Oh, please attribute the artist as "DENZI", or "DENZI Room". I am not the artist, just the submitter and a fan of his. I would pass on your message to him but he's been incommunicado for years.
Oh, that's what he fixed? I thought he was talking about removing duplicate posts. Apologies, I didn't even realize the lpc subdomain wasn't working. Thank you for bringing it up.
Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
My opinions have no bearing on the rules of this site. As everyone in this thread has asserted: we will adhere to the rules regardless of our personal feelings about them. But, while we're sharing our opinions:
Using someone's art when they have licensed it openly, but do not wish me to use it: I have no opinion to share on this.
Using someone's art when they have not licensed it openly (or at all), but do wish me to use it: I have no opinion to share on this.
Using someone's art when they have not licensed it openlty, and do not wish me to use it: I beleive this is unethical. Namely:
I would rather judge unethical anyone preventing even his own art to be used in any way, I would gladly reuse even proprietary assets against the will of their author
My opinion diverges here. Although I am an advocate for free culture, I am also an advocate for consent. I believe using something as personal as somone's lovingly-crafted artwork without consent (furthermore; against consent) can be harmful, both personally and to our broader society. Are we saying that people's artistic expression should cease being something they have any say-so about the moment they finish creating? That seems like it would rob it of all the things that make great artwork: personal importance. intimate meaning. This is not a statement of chastisement or aggreivement, just a counterpoint to contrast various opinions being shared. :)
Oh, please attribute the artist as "DENZI", or "DENZI Room". I am not the artist, just the submitter and a fan of his. I would pass on your message to him but he's been incommunicado for years.
Yes, please! :) I would love to play it, testing or otherwise.
Yeah, of course! :)
@blue_prawn: who is targeting you? Chat-GPT?
Oh, that's what he fixed? I thought he was talking about removing duplicate posts. Apologies, I didn't even realize the lpc subdomain wasn't working. Thank you for bringing it up.
Not only is lpc.opengameart.org still active, it still mirrors all the latest content. Look:
Yay!
Let me know when you're streaming.
Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
My opinions have no bearing on the rules of this site. As everyone in this thread has asserted: we will adhere to the rules regardless of our personal feelings about them. But, while we're sharing our opinions:
My opinion diverges here. Although I am an advocate for free culture, I am also an advocate for consent. I believe using something as personal as somone's lovingly-crafted artwork without consent (furthermore; against consent) can be harmful, both personally and to our broader society. Are we saying that people's artistic expression should cease being something they have any say-so about the moment they finish creating? That seems like it would rob it of all the things that make great artwork: personal importance. intimate meaning. This is not a statement of chastisement or aggreivement, just a counterpoint to contrast various opinions being shared. :)
I agree. Though I'm uncertain of a better phrasing. Perhaps "disrespectful" or "rude" over "unethical". Even that doesn't quite sound right.
Pages