Thanks for all the debugging data. We're still trying to figure out the cause, but so far it looks like... just lots and lots of traffic, basically. Botanic has made some adjustments that should allow for more requests without hitting the server's limits, but it might not be the solution to the underlying problem... or it could be exactly what is needed, but traffic may continue to increase, resulting in similar issues again later.
I expect the errors to be less frequent now, at least temporarily, but please continue to indicate when you get the errors so we can track this trend. Again, thanks all for taking the time to help us debug this. :)
@CrazyDuckGames: Same answer as above; you may make a post discussing the software, and include a link to the software, but the software itself is not an art asset, and should not be submitted as such.
You may submit the art assets that you produced with the software and, again, link to the software in the submission description, but it is the output of the software that are 2D art assets, not the software itself.
I'm wondering why OGA doesn't support the CC BY NC license?
Because it makes the assets effectively useless, unfortunately.
95% of all developers who come to OGA for the assets are using them in either an open-source project, or a revenue-generating project. -NC licenses are incompatible with both.
That article isn't what we've based the decision on, but it illustrates the problem well. Also, OGA is hosted in the US, so we typically don't go by German copyright law, but the results are basically the same everywhere in the Americas, Europe, and Japan: The meaning of "non-commercial" is very different from a legal standpoint than it is from a 'common understanding' standpoint. Even indirect generation of revenue by the free hosting site's sponsor may legally qualify as a "commercial use".
Regarding restrictions on copyrighted material, certain depictions, etc: You may only use MidJourney output for personal use unless you are a paying member. In which case you're allowed to do whatever you want with the output provided it doesn't display any trademarked brands or depictions of real people's likenesses (which is actually pretty hard to get it to do accidentally)
There is a reason for it; tinyMCE is way out of date and the spellcheck feature was contributing to some major security and site slowdown issues for many people. Until we're able to get the site upgraded, it's unlikely to be turned back on.
"...if it's not posible to post derivative of public domain as cc0 it become a problem for me."
Oh, not at all. :) That's allowed. That circumstance was already addressed above:
Since it was a new adapted work derived from Public Domain content, applying CC0 to your derivative is completely appropriate.
The thing about 'not applying CC0 on a PD asset' was for original, unmodified, not-derived PD assets.
Furthermore, you can put CC0 on an unmodified PD asset, you just shouldn't if you can help it because there are some regional differences and it's important to know how and where an asset entered the public domain. Simply stating something like "this fell into the Public Domain in 1881 in England" generally covers that, though. Again, not a requirement, but nice to provide that information when "Public Domain" is not one of the available licensing options... Like here on OGA.
Please do not go nuts and continue to verify the terms indicated on individual images on each nasa page.
Many of the assets may be public domain or some form of copyleft, but don't assume all of them are. Also "copyright free" and "has no copyright" are generally terms used by people that don't know how copyright works. Things can't be copyright free unless:
The asset falls into the Public Domain based on age (nasa assets have not done this) or ...
The assets have been explicitly dedicated to the Public Domain (possible for nasa assets, but you need to locate where this is stated) or ...
The assets were explicitly licensed under terms that are so permissive they are considered "copyright free", for example cc0 or wtfpl. (Again this will be explicitly stated, so we need to find where this is stated)
It's better to consider an asset under the Public Domain "license" or the CC0 license, etc. than to think of it as "copyright free".
Thanks for all the debugging data. We're still trying to figure out the cause, but so far it looks like... just lots and lots of traffic, basically. Botanic has made some adjustments that should allow for more requests without hitting the server's limits, but it might not be the solution to the underlying problem... or it could be exactly what is needed, but traffic may continue to increase, resulting in similar issues again later.
I expect the errors to be less frequent now, at least temporarily, but please continue to indicate when you get the errors so we can track this trend. Again, thanks all for taking the time to help us debug this. :)
@CrazyDuckGames: Same answer as above; you may make a post discussing the software, and include a link to the software, but the software itself is not an art asset, and should not be submitted as such.
You may submit the art assets that you produced with the software and, again, link to the software in the submission description, but it is the output of the software that are 2D art assets, not the software itself.
Because it makes the assets effectively useless, unfortunately.
95% of all developers who come to OGA for the assets are using them in either an open-source project, or a revenue-generating project. -NC licenses are incompatible with both.
Here is an article about German courts conclusions regarding -NC licenses: https://www.techdirt.com/2014/03/27/german-court-says-creative-commons-n...
EDIT: here is the PDF document mentioned in the article: "Consequences, Risks, and side-effects of the license module Non-Commercial -- NC"
That article isn't what we've based the decision on, but it illustrates the problem well. Also, OGA is hosted in the US, so we typically don't go by German copyright law, but the results are basically the same everywhere in the Americas, Europe, and Japan: The meaning of "non-commercial" is very different from a legal standpoint than it is from a 'common understanding' standpoint. Even indirect generation of revenue by the free hosting site's sponsor may legally qualify as a "commercial use".
Does it still disable your browsers spell check if you click "disable rich-text" below the text box?
Regarding restrictions on copyrighted material, certain depictions, etc: You may only use MidJourney output for personal use unless you are a paying member. In which case you're allowed to do whatever you want with the output provided it doesn't display any trademarked brands or depictions of real people's likenesses (which is actually pretty hard to get it to do accidentally)
There is a reason for it; tinyMCE is way out of date and the spellcheck feature was contributing to some major security and site slowdown issues for many people. Until we're able to get the site upgraded, it's unlikely to be turned back on.
@kenfried7: Click on the "rpg_sound_pack.zip" link right below the word File(s)
Done
Oh, not at all. :) That's allowed. That circumstance was already addressed above:
The thing about 'not applying CC0 on a PD asset' was for original, unmodified, not-derived PD assets.
Furthermore, you can put CC0 on an unmodified PD asset, you just shouldn't if you can help it because there are some regional differences and it's important to know how and where an asset entered the public domain. Simply stating something like "this fell into the Public Domain in 1881 in England" generally covers that, though. Again, not a requirement, but nice to provide that information when "Public Domain" is not one of the available licensing options... Like here on OGA.
The official nasa site still has lots of stipulations that would stop all the assets from being "copyright free" https://nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html
Please do not go nuts and continue to verify the terms indicated on individual images on each nasa page.
Many of the assets may be public domain or some form of copyleft, but don't assume all of them are. Also "copyright free" and "has no copyright" are generally terms used by people that don't know how copyright works. Things can't be copyright free unless:
It's better to consider an asset under the Public Domain "license" or the CC0 license, etc. than to think of it as "copyright free".
Pages