Sorry for not being around--I just graduated on Friday with my masters so things have been pretty hectic the past few months.
Sorry things haven't been kept up much. I have a lot of catching up to do on a lot of things, and unfortunately OGA isn't as high on the list as I'd like it to be but I will try to get back up to speed. I can't help with the site architecture much but I'll try to be around more for whatever that's worth.
Generally, when water is blue it's because it's reflecting the sky. In this case, however, the sky isn't blue. You should probably seek out some photo references to get a better feel on how to approach it. Just google "sunrise over ocean" on an image search and you shoudl get good results.
There are other difficulties. In some cases attribution details vary from one piece to another, for instance, and you don't necessarily want it to be trivial to lose that information by overwriting them all with one text.
My off the cuff idea would be to have the option to set up one or more "attribution profiles" or something like that which you could select from a dropdown menu when submitting a piece (or you could just type something in). The profile could then be changed and change all associated gallery entries. But I doubt that would be trivial to do and it's probably not worth the time it would take relative to other changes.
I have made adjustents to my attribution information a couple of times. My impression is that this doesn't have any effect on the permissibility of giving credit as previously specified, but that instead I'm just adding another acceptable method, albeit a preferred one. I don't know if that's accurate but it's my interpretation.
"There is nothing in the submission guidelines that say that when you submit something, you implicitly give OGA the right to redistribute the work." Note the word "implicit" here. By uploading your work to a site that publicly hosts art you are giving the site permission to publicly host your art. And in turn, if that direct permission is revoked we don't keep hosting work on the site, even if the relevant licenses would allow us to. That's not done for legal reasons but nevertheless it's how things are run and it would likely provie a very formidable defense from anything frivolous.
As I've said, though, that only applies in cases where the sole author is uploading their own work. Where third parties have uploaded it would just be under the terms of the license itself. But that would likely clear the field even more.
It's only a little technical argument though--not much help for promoting the actual purpose of the site which is to provide useful, unencumbered freely-licensed assets. But it could help stave off some complaints at the site itself.
"The problem is that when you upload something to OGA that has the GPL license, then OGA itself becomes a distributor of the GPL'ed work. Legally, the burden is then on OGA to provide the sources on request, as required by the GPL."
Just a quick side-note here, that's not necessarily the case. If the author uploads their own work here OGA is hosting it with their direct permission, not under the terms of the GPL. That it happens to be GPL-licensed is irrelevant. I'm not sure whether there's a similar out in the case of people who aren't the sole author of a work uploading though.
To answer the question: such a feature has definitely been considered. I don't know how high up it is on the priority list.
By the way, I did get in touch with Bart recently, and he is alive. Apparently among other things he's been working on the spam filter, which seems to be working somewhat better now.
I don't know why deletion was requested for this item.
While we will not continue hosting art against an artist's wishes, the licenses themselves are irrevocable. I see no evidence that the art was mistakenly or fradulently licensed so you should be in the clear legally. You might want to contact the artist for clarification but on a strictly legal level it shouldn't be a problem.
Thanks for linking me! Looks like it could be quite useful.
Hi everyone.
Sorry for not being around--I just graduated on Friday with my masters so things have been pretty hectic the past few months.
Sorry things haven't been kept up much. I have a lot of catching up to do on a lot of things, and unfortunately OGA isn't as high on the list as I'd like it to be but I will try to get back up to speed. I can't help with the site architecture much but I'll try to be around more for whatever that's worth.
Generally, when water is blue it's because it's reflecting the sky. In this case, however, the sky isn't blue. You should probably seek out some photo references to get a better feel on how to approach it. Just google "sunrise over ocean" on an image search and you shoudl get good results.
There are other difficulties. In some cases attribution details vary from one piece to another, for instance, and you don't necessarily want it to be trivial to lose that information by overwriting them all with one text.
My off the cuff idea would be to have the option to set up one or more "attribution profiles" or something like that which you could select from a dropdown menu when submitting a piece (or you could just type something in). The profile could then be changed and change all associated gallery entries. But I doubt that would be trivial to do and it's probably not worth the time it would take relative to other changes.
I have made adjustents to my attribution information a couple of times. My impression is that this doesn't have any effect on the permissibility of giving credit as previously specified, but that instead I'm just adding another acceptable method, albeit a preferred one. I don't know if that's accurate but it's my interpretation.
"There is nothing in the submission guidelines that say that when you submit something, you implicitly give OGA the right to redistribute the work."
Note the word "implicit" here. By uploading your work to a site that publicly hosts art you are giving the site permission to publicly host your art. And in turn, if that direct permission is revoked we don't keep hosting work on the site, even if the relevant licenses would allow us to. That's not done for legal reasons but nevertheless it's how things are run and it would likely provie a very formidable defense from anything frivolous.
As I've said, though, that only applies in cases where the sole author is uploading their own work. Where third parties have uploaded it would just be under the terms of the license itself. But that would likely clear the field even more.
It's only a little technical argument though--not much help for promoting the actual purpose of the site which is to provide useful, unencumbered freely-licensed assets. But it could help stave off some complaints at the site itself.
"The problem is that when you upload something to OGA that has the GPL license, then OGA itself becomes a distributor of the GPL'ed work. Legally, the burden is then on OGA to provide the sources on request, as required by the GPL."
Just a quick side-note here, that's not necessarily the case. If the author uploads their own work here OGA is hosting it with their direct permission, not under the terms of the GPL. That it happens to be GPL-licensed is irrelevant. I'm not sure whether there's a similar out in the case of people who aren't the sole author of a work uploading though.
To answer the question: such a feature has definitely been considered. I don't know how high up it is on the priority list.
By the way, I did get in touch with Bart recently, and he is alive. Apparently among other things he's been working on the spam filter, which seems to be working somewhat better now.
Botanic assures me he is alive and well. I haven't had any contact in several months.
But this is OGA, where everything is made up and the points don't matter!
That's right, the points are just like that CC-By-NC licensed asset you found somewhere online! They just don't matter!
I don't know why deletion was requested for this item.
While we will not continue hosting art against an artist's wishes, the licenses themselves are irrevocable. I see no evidence that the art was mistakenly or fradulently licensed so you should be in the clear legally. You might want to contact the artist for clarification but on a strictly legal level it shouldn't be a problem.
Pages