TL;DR: yes, but additional action may be required depending on the license.
Check out this FAQ entry: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary It covers the "additional action" that may be required for each license pretty well. Nothing too scary; just stuff like "credit the author and share the stuff you make with it" is the most strenuous thing you'd have to do to comply with the license, but a lot of the specifics depend on the details of your project. If that doesn't clear up your question, please do not hesitate to ask for more clarification by replying here. :)
Weebly is only free under 500 MB of content. OGA could burn through that with 3 of the large art submissions. On the other hand, I'm sure there are some more cost effective options than what is currently in use. It might be worth looking into.
@unenergizer: can you showcase the comparable website? If it is as easy and similar as you say, it would be worth a try. :)
This site gets a lot of traffic and runs some pretty complex scripts. It may require some fancier-than-average hosting features. I don't see how it would cost that much still, but maybe migrating to a new host could cut costs. I have no idea what it would take to do that, though. If anyone here does, is it worth exploring that option?
As horrible as the question is, it is still a legitimate question. Please keep it respectful when responding, everyone. Do not discourage people from asking questions about copyleft.
@OP: as you've probably gathered, the simple answer is no. you cannot copyright something in the public domain. As mold suggested, you could probably copyright a derivative of the work, but it would be 1) pretty rude and 2) not really very effective since people could just use the original for free and however they want.
You can copyright your game code and other assets besides that sprite, but that sprite doesn't actually belong to you. It belongs to me and Surt and mold and Boom Shaka and everyone else (including you in part)
Is the copyright of the game itself (and not every last part of the game) not sufficient?
True; the original license is irrevokable. I stated as such. This isn't about license revocation.
True; The author has not yet asked for it to be removed. That is why it has not been removed, or even marked as having a licensing issue.
True. Blessings are not mandatory, but it looks like the author has different plans for his work than the license this is currently under. Like I said, anyone can use this under the old license. It is irrevokable. I am not revoking it, Harold cannot revoke it.
Yes, everyone is encouraged to respect the wishes of the artist, but this non-mandatory encouragement is directed at people using the art, not submitters. Submitters ARE required to follow the rule saying artists wishes must be respected. No one is even being accused of malice or disregard for the artist's wishes, only that we should do everything we can to show respect to the artists to promote a good relationship and reputation.
You'll notice no demands were being made, only hopeful requests for a clear OK from the author. The reason I included links to the FAQ was not to say "these are the rules being broken!" it was to show we would rather not remove submissions and that licenses cannot be revoked even if it is decided to remove them from this site out of respect for the author.
There seems to be some impression I am trying to delete this submission despite saying the opposite. I do not want to delete this submission. If, however, the artist sees it and is pissed no one bothered to ask him (even if the request is legally unenforceable and unreasonable), it will be deleted out of respect for the author.
This submission is indeed old, but the age of a submission has no bearing on propriety. If it is discovered something should not have been submitted, it doesn't matter how long it was here, it should not be here. I am hoping that is NOT THE CASE here. The only reason this issue is being revisited at all is because I have had some recent contact with with the author expressing surprise and concern. I was hoping it was simiply due to a language barrier and was hoping there was some action or request remaxim could make to clarify the situation before the author made a takedown request.
Unless the images were taken from very specific locations on the internet, like from OGA where the content is specifically licensed to be reused, reusing those images without permission is violating a copyright of some kind. Even when you change the image, or "make it your own" it is likely infringing on a copyright, even if the copyright is implicit. Giving the author credit does not protect you if they never gave permission for it's use in the first place.
Always make sure you know the license of an image (or have explicit permission from the image owner) and what you need to do to comply with that license.
Images here on OGA always indicate what licenses the images may be used under. Scraping Google image search is a great way to get lawyers angry at you.
If you have any questions about licensing or even other hypothetical scenarios, I'd love to help if I can. :)
TL;DR: yes, but additional action may be required depending on the license.
