Yes, I always make every effort to allow an appeal. If something is suspect, that art may be flagged and a comment asking for an explanation, allowing the submitter to explain or justify the submission, even if I'm really sure it's never going to be allowed. As a less-than-omnicient person, there is always a chance Nintendo gave explicit permission to you to create mario derivatives or something and I wasn't aware of it.
Submitting a few infringing works? we have to take them down, but the submitter isn't banned for it. If however, someone submits in bad faith, admins take it down and explain why that can't be permitted, and the submitter continues to repeatedly submit the same type of bad-faith assets despite multiple explanations and requests to correct... yeah, that submitter is going to be banned eventually.
I have never banned someone for not understanding licensing. It's complicated and everyone makes a mistake at some point. I will always allow people to ask for licensing explanations and am happy to provide information about how it all works (to the best of my own understanding). I don't even mind people responding with "F*** YOU, NOBODY WILL SUE, YOU CANT STOP ME" a few times. After enough times, though, I start counting these as "appeal reviewed, and subsequently denied for non-compelling argument". Furthermore, if something is flagged, and an admin asks for clarification, and the submitter outright lies about it? I consider the opportunity for appeal satisfied when they defrauded this community. Even then I've never banned someone for blatantly lying only one time.
TL;DR: You're not going to get banned for mistakes, misunderstandings, or one-time offenses. :)
That was a somewhat special circumstance. The user had submitted infringing art for a much longer time than is typical before it was caught. The user also shared such art on the forums and with various individual game project art requests.
This made tracking down all the users who downloaded the infringing art and plan on using it in their game essentially impossible by normal means.
Because the the art was so blatantly infringing (not just a misunderstanding, the user directly lied about the content) and because the content was distributed so widely before admins caught it, I had very limited options for rapidly indicating to all potentially affected parties that the assets they may be using are problematic.
Adding the note to the signature line was the fastest way to notify all locations where that particular user had posted various infringing assets that caution was needed: As you can see in your screenshot above, there is potentially infringing works displayed on the very same post that the note appears. The intent was not to smear the user or discredit them (although I recognize that may be an unfortunate consequence).
Could you have a similar note agasint your user name? Well, if you post a large quantity of infringing artwork, you lie about it and intentionally hide that you used ripped components from commercial companies known for DMCA's, and your artwork is up far longer than it should be, allowing for an unfortunately wide distribution of the infringing works, then... yes. I guess so. I don't think that's likely as 1) I'm pretty upset about that situation and have redoubled my efforts to be more vigilant and 2) I'm hoping there's a better way to quickly notifiy victims in the future.
Sorry, guys. I really don't like how this one turned out. Other admins were more offended by that user's actions than I was, but this is on me. :(
@Basto: I'm not sure what you're referencing by "something", but I don't think that statement is entirely clear.
If by "something" you mean the artwork assets (and derivatives of) the stuff licensed CC-BY-SA or GPL, then yes, those licenses require you to release "something" for free as soon as you distribute your game containing those "something" assets.
Ateo88: "If I understand correctly this means that I have to release those assets regardless of whether the project goes commercial or not. I intend to do this after the project is completed and released."
@Ateo88: Yes, that is correct. you have to release those assets regardless of the commercial status of the project. As soon as your project is distributed in any way, those asssets must be made available for free and under the appropriate license. I believe what Basto was getting at is that your game's code, story, character concepts, and executable components are not necessarily included in that.
Example: I use LPC art in my RPG "dragon apprentice". The Dragon Apprentice game is under a proprietary license and I charge $5.99 on steam and the app store. Customers must pay me in order to play the game. However, I have made the LPC spritesheets, tilesets, and derivatives I've modified available for free.
As Basto stated, customers can use the artwork (even the customized sprites I've modified from the LPC sprites specifically for my Dragon Apprentice game) as long as they give credit to the original authors (and me, for my derivatives) and adhere to the terms of the license. BUT! Those customers must be able to obtain that artwork without paying me anything. Purchase is required to play the game, sure, but not to obtain the art assets.
I actually did receive the email you sent via the site's admin/feedback messaging, but I had not seen the request for deletion on those two submissions. Your email address seems valid, so I'm not sure why it was complaining. The emails seem to be getting through just fine despite the error message.
I do my best to respond to the admin/feedback emails, but the best/fastest way to contact me is via the site's Private Messaging system. I've sent you a follow up response about the deletion requests. :)
I'm not sure what you're asking at this point. The heart and coin sprites can be found at the link provided. As the author states, the other sprites are from other sources having nothing to do with OGA.
Sorry about your collections, Basto. Let me see if I can fix them. Which collection(s) broke?
Understood. And thanks.
