"Someone is looking through those to see if we want to go back to those original art sources for permission. A lot of those submissions have issues for various reasons."
I knew several of nikita's submissions were questionable, but now that I am going through them in an attempt to get solid permission, I am finding a lot of the ones I thought were ok are riddled with commercial rips or other content the artists didn't intend to be shared risk-free. Nikita's list of viable submissions is smaller than I thought.
Fortunately I got the go-ahead from one artist so far. However, the first artist happens to be DENZI. his set is freaking huge, so organizing the artwork and uploading it is becoming quite a task. Also, it looks like Nikita wasn't really paying attention to what licenses DENZI was specifying. DENZI has some stuff that's CC0, some that's CC-BY-SA, and other stuff under a proprietary license not compatible with OGA. I am only working with the CC0 and CC-BY-SA stuff.
A little off topic, but I am thinking about making several submissions for DENZI's stuff, categorising each submission by style, like "16x16 oblique projection", "32x32 orthogonal view", "64x64 isometric", stuff like that. Then putting all stuff with DENZI's work in it into a DENZI collection. Whadda think?
I reworked a bit of AbiDrew's Gimp file so I could make it into a button with an added intro. Don't know if I like the intro or not. It looked like sara was off by one pixel on some of the frames, so I tweaked that and put her in front of the OGA logo like you guys suggested above to see how it looks.
There are a few extra layers in case anyone wants to change the backdrop into your favorite button/background color.
"As for licenses being removed, I most certainly would not like that one bit, especially since one of the ones that were brought up was the CC0/Public Domain license"
...What? I don't think the removal of CC0 was ever considered. It might have been suggested by a troll, but I think the sun will burn out before CC0 is removed from OGA. Actually, I can't seem to find where it was suggested ANY license be removed. I see where people were saying some assets should be removed because of a licensing conflict, but not any place where the license itself was the target of removal.
GravityGames, are you referencing a recent discussion? Can you point me to the comments about license removal? I'm curious but I'm not finding anything on it.
Disallow derivative works in general? That would invalidate pretty much every license supported by OGA. I would even say OGA encourages derivatives... as long as the terms of the source license are adhered to.
@newera: Groovy. Glad to help. Looks like it isn't your ISP if you were able to get it ok from me. Or at least it's not just your ISP. I'll remove that link now.
I want to reiterate what mdwh said "a clear Free licence means I can use it without having to contact the author every time".
The artists might have even released their work under one of those licenses specifically so people will stop bothering them with those same questions. The problem is not 3rd party submitted works, it's failure to verify the license is clear. I still think asking the artist is a good idea just to make sure, but requiring it would uneccessarily eliminate a lot of the really great stuff on this site. Not because nobody wants to ask, because the artist can't be reached.
As capbros said, the community here is what makes OGA what it is. A major component of that community is curation. When something is submitted with unclear legal standing (which happens even when the submitter is the artist) the community says "hold, on. I don't think that's quite right. Let's get to the bottom of this."
That kinda seems like a pain, but it works. I think it could work better, sure. At least some focus could be dedicated to clarifying what should be done when licensing is not solid. Is there a reliable way to notify a moderator? What can we expect from the moderator when a submission is questionable? Should preview images be marked with a "Potential Licensing Issues" watermark at the same time? How long should the "Potential Licensing issues" hold be in place? If nothing is resolved a month later, why is it still up? Is there an avenue for OGA regulars to be interviewed as additional moderators? Or some sort of Junior Moderator that can take a second look at submissions?
Also, I agree with mdwh and capbros about putting clarifying instructions on the "Submit Art" page.
@Grahhhhh: You could always use one of the cc0 backgrounds from OGA. Surt has created some beautiful scenes that would showcase this pretty wonderfully: http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/cc0-scraps
@Surt: Sorry if you don't want me to pimp your work, I just really like your stuff.
I knew several of nikita's submissions were questionable, but now that I am going through them in an attempt to get solid permission, I am finding a lot of the ones I thought were ok are riddled with commercial rips or other content the artists didn't intend to be shared risk-free. Nikita's list of viable submissions is smaller than I thought.
