He's pretty private about that stuff, so pretty sure "nope" to sharing his location. I was being somewhat facetious, but only because I'm not sure what sort of information was actually being sought. I correspond with him occasionally about OGA decisions, but he's mostly hands-off for now; being very busy with other work and family.
One thing I like to do on big albums like that is make the first preview be a sampling of several of the songs in the album. You can still have more detailed individual previews after that, but the first preview can be heard right from the gallery page, so it does better representing the whole album that way.
@richard-odell: Spritesheets like this are pretty standard. You'll want to learn how to split them into individual sprites yourself eventually. Fortunately, it's super easy:
D'oh! I didn't see this discussion until just now.
Improvements look good. The north and south centepede sprites have 4 segments, but the east & west sprites appear to have twice that many at half the width. Centepedes have 1 pair of legs per segment, which is 6 in this case. I don't know if it's worth putting in the kind of effort i'm suggesting for "realism", I just know it is something that raised my eyebrow when I saw this sprite.
I also feel like the horizontal should be slightly longer than the vertical ones since the perspective is kind of implying the vertical ones are "squished" along the vertical axis. EDIT: I have no idea what I'm talking about. Ignore me. @bluecarrot: What is the typical artistic convention for that? Does different sprite width and height cause more disturbance to the player than not adjusting for perspective angle?
As bluecarrot suggested, the horizontal sprites should have some overhead components visible. I know that was accounted for already, but I feel they need even more overhead tilt. The legs "behind" (north side) the cetepede should almost be visibly peaking over the "top" (north side) of the sprite IMO. I'm still looking from a mostly overhead perspectiveat the centepede. 75% overhead, to be exact, though I don't think 3/4ths overhead adheres to the ratio quite that strictly for LPC. Much of it is more like 2/3rds overhead sometimes.
Many closed source games do have streaming/video policies
True, but I think that suggests a solution to your concern. Make a streaming policy for Minetest. Perhaps I don't understand the concern, though.
You would have to make it clear which assets require attribution.
You have to do that anyway. That's a requirement of CC-BY. If Minetest uses CC-BY assest, then it must make clear that those assets require attribution... by way of indicating the license and giving attribution. I do see your point about streamers not bothering to scour the credits page for that kind of thing, but a streaming policy would resolve that if the goal is to encourage (safe) streaming of Minetest. Again, the streamers only have to be concerned with that if they aren't protected by Fair Use for some reason. Regardless, a URL to a credits page in the video description is considered acceptable attribution. If a troll wants to belabor that point, I submit the issue is not any license you could use, attribution or otherwise, it is trusting assets from a troll... which I am constantly on guard for anyone doing that here.
People can sue for any reason. But this feels like a straw man argument.
That certainly wasn't my intent. If I am arguing against a position that doesn't exist, it is only because I am misunderstanding your position. To be honest, suggesting that streamers will get sued over video of a community-supported game that uses CC-BY assets seems like a straw man argument as well. Though my goal is not to argue against you, only to assuage any concern you may have over the use of any specific open source licenses; because I believe it really is both low risk and not the root of the problem.
any video that shows their textures could have legal action taken? That's insane! There's thousands of videos about Minetest.
That would be insane. Why would the let's-players get in trouble? Let's-play videos are (generally) under Fair Use and are (generally) not considered derivatives. I wasn't saying Fair Use doesn't apply to any content using CC licenses. I was saying Fair Use has nothing to do with CC licenses. They are two entirely separate things. Videos of GPL content, or MIT content, would be just as liable for failing to include a copy of the license text in their videos. That is to say, if what they're doing is Fair Use, they wouldn't be liable at all.
The people making the videos are responsible for determining if their use qualifies as Fair Use, not the developer of the game they're featuring in the videos. There are videos of every closed source commercial game on the market, but the creators of those videos aren't getting sued either, even though the license of the assets featured in the game are proprietary. Blizzard isn't suing the makers of the Leeroy Jenkins video even though it consists entirely of uncredited World of Warcraft intellectual property.
I'm surprised that the Creative Commons attribution licensing is even used in games at all, even open source games.
Substitute any license into that sentence and it still holds the same weight. Because the issue is not the license, it's copyright trolls. Observe:
I'm surprised that Public Domain works are even used in games at all, even open source games because copyright trolls can release an asset as PD, wait for someone to use it, then remove the asset from whever they were sharing it and sue while pointing to the proprietary-licensed royalties-due copy they had posted elsewhere earlier. "prove you had permission to use this!"
