"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?
Sorry, i don't think it's too much to ask artists to include more tags than just "soundtrack" and "music". I'm not talking about submitters like joth; his tags have the kind of categorical descriptions we need. Those are far from the majority, though. If submitters don't want anyone to ever find their submissions, then by all means don't take the 60 seconds it requires to give more than two descriptive tags to your music.
If it's just a palette shift or programmatic modification, that would not constitute a derivative. Also, a color change as simple as a hue shift in GIMP is almost never considered a change sufficient to be considered a derivative or trigger the -SA clause. The law in this case is sensitive to what a "reasonable person" would consider more than a trivial change. palette swaps rarely exceed that.
A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself if a "reasonable" intermediately skilled GIMP user could achieve the same changes in about 2 minutes or less, it's probably not really a "derivative". If it would take such a person longer than that, best to consider it a derivative and share the changes under CC-BY-SA and giving credit to the original artist as appropriate.
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?
Ok. Was the earlier version based on anything? What was the base used?
I need to know in order to clear up licensing concerns. Was the original art "Mr. Man" derived from any other sprites?
Looks right to me. :) I'm ready to give volunteers the access needed or to do the parts that require admin intervention. :D
@grafxkid: when this spritesheet was made, were there any other assets used as a guide to create it?
That is gorgeous! Extrapolating from your rates above, a scene like the "agift" one would cost me about $416? :)
Sorry, i don't think it's too much to ask artists to include more tags than just "soundtrack" and "music". I'm not talking about submitters like joth; his tags have the kind of categorical descriptions we need. Those are far from the majority, though. If submitters don't want anyone to ever find their submissions, then by all means don't take the 60 seconds it requires to give more than two descriptive tags to your music.
If it's just a palette shift or programmatic modification, that would not constitute a derivative. Also, a color change as simple as a hue shift in GIMP is almost never considered a change sufficient to be considered a derivative or trigger the -SA clause. The law in this case is sensitive to what a "reasonable person" would consider more than a trivial change. palette swaps rarely exceed that.
A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself if a "reasonable" intermediately skilled GIMP user could achieve the same changes in about 2 minutes or less, it's probably not really a "derivative". If it would take such a person longer than that, best to consider it a derivative and share the changes under CC-BY-SA and giving credit to the original artist as appropriate.
Pages