Yes, I always make every effort to allow an appeal. If something is suspect, that art may be flagged and a comment asking for an explanation, allowing the submitter to explain or justify the submission, even if I'm really sure it's never going to be allowed. As a less-than-omnicient person, there is always a chance Nintendo gave explicit permission to you to create mario derivatives or something and I wasn't aware of it.
Submitting a few infringing works? we have to take them down, but the submitter isn't banned for it. If however, someone submits in bad faith, admins take it down and explain why that can't be permitted, and the submitter continues to repeatedly submit the same type of bad-faith assets despite multiple explanations and requests to correct... yeah, that submitter is going to be banned eventually.
I have never banned someone for not understanding licensing. It's complicated and everyone makes a mistake at some point. I will always allow people to ask for licensing explanations and am happy to provide information about how it all works (to the best of my own understanding). I don't even mind people responding with "F*** YOU, NOBODY WILL SUE, YOU CANT STOP ME" a few times. After enough times, though, I start counting these as "appeal reviewed, and subsequently denied for non-compelling argument". Furthermore, if something is flagged, and an admin asks for clarification, and the submitter outright lies about it? I consider the opportunity for appeal satisfied when they defrauded this community. Even then I've never banned someone for blatantly lying only one time.
TL;DR: You're not going to get banned for mistakes, misunderstandings, or one-time offenses. :)
That was a somewhat special circumstance. The user had submitted infringing art for a much longer time than is typical before it was caught. The user also shared such art on the forums and with various individual game project art requests.
This made tracking down all the users who downloaded the infringing art and plan on using it in their game essentially impossible by normal means.
Because the the art was so blatantly infringing (not just a misunderstanding, the user directly lied about the content) and because the content was distributed so widely before admins caught it, I had very limited options for rapidly indicating to all potentially affected parties that the assets they may be using are problematic.
Adding the note to the signature line was the fastest way to notify all locations where that particular user had posted various infringing assets that caution was needed: As you can see in your screenshot above, there is potentially infringing works displayed on the very same post that the note appears. The intent was not to smear the user or discredit them (although I recognize that may be an unfortunate consequence).
Could you have a similar note agasint your user name? Well, if you post a large quantity of infringing artwork, you lie about it and intentionally hide that you used ripped components from commercial companies known for DMCA's, and your artwork is up far longer than it should be, allowing for an unfortunately wide distribution of the infringing works, then... yes. I guess so. I don't think that's likely as 1) I'm pretty upset about that situation and have redoubled my efforts to be more vigilant and 2) I'm hoping there's a better way to quickly notifiy victims in the future.
Sorry, guys. I really don't like how this one turned out. Other admins were more offended by that user's actions than I was, but this is on me. :(
Interesting. How does the alchemy system in FLARE work, anyway?
(loving your Lets-Plays, BTW)
@Basto: I'm not sure what you're referencing by "something", but I don't think that statement is entirely clear.
If by "something" you mean the artwork assets (and derivatives of) the stuff licensed CC-BY-SA or GPL, then yes, those licenses require you to release "something" for free as soon as you distribute your game containing those "something" assets.
@Ateo88: Yes, that is correct. you have to release those assets regardless of the commercial status of the project. As soon as your project is distributed in any way, those asssets must be made available for free and under the appropriate license. I believe what Basto was getting at is that your game's code, story, character concepts, and executable components are not necessarily included in that.
Example: I use LPC art in my RPG "dragon apprentice". The Dragon Apprentice game is under a proprietary license and I charge $5.99 on steam and the app store. Customers must pay me in order to play the game. However, I have made the LPC spritesheets, tilesets, and derivatives I've modified available for free.
As Basto stated, customers can use the artwork (even the customized sprites I've modified from the LPC sprites specifically for my Dragon Apprentice game) as long as they give credit to the original authors (and me, for my derivatives) and adhere to the terms of the license. BUT! Those customers must be able to obtain that artwork without paying me anything. Purchase is required to play the game, sure, but not to obtain the art assets.
Hello.
I actually did receive the email you sent via the site's admin/feedback messaging, but I had not seen the request for deletion on those two submissions. Your email address seems valid, so I'm not sure why it was complaining. The emails seem to be getting through just fine despite the error message.
I do my best to respond to the admin/feedback emails, but the best/fastest way to contact me is via the site's Private Messaging system. I've sent you a follow up response about the deletion requests. :)
"No redistribution". Darn.
I'm not sure what you're asking at this point. The heart and coin sprites can be found at the link provided. As the author states, the other sprites are from other sources having nothing to do with OGA.
There is no user ArMM1990 but your screenshot says "ArMM1998"
https://opengameart.org/users/ArMM1998
Jared Harper hasn't told us what sprites you're talking about. Can you share "screen"shots, by chance?
Pages