Sorry to do this, but I had to flag a licensing issue. These are clearly a mixture of assets from Halflife 3 and Commander Keen 7: The Universe is Toast!
If I didn't like it, I would have already tagged it. Delaying tagging it because I like it is probably bad policy, but I like it enough that I'd much rather we sort it out without that. And anyway, I'm just a volunteer mod. But as undesired said (if perhaps a bit bluntly) the point of this site is to offer game art which is free of copyright and trademark encumbrances. The entire point is that this is art you can use with permission from all rightsholders with no legal issues, provided you follow the license as specified. Is that the case here? As submitted, I hate to say it but it isn't.
I doubt Nintendo would mind a game jam enough to officially notice it. But art here should be usable in any kind of project, including commerical ones. If someone used it in that context there's no way they wouldn't be cease-and-desisted, and rightfully so.
But I think there's enough original work here that it isn't unfixable by any means. (I assume that these are entirely by you, just based on the external concept work?) Is there any way you could edit the Link-like sprites to not be so explicit?
First: it's good to see people going into pixel art. It's a great medium and a whole lot of fun too. I'm answering your question a bit directly here--I really don't mean to discourage you, I just think you're not taking the easiest approach here.
One important factor here is that the original sprites are making simplifications which work well at a low resolution but do not at a high resolution. Look for instance at your interpretation of his hair; with no offense to you, it's clear that you're kind of just copying the forms without really understanding what the original artist was conveying, and it doesn't really work. Some study of anatomy and lighting would definitely be beneficial; you don't need to do anything as drastic as a professional artist would, but take some time to look at some pictures and do some real life observation. Take a look at things like head shape; your guy there has a very square forehead, not much like what you'll see in real life.
Lower res sprites also often cheat on the perspective--you can get away with it, and it's more important to look good and be readable than to be technically correct. That does not work quite as well at a higher resolution.
Animations also won't translate nearly as well, in part because the framecount is too low for a larger sprite. If you look at the LPC sprites I had to do 8 frames in the walking animation for it to look decent (I might possibly be able to get away with 6 now that I'm a bit better at animation but not less).
On an even more general note, higher resolution pixel art is also a lot harder and a lot more work, so it's much less suitable for a beginner. I'd really recommend starting smaller.
I can't say that I really agree with you, Surt. There is a big difference between a request and a demand. "Would you consider tweaking the licensing to deal with this weird issue so I can be 100% sure that I can use it in my game" is completely different from the more aggravating type of "I need this but all animated and in 32x32 resolution for my game, no pay but you can put it in your portfolio" 'request.' Even a straight up license-alteration request ("Any chance you'd be willing to CC-By this so I can use it in my project?) isn't unreasonable as long as you're polite about it. It's also not unfair to assume that people are unaware of OGA-By (unless they're a well-known FOSS creator or OGA regular like you). Frankly, the DRM clause of CC-By was not properly disclosed and hasn't been well known for long. And most artists really aren't aware of the intricacies of FOSS licensing issues.
I would note that Bart might be able to relicense Sara's design/sprites under OGA-By. I don't know what rights he holds exactly, or how in touch with Mandi he is these days, but it's a distinct possibility.
I personally like OGA-By a lot, I've put it on everything I can of mine. As Saliv said, I don't think anyone will get upset as long as you approach it tactfully, which I have no doubt you will.
Thanks for letting me know--I was wondering what was up, but he didn't seem to care to say. I can understand that, a guy's gotta prioritize after all. I definitely haven't been able to do very much game stuff at all in the past several months :(
What's Clint up to these days? He's obviously alive, but I haven't seen him in this neck of the woods for quite a while. I hope it's the good sort of busy, anyway.
I think the tentative consensus is that art and code can be treated separately for this--all that needs to be released under -SA are direct derivaties of the graphics. That hasn't been tested in court, but as far as I am concerned it satisfies the license requirements for anything I release under the license.
Note also that most (or all?) of the LPC base assets (at least those made by me, Sharm and Charles Gabriel--I don't know for sure about those done by Beast or Daniel Armstrong (Hughspectrum)) are dual-licensed to CC-By. Of course that does not apply to any derivatives made by others, though they are free to dual-license as well if they please.
All that to say: you can absolutely pay me if you want. I accept large wads of cash, precious metals or gemstones.
