On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. All artists who's works this was derived from have already added OGA-BY to the source works.
On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. All artists who's works this was derived from have already added OGA-BY to the source works.
On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. All artists who's works this was derived from have already added OGA-BY to the source works.
On 03/13/2022, Sharm (Lanea Zimmerman) added OGA-BY to all her works on OGA, including the originals the above art was derived from. On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. The license has been added to this submission.
On 03/13/2022, Sharm (Lanea Zimmerman) added OGA-BY to all her works on OGA, including the originals the above art was derived from. On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. The license has been added to this submission.
Who made the portions containing the female body? If it wasn't Redshrike, wulax, or Nila, then there is some attribution information missing from this.
There is usually no legal ramifications from using usernames, but it is polite to ask. On the other hand, some usernames may be the person's real name, or the username is trademarked. Case-in-point, "Medicine Storm." However, I would love for you to use my handle as a narrative element in your game. My only request is that "Medicine Storm" never be associated with narrative elements featuring child abuse.
Regarding the spambot necromancer; The first thing I thought of was those monsters "Bots" from Legend Of Zelda: https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Bot Haha! I can just imagine a spam bot being portrayed as a slimy half-witted blob that somehow has nercomantic powers.
On the "Necromancy" note, how does recovery after death work in this game? When the player dies, is there a cost to be resurrected? or is it just an instant free respawn thing? I wonder if bart, being a vampire, is cursed to be (un)dead but is one of the few people capable of resurrecting dead players. He can't come out of the basement or be set free (as his bloodlust would take over) but he is willing to bring you back from beyond the veil of death... for a price! *muahahahahh!* It's your story, of course, so just ignore me.
@Commander: mocking or serious, that is a bit close to breaking the "no discussion of religion" rule.
@withthelove:
Wouldn't distributing something as an NFT violate most of the licenses on OGA?
Insofar as repurposing an asset into an NFT counts as relicensing it, yes. Yes it does. Doubly so if the NFT itself does not indicate proper attribution and a link to the original. It could also be fraud given the way most NFTs are presented. Thus this: https://opengameart.org/content/warning-taking-art-from-opengameartorg-t...
However, I don't know of any specific examples of assets being taken from OGA and minted against the author's wishes. As I mentioned elsewhere, some OGA users removed all their art from OGA after a huge NFT scandal, but the NFT scalpers didn't burgle the assets from OGA, as far as I can tell. They were taken from twitter or other sources.
"May I suggest that we move forward with getting the updated license descriptions posted to the site"
Trying to do that now, but the issue I'm running into is the suggested changes for that section still add confusion and often do not answer the question being asked. I agree the new language adds some important details, but until it answers more questions than it creates, it has no business in the FAQ section.
The old version says:
"This license requires you to release any modifications you make to the art work in question under the same license."
The new version says
"If you make derivative works, you must distribute them under the same license... The definition of a derivative work is not black and white and there is some ambiguity about how the term applies to using art works in a video game or related project. Creative Commons has attempted to provide some guidance on the issue here ... however they have yet to provide specific guidance for most common video game use scenarios .... One use case is clear and spelled out explicitly by the CC-SA-BY licenses: if you synchronize a moving image to a piece of music or sound effect licensed as CC-BY-SA, then you must distribute the resultant work as CC-BY-SA also. ...so long as you ... are prepared (and able) to release your project or parts of it as CC-SA-BY should they be deemed to constitute a derivative of the original work. Those working on projects for which this might be an issue (eg. closed source, commercial or non-CC-BY-SA open source development) are advised to seek qualified legal counsel before using CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0 works in their project."
This, IMO, is overly verbose. We already disclaim this FAQ as not being legal advice and recommend reading the full text and/or consulting a lawyer. This extra specificity prompts the questions "under what circumstances would my entire project be required to be released under the same license?" and "what constitutes a derivative work?"
The old language doesn't address these questions, but neither does the new language, so what is it adding? I do beleive we should work toward answering those additional questions, but until we can answer them, there is no point in listing details that only affect a minority of circumstances. The FAQ should be general recommendations, not an enumeration of edge cases.
Given our current understanding, does CC BY-SA require projects to be fully released -SA given the most common set of circumstances for said projects? Unless most projects would be required to be Shared Alike, then saying users must be prepared to do so is not general guidelines, it's niche. Nothing more than "Some projects as a whole may be considered derivatives of the artwork. See full license text" need be added. For GPL art, however, the extra warning may be warranted since the majority of projects could be strangely affected by the license GPL given the typical methods of packaging artwork in game projects.
