when i first started hobbyist gamedev back in the 90s i used sprites ripped from old game roms. back then there wasn't much in the way of freely available stuff like there is now. these young whipper snappers have it great with all this high quality open content. i used to have to walk uphill both ways to school with no shoes on. seriously though, there is so much good stuff to use why risk a cease & desist?
about the door: i would argue that there are multiple ways to draw a door. in fact, because i am uncomfortable with the door in this sprite (not because it doesnt look good, but because it looks so much like lttp's door) i editing a door from a different cc0 sprite sheet and fitting it into the pallette of buch's house.
about russia and all that: i think this gets into another very tricky area. copyright law is different everywhere. i live in america, i don't where medicinestorm is from. but her interpretation aligns with my understanding of american copyright law. if a work is in any way derived from another work then it is derivative. how this would play out in court, and what "fair use" is under copyright law is all complicated and hard for us laypeople to understand. there is a reason why cc licenses have a "human" readable version so non-lawyers can try to understand the terms. but there is also a reason why those "human readable" versions are not the actual licenses and they explicitly tell you that what you are agreeing to is the terms of the lawyer'speak license, not the explanation of the terms in the "human readable" form.
i am trying to keep in mind both what is ethical and what is legal, and using rational, logical analysis to determine what is ok both ethically and legally. but i am a video game nerd who dropped out of college because i didn't like math. i am not a trained ethicist or a lawyer.
ultimately you will, as an individual, have to decide what is ethical and legal for you to do, and you will also have to accept the consequences (positive or negative) for those choices. noone at opengameart can make you use the art found on here, they can't make you follow the license the work is provided under, and likely will not sue you if you don't follow it. they can't stop you from using it correctly, and they can't really stop you from using it incorrectly. there may be consequences to using it incorrectly, but you will ultimately make your own choice. and maybe Kutejnikov will come and punch you in the nose for stealing his gun and turning it into a 1x1 black pixel. probably not.
for the sake of the conversation, i went ahead and drew (very poorly) a gun in mspaint. i did not copy the image from above and "trace" over it with layers, i just used it at as "drawing reference" and redrew it in mspaint. this file is therefore derivative work, atleast based on my understanding of american copyright law. so Kutejnikov can actually come and punch me in the nose if i don't release this under the terms of the license that he licensed it to me as. so in the spirit of that, this stolengun.png file is a derivative work of
changes were made by rrodg84 and all license requirements of the original license apply to the derivative work.
furthermore, i could not (atleast in my understanding of the cc-by license) use this stolengun.png artwork in the game i am working on because i use a proprietary game engine, to which i am licensed distribution of the runtime, but not licensed the abilty to distribute (or even access) the source code of that runtime. so the technological measures of the cc-by license would be violated by my inability to allow other users to edit the actual graphics file that is used by the runtime, i could include the stolengun.png file in my distribution and give attribution, but that solengun.png file would not be the ACTUAL image that was displayed by the runtime.
i know this all seems like splitting hairs and making mountains out of molehills. in a way it is. copyright law and fair use is a gray area all over the internet, and fair use doesn't come into play with the files on this site because it is dedicated to "free" and "copylefted" artworks.
i get what you are saying, and having done quite a bit of work (back in the stone age) editing nintendo sprites i definately see your point about the shape and alignment, and the indication that these feature lend to the interpretation that it is inspirational and not derivative. i especially liked your transition from buch to lttp that you posted in the comments on that asset, it showed my eyes exactly what you are saying about the shape and significant deviations.
and i have decided to go ahead and use buch's awesome house sprites. but i changeed the door :p
i don't know why but it was the door that was really sticking out to my eye.
the tileset kind of reminds me of the old graal online game from back in the day, it had a spritesheet base that was heavily inspired by lttp but i believe they successfully defended themselves from a lawsuit or some such. that was a long time ago and i am so old i am going senile so who knows. but anyways, thanks a billion for the clarification and the kindness. i can tell that this is a great community.
and i am sure i won't be the only one using buch's lovely tileset, so we will all get punched by miyamoto together :)
thanks for the reply, that salves my paranoia considerably :) i just posted a reply in the forum to vladimirp's derivative work discussion citing this tileset as an example of why i am hesitant about some of the (admittedly great) artwork on this site. then when i went back over here you had replied to this comment!
