@Duion: Yes, that's what I am saying, it *should* be ok. (Besides, just because somebody on wiki claims a license means nothing at all legaly, also I agree, but this isn't about opinions. So let me explain...)
The patent doesn't matter, Julius link is very good to describe what when applies.
patent: functional mechanical apparatus only. (needs to be registered)
design-patent: non-functional ornaments only. (needs to be registered)
copyright: expression that can be removed from the functional parts without making them wreaked only like logos. (applies automatically) (For source code there are btw special laws in some countries - it's functional expression)
trademark: names and logos of products of a similar kind or on the same market. (needs to be registered)
I may add patent-pending: There is no patent they only asked for one yet - it may be granted or not.
All these legal mechanisms are meant to *protect* against direct competition by fakes or rip-offs - they aren't meant as weapons, as a source of income from other markets you aren't even competing in. But shields can be used as weapons.
Back to that picture => The patent only states: You may not build a gun that uses a *certain* patented principle of the gun without permission. You can safely ignore any patents on objects when making a digital copy - even if you could 3d print a gun (say in 10 years from now) then you can safely ignore the patent except if you plan to sell the 3d printed gun. And if you can change that patented part then you can even sell it without paying any royalities.
So again: Given the intention of those laws it is ok. They may sue you anyway as that company sued EA. And EA got away. => It seems safe to do it but anyway I would always consider the aggresivity of the company. And consider that EA got enough money to stampede them.
IMHO it is safe to use gun models - ask your local lobbyist for some money....hm...more sponsoring opportunities...
I may add: That if there is the word "patented" on a product either it's just to give the halo impression that the product is supperior OR it is scare tactics - printing the word has no legal implications and I am sure there are uncountable products that just print it because it helps in selling without having a clue. (Gun makers sure have a clue but their patents may be void anyway - another topic).
Most products don't have a design-patent so they don't apply but copyright *may* hold in artistic cases.
Btw. there are design patents because copyright has gaps but design patents need to be registered like patents.
Reads like EA is firing back and they may create a precedence case.
To be rather safe otherwise: Just stay away from well known notorious company's products and their names - they should pay for comercials anyway - maybe one should ask them for advertising money instead.
I would try to stay clear of clearly uniquely distinctive designed things which are precious to these companies and where the company is obviously aggressive. Otherwise I think they may only ask you to remove infriging things as long as you havn't harmed their market or reputation.
Hm, how about if I ask for money when I include a fruit shaped mech? Hm ... that's an idea for freegamedev ... sponsoring.
I'd argue a weapon (or weapon-system) is mostly (with exceptions) designed for mechanical and or ergonomic reasons not for artistic reasons. Therefore the optical outer shape is a byproduct which isn't that strongly protected - but don't try to copy their design in a real product that could be another matter. As you can read the gap is right there in the descripion of the design patent: It's for non-functional ornamental parts/designs. A gun that is all functional has no non-functional ornaments - and even if then you can still remove the ornaments and be safe (talking about design patent only). But a design patent is against copying these ornaments in the same medium (eg. glass of a bottle, pixels of an icon). Oh and interesting that there isn't a novelty search in a lot of countries.
Here by the way an example that in the "real-world" would be without doubt no problem:
Make a nice photography of a gun with nice lighting and sell the picture or print it in a magazine.
Make a similar toy gun and sell it - Matchbox like exact models may be another topic.
The problem is: The laws are made to protect actual goods (not even abstract products) from cheap copying competitors but some companies/lawyers may be tempted to abuse laws and get away with it. Same as in the other copyright related discussions: It's three pairs of shoes what one's good intention is and what is sued and what is decided in court.
@Duion: It wouldn't influence searching or using art, just a change on the submission form and maybe a small annotation on the art site similar to he current info already there: "The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above."
@Botanic: The wording on the submission page may be as simple as possible. My sentences are just to get the details out *why* this is necessary: Because you just can't license art as software and it isn't sensible nor necessary. You just need to grant the right to use in such projects where then the license applies: The right to relicense under such licenses.
Eg. Submission page:
"Additionally to these wonderful asset licences I allow inclusion and re-licensing into projects with the following code-licenses." ;)
Eg. Asset page:
"The artist allows you to use this asset in any project under these licenses or later versions"
Basically OGA needs to make it clear for itself that that it is the legal intention of the submitter. We all assume it is but legaly it isn't: "You should have read the contract"-moment-of-truth.
The benefits of this small change would be:
+ to force use of at least an accepted asset-license: "[..] minimize license proliferation and so maximise license compatibility between submissions" (surt) !
+ getting the message out that code-licenses-only for art and assets is bad practice on OGA
+ solving the same problem by explicitly allowing re-licensing for projects with code-licenses for art - thus making inclusion into these projects safe.
