Primary tabs

Comments by User

Monday, August 19, 2019 - 23:44

Interesting that you registered just to post this.  Are you fiveasone?

I found multiple instances of frankensteined/edited commercial assets in their work, not just the one posted.  This is another one I made a gif of:

You can't take other people's work like this and claim it as your own.  You especially can't claim explicit legal ownership of it and guarantee to the users of this site that they can legally use these assets in their games when they can, in fact, not.

I have a decent familiarity with megaman x and final fantasy enemies because of my background, but none of us can spot every asset like this from every possible source.  In spite of our best efforts this site has to operate to some extent on trust, and we can't trust an artist who will use commercial assets like this.

Friday, December 14, 2018 - 00:52

It would pretty much have to be done manually, since just resizing them will produce some nasty artifacts.  That said it shouldn't be too difficult for someone to do.  I unfortunately don't have time for it but it wouldn't be very difficult for someone with basic pixel art skills.

Saturday, March 17, 2018 - 23:22

Hello.  Each of the licenses is standalone, so you can pick whichever one you like.  Meaning you don't need to use the sharealike license, as you can just use either CC-By or OGA-By, which are each more permissive.

The only reason -SA is listed as an option is because that was the original license and I think it's a good idea to not just remove reference to it.

Saturday, March 17, 2018 - 23:19


Absolutely.  I'm not sure why this sprite wasn't already available under OGA-By but it is now.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 - 16:38

Bart is aware of the issue and I believe he's still working on it.  Botanic has also had a quick go at it.  There are apparently some odd Drupal conflicts involved.

Monday, February 13, 2017 - 20:47

I'm not sure what the legal status of this would be, since it would be an unauthorized derivative work from a proprietary asset.  It would certainly not be eligible for any sort of creative commons licensing anyway.

Thursday, February 9, 2017 - 23:42

Ie, downloading the entirety of the site systematically.

Botanic is the one to ask about that--I caught him in the IRC.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017 - 19:00

I asked Botanic about it and he fixed it.  Apparently someone was scraping the site which conflicted with some settings.

Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 20:41

There's no one right way to do it--different techniques will have different effects on what forms are conveyed.  There are plenty of wrong ways to do it, but if there were one right way then there would be no point in doing it manually in the first place.

Friday, January 13, 2017 - 19:47


Sure.  Normally I don't like licensing art under that but if it helps in this case I'll add it.