Hmm. that is strange. I think it may just be a serverside (or possibly browser-side) cache thing. Your collections show up just fine to me. However, your uploaded screenshot image is not showing for some reason. I was able to open it in a separate tab and view it but, as you can see from my own screenshot, the image is not displaying correctly:
Now for the "probably": Most times, however, there is a single common license that all the source content is compatible with. For instance, if the sources are CC0 and CC-BY, CC0 can be adapted to CC-BY, so the derivative can be under the singular license CC-BY. If the sources are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, CC-BY can be adapted to CC-BY-SA, so the derivative can be under the singular license CC-BY-SA. Furthermore, many authors authorize the adaption of earlier licenses to later versions, but it depends on the specific assets in question.
and how is it required that i share them?
CC0, OGA-BY, and CC-BY do not require you to share derivatives, but you are encouraged to do so anyway. CC-BY-SA and GPL require you to have derivatives under the same license. (Different clauses, but the effect is about the same) Provided the assets are accessable via the same avenues as your game, you've met the requirement. For instance, if people can download your game for free, make sure they can access the files in the same download. If you sell your game on itch, provide a link on that game's itch page where people can download the assets for free.
i understand that modifcations of cc-by-sa works have to be licensed under same license, and must be released. but if my modifications are garbage, there is no sense in uploading them to oga, there is no need here for not-useful amateur crappy artwork or trivial derivatives.
"trivial" being the key word there. Trivial changes are not considered derivatives. If your modification is nothing more than a hue shift, or pixel alignment correction, or cropping a sprite, that doesn't need to be "shared-alike". It is sometimes hard to tell if it is truly trivial or if it should be considered a derivative. I can go over some guidelines if you'd like, but when in doubt, share alike.
is having the artwork in the game folder sufficient to be considered "sharing alike?" (with correct identification of the assets as being licensed as cc-by-sa)
Yes. So long as your players can access the assets your game uses, you've shared them alike. A copy of the assets should suffice, even if it's not the exact specific bits read by the game engine. (it should be an actual copy, though. If you can't swap one file for the other, compile it, and get the exact same results in-game, it isn't a true copy.) Sharing derivatives on OGA is not required to satisfy "share-alike". We certainly like it when you do. However, we ask that you not share derivatives on OGA if those derivatives would never be useful in another game. For instance, deriving a CC-BY-SA asset into your game's custom "Rynosaur Rampage" title screen? You do have to share that title screen as CC-BY-SA, but it doesn't make sense to share it on OGA because no one but you is making a Rynosaur Rampage game.
can someone also try to explain how a mixed asset would be licensed and what i would have to do to satisfy share-alike requirements.
I'd be happy to. Just let me know the cirucmstances if you have any circumstances in addition to your example below:
like, i use a sprite from asset a but i want to take the head of a sprite from asset b and frankenstein it together, then make my own edits to look as good as i am able. but asset a is cc-by 3.0 and asset b is cc-by-sa 4.0. my frankenstein sprites inherits cc-by-sa 4.0 right?
correct, because CC-BY 3.0 allows for adaptation into CC-BY-SA 3.0 and subsequently CC-BY-SA 4.0
and what if i use a gun from asset c that is cc-by-4.0 and frankenstein it into the drivative from asset a and asset b? now my sprite is derivative from 3 assets with 3 different licenses.
All three are compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0:
Asset A: CC-BY 3.0 can be adapted to CC-BY-SA 3.0
Asset A.1: CC-BY-SA 3.0 can be adapted to CC-BY-SA 4.0
Asset B: CC-BY-SA 4.0 doesn't need to be changed, it is the "common license" here.
Asset C: CC-BY 4.0 can be adapted to CC-BY-SA 4.0
Derivative: CC-BY-SA 4.0 is common to A, B, C, and your own addtions, assuming you choose to license your own components as CC-BY-SA 4.0
i also have questions about releasing source code to my game. i want to release source code under mit license, with the artwork included in the source and licensed separately as whatever the license requires. can i package them together or do i have to release only code in one zip and only artwork in another zip?
