It depends on how fast other people are submitting. You could consolidate them into one submission considering they're all related content: "Static RPG Sprites"
Just upload all 4 .zip files on one submission instead of 4 separate submissions with one .zip file on each.
That is super weird. I have no idea why it didn't like that last revision you made, but it was clear that was causing it so I deleted the last revision and reverted it to a previous one. I assume that isn't an issue since you're updating it with newer content anyway. Thank you for your patience and thanks for sharing your work. :)
No one else would be modifying that submission, so it is most likely your connection trying to double submit for some reason. You can also try clearing cache or log via a different browser and submitting. If it works, it will tell us where the error is coming from.
If you don't admit to using someone assts as a base there is no evidance for lawsuit. Guy openly said he COPYED and edited sprites to be unrecognizable
Possibly, yes. Admitting to copying is one form of evidence. Substantial similarity is another. There are more than 2 ways to demonstrate evidence of infringement in a copyright case, though. I'm not certain what you're trying to point out here. My point was "Similarity does not always equal copyright infringement. Lack of similarity does not always equal copyright safe."
Yet, if two people were to, say, paint a sword from the same angle, could that be considered copyright infringement?
No. The scenarios you have outlined are not fringe cases. If the only relationship between the two assets is the perspective, then it is not copyright infringement. One artist might still sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
Expecting every asset to be entirely unique not only stifles creativity—it may also lead to endless litigation as everyone could potentially sue each other, claiming “they copied me.”
Indeed. Good thing I don't expect every asset to be entirely unique. Is there someone here who does?
If we argue that using this tool is not copyright protected...
Who is "we"? I am not arguing that using this tool renders the output unprotectable.
the fundamental question remains: how much human input is required for a work to be considered truly original and eligible for copyright protection? ... but merely providing prompts isn’t enough. This raises a significant challenge: exactly how much human editing is required?
Agreed. The courts do have some benchmarks for such de minimus effort required to constitute something being a separate work, but those benchmarks are spread across the corpus of tort law, so it is often difficult to distill an answer down to a blurb, and certainly not one that can be applied in genereal.
could recoloring a single pixel be enough to claim protection?
No.
This ambiguity creates a minefield, potentially allowing someone to generate an asset with AI and then perform minimal tweaks to assert copyright ownership, thereby opening the door to endless legal disputes over what constitutes a meaningful creative contribution.
It is not so precarious as you may be assuming. De minimus and "substantial similarity" may be nebulous but they are hardly unknown legal thresholds. A simple hue shift does not reach the threshold of new works. Rearranging assets into a spritesheet or tileset does not reach the threshold. Performing "minimal tweaks" are- by admission- minimal, and therefore do not reach the threshold.
Consider the case between Pocketpair and Nintendo ... Cases like these illustrate how copyright and patent laws can be manipulated by powerful companies to control creativity and competition rather than to foster genuine innovation.
Again, One company might sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win. Granted, Nintendo's titanic status may give them unfair leverage, and the winner of that suit may not be the one who should win, unfortunately. However, I'm not sure how this applies here? Are you saying "Well, there are big powerful bullies in the world so let's forget IP law. If they can get away with it, then so shall we!"? I mean, I actually agree with social dissent in order to enact change, but that is an entirely different conversation. Please do not protest injustices of IP law by posting legally questionable content on OGA. We are not a corporate giant. Setting your friends ablaze does not halt your enemies.
I will look into that. In the meantime, you are still able to upload those files by first compressing them into a .zip file.
As long as the assets are still useful to humans, that's fine. Just uploading a ton of clips that aren't useful as actual music is not permitted.
It is done.
It depends on how fast other people are submitting. You could consolidate them into one submission considering they're all related content: "Static RPG Sprites"
Just upload all 4 .zip files on one submission instead of 4 separate submissions with one .zip file on each.
https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/assests-removed-all-accept-for-one
Haha! I've been using computers since the 80s. Still super weird
That is super weird. I have no idea why it didn't like that last revision you made, but it was clear that was causing it so I deleted the last revision and reverted it to a previous one. I assume that isn't an issue since you're updating it with newer content anyway. Thank you for your patience and thanks for sharing your work. :)
Try it now
Any new browser plugins?
No one else would be modifying that submission, so it is most likely your connection trying to double submit for some reason. You can also try clearing cache or log via a different browser and submitting. If it works, it will tell us where the error is coming from.
Possibly, yes. Admitting to copying is one form of evidence. Substantial similarity is another. There are more than 2 ways to demonstrate evidence of infringement in a copyright case, though. I'm not certain what you're trying to point out here. My point was "Similarity does not always equal copyright infringement. Lack of similarity does not always equal copyright safe."
No. The scenarios you have outlined are not fringe cases. If the only relationship between the two assets is the perspective, then it is not copyright infringement. One artist might still sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
Indeed. Good thing I don't expect every asset to be entirely unique. Is there someone here who does?
Who is "we"? I am not arguing that using this tool renders the output unprotectable.
Agreed. The courts do have some benchmarks for such de minimus effort required to constitute something being a separate work, but those benchmarks are spread across the corpus of tort law, so it is often difficult to distill an answer down to a blurb, and certainly not one that can be applied in genereal.
No.
It is not so precarious as you may be assuming. De minimus and "substantial similarity" may be nebulous but they are hardly unknown legal thresholds. A simple hue shift does not reach the threshold of new works. Rearranging assets into a spritesheet or tileset does not reach the threshold. Performing "minimal tweaks" are- by admission- minimal, and therefore do not reach the threshold.
Again, One company might sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win. Granted, Nintendo's titanic status may give them unfair leverage, and the winner of that suit may not be the one who should win, unfortunately. However, I'm not sure how this applies here? Are you saying "Well, there are big powerful bullies in the world so let's forget IP law. If they can get away with it, then so shall we!"? I mean, I actually agree with social dissent in order to enact change, but that is an entirely different conversation. Please do not protest injustices of IP law by posting legally questionable content on OGA. We are not a corporate giant. Setting your friends ablaze does not halt your enemies.
Pages