Why is this a separate thread instead of a comment on the original post of the same topic?
Only the Fans would be liable. Having satisfied the terms of the license, you are not responsible for what others do with the author's work or derivatives thereof.
CC licenses do not have an international fair use clause. Fair Use terms are separate from any license and vary by jurisdiction.
He's pretty private about that stuff, so pretty sure "nope" to sharing his location. I was being somewhat facetious, but only because I'm not sure what sort of information was actually being sought. I correspond with him occasionally about OGA decisions, but he's mostly hands-off for now; being very busy with other work and family.
Los Angeles I think.
One thing I like to do on big albums like that is make the first preview be a sampling of several of the songs in the album. You can still have more detailed individual previews after that, but the first preview can be heard right from the gallery page, so it does better representing the whole album that way.
I would say you did it the preferred way. It isn't that difficult to tell which preview goes with each track, in my opinion.
@richard-odell: Spritesheets like this are pretty standard. You'll want to learn how to split them into individual sprites yourself eventually. Fortunately, it's super easy:
include both in the same submission. People will be able to see both versions in one place and choose the one they prefer easier.
D'oh! I didn't see this discussion until just now.
Improvements look good. The north and south centepede sprites have 4 segments, but the east & west sprites appear to have twice that many at half the width. Centepedes have 1 pair of legs per segment, which is 6 in this case. I don't know if it's worth putting in the kind of effort i'm suggesting for "realism", I just know it is something that raised my eyebrow when I saw this sprite.
I also feel like the horizontal should be slightly longer than the vertical ones since the perspective is kind of implying the vertical ones are "squished" along the vertical axis.EDIT: I have no idea what I'm talking about. Ignore me. @bluecarrot: What is the typical artistic convention for that? Does different sprite width and height cause more disturbance to the player than not adjusting for perspective angle?As bluecarrot suggested, the horizontal sprites should have some overhead components visible. I know that was accounted for already, but I feel they need even more overhead tilt. The legs "behind" (north side) the cetepede should almost be visibly peaking over the "top" (north side) of the sprite IMO. I'm still looking from a mostly overhead perspective at the centepede. 75% overhead, to be exact, though I don't think 3/4ths overhead adheres to the ratio quite that strictly for LPC. Much of it is more like 2/3rds overhead sometimes.
True, but I think that suggests a solution to your concern. Make a streaming policy for Minetest. Perhaps I don't understand the concern, though.
You have to do that anyway. That's a requirement of CC-BY. If Minetest uses CC-BY assest, then it must make clear that those assets require attribution... by way of indicating the license and giving attribution. I do see your point about streamers not bothering to scour the credits page for that kind of thing, but a streaming policy would resolve that if the goal is to encourage (safe) streaming of Minetest. Again, the streamers only have to be concerned with that if they aren't protected by Fair Use for some reason. Regardless, a URL to a credits page in the video description is considered acceptable attribution. If a troll wants to belabor that point, I submit the issue is not any license you could use, attribution or otherwise, it is trusting assets from a troll... which I am constantly on guard for anyone doing that here.
That certainly wasn't my intent. If I am arguing against a position that doesn't exist, it is only because I am misunderstanding your position. To be honest, suggesting that streamers will get sued over video of a community-supported game that uses CC-BY assets seems like a straw man argument as well. Though my goal is not to argue against you, only to assuage any concern you may have over the use of any specific open source licenses; because I believe it really is both low risk and not the root of the problem.
That would be insane. Why would the let's-players get in trouble? Let's-play videos are (generally) under Fair Use and are (generally) not considered derivatives. I wasn't saying Fair Use doesn't apply to any content using CC licenses. I was saying Fair Use has nothing to do with CC licenses. They are two entirely separate things. Videos of GPL content, or MIT content, would be just as liable for failing to include a copy of the license text in their videos. That is to say, if what they're doing is Fair Use, they wouldn't be liable at all.
The people making the videos are responsible for determining if their use qualifies as Fair Use, not the developer of the game they're featuring in the videos. There are videos of every closed source commercial game on the market, but the creators of those videos aren't getting sued either, even though the license of the assets featured in the game are proprietary. Blizzard isn't suing the makers of the Leeroy Jenkins video even though it consists entirely of uncredited World of Warcraft intellectual property.
Substitute any license into that sentence and it still holds the same weight. Because the issue is not the license, it's copyright trolls. Observe:
Pages