Well, I'm afraid I still don't know what you're referring to regarding the "4-5 times", so I can't really speak to that much, but I can say there are people who genuinely offer constructive criticism intended in a friendly light. I'm sure they don't always come across as very friendly, unfortunately.
On the other hand, there are real jerks out there that are not offering helpful advice, they're just being mean for no good reason. In those cases, the reality is "Jerks exist. You will encounter some on the internet." But they tend to seem like a larger crowd with more authority than they really are because they shout the loudest.
Just as art should not be judged as objectively "not good enough" or "this art is wrong", people should be allowed to share their opinion without that opinion being judged "not good enough" or "this opinion is wrong" even when that opinion is about someone's art. That being said, just being hateful for no good reason is not acceptable on OGA.
@Omerolvey: Yes, you must credit all these people for each sfx because this is a derivative set. All licenses of the source sound effects allow for this type of derivative creation and licensing. You are not required to use this asset, but if you do, you are required to credit everyone listed.
Authors changing their license is not an issue. Once the authors granted the assets under the above-listed license, that license became irrevocable. The original authors are allowed to chage their license on their own assets, but that won't change the license for the people who obtained the asset before the license change. This license will remain intact, no brawling needed. :)
Where were you trying to put the link? in a submission, a comment, or a forum post? Regardless, it should work now. Try it and let me know if you still get blocked. :)
The character looks only thematically similar. This asset does not meet "substantial similarity" guidelines and would not be an issue for its comparison to sonic. If it were a derivative, that would be an issue, but similarity is not what determines derivation. There is no evidence this character used sonic assets as a base, guide, or model. Was it inspired by sonic? probably. But inspiration is allowed.
Thank you for the clarification, but I don't believe I misunderstood. What you describe would still be considered a derivative and therefore bound by the license of the collage-models that were used as a starting reference.
In terms of the Henry Darger collage; yes, legally you would need the license permission from every one of the magazines he used. One exception to this is Fair Use. You can make a collage under fair-use, sure, but it's very unlikely others would be allowed to use that fair-use asset to make other things. Derivatives of fair-use derivatives are rarely fair-use themselves. That's why it's technically legal to make fan art, but never legal to use fan art in a game.
Sure you can put links to such models and collage-art in the forum. I'm sure others would very much enjoy that, but they should know any such art they create and use in a game, video, etc based on such assets would be difficult to sort out license-wise.
If you didn't tell me what you used as a base, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell what assets you used as a reference or guide, but if the license truly didn't allow it, not knowing about it wouldn't make it ok. It doesn't matter how different a derivative is from the original. If it was based on the original in any way, it is a derivative and subject to the original license terms regardless of if people can even recognize it as the same/similar work or not.
Let me know if I'm totally missing what you're suggesting.
@Ecrivain: Omerolvey is correct. Would you be able to change the license to CC-BY on this submission? Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue. Only temporarily, though. :)
As for the sample model: Any model based off of Nintendo IP (dodongo, koopa, pikmin, pokemon) would be subject to Nintendo's trademark, even if Nintendo themselves didn't make the model, so OGA probably wouldn't be able to host such sample models.
New prototype models sound pretty useful. However, designing new stuff using those prototypes as a model would make the new "from scratch" models a derivative, so the prototype's license would have sway still. What is the license of the 3d kitbash prototypes you are referring to?
Wait... are you referring to comments by OmeroIvey? Yeah, that was his last comment on this site. He was banned for a separate incident.
Well, I'm afraid I still don't know what you're referring to regarding the "4-5 times", so I can't really speak to that much, but I can say there are people who genuinely offer constructive criticism intended in a friendly light. I'm sure they don't always come across as very friendly, unfortunately.
On the other hand, there are real jerks out there that are not offering helpful advice, they're just being mean for no good reason. In those cases, the reality is "Jerks exist. You will encounter some on the internet." But they tend to seem like a larger crowd with more authority than they really are because they shout the loudest.
Just as art should not be judged as objectively "not good enough" or "this art is wrong", people should be allowed to share their opinion without that opinion being judged "not good enough" or "this opinion is wrong" even when that opinion is about someone's art. That being said, just being hateful for no good reason is not acceptable on OGA.
I... agree. Not sure what you're talking about. The overwhelming majority of the responses to your art have been positive.
@Omerolvey: Yes, you must credit all these people for each sfx because this is a derivative set. All licenses of the source sound effects allow for this type of derivative creation and licensing. You are not required to use this asset, but if you do, you are required to credit everyone listed.
Authors changing their license is not an issue. Once the authors granted the assets under the above-listed license, that license became irrevocable. The original authors are allowed to chage their license on their own assets, but that won't change the license for the people who obtained the asset before the license change. This license will remain intact, no brawling needed. :)
I agree wholeheartedly. I can't wait for IP law to be revised. >:[
Where were you trying to put the link? in a submission, a comment, or a forum post? Regardless, it should work now. Try it and let me know if you still get blocked. :)
The character looks only thematically similar. This asset does not meet "substantial similarity" guidelines and would not be an issue for its comparison to sonic. If it were a derivative, that would be an issue, but similarity is not what determines derivation. There is no evidence this character used sonic assets as a base, guide, or model. Was it inspired by sonic? probably. But inspiration is allowed.
Thank you for the clarification, but I don't believe I misunderstood. What you describe would still be considered a derivative and therefore bound by the license of the collage-models that were used as a starting reference.
In terms of the Henry Darger collage; yes, legally you would need the license permission from every one of the magazines he used. One exception to this is Fair Use. You can make a collage under fair-use, sure, but it's very unlikely others would be allowed to use that fair-use asset to make other things. Derivatives of fair-use derivatives are rarely fair-use themselves. That's why it's technically legal to make fan art, but never legal to use fan art in a game.
Sure you can put links to such models and collage-art in the forum. I'm sure others would very much enjoy that, but they should know any such art they create and use in a game, video, etc based on such assets would be difficult to sort out license-wise.
If you didn't tell me what you used as a base, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell what assets you used as a reference or guide, but if the license truly didn't allow it, not knowing about it wouldn't make it ok. It doesn't matter how different a derivative is from the original. If it was based on the original in any way, it is a derivative and subject to the original license terms regardless of if people can even recognize it as the same/similar work or not.
Let me know if I'm totally missing what you're suggesting.
@Ecrivain: Omerolvey is correct.
Would you be able to change the license to CC-BY on this submission? Until then I have to mark this as having a licensing issue. Only temporarily, though.:)EDIT: Fixed. Thanks. License flag removed.
As for the sample model: Any model based off of Nintendo IP (dodongo, koopa, pikmin, pokemon) would be subject to Nintendo's trademark, even if Nintendo themselves didn't make the model, so OGA probably wouldn't be able to host such sample models.
New prototype models sound pretty useful. However, designing new stuff using those prototypes as a model would make the new "from scratch" models a derivative, so the prototype's license would have sway still. What is the license of the 3d kitbash prototypes you are referring to?
Pages