I will continue to update that section of the FAQ, omitting the parts I mention above. I recognize those parts are important, but the changes so far will be no worse than the current version yet will not add undue confusion while we work out those details.
On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. All artists who's works this was derived from have already added OGA-BY to the source works.
The license has been added to this submission.
On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. All artists who's works this was derived from have already added OGA-BY to the source works.
The license has been added to this submission.
On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission. All artists who's works this was derived from have already added OGA-BY to the source works.
The license has been added to this submission.
On 03/13/2022, Sharm (Lanea Zimmerman) added OGA-BY to all her works on OGA, including the originals the above art was derived from.
On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission.
The license has been added to this submission.
On 03/13/2022, Sharm (Lanea Zimmerman) added OGA-BY to all her works on OGA, including the originals the above art was derived from.
On 11/9/2022. Makrohn gave permission to use OGA-BY for this submission.
The license has been added to this submission.
[Moving topic from "Writers' Forum" to "3D Art"]
Who made the portions containing the female body? If it wasn't Redshrike, wulax, or Nila, then there is some attribution information missing from this.
There is usually no legal ramifications from using usernames, but it is polite to ask. On the other hand, some usernames may be the person's real name, or the username is trademarked. Case-in-point, "Medicine Storm." However, I would love for you to use my handle as a narrative element in your game. My only request is that "Medicine Storm" never be associated with narrative elements featuring child abuse.
Regarding the spambot necromancer; The first thing I thought of was those monsters "Bots" from Legend Of Zelda: https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Bot Haha! I can just imagine a spam bot being portrayed as a slimy half-witted blob that somehow has nercomantic powers.
On the "Necromancy" note, how does recovery after death work in this game? When the player dies, is there a cost to be resurrected? or is it just an instant free respawn thing? I wonder if bart, being a vampire, is cursed to be (un)dead but is one of the few people capable of resurrecting dead players. He can't come out of the basement or be set free (as his bloodlust would take over) but he is willing to bring you back from beyond the veil of death... for a price! *muahahahahh!* It's your story, of course, so just ignore me.
@Commander: mocking or serious, that is a bit close to breaking the "no discussion of religion" rule.
@withthelove:
Insofar as repurposing an asset into an NFT counts as relicensing it, yes. Yes it does. Doubly so if the NFT itself does not indicate proper attribution and a link to the original. It could also be fraud given the way most NFTs are presented. Thus this: https://opengameart.org/content/warning-taking-art-from-opengameartorg-t...
However, I don't know of any specific examples of assets being taken from OGA and minted against the author's wishes. As I mentioned elsewhere, some OGA users removed all their art from OGA after a huge NFT scandal, but the NFT scalpers didn't burgle the assets from OGA, as far as I can tell. They were taken from twitter or other sources.
Trying to do that now, but the issue I'm running into is the suggested changes for that section still add confusion and often do not answer the question being asked. I agree the new language adds some important details, but until it answers more questions than it creates, it has no business in the FAQ section.
The old version says:
The new version says
This, IMO, is overly verbose. We already disclaim this FAQ as not being legal advice and recommend reading the full text and/or consulting a lawyer. This extra specificity prompts the questions "under what circumstances would my entire project be required to be released under the same license?" and "what constitutes a derivative work?"
The old language doesn't address these questions, but neither does the new language, so what is it adding? I do beleive we should work toward answering those additional questions, but until we can answer them, there is no point in listing details that only affect a minority of circumstances. The FAQ should be general recommendations, not an enumeration of edge cases.
Given our current understanding, does CC BY-SA require projects to be fully released -SA given the most common set of circumstances for said projects? Unless most projects would be required to be Shared Alike, then saying users must be prepared to do so is not general guidelines, it's niche. Nothing more than "Some projects as a whole may be considered derivatives of the artwork. See full license text" need be added. For GPL art, however, the extra warning may be warranted since the majority of projects could be strangely affected by the license GPL given the typical methods of packaging artwork in game projects.
I will continue to update that section of the FAQ, omitting the parts I mention above. I recognize those parts are important, but the changes so far will be no worse than the current version yet will not add undue confusion while we work out those details.
Pages