this is good topic of discussion in general. i commented recently on buch's orthographic outdoor tiles about how incredibly similar the houses are to the ones from a link to the past on the snes. i really want to use those tiles in a game i'm working on, but when i zoom in on the door of buch's tile and i zoom in on the door of the same tile from the lttp tileset rip it is so very very close. it looks to my eye like derivative work. as i said in my comment, this is not intended to be an attack on buch's work or an indictment of the artist's ethical integrity, it is just my eye seeing something that looks like derivative work.
so what is derivative then? if i use the house from a link to the past as a "drawing reference" and my door that i created pixel by pixel looks identical or almost identical then it is still derivative legally is it not? even if i did not use any pixels from the door, am i not still opening myself up to cease and desist? will shigeru miyamoto come to my house and punch me in the nose?
i used to be into making fan games using ripped sprites from nintendo games, back when i was a kid. it was a great way to learn gamedev, but it was illegal too. and now (so many years later) alot of kids are doing the same thing and getting their projects dmca'ed into oblivion by nintendo. this is exactly what i am trying to avoid as i get back into hobbyist gamedev after a 15 year hiatus. i found this great resource that you guys and gals have put together, i love so much of the art work on here, but i wonder what kind of human oversight is going on (or even possible) to ensure that someone does not upload a stray nintendo pixel :p i jest somewhat, but seriously, this resource allows people to use this art commercially. if i make a game and sell it is it not my toosh that's on the line if that cc0 tileset i found actually had grass ripped and resized from some obscure korean rpg or something?
sorry to jump in on your post like vladimir, but i just joined and this is exactly the topic that i am struggling with as i navigate the art assets on this site.
are we 100% sure that these tiles are not at all derivative of a link to the past? i dont want to sound like a jerk, and i am not intending this as an attack on buch's integrity. the houses in particular look SO similar. really quite amazing and beautiful spritework, i just worry because i want to use them in a zeldalike freeware game i'm making and i want to be super careful to not used ANY ripped sprites because the big N is so scary and i dont want to get a cease and desist! please dont take this the wrong way. i am new here, and i really want to use these sprites cuz they are awesome.
when i first started hobbyist gamedev back in the 90s i used sprites ripped from old game roms. back then there wasn't much in the way of freely available stuff like there is now. these young whipper snappers have it great with all this high quality open content. i used to have to walk uphill both ways to school with no shoes on. seriously though, there is so much good stuff to use why risk a cease & desist?
about the door: i would argue that there are multiple ways to draw a door. in fact, because i am uncomfortable with the door in this sprite (not because it doesnt look good, but because it looks so much like lttp's door) i editing a door from a different cc0 sprite sheet and fitting it into the pallette of buch's house.
about russia and all that: i think this gets into another very tricky area. copyright law is different everywhere. i live in america, i don't where medicinestorm is from. but her interpretation aligns with my understanding of american copyright law. if a work is in any way derived from another work then it is derivative. how this would play out in court, and what "fair use" is under copyright law is all complicated and hard for us laypeople to understand. there is a reason why cc licenses have a "human" readable version so non-lawyers can try to understand the terms. but there is also a reason why those "human readable" versions are not the actual licenses and they explicitly tell you that what you are agreeing to is the terms of the lawyer'speak license, not the explanation of the terms in the "human readable" form.
i am trying to keep in mind both what is ethical and what is legal, and using rational, logical analysis to determine what is ok both ethically and legally. but i am a video game nerd who dropped out of college because i didn't like math. i am not a trained ethicist or a lawyer.
ultimately you will, as an individual, have to decide what is ethical and legal for you to do, and you will also have to accept the consequences (positive or negative) for those choices. noone at opengameart can make you use the art found on here, they can't make you follow the license the work is provided under, and likely will not sue you if you don't follow it. they can't stop you from using it correctly, and they can't really stop you from using it incorrectly. there may be consequences to using it incorrectly, but you will ultimately make your own choice. and maybe Kutejnikov will come and punch you in the nose for stealing his gun and turning it into a 1x1 black pixel. probably not.
