I don't want to be that annoying person badgering everyone when they fail to provide attribution or do so incorrectly,
I used to feel this way, not wanting to make my attribution requirements so annoying that people wouldn't want to use my assets. Here's the thing, though; the kind of people who feel it is too inconvenient to give you the credt- but isn't at all inconvenient to use your freeassets- are not the kind of people you should want using your assets anyway. You aren't losing revenue if they get huffy and refuse to use your assets. Conversely, you aren't gaining any reputation or exposure when such people use your assets but don't credit you.
@authors: You deserve credit for your work. You may choose to waive the credit requirement, but even that decision doesn't mean you no longer deserve the credit.
If you'd like, I can be the annoying person for you. It is something you should insist on getting credit for. Attribution is the price of using the asset. When someone uses a product without paying the price, it's called theft.
First question: Yes. Attribution is still required, even on stream or youtube. However, if the youtube is showing "lets play" video, for example, of a game that features the asset, but the youtuber/streamer is not the person who used the asset themselves (the developer of the game is) then it could be considered fair use (attribution only might be required) If the streamer/youtuber used the asset as an add to their video, then it is definitely not fair use and attribution is definitely required still. How they attribute you is more nebulous, but it must be enough for a viewer to know where the asset came from. They could just give attribution in the description, but some authors find that insufficient and insist on on-screen attribution. Not usually on-screen for the entire duration of the asset's use, but I guess you could insist on that. Generally just on-screen long enough for the credit to be read by a reasonable person. It is your right as an author to set those thresholds, but 1) you should be clear what you expect up front, and 2) understand that the more restrictive you are with attribution on atypical mediums (like videos), the less people will want to use your content.
Second question: I had previously given (in discord) a breakdown of the steps I would personally go through to ensure my conditions were being adhered to. Let me see if I can find it again. Basically, always start polite. Thank them for their interest in your work and ask if they are willing to make an adjustment. If no response or inadequate response, insist and link to where such requirements were already outlined for them when they decided to use your assets.
Losely interpreted, yes it could, which is why none of the licenses on OGA allow for extra stipulations like "no reselling."
sell those assets all by themselves, shouldn't that be the only reason to get called out for infringement?
I understand what you're getting at, and its a good point, but... Nope, that isn't the only reason, because it isn't a reason at all. Because even selling the assets by themselves isn't infringement of the license. If the license says "no reselling" then it isn't a CC0 license, is it? It's like saying "Well, it's totally free, as long as you pay me $50.00" Well, then it isn't free, is it?
The assets here on OGA are openly licensed. If you get them from here, they can be resold, packaged with a game or otherwise. The terms of use on assets you get from somewhere else are irrelevant here. It doesn't matter if they appear to be the exact same assets as differently licensed assets elsewhere. If there are weird terms attached to assets on some other site, don't get them from that other site. Get them from here instead.
If you never distribute the files in your game or project, then you don't have to make them available. If you distribute the sounds in your game, they must be publicly available to people in some fashion.
Assuming you'll be distributing them in some fasion, the files have to be easily available* to people and it must be clear what license the files are under, and they should be accessible without people paying for them. That doesn't mean you can't charge money for your game, the files can be packaged with a commercial game, but these files must also be available in some other fasion as well. One that doesn't involve a paywall.
*"easily available" means you can't just say "you can use the files if you can find a way to extract them from my compiled unity package. Good luck, suckers!" You should list them in the credits, and also indicate a simple way for people to access them so people can get them without using special extraction tools. If you can't distribute the files as plain ol' files within a freely available game,then you'll need to make them available in some other way. For example, if you sell your game on itch.io or steam, make an additional asset pack download:
"Skate-comment-and-survive, arcade edition! $12.99 [purchase and download]" (contains game + CC-BY-SA sound files)
"Free SC&S assets, $0.00 [download]" (contains just the CC-BY-SA sound files.)
One obvious alternative to all this is sharing them on OGA, but if the changes you make to the original file are trivial, we consider it effectively the same asset that is already present on OGA and we ask that you do not upload duplicates. What sort of alterations are you thinking of? It may help me understand how to simplify the requirements you'll need to adhere to.