You can release the code under one collection and each set of assets under other collections. Each collection can have it's own license. Projects can contain multiple collections. You do not need to release each part in a separate zip, but there should be some delineation between the collections; some way to tell them apart. I usually release my projects in one zip file, but the zip file contains several folders:
Code (MIT)
Graphics 1 (CC-BY)
Graphics 2 (GPL)
Sound (OGA-BY)
i hate to keep asking these questions, i have read the faq multiple times and searched the forums to get answers but i can't make myself confident that how i plan to do things is the correct way of doing it. i'm not worried about getting sued, it's just that ethically i want to do the right thing.
You're doing it right. You've researched it before asking and still have questions. You want to adhere to the law and be ethical. That has earned you unlimited free discussions with the community. (I mean, technically you didn't need to earn them like that; everything here is free, even the answers.) Keep asking questions until your curiosity is satisfied. We will never get annoyed when you do it this way.
also want to thank all who have made awesome artwork and those who have kept this awesome resource going. i've only recently discovered it after taking a 16 year long hiatus from hobbyist gamedev, but i love the spirit of this site. hopefully i can find ways to give back.
Note that NFTs do not solve the problem of art theives. We fight the theives when we find them, of course, but if someone is willing to break the law to abuse our art, NFTs don't magically stop them from using the same art just because there's suddenly a minted token containing a URL to an asset.
Speaking of, it looks like most methods of NFT don't encode the asset itself, just a url to one copy of it. If the asset is moved, or the hosting site changes, that NFT is now pointless. If someone makes a copy of the asset and hosts it on a different place, it is viewed as a separate asset totally unrelated to the one minted as an NFT, even though both are pixel-per-pixel identical. So anyone trying to use NFTs to safeguard assets against duplication or ensure uniqueness outside the context of a specific marketplace (like an in-game item) will find it is just as strong a defense as a vault with a really really good lock, but who's walls are made of paper. Someone, please tell me I'm wrong about this.
There is discussions about changing the license on artwork to prevent NFT shinanigans. I get that, but copyright laws and the current license(s) already make it illegal to claim ownership without permission from the artist. Saying "no NFTs without permission" is the same as making a new law that says "don't commit crime"; If they're willing to break the rules, how will such new rules help?
As chasersgaming outlined; the danger isn't that NFTs make it legal to steal art, its that NFT purchasers think they own the art. The artist still owns their own work.
Can someone say "you can't use that it's mine I own the original"? Well, they can say it, but it won't be true.
I can't predict the future, but I'm predicting that there will never be retroactive* legal enforcement of NFTs as proof of copyright. As I said above, copyright and NFT ownership are mutually exclusive. NFTs could be used to help prove copyright with the right legislation, but they aren't currently being used that way. They're being used to fake copyright ownership right now. Bleh!
*the legal system may, at some point, support NFTs as a way to reinforce copyright going forward, but it won't validate NFTs that were created before such a law went into effect. If they did, this would work: "I just NFT'd the concept of NFTs, Therefore I hereby own every ownership claim staked by all NFTs everywhere. Fight me."
Here is my understanding, which is incomplete and probably incorrect in some ways:
NFTs seek to create the difference between unique originals and reproductions in digital art. In physical artwork, there is much greater value attributed to the original than on any reproductions. The Mona Lisa, for instance. You can purchase a print of it in many gift shops for a couple euros, but the original "real" Mona Lisa is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even though the copy is visually identical, it is only worth what they charge for it in the gift shop.
NFTs (sort of) do this, but for digital art. Copies of digital art aren't just visually identical, they're actually identical in every way. There is no way to tell the difference between the "original" file and a copy of it. There is provenance in who had the file first, sure, but there can be no real difference in value if two files are indistinguishable from one another. NFTs encode a file so you can tell it hasn't been changed nor another copy of the file has been encoded before, so you can designate the NFT token as "proof of original". Nothing really stops someone from using or viewing other copies of the art. The token *says* a specific person owns the "original", but who enforces that? There are (currently) no laws that enforce copyright or ownership of NFTs over any other copy of the art.
From that point, it's a bit like PeterX's analogy of charging people for tickets to a concert. The band may actually be playing the gig for free. There's just some dude nearby saying you have to buy a ticket to see the concert. There isn't even any walls for the venue; the concert is being played in a public park; there aren't fences or anything preventing anyone from just walking in and celebrating. "Some dude" might yell and threaten to call the cops on people who aren't buying tickets, but there's not actually any authority other than the people who believe the tickets are legit.
