artwork would still be covered by CC, and you have to follow its rules (e.g. attribution).
You can also mix in non CC content with no trouble. Just be sure that in your LICENSE.TXT (or whatever) you specify exactly what license applies to what content. The other stuff can be totally non-free as long as you hold the rights to use it, and you can mix it in with no problem.
So, for instance, your LICENST.TXT might say something like:
I am not legal expert, but I think that something like this would cover all your bases, including the text of each appropriate license.
You may want to read the FAQ to clarify some of these issues. However the notes there are pretty short, and somebody has proposed some updates which (I think) are much clearer regarding these issues.
Pages