for the sake of the conversation, i went ahead and drew (very poorly) a gun in mspaint. i did not copy the image from above and "trace" over it with layers, i just used it at as "drawing reference" and redrew it in mspaint. this file is therefore derivative work, atleast based on my understanding of american copyright law. so Kutejnikov can actually come and punch me in the nose if i don't release this under the terms of the license that he licensed it to me as. so in the spirit of that, this stolengun.png file is a derivative work of
Submachine Gun (Scorpion-inspired) and licensed under CC-by-4.0
changes were made by rrodg84 and all license requirements of the original license apply to the derivative work.
furthermore, i could not (atleast in my understanding of the cc-by license) use this stolengun.png artwork in the game i am working on because i use a proprietary game engine, to which i am licensed distribution of the runtime, but not licensed the abilty to distribute (or even access) the source code of that runtime. so the technological measures of the cc-by license would be violated by my inability to allow other users to edit the actual graphics file that is used by the runtime, i could include the stolengun.png file in my distribution and give attribution, but that solengun.png file would not be the ACTUAL image that was displayed by the runtime.
i know this all seems like splitting hairs and making mountains out of molehills. in a way it is. copyright law and fair use is a gray area all over the internet, and fair use doesn't come into play with the files on this site because it is dedicated to "free" and "copylefted" artworks.
great discussion though
i get what you are saying, and having done quite a bit of work (back in the stone age) editing nintendo sprites i definately see your point about the shape and alignment, and the indication that these feature lend to the interpretation that it is inspirational and not derivative. i especially liked your transition from buch to lttp that you posted in the comments on that asset, it showed my eyes exactly what you are saying about the shape and significant deviations.
and i have decided to go ahead and use buch's awesome house sprites. but i changeed the door :p
i don't know why but it was the door that was really sticking out to my eye.
the tileset kind of reminds me of the old graal online game from back in the day, it had a spritesheet base that was heavily inspired by lttp but i believe they successfully defended themselves from a lawsuit or some such. that was a long time ago and i am so old i am going senile so who knows. but anyways, thanks a billion for the clarification and the kindness. i can tell that this is a great community.
and i am sure i won't be the only one using buch's lovely tileset, so we will all get punched by miyamoto together :)
thanks for the reply, that salves my paranoia considerably :) i just posted a reply in the forum to vladimirp's derivative work discussion citing this tileset as an example of why i am hesitant about some of the (admittedly great) artwork on this site. then when i went back over here you had replied to this comment!
this is good topic of discussion in general. i commented recently on buch's orthographic outdoor tiles about how incredibly similar the houses are to the ones from a link to the past on the snes. i really want to use those tiles in a game i'm working on, but when i zoom in on the door of buch's tile and i zoom in on the door of the same tile from the lttp tileset rip it is so very very close. it looks to my eye like derivative work. as i said in my comment, this is not intended to be an attack on buch's work or an indictment of the artist's ethical integrity, it is just my eye seeing something that looks like derivative work.
so what is derivative then? if i use the house from a link to the past as a "drawing reference" and my door that i created pixel by pixel looks identical or almost identical then it is still derivative legally is it not? even if i did not use any pixels from the door, am i not still opening myself up to cease and desist? will shigeru miyamoto come to my house and punch me in the nose?
i used to be into making fan games using ripped sprites from nintendo games, back when i was a kid. it was a great way to learn gamedev, but it was illegal too. and now (so many years later) alot of kids are doing the same thing and getting their projects dmca'ed into oblivion by nintendo. this is exactly what i am trying to avoid as i get back into hobbyist gamedev after a 15 year hiatus. i found this great resource that you guys and gals have put together, i love so much of the art work on here, but i wonder what kind of human oversight is going on (or even possible) to ensure that someone does not upload a stray nintendo pixel :p i jest somewhat, but seriously, this resource allows people to use this art commercially. if i make a game and sell it is it not my toosh that's on the line if that cc0 tileset i found actually had grass ripped and resized from some obscure korean rpg or something?
sorry to jump in on your post like vladimir, but i just joined and this is exactly the topic that i am struggling with as i navigate the art assets on this site.
cheers
are we 100% sure that these tiles are not at all derivative of a link to the past? i dont want to sound like a jerk, and i am not intending this as an attack on buch's integrity. the houses in particular look SO similar. really quite amazing and beautiful spritework, i just worry because i want to use them in a zeldalike freeware game i'm making and i want to be super careful to not used ANY ripped sprites because the big N is so scary and i dont want to get a cease and desist! please dont take this the wrong way. i am new here, and i really want to use these sprites cuz they are awesome.
Pages