Check out this FAQ entry: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary It covers the "additional action" that may be required for each license pretty well. Nothing too scary; just stuff like "credit the author and share the stuff you make with it" is the most strenuous thing you'd have to do to comply with the license, but a lot of the specifics depend on the details of your project. If that doesn't clear up your question, please do not hesitate to ask for more clarification by replying here. :)
Weebly is only free under 500 MB of content. OGA could burn through that with 3 of the large art submissions. On the other hand, I'm sure there are some more cost effective options than what is currently in use. It might be worth looking into.
@unenergizer: can you showcase the comparable website? If it is as easy and similar as you say, it would be worth a try. :)
This site gets a lot of traffic and runs some pretty complex scripts. It may require some fancier-than-average hosting features. I don't see how it would cost that much still, but maybe migrating to a new host could cut costs. I have no idea what it would take to do that, though. If anyone here does, is it worth exploring that option?
^this +1
Neat!
As horrible as the question is, it is still a legitimate question. Please keep it respectful when responding, everyone. Do not discourage people from asking questions about copyleft.
@OP: as you've probably gathered, the simple answer is no. you cannot copyright something in the public domain. As mold suggested, you could probably copyright a derivative of the work, but it would be 1) pretty rude and 2) not really very effective since people could just use the original for free and however they want.
You can copyright your game code and other assets besides that sprite, but that sprite doesn't actually belong to you. It belongs to me and Surt and mold and Boom Shaka and everyone else (including you in part)
Is the copyright of the game itself (and not every last part of the game) not sufficient?
Is the lossless Flacs offer still on the table?
Looks like the liberated pixel cup set. http://opengameart.org/content/2d-rpg-lpc-compatible-tilessprites
True; the original license is irrevokable. I stated as such. This isn't about license revocation.
True; The author has not yet asked for it to be removed. That is why it has not been removed, or even marked as having a licensing issue.
True. Blessings are not mandatory, but it looks like the author has different plans for his work than the license this is currently under. Like I said, anyone can use this under the old license. It is irrevokable. I am not revoking it, Harold cannot revoke it.
Yes, everyone is encouraged to respect the wishes of the artist, but this non-mandatory encouragement is directed at people using the art, not submitters. Submitters ARE required to follow the rule saying artists wishes must be respected. No one is even being accused of malice or disregard for the artist's wishes, only that we should do everything we can to show respect to the artists to promote a good relationship and reputation.
You'll notice no demands were being made, only hopeful requests for a clear OK from the author. The reason I included links to the FAQ was not to say "these are the rules being broken!" it was to show we would rather not remove submissions and that licenses cannot be revoked even if it is decided to remove them from this site out of respect for the author.
There seems to be some impression I am trying to delete this submission despite saying the opposite. I do not want to delete this submission. If, however, the artist sees it and is pissed no one bothered to ask him (even if the request is legally unenforceable and unreasonable), it will be deleted out of respect for the author.
This submission is indeed old, but the age of a submission has no bearing on propriety. If it is discovered something should not have been submitted, it doesn't matter how long it was here, it should not be here. I am hoping that is NOT THE CASE here. The only reason this issue is being revisited at all is because I have had some recent contact with with the author expressing surprise and concern. I was hoping it was simiply due to a language barrier and was hoping there was some action or request remaxim could make to clarify the situation before the author made a takedown request.
It's cool, Zuxal. No action has been taken yet.
TL;DR: Yes.
Unless the images were taken from very specific locations on the internet, like from OGA where the content is specifically licensed to be reused, reusing those images without permission is violating a copyright of some kind. Even when you change the image, or "make it your own" it is likely infringing on a copyright, even if the copyright is implicit. Giving the author credit does not protect you if they never gave permission for it's use in the first place.
Always make sure you know the license of an image (or have explicit permission from the image owner) and what you need to do to comply with that license.
Images here on OGA always indicate what licenses the images may be used under. Scraping Google image search is a great way to get lawyers angry at you.
If you have any questions about licensing or even other hypothetical scenarios, I'd love to help if I can. :)
Pages