"Some dude" may argue that, without the ticket stub, you have no proof that you attended the concert. You have no souvenir with which to remember the experience. He's right about that, but sentimental value is the only value it really has.
If you want to own a peice of digital art for it's sentimental value to you, and for the presteige of owning a unique peiece of art that no one else can say they own, NFTs have value. I enjoy the visual aspects of prints just as much as the visual aspects of original works, but I also like owning paintings for their uniqueness and singular rarity. Also, it shows appreciation to the artists. In treating digital art like collectable physical art, NFTs are useful and cool.
There is also a good use for them as collectable items in games. In Magic The Gathering (MTG) collectible card game, the cards themselves are physical. A large portion of each card's value is determined by it's rarity. If everyone had a Black Lotus card, each one wouldn't be worth much. Wizards of the Coast (WotC), the company that makes MTG, ensures that rarity by simply not producing or circulating very many of them (They produced a few back in the day and no longer produce them at all, thus the scarcity). There are a lot of attempted fakes, but experts are able to spot subtle differences between fake and real cards. No such differences exist in digital files, so MTG had trouble guaranteeing the value of player purchased cards in their digital version of the game. Is this card really worth this price? If I buy it, what stops the company from just "printing" more digital copies within the game and selling it to other players? What stops other players from duplicating thousands of digital Black Lotus cards and selling them to other players?
NFTs to the rescue. I'm not sure WotC actually made all their digital cards into specifically Non Fungible Tokens, but if not, they were discussing something very similar to ensure cards were unique and not duplicable. Each digital card is owned by a specific player, so duplicating any and trying to sell the duplicates would reveal themselves as fakes rather quickly. The ledger for who-owns-what with NFTs is public, so WotC couldn't just "cook the books" and add a few lines claiming "uh, yeah- we've actually had 300 Black Lotuses in circulation this whole time!" Everyone would see it and call foul.
Any similarly collectable items in digital games would benefit from NFT technology to ensure the value and authenticity of digital items, giving them real-world value as if they were real-world objects.
I have no idea why some dudes are NFT-ifying random bits of digital art with no context for their application. That boggles my brain. It is annoying that some dudes are claiming "ownership" over artwork they didn't even create or pay for, but honestly that's all it is as far as I'm concerned; Annoying. That's all those people are; just some dudes. There is no legal enforcement or actual copyright involved. Digital art can be copyrighted of course, but ownership of copyright and "ownership" of NFTs are mutually exclusive.
Hi, OptimusDu!
Hmm. that is strange. I think it may just be a serverside (or possibly browser-side) cache thing. Your collections show up just fine to me. However, your uploaded screenshot image is not showing for some reason. I was able to open it in a separate tab and view it but, as you can see from my own screenshot, the image is not displaying correctly:
Yes. Unless you want the derivative under a single license, in which case "probably".
First, let's cover that "Yes": Derivatives can be placed under multiple licenses of their sources, but all the licenses must be adhered to at the same time. See bluecarrot16's explanation here: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/remixing-by-30-and-by-40#comment-92293
Now for the "probably": Most times, however, there is a single common license that all the source content is compatible with. For instance, if the sources are CC0 and CC-BY, CC0 can be adapted to CC-BY, so the derivative can be under the singular license CC-BY. If the sources are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, CC-BY can be adapted to CC-BY-SA, so the derivative can be under the singular license CC-BY-SA. Furthermore, many authors authorize the adaption of earlier licenses to later versions, but it depends on the specific assets in question.
CC0, OGA-BY, and CC-BY do not require you to share derivatives, but you are encouraged to do so anyway. CC-BY-SA and GPL require you to have derivatives under the same license. (Different clauses, but the effect is about the same) Provided the assets are accessable via the same avenues as your game, you've met the requirement. For instance, if people can download your game for free, make sure they can access the files in the same download. If you sell your game on itch, provide a link on that game's itch page where people can download the assets for free.
