You are allowed to put your name on them. There just shouldn't be a bunch of duplicate posts all over the forum. If people aren't responding to the first one, it won't help to post a second one. That's why I gave the link to "how and when to write an art request". So you might have a better chance of getting a response.
Saying "it's got aliens and magic and a lot of detail" doesn't really qualify as telling us what the game is about, the art style, the dimensions needed, if it's open source, if there is any sort of compensation, or any indication of the level of effort required.
@Omerolvey: MindChamber isn't wrong; It's good to point out potential licensing issues, but you've gotta chill on the hostile accusitory tone. 99% of the time, it's a mistake and people didn't intend any malice. That aside, your followup response was entirely unneccessary since MindChambar had removed the sound components long before your reply. I appreciate your diligence, but I need you to find a friendlier way to point out potential problems.
Looking into it more, I have to say what you describe may be enough to be considered a derivative as weird as it is. It's a bit of a borderline case, but I've seen people get into an IP debate for making a 3D rendition of Crono from Chrono Trigger. Even though he was given a different name, it was clearly the character Crono, so it was arguably being considered fan art of the trademarked character. I actually wouldn't recommend openly licensing it, but I'll let you use your judgment.
Probably not. The question is: is this inspired or derived? Did you use any part of the original as a guide or base to create the 3D model? Beyond that, it can't be the same character; don't name it Horace, etc.
Understood. Your questions didn't seem rude to me. I just didn't understand what you were asking. You have clarified them, and I understand them now.
Because the terms in the -NC license are poorly defined or ambiguous, it is almost impossible to tell what would constitute "commercial use". For example: Let's say someone used art under the -NC license in their game, then posted that game here on OGA. (we don't really host games, but for the sake of this example, lets say OGA does.) Then, OGA decides to have advertisements to pay for hosting costs. Is that game breaking the law? OGA is technically making money by having that game hosted on the website. OGA takes donations currently. Is that breaking the law then? Since money is being made based on the content of the website, and that content is licensed Non-Commercial, is that going against the license? This is a rather extreme example, but not an unreasonable one because the -NC provisions don't really have a lot of limits outlined.
Ah, I see. No no no. I was not saying GPL code could not be compiled legally. I was saying it is possible to have a commercial game licensed GPL. It would be easy to steal the game, but it would still be stealing and illegal to do so. The fact that GPL does allow for commercial use is why the FSF and OSI consider GPL to be open and free, but do not consider -NC licenses to be open or free.
I guess I'm not clear what your last two points are.
Was it that GPL code can't legally be compiled? That's not true. You can't legally compile it without making the source available, but outlawing the compilation of code would render any code you apply the license to effectively pointless.
Was your point that code and art can be licensed separately? I agree. Art can even be licensed GPL with the code licensed CC-BY. That doesn't really change the situation. Art licensed GPL is still accepted here because of legacy GPL art, but licensing art as GPL is typically not the best license choice. I also agree that GPL is in the free software category, which reenforces my point about GPL being a sub-par license choice for artwork. Is artwork software? If not, why apply a "free software" license to it?
P.S. Please do not feel like this is an attack on your license choices. We feel artists can and should license their work under whatever conditions they choose. CC-BY-NC-SA is a completely valid license choice and you should not be made to feel bad for using it. We just can't use it here on OGA. Welcome to the community and I hope you're able to find some useful stuff here. :)
Any license considered "Free" or "Open" by the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative respectively must allow commercial redistribution. -NC and -ND licenses are not free nor open. See also:
You are allowed to put your name on them. There just shouldn't be a bunch of duplicate posts all over the forum. If people aren't responding to the first one, it won't help to post a second one. That's why I gave the link to "how and when to write an art request". So you might have a better chance of getting a response.
Saying "it's got aliens and magic and a lot of detail" doesn't really qualify as telling us what the game is about, the art style, the dimensions needed, if it's open source, if there is any sort of compensation, or any indication of the level of effort required.
Is this a duplicate of https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/need-an-artist ?
This may be helpful: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/how-and-when-to-write-a-good-art-request
Good luck with your project. :)
Thanks for pointing that out. I can't beleive I've never clicked Textures from the browse menu before.
...Fixed(?)
@Omerolvey: MindChamber isn't wrong; It's good to point out potential licensing issues, but you've gotta chill on the hostile accusitory tone. 99% of the time, it's a mistake and people didn't intend any malice. That aside, your followup response was entirely unneccessary since MindChambar had removed the sound components long before your reply. I appreciate your diligence, but I need you to find a friendlier way to point out potential problems.
"PD model"?
Looking into it more, I have to say what you describe may be enough to be considered a derivative as weird as it is. It's a bit of a borderline case, but I've seen people get into an IP debate for making a 3D rendition of Crono from Chrono Trigger. Even though he was given a different name, it was clearly the character Crono, so it was arguably being considered fan art of the trademarked character. I actually wouldn't recommend openly licensing it, but I'll let you use your judgment.
Probably not. The question is: is this inspired or derived? Did you use any part of the original as a guide or base to create the 3D model? Beyond that, it can't be the same character; don't name it Horace, etc.
Understood. Your questions didn't seem rude to me. I just didn't understand what you were asking. You have clarified them, and I understand them now.
I guess I'm not clear what your last two points are.
Was it that GPL code can't legally be compiled? That's not true. You can't legally compile it without making the source available, but outlawing the compilation of code would render any code you apply the license to effectively pointless.
Was your point that code and art can be licensed separately? I agree. Art can even be licensed GPL with the code licensed CC-BY. That doesn't really change the situation. Art licensed GPL is still accepted here because of legacy GPL art, but licensing art as GPL is typically not the best license choice. I also agree that GPL is in the free software category, which reenforces my point about GPL being a sub-par license choice for artwork. Is artwork software? If not, why apply a "free software" license to it?
P.S. Please do not feel like this is an attack on your license choices. We feel artists can and should license their work under whatever conditions they choose. CC-BY-NC-SA is a completely valid license choice and you should not be made to feel bad for using it. We just can't use it here on OGA. Welcome to the community and I hope you're able to find some useful stuff here. :)
Any license considered "Free" or "Open" by the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative respectively must allow commercial redistribution. -NC and -ND licenses are not free nor open. See also:
Pages