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?
titleknown outlined some reasonable guidelines for lewd assets (probably not showing up here because of the nature of the topic and the spam filter hitting on all the terms that are very common to porn site spam, unfortunately)
...but I think the need for so many new guidelines really underlines the need for such assets to be on a separate domain or sub-site. A very effective filter would certainly be necessary before such assets could be hosted on OGA, but- As Antum pointed out- no filter is perfect. I don't have the access to implement something like that, anyway. I'm more of a moderator than a server administrator.
I can definitely see a gap. There isn't really a niche for free and open source art, focused on games, of a lewd or "beyond PG-13" nature. It looks like it would actually be faster to have such a niche on a separate site than to incorporate all the things needed to blend it with this one.
Well, I'm definitely open to hear some guideline suggestions, but the current site attitude (not a formal policy) is that assets intended to provoke or arouse (a.k.a. "lewd") are not really what this site caters to. We do have some things like nude 3D models, but their intent is not for lewdness. Those submissions are primarily for anatomical reference and model bases.
Although OGA doesn't claim to be a 100% SFW site, we do try to keep things as SFW as possible. The controversy you reference was a whole different level. That was controversial primarily because it was associated with, and pushing the borders of, pornographic content featuring characters of questionable age. Was the content itself porn? Some would debate it. The associations and links that came with it were definitely trouble, though. As one of the other admins put it, "If it's remotely sexual and it involves drawn or 3D children, it definitely does not belong here." We won't be allowing that on OGA.
The site's founder, Bart, generally keeps a philosophy of not defining every minute policy with a formal rule, instead allowing situations to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I understand this may be frustrating since it doesn't give clear guidelines on what is and is not allowed, but that is probably intentional. This topic has no clearly defined line where one thing is fine and on the other side of the line it's outlawed. As a soft rule, though, I would reiterate that OGA's audience is generally not seeking lewd assets.
As for your involvement in that controversy, titleknown, don't worry about it. You were nither the submitter nor the protester of the content in question.
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?
Yeah, I figured out what you were referring to right before you replied and fixed those too. :) Thanks again for pointing those out.
The textures link shows that?
titleknown outlined some reasonable guidelines for lewd assets (probably not showing up here because of the nature of the topic and the spam filter hitting on all the terms that are very common to porn site spam, unfortunately)
...but I think the need for so many new guidelines really underlines the need for such assets to be on a separate domain or sub-site. A very effective filter would certainly be necessary before such assets could be hosted on OGA, but- As Antum pointed out- no filter is perfect. I don't have the access to implement something like that, anyway. I'm more of a moderator than a server administrator.
I can definitely see a gap. There isn't really a niche for free and open source art, focused on games, of a lewd or "beyond PG-13" nature. It looks like it would actually be faster to have such a niche on a separate site than to incorporate all the things needed to blend it with this one.
Good catch, rubberduck. This is what the link was:
This is what it should have been:
I think I fixed that one, too now. Was it just the "view more" on textures? or where other links doing that?
Well, I'm definitely open to hear some guideline suggestions, but the current site attitude (not a formal policy) is that assets intended to provoke or arouse (a.k.a. "lewd") are not really what this site caters to. We do have some things like nude 3D models, but their intent is not for lewdness. Those submissions are primarily for anatomical reference and model bases.
Although OGA doesn't claim to be a 100% SFW site, we do try to keep things as SFW as possible. The controversy you reference was a whole different level. That was controversial primarily because it was associated with, and pushing the borders of, pornographic content featuring characters of questionable age. Was the content itself porn? Some would debate it. The associations and links that came with it were definitely trouble, though. As one of the other admins put it, "If it's remotely sexual and it involves drawn or 3D children, it definitely does not belong here." We won't be allowing that on OGA.
The site's founder, Bart, generally keeps a philosophy of not defining every minute policy with a formal rule, instead allowing situations to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I understand this may be frustrating since it doesn't give clear guidelines on what is and is not allowed, but that is probably intentional. This topic has no clearly defined line where one thing is fine and on the other side of the line it's outlawed. As a soft rule, though, I would reiterate that OGA's audience is generally not seeking lewd assets.
As for your involvement in that controversy, titleknown, don't worry about it. You were nither the submitter nor the protester of the content in question.
Pages