"trivial" being the key word there. Trivial changes are not considered derivatives. If your modification is nothing more than a hue shift, or pixel alignment correction, or cropping a sprite, that doesn't need to be "shared-alike". It is sometimes hard to tell if it is truly trivial or if it should be considered a derivative. I can go over some guidelines if you'd like, but when in doubt, share alike.
Yes. So long as your players can access the assets your game uses, you've shared them alike. A copy of the assets should suffice, even if it's not the exact specific bits read by the game engine. (it should be an actual copy, though. If you can't swap one file for the other, compile it, and get the exact same results in-game, it isn't a true copy.) Sharing derivatives on OGA is not required to satisfy "share-alike". We certainly like it when you do. However, we ask that you not share derivatives on OGA if those derivatives would never be useful in another game. For instance, deriving a CC-BY-SA asset into your game's custom "Rynosaur Rampage" title screen? You do have to share that title screen as CC-BY-SA, but it doesn't make sense to share it on OGA because no one but you is making a Rynosaur Rampage game.
I'd be happy to. Just let me know the cirucmstances if you have any circumstances in addition to your example below:
correct, because CC-BY 3.0 allows for adaptation into CC-BY-SA 3.0 and subsequently CC-BY-SA 4.0
All three are compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0:
i also have questions about releasing source code to my game. i want to release source code under mit license, with the artwork included in the source and licensed separately as whatever the license requires. can i package them together or do i have to release only code in one zip and only artwork in another zip?
You can release the code under one collection and each set of assets under other collections. Each collection can have it's own license. Projects can contain multiple collections. You do not need to release each part in a separate zip, but there should be some delineation between the collections; some way to tell them apart. I usually release my projects in one zip file, but the zip file contains several folders:
You're doing it right. You've researched it before asking and still have questions. You want to adhere to the law and be ethical. That has earned you unlimited free discussions with the community. (I mean, technically you didn't need to earn them like that; everything here is free, even the answers.) Keep asking questions until your curiosity is satisfied. We will never get annoyed when you do it this way.
Seeing this has made my day. :D
Ah yes, that is from the original LPC asset directory. That particular one is by Charles Sanchez (CharlesGabriel) https://lpc.opengameart.org/static/lpc-style-guide/authors.html#charles-...
As with all the original LPC stuff, it is dual licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GPL 3
Hope that helps. :)
Note that NFTs do not solve the problem of art theives. We fight the theives when we find them, of course, but if someone is willing to break the law to abuse our art, NFTs don't magically stop them from using the same art just because there's suddenly a minted token containing a URL to an asset.
Speaking of, it looks like most methods of NFT don't encode the asset itself, just a url to one copy of it. If the asset is moved, or the hosting site changes, that NFT is now pointless. If someone makes a copy of the asset and hosts it on a different place, it is viewed as a separate asset totally unrelated to the one minted as an NFT, even though both are pixel-per-pixel identical. So anyone trying to use NFTs to safeguard assets against duplication or ensure uniqueness outside the context of a specific marketplace (like an in-game item) will find it is just as strong a defense as a vault with a really really good lock, but who's walls are made of paper. Someone, please tell me I'm wrong about this.
There is discussions about changing the license on artwork to prevent NFT shinanigans. I get that, but copyright laws and the current license(s) already make it illegal to claim ownership without permission from the artist. Saying "no NFTs without permission" is the same as making a new law that says "don't commit crime"; If they're willing to break the rules, how will such new rules help?
As chasersgaming outlined; the danger isn't that NFTs make it legal to steal art, its that NFT purchasers think they own the art. The artist still owns their own work.
Wonderful!
Neat!
Question on the ships: Any plans for gun ports or deck hatches?
@LMCuber: see FAQ https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit
Can someone say "you can't use that it's mine I own the original"? Well, they can say it, but it won't be true.
I can't predict the future, but I'm predicting that there will never be retroactive* legal enforcement of NFTs as proof of copyright. As I said above, copyright and NFT ownership are mutually exclusive. NFTs could be used to help prove copyright with the right legislation, but they aren't currently being used that way. They're being used to fake copyright ownership right now. Bleh!