Fortunately I got the go-ahead from one artist so far. However, the first artist happens to be DENZI. his set is freaking huge, so organizing the artwork and uploading it is becoming quite a task. Also, it looks like Nikita wasn't really paying attention to what licenses DENZI was specifying. DENZI has some stuff that's CC0, some that's CC-BY-SA, and other stuff under a proprietary license not compatible with OGA. I am only working with the CC0 and CC-BY-SA stuff.
A little off topic, but I am thinking about making several submissions for DENZI's stuff, categorising each submission by style, like "16x16 oblique projection", "32x32 orthogonal view", "64x64 isometric", stuff like that. Then putting all stuff with DENZI's work in it into a DENZI collection. Whadda think?
@Malifer: This is what I hear https://youtu.be/XOsQTLG5QuM?t=24
I know this is an old thread, but it might be relevant again: http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/get-it-on-open-game-art-button-for-websites Plus, I really like this logo.
I reworked a bit of AbiDrew's Gimp file so I could make it into a button with an added intro. Don't know if I like the intro or not. It looked like sara was off by one pixel on some of the frames, so I tweaked that and put her in front of the OGA logo like you guys suggested above to see how it looks.
There are a few extra layers in case anyone wants to change the backdrop into your favorite button/background color.
gimp file: http://www.medicinestorm.com/LLC/oga_alt.zip
components:
What about this animated logo?
Check out the discussion: http://opengameart.org/content/animated-opengameart-splash-screen
@GravityGames: Oh. I see. Yeah, I'm guessing that was just hyperbole on Nikita's part(?)
Removal of CC0 is not going to happen. You can be pretty sure the removal of any other licence is super-unlikely as well.
...What? I don't think the removal of CC0 was ever considered. It might have been suggested by a troll, but I think the sun will burn out before CC0 is removed from OGA. Actually, I can't seem to find where it was suggested ANY license be removed. I see where people were saying some assets should be removed because of a licensing conflict, but not any place where the license itself was the target of removal.
GravityGames, are you referencing a recent discussion? Can you point me to the comments about license removal? I'm curious but I'm not finding anything on it.
Disallow derivative works in general? That would invalidate pretty much every license supported by OGA. I would even say OGA encourages derivatives... as long as the terms of the source license are adhered to.
Derivative works of commerical studios and non-free intellectual propery? Yes, that is already explicitly disallowed in the FAQ: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-submittype
@newera: Groovy. Glad to help. Looks like it isn't your ISP if you were able to get it ok from me. Or at least it's not just your ISP. I'll remove that link now.
I want to reiterate what mdwh said "a clear Free licence means I can use it without having to contact the author every time".
The artists might have even released their work under one of those licenses specifically so people will stop bothering them with those same questions. The problem is not 3rd party submitted works, it's failure to verify the license is clear. I still think asking the artist is a good idea just to make sure, but requiring it would uneccessarily eliminate a lot of the really great stuff on this site. Not because nobody wants to ask, because the artist can't be reached.
As capbros said, the community here is what makes OGA what it is. A major component of that community is curation. When something is submitted with unclear legal standing (which happens even when the submitter is the artist) the community says "hold, on. I don't think that's quite right. Let's get to the bottom of this."
That kinda seems like a pain, but it works. I think it could work better, sure. At least some focus could be dedicated to clarifying what should be done when licensing is not solid. Is there a reliable way to notify a moderator? What can we expect from the moderator when a submission is questionable? Should preview images be marked with a "Potential Licensing Issues" watermark at the same time? How long should the "Potential Licensing issues" hold be in place? If nothing is resolved a month later, why is it still up? Is there an avenue for OGA regulars to be interviewed as additional moderators? Or some sort of Junior Moderator that can take a second look at submissions?
Also, I agree with mdwh and capbros about putting clarifying instructions on the "Submit Art" page.
@Grahhhhh: You could always use one of the cc0 backgrounds from OGA. Surt has created some beautiful scenes that would showcase this pretty wonderfully: http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/cc0-scraps
@Surt: Sorry if you don't want me to pimp your work, I just really like your stuff.
Pages