BSD license talks 50% about a certain university, then the most part about compiled software and does not allow re-licensing - it's a dead end licensewise.
MIT could possibly make sense in that it allows relicensing - like CC-BY already does. So CC-BY allows an "art-consuming-project" to "relicense" the art for inclusion thus making BSD and MIT unecessary for assets anyway.
That said, BSD and MIT licenses talk about "this software", I am certain even courts understand that static assets alone aren't software. Well, patent trolls may argue (irony on): "a bmp file is a program that tells an interpreter where to place values into video ram which is then converted through a DAC into analogue or digital video signals which are then through an external device converted into light with the according wavelength.", haha, good one. Here is another one: Try to sell a car using an appartment rent contract.
A thing to consider is that game assets have been licensed in the past with the same license as games because both came from the same project - with OGA assets come from a central source to many projects and can be licensed different - further the licensing should allow to go along with lot of projects and their licensing.
Therefore asset licenses should either play nice with other licenses or allow relicensing.
Anyway I'm not against granting *additional* software-licenses if at least an asset-license was selected - the art-submission form could look like this:
Choose at least one of these asset-licenses (required): CC0, CC-BY, ....
Choose additional code-re-licensing options (optional, but may be required for specific projects): GPL, ...
That the later licenses are basically void until the asset is included into an according project doesn't harm here - it would merely say that you may include the art into such licensed projects:
I allow the inclusion and licensing into such and such licensed software projects.
Asset-License = Licensing the asset.
Code-License = I allow these licenses when the art is used. This is not the same as licensing the art under these licenses which is invalid! It's actually wrapping the code-license into an custom-asset-license that unfolds the code-license. It's meta-licensing.
@bart: I kindly request the OGA submission form really should be that way with mandatory asset-license and optional non-exclusive code-licenses (here you could if you choose even add a free-text-field for the later).
I'd like to add the general statement that prototyping is an underestimated technique that can improve quality in the same timeframe as without.
Sorry can't find the link but there have been experiments with A and B groups which displayed that those who where allowed to make multiple prototypes (here sketches) before deciding which to complete where more successful in the end with the same time than those who where pressed to directly make a product.
Thanks for the info.
Hi, I noticed that you're providing a lot of great music and that you are accepting donations.
So I was wondering, just to get an idea, would you provide, just in case, services like editing, mixing, looping, or extending a song.
What changes could you make and what would be a sensible donation size given that the result would stay CC-BY/free/public like before?
Best regards
Another nice one!
Maybe that turret would look good on a vehicle, too.
@Duion: Yes, that's what I am saying, it *should* be ok. (Besides, just because somebody on wiki claims a license means nothing at all legaly, also I agree, but this isn't about opinions. So let me explain...)
The patent doesn't matter, Julius link is very good to describe what when applies.
patent: functional mechanical apparatus only. (needs to be registered)
design-patent: non-functional ornaments only. (needs to be registered)
copyright: expression that can be removed from the functional parts without making them wreaked only like logos. (applies automatically) (For source code there are btw special laws in some countries - it's functional expression)
trademark: names and logos of products of a similar kind or on the same market. (needs to be registered)
I may add patent-pending: There is no patent they only asked for one yet - it may be granted or not.
All these legal mechanisms are meant to *protect* against direct competition by fakes or rip-offs - they aren't meant as weapons, as a source of income from other markets you aren't even competing in. But shields can be used as weapons.
Back to that picture => The patent only states: You may not build a gun that uses a *certain* patented principle of the gun without permission. You can safely ignore any patents on objects when making a digital copy - even if you could 3d print a gun (say in 10 years from now) then you can safely ignore the patent except if you plan to sell the 3d printed gun. And if you can change that patented part then you can even sell it without paying any royalities.
So again: Given the intention of those laws it is ok. They may sue you anyway as that company sued EA. And EA got away. => It seems safe to do it but anyway I would always consider the aggresivity of the company. And consider that EA got enough money to stampede them.
IMHO it is safe to use gun models - ask your local lobbyist for some money....hm...more sponsoring opportunities...
I may add: That if there is the word "patented" on a product either it's just to give the halo impression that the product is supperior OR it is scare tactics - printing the word has no legal implications and I am sure there are uncountable products that just print it because it helps in selling without having a clue. (Gun makers sure have a clue but their patents may be void anyway - another topic).
Most products don't have a design-patent so they don't apply but copyright *may* hold in artistic cases.
Btw. there are design patents because copyright has gaps but design patents need to be registered like patents.
Reads like EA is firing back and they may create a precedence case.
To be rather safe otherwise: Just stay away from well known notorious company's products and their names - they should pay for comercials anyway - maybe one should ask them for advertising money instead.
I would try to stay clear of clearly uniquely distinctive designed things which are precious to these companies and where the company is obviously aggressive. Otherwise I think they may only ask you to remove infriging things as long as you havn't harmed their market or reputation.