*the legal system may, at some point, support NFTs as a way to reinforce copyright going forward, but it won't validate NFTs that were created before such a law went into effect. If they did, this would work: "I just NFT'd the concept of NFTs, Therefore I hereby own every ownership claim staked by all NFTs everywhere. Fight me."
Here is my understanding, which is incomplete and probably incorrect in some ways:
NFTs seek to create the difference between unique originals and reproductions in digital art. In physical artwork, there is much greater value attributed to the original than on any reproductions. The Mona Lisa, for instance. You can purchase a print of it in many gift shops for a couple euros, but the original "real" Mona Lisa is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even though the copy is visually identical, it is only worth what they charge for it in the gift shop.
NFTs (sort of) do this, but for digital art. Copies of digital art aren't just visually identical, they're actually identical in every way. There is no way to tell the difference between the "original" file and a copy of it. There is provenance in who had the file first, sure, but there can be no real difference in value if two files are indistinguishable from one another. NFTs encode a file so you can tell it hasn't been changed nor another copy of the file has been encoded before, so you can designate the NFT token as "proof of original". Nothing really stops someone from using or viewing other copies of the art. The token *says* a specific person owns the "original", but who enforces that? There are (currently) no laws that enforce copyright or ownership of NFTs over any other copy of the art.
From that point, it's a bit like PeterX's analogy of charging people for tickets to a concert. The band may actually be playing the gig for free. There's just some dude nearby saying you have to buy a ticket to see the concert. There isn't even any walls for the venue; the concert is being played in a public park; there aren't fences or anything preventing anyone from just walking in and celebrating. "Some dude" might yell and threaten to call the cops on people who aren't buying tickets, but there's not actually any authority other than the people who believe the tickets are legit.
"Some dude" may argue that, without the ticket stub, you have no proof that you attended the concert. You have no souvenir with which to remember the experience. He's right about that, but sentimental value is the only value it really has.
If you want to own a peice of digital art for it's sentimental value to you, and for the presteige of owning a unique peiece of art that no one else can say they own, NFTs have value. I enjoy the visual aspects of prints just as much as the visual aspects of original works, but I also like owning paintings for their uniqueness and singular rarity. Also, it shows appreciation to the artists. In treating digital art like collectable physical art, NFTs are useful and cool.
There is also a good use for them as collectable items in games. In Magic The Gathering (MTG) collectible card game, the cards themselves are physical. A large portion of each card's value is determined by it's rarity. If everyone had a Black Lotus card, each one wouldn't be worth much. Wizards of the Coast (WotC), the company that makes MTG, ensures that rarity by simply not producing or circulating very many of them (They produced a few back in the day and no longer produce them at all, thus the scarcity). There are a lot of attempted fakes, but experts are able to spot subtle differences between fake and real cards. No such differences exist in digital files, so MTG had trouble guaranteeing the value of player purchased cards in their digital version of the game. Is this card really worth this price? If I buy it, what stops the company from just "printing" more digital copies within the game and selling it to other players? What stops other players from duplicating thousands of digital Black Lotus cards and selling them to other players?
NFTs to the rescue. I'm not sure WotC actually made all their digital cards into specifically Non Fungible Tokens, but if not, they were discussing something very similar to ensure cards were unique and not duplicable. Each digital card is owned by a specific player, so duplicating any and trying to sell the duplicates would reveal themselves as fakes rather quickly. The ledger for who-owns-what with NFTs is public, so WotC couldn't just "cook the books" and add a few lines claiming "uh, yeah- we've actually had 300 Black Lotuses in circulation this whole time!" Everyone would see it and call foul.
Any similarly collectable items in digital games would benefit from NFT technology to ensure the value and authenticity of digital items, giving them real-world value as if they were real-world objects.
I have no idea why some dudes are NFT-ifying random bits of digital art with no context for their application. That boggles my brain. It is annoying that some dudes are claiming "ownership" over artwork they didn't even create or pay for, but honestly that's all it is as far as I'm concerned; Annoying. That's all those people are; just some dudes. There is no legal enforcement or actual copyright involved. Digital art can be copyrighted of course, but ownership of copyright and "ownership" of NFTs are mutually exclusive.
Calciumtrice's work always reminded me of the king's quest games: https://opengameart.org/users/calciumtrice
Pages