If you downloaded an asset when it was CC-[anything], it doesn't matter if the author or source-website changes the license later. Your CC license for that asset is irrevocable. Heck, even if the asset is no longer available under a CC0 license, you could upload it to an art sharing website (like OGA) and list it as CC0 even if the author didn't want that. I would recommend AGAINST doing that, since we want to have a good relationship with authors even if we are legally allowed to piss them off. Never-the-less, once something is released under one of the CC-* licenses, it can always be used under that license, even if people try to make it unavailable.
I tend to record where, when, and under what license I got my assets. That always helps in proving they are legit, but I understand that may not always be feasible for you: It's kind of a pain, or you forgot one time, or you do that now, but didn't know to do that on assets you've obtained previously.
In those cases, you can usually prove provenance with the internet archive: https://archive.org/ shows what a website said in the past, even if it has since been changed. It doesn't always show the exact date and sub-page you are looking for, but it's worked for me enough times that I have to recommend donating to them for being such a great resource.
is it a reasonable expectation that the author of outsourced content be credited every single time their work appears in a screenshot, for every single instance of a screenshot?
Short answer: Yes. Attribute every author and asset.
Long answer: Depends on how they're appearing. If the author's content is showing up in a game, there is no need to flash an attribution message on the screen for every frame of animation that contains that asset. Just give attribution once in the credits screen/page/file. That one attribution covers all instances of the asset appearing throughout the game. If a Twitch Gamer or Lets-Player screencaps the game, that is generally considered fair use. Assuming the gamer indicates in their video or media what game it is from, the game's internal credits covers it. Another example would be a photo-art book. The publisher of the book containing a bunch of artwork doesn't need to give credit on every page where a particular art asset appears (they can if they want, though); a credit blurb once at the end of the book is sufficient.
However, let's say you are showing off some assets on your blog. If you display 20 images, 4 are by artist-A, 3 are from artist-B, 2 are from artist-C, and the rest are 1 each from artists-D through -L... you need 12 attributions. One attribution per Author, not per asset. But each author's attribution should indicate which asset(s) it corresponds to. You can have all 12 attributions in the same spot (even if the images are scattered throughout the blog) for the sake of organization, but they ALL get attributions. One attribution per author per collection. ("collection" being the group unit that is utilizing the assets: 1 blog, 1 game, 1 book, etc.)
Note that you don't need to track every instance of an asset. If you display sprite-10 a total of 44 times in your game (44 instances of 1 asset), there is no need to indicate forty four times that sprite-10 was by author-D:
Even if an asset is used multiple times, you only need to credit once for that author and indicate which assets belong to that author, not every instance of every asset that belongs to that author.
Artists may license their work (even the SAME work) in different ways on different platforms. You are allowed to pick whichever license you prefer and adhere to that one.
However, you should always download the asset from the same place that shows the license you want to adhere to. Do NOT download an asset from one site, but adhere to the license from a different site. The two works may only be very similar, but not the same. The author may have chosen to license the two differently for that reason.
If you provide specific links, I can provide a more in-depth answer. :)
Both of those were visible for several days on the front page's "latest art" section. Actually, the furniture one is still visible in "latest art" and both are visible in "popular this week" right now.
That is a reasonable concern, though. We want artists submissions to be visible for a decent period. What would you suggest as a solution? I have been encouraging submitters to consolidate thier submissions (it's better for everyone anyway, the artists tend to get more attention when their stuff is in a cohesive set) but how do we enforce that besides asking?
"You must follow only one of the licenses. However, when you re-distribute/edit, you are encouraged to include/use all of the licenses, so the license spectrum (and thus sum of people/projects who can use the art) doesn't shrink"
There is no precidence between several licenses listed; you get to pick the one you want to use. This is useful for developers wanting to keep assets under a specific license; they are able to pick the license that matches their project.
"Oooh I saw those Goku sprites on Spriters Resource recently! They probably based Goku off my sprites, as this game just popped up recently, and Mr. Man was uploaded 4 years ago."
Yep. that makes sense. I just wanted to verify that was the case and not that both sets were inspired by a 3rd party asset. ;)
"Are you tryin' to say that I copied and pasted my work? Because I am the original designer of these base sprites."
Nah! it was pretty clear from the differences this was never a copy and paste (either from your work or their work) Plus your stuff has always been your own. I have to double check everything though. If I actually thought this might turn out to be you deriving stuff from someone else and not the other way around, I would have put a licensing flag on this right away. I was pretty confident this wasn't the case though, so I never put I licensing flag on it at all.
"I don't know why this needs to be brought up. I see a lot of mobile games on the play store using my assets."
Only because the timeline was unclear to me on this one. I wasn't sure where the dragonball z discovery sprites came from or when (commerical game? fan game? fan game that ripped sprites from a commercial game?) Usually I can find out what order of operations happen with a fan game project, but I wasn't coming up with very good information on DBZ-discovery. I bring up everything that could be a problem, just to make sure it isn't one. :)
Good news is both sets of assets are copyright sound! bad news is, their set of DBZ sprites is not trademark sound. Oh well. I hope they don't get in trouble for that. Looks like a passionate project.
Sorry if this came off as insulting. That was the opposite of my intent. I just had to verify the information from your side.
Thanks, but I kinda got that from your earlier response. Unfortunately it still doesn't address the concern; what was your earliest version based off of?