Sorry to do this, but I had to flag a licensing issue. These are clearly a mixture of assets from Halflife 3 and Commander Keen 7: The Universe is Toast!
If I didn't like it, I would have already tagged it. Delaying tagging it because I like it is probably bad policy, but I like it enough that I'd much rather we sort it out without that. And anyway, I'm just a volunteer mod. But as undesired said (if perhaps a bit bluntly) the point of this site is to offer game art which is free of copyright and trademark encumbrances. The entire point is that this is art you can use with permission from all rightsholders with no legal issues, provided you follow the license as specified. Is that the case here? As submitted, I hate to say it but it isn't.
I doubt Nintendo would mind a game jam enough to officially notice it. But art here should be usable in any kind of project, including commerical ones. If someone used it in that context there's no way they wouldn't be cease-and-desisted, and rightfully so.
But I think there's enough original work here that it isn't unfixable by any means. (I assume that these are entirely by you, just based on the external concept work?) Is there any way you could edit the Link-like sprites to not be so explicit?
I suspect there is a potential for trademark issues here. I'm not going to tag it myself but it probably merits some further examination.
First: it's good to see people going into pixel art. It's a great medium and a whole lot of fun too. I'm answering your question a bit directly here--I really don't mean to discourage you, I just think you're not taking the easiest approach here.
One important factor here is that the original sprites are making simplifications which work well at a low resolution but do not at a high resolution. Look for instance at your interpretation of his hair; with no offense to you, it's clear that you're kind of just copying the forms without really understanding what the original artist was conveying, and it doesn't really work. Some study of anatomy and lighting would definitely be beneficial; you don't need to do anything as drastic as a professional artist would, but take some time to look at some pictures and do some real life observation. Take a look at things like head shape; your guy there has a very square forehead, not much like what you'll see in real life.
Lower res sprites also often cheat on the perspective--you can get away with it, and it's more important to look good and be readable than to be technically correct. That does not work quite as well at a higher resolution.
Animations also won't translate nearly as well, in part because the framecount is too low for a larger sprite. If you look at the LPC sprites I had to do 8 frames in the walking animation for it to look decent (I might possibly be able to get away with 6 now that I'm a bit better at animation but not less).
On an even more general note, higher resolution pixel art is also a lot harder and a lot more work, so it's much less suitable for a beginner. I'd really recommend starting smaller.
I can't say that I really agree with you, Surt. There is a big difference between a request and a demand. "Would you consider tweaking the licensing to deal with this weird issue so I can be 100% sure that I can use it in my game" is completely different from the more aggravating type of "I need this but all animated and in 32x32 resolution for my game, no pay but you can put it in your portfolio" 'request.' Even a straight up license-alteration request ("Any chance you'd be willing to CC-By this so I can use it in my project?) isn't unreasonable as long as you're polite about it. It's also not unfair to assume that people are unaware of OGA-By (unless they're a well-known FOSS creator or OGA regular like you). Frankly, the DRM clause of CC-By was not properly disclosed and hasn't been well known for long. And most artists really aren't aware of the intricacies of FOSS licensing issues.
I would note that Bart might be able to relicense Sara's design/sprites under OGA-By. I don't know what rights he holds exactly, or how in touch with Mandi he is these days, but it's a distinct possibility.
I personally like OGA-By a lot, I've put it on everything I can of mine. As Saliv said, I don't think anyone will get upset as long as you approach it tactfully, which I have no doubt you will.
Thanks for letting me know--I was wondering what was up, but he didn't seem to care to say. I can understand that, a guy's gotta prioritize after all. I definitely haven't been able to do very much game stuff at all in the past several months :(
What's Clint up to these days? He's obviously alive, but I haven't seen him in this neck of the woods for quite a while. I hope it's the good sort of busy, anyway.
I think the tentative consensus is that art and code can be treated separately for this--all that needs to be released under -SA are direct derivaties of the graphics. That hasn't been tested in court, but as far as I am concerned it satisfies the license requirements for anything I release under the license.
Note also that most (or all?) of the LPC base assets (at least those made by me, Sharm and Charles Gabriel--I don't know for sure about those done by Beast or Daniel Armstrong (Hughspectrum)) are dual-licensed to CC-By. Of course that does not apply to any derivatives made by others, though they are free to dual-license as well if they please.
All that to say: you can absolutely pay me if you want. I accept large wads of cash, precious metals or gemstones.
test
Pages