I used to feel this way, not wanting to make my attribution requirements so annoying that people wouldn't want to use my assets. Here's the thing, though; the kind of people who feel it is too inconvenient to give you the credt- but isn't at all inconvenient to use your free assets- are not the kind of people you should want using your assets anyway. You aren't losing revenue if they get huffy and refuse to use your assets. Conversely, you aren't gaining any reputation or exposure when such people use your assets but don't credit you.
@authors: You deserve credit for your work. You may choose to waive the credit requirement, but even that decision doesn't mean you no longer deserve the credit.
If you'd like, I can be the annoying person for you. It is something you should insist on getting credit for. Attribution is the price of using the asset. When someone uses a product without paying the price, it's called theft.
First question: Yes. Attribution is still required, even on stream or youtube. However, if the youtube is showing "lets play" video, for example, of a game that features the asset, but the youtuber/streamer is not the person who used the asset themselves (the developer of the game is) then it could be considered fair use (attribution only might be required) If the streamer/youtuber used the asset as an add to their video, then it is definitely not fair use and attribution is definitely required still. How they attribute you is more nebulous, but it must be enough for a viewer to know where the asset came from. They could just give attribution in the description, but some authors find that insufficient and insist on on-screen attribution. Not usually on-screen for the entire duration of the asset's use, but I guess you could insist on that. Generally just on-screen long enough for the credit to be read by a reasonable person. It is your right as an author to set those thresholds, but 1) you should be clear what you expect up front, and 2) understand that the more restrictive you are with attribution on atypical mediums (like videos), the less people will want to use your content.
Second question: I had previously given (in discord) a breakdown of the steps I would personally go through to ensure my conditions were being adhered to. Let me see if I can find it again. Basically, always start polite. Thank them for their interest in your work and ask if they are willing to make an adjustment. If no response or inadequate response, insist and link to where such requirements were already outlined for them when they decided to use your assets.
FYI: the "shoot'em up" tag is how it is categorizing the entries. "shoot em' up" will not register your submission correctly.
That is a good idea.
The best I can do for now is a link in the sidebar showing the entries submitted so far.
Also added the same link in the main page blog post.
Done for both of the above.
hehehe. Shoot'em-right
Thanks. Fixed...ish.
Losely interpreted, yes it could, which is why none of the licenses on OGA allow for extra stipulations like "no reselling."
I understand what you're getting at, and its a good point, but... Nope, that isn't the only reason, because it isn't a reason at all. Because even selling the assets by themselves isn't infringement of the license. If the license says "no reselling" then it isn't a CC0 license, is it? It's like saying "Well, it's totally free, as long as you pay me $50.00" Well, then it isn't free, is it?
The assets here on OGA are openly licensed. If you get them from here, they can be resold, packaged with a game or otherwise. The terms of use on assets you get from somewhere else are irrelevant here. It doesn't matter if they appear to be the exact same assets as differently licensed assets elsewhere. If there are weird terms attached to assets on some other site, don't get them from that other site. Get them from here instead.
If you never distribute the files in your game or project, then you don't have to make them available. If you distribute the sounds in your game, they must be publicly available to people in some fashion.
Assuming you'll be distributing them in some fasion, the files have to be easily available* to people and it must be clear what license the files are under, and they should be accessible without people paying for them. That doesn't mean you can't charge money for your game, the files can be packaged with a commercial game, but these files must also be available in some other fasion as well. One that doesn't involve a paywall.
*"easily available" means you can't just say "you can use the files if you can find a way to extract them from my compiled unity package. Good luck, suckers!" You should list them in the credits, and also indicate a simple way for people to access them so people can get them without using special extraction tools. If you can't distribute the files as plain ol' files within a freely available game, then you'll need to make them available in some other way. For example, if you sell your game on itch.io or steam, make an additional asset pack download:
One obvious alternative to all this is sharing them on OGA, but if the changes you make to the original file are trivial, we consider it effectively the same asset that is already present on OGA and we ask that you do not upload duplicates. What sort of alterations are you thinking of? It may help me understand how to simplify the requirements you'll need to adhere to.
Pages