@LDAsh: The cubebrush and poliigon license changes are similar to the discusson about Josepharaoh's "fiery explosion" pixabay derivative.
If you downloaded an asset when it was CC-[anything], it doesn't matter if the author or source-website changes the license later. Your CC license for that asset is irrevocable. Heck, even if the asset is no longer available under a CC0 license, you could upload it to an art sharing website (like OGA) and list it as CC0 even if the author didn't want that. I would recommend AGAINST doing that, since we want to have a good relationship with authors even if we are legally allowed to piss them off. Never-the-less, once something is released under one of the CC-* licenses, it can always be used under that license, even if people try to make it unavailable.
I tend to record where, when, and under what license I got my assets. That always helps in proving they are legit, but I understand that may not always be feasible for you: It's kind of a pain, or you forgot one time, or you do that now, but didn't know to do that on assets you've obtained previously.
In those cases, you can usually prove provenance with the internet archive: https://archive.org/ shows what a website said in the past, even if it has since been changed. It doesn't always show the exact date and sub-page you are looking for, but it's worked for me enough times that I have to recommend donating to them for being such a great resource.
Short answer: Yes. Attribute every author and asset.
Long answer: Depends on how they're appearing. If the author's content is showing up in a game, there is no need to flash an attribution message on the screen for every frame of animation that contains that asset. Just give attribution once in the credits screen/page/file. That one attribution covers all instances of the asset appearing throughout the game. If a Twitch Gamer or Lets-Player screencaps the game, that is generally considered fair use. Assuming the gamer indicates in their video or media what game it is from, the game's internal credits covers it. Another example would be a photo-art book. The publisher of the book containing a bunch of artwork doesn't need to give credit on every page where a particular art asset appears (they can if they want, though); a credit blurb once at the end of the book is sufficient.
However, let's say you are showing off some assets on your blog. If you display 20 images, 4 are by artist-A, 3 are from artist-B, 2 are from artist-C, and the rest are 1 each from artists-D through -L... you need 12 attributions. One attribution per Author, not per asset. But each author's attribution should indicate which asset(s) it corresponds to. You can have all 12 attributions in the same spot (even if the images are scattered throughout the blog) for the sake of organization, but they ALL get attributions. One attribution per author per collection. ("collection" being the group unit that is utilizing the assets: 1 blog, 1 game, 1 book, etc.)
Note that you don't need to track every instance of an asset. If you display sprite-10 a total of 44 times in your game (44 instances of 1 asset), there is no need to indicate forty four times that sprite-10 was by author-D:
EXAMPLE CREDITS PAGE:
Even if an asset is used multiple times, you only need to credit once for that author and indicate which assets belong to that author, not every instance of every asset that belongs to that author.
Artists may license their work (even the SAME work) in different ways on different platforms. You are allowed to pick whichever license you prefer and adhere to that one.
However, you should always download the asset from the same place that shows the license you want to adhere to. Do NOT download an asset from one site, but adhere to the license from a different site. The two works may only be very similar, but not the same. The author may have chosen to license the two differently for that reason.
If you provide specific links, I can provide a more in-depth answer. :)
Wow. I think that fits the art pretty darn well! Nicely done. I like it.
This is close to that, Joth, but with Newly Submitted at the top instead of the bottom. Is that what you're thinking of possibly?
I like this idea! What does this sound like?
https://opengameart.org/content/swamp-dryad
??
Both of those were visible for several days on the front page's "latest art" section. Actually, the furniture one is still visible in "latest art" and both are visible in "popular this week" right now.
That is a reasonable concern, though. We want artists submissions to be visible for a decent period. What would you suggest as a solution? I have been encouraging submitters to consolidate thier submissions (it's better for everyone anyway, the artists tend to get more attention when their stuff is in a cohesive set) but how do we enforce that besides asking?
was spam. Thanks for pointing it out.
@vault dweller: as HaelDB said, it is just CC0 now, so it's moot for this example, but for future reference, see https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-multilicense
There is no precidence between several licenses listed; you get to pick the one you want to use. This is useful for developers wanting to keep assets under a specific license; they are able to pick the license that matches their project.
Yep. that makes sense. I just wanted to verify that was the case and not that both sets were inspired by a 3rd party asset. ;)
Nah! it was pretty clear from the differences this was never a copy and paste (either from your work or their work) Plus your stuff has always been your own. I have to double check everything though. If I actually thought this might turn out to be you deriving stuff from someone else and not the other way around, I would have put a licensing flag on this right away. I was pretty confident this wasn't the case though, so I never put I licensing flag on it at all.
Only because the timeline was unclear to me on this one. I wasn't sure where the dragonball z discovery sprites came from or when (commerical game? fan game? fan game that ripped sprites from a commercial game?) Usually I can find out what order of operations happen with a fan game project, but I wasn't coming up with very good information on DBZ-discovery. I bring up everything that could be a problem, just to make sure it isn't one. :)
Good news is both sets of assets are copyright sound! bad news is, their set of DBZ sprites is not trademark sound. Oh well. I hope they don't get in trouble for that. Looks like a passionate project.
Sorry if this came off as insulting. That was the opposite of my intent. I just had to verify the information from your side.
Thanks, but I kinda got that from your earlier response. Unfortunately it still doesn't address the concern; what was your earliest version based off of?
Pages