Hm, how about if I ask for money when I include a fruit shaped mech? Hm ... that's an idea for freegamedev ... sponsoring.
I'd argue a weapon (or weapon-system) is mostly (with exceptions) designed for mechanical and or ergonomic reasons not for artistic reasons. Therefore the optical outer shape is a byproduct which isn't that strongly protected - but don't try to copy their design in a real product that could be another matter. As you can read the gap is right there in the descripion of the design patent: It's for non-functional ornamental parts/designs. A gun that is all functional has no non-functional ornaments - and even if then you can still remove the ornaments and be safe (talking about design patent only). But a design patent is against copying these ornaments in the same medium (eg. glass of a bottle, pixels of an icon). Oh and interesting that there isn't a novelty search in a lot of countries.
Here by the way an example that in the "real-world" would be without doubt no problem:
Make a nice photography of a gun with nice lighting and sell the picture or print it in a magazine.
Make a similar toy gun and sell it - Matchbox like exact models may be another topic.
The problem is: The laws are made to protect actual goods (not even abstract products) from cheap copying competitors but some companies/lawyers may be tempted to abuse laws and get away with it. Same as in the other copyright related discussions: It's three pairs of shoes what one's good intention is and what is sued and what is decided in court.
@Duion: It wouldn't influence searching or using art, just a change on the submission form and maybe a small annotation on the art site similar to he current info already there: "The authors of this content agree to license it under later versions of the licenses they selected above."
@Botanic: The wording on the submission page may be as simple as possible. My sentences are just to get the details out *why* this is necessary: Because you just can't license art as software and it isn't sensible nor necessary. You just need to grant the right to use in such projects where then the license applies: The right to relicense under such licenses.
Eg. Submission page:
"Additionally to these wonderful asset licences I allow inclusion and re-licensing into projects with the following code-licenses." ;)
Eg. Asset page:
"The artist allows you to use this asset in any project under these licenses or later versions"
Basically OGA needs to make it clear for itself that that it is the legal intention of the submitter. We all assume it is but legaly it isn't: "You should have read the contract"-moment-of-truth.
The benefits of this small change would be:
+ to force use of at least an accepted asset-license: "[..] minimize license proliferation and so maximise license compatibility between submissions" (surt) !
+ getting the message out that code-licenses-only for art and assets is bad practice on OGA
+ solving the same problem by explicitly allowing re-licensing for projects with code-licenses for art - thus making inclusion into these projects safe.
BSD license talks 50% about a certain university, then the most part about compiled software and does not allow re-licensing - it's a dead end licensewise.
MIT could possibly make sense in that it allows relicensing - like CC-BY already does. So CC-BY allows an "art-consuming-project" to "relicense" the art for inclusion thus making BSD and MIT unecessary for assets anyway.
That said, BSD and MIT licenses talk about "this software", I am certain even courts understand that static assets alone aren't software. Well, patent trolls may argue (irony on): "a bmp file is a program that tells an interpreter where to place values into video ram which is then converted through a DAC into analogue or digital video signals which are then through an external device converted into light with the according wavelength.", haha, good one. Here is another one: Try to sell a car using an appartment rent contract.
A thing to consider is that game assets have been licensed in the past with the same license as games because both came from the same project - with OGA assets come from a central source to many projects and can be licensed different - further the licensing should allow to go along with lot of projects and their licensing.
Therefore asset licenses should either play nice with other licenses or allow relicensing.
Anyway I'm not against granting *additional* software-licenses if at least an asset-license was selected - the art-submission form could look like this:
Choose at least one of these asset-licenses (required): CC0, CC-BY, ....
Choose additional code-re-licensing options (optional, but may be required for specific projects): GPL, ...
That the later licenses are basically void until the asset is included into an according project doesn't harm here - it would merely say that you may include the art into such licensed projects:
I allow the inclusion and licensing into such and such licensed software projects.
Asset-License = Licensing the asset.
Code-License = I allow these licenses when the art is used. This is not the same as licensing the art under these licenses which is invalid! It's actually wrapping the code-license into an custom-asset-license that unfolds the code-license. It's meta-licensing.
@bart: I kindly request the OGA submission form really should be that way with mandatory asset-license and optional non-exclusive code-licenses (here you could if you choose even add a free-text-field for the later).
Just found this and thought it's great for any board game and for gui sounds: Opening, shuffling, throwing, closing, so many verbs ;)
I'd like to add the general statement that prototyping is an underestimated technique that can improve quality in the same timeframe as without.
Sorry can't find the link but there have been experiments with A and B groups which displayed that those who where allowed to make multiple prototypes (here sketches) before deciding which to complete where more successful in the end with the same time than those who where pressed to directly make a product.
...and it should be possible to install Flare from Synaptic-Package-Manager.
Pages