This really isn't about framing you to do anything wrong, and you are right... it is hard to prove that someone is sourcing textures from a non-free source. I am really glad that you are transparent about it, and don't take any remarks about legal issues of that source as a reason to stop being transparent!
Now the things is... as you have said already... while these specific cases are probably ok since the site owners gave you explicit permission, we are getting on a slippery slope here as others might take this as prove they can use any texture from these sites for free works, which (while probably also ok with the owners) is stricktly legally speaking not allowed by their license (but IANAL).
It all gets very mushy and into grey area here, and ultimatly only a court could decide if it is ok or not (and it might be infact ok in some countries and other not). And ultimatly if there is no accuser there is no wrong-doer or victim.
But to avoid all that it is really advisable to only use textures sources that explicilty state that they are licensed under a compatible and standard license (CC, public domain etc.). However of course that can be sometimes false too (especially regarding public domain, as many people do not understand what that term means legally).
But I have to be honest too... one of the reasons I replied was also to convince the site owner to relicense to a standard CC license. Especially from what plaintextures has said and what I can see from their website, I really can't see any reason why they shouldn't. The concerns they voiced are simply not applicable in my opinion.
I see a lot of projects using it (because it is open-source). Not everyone needs all those features of Unity. A Linux port is definitly needed though.
However... only 11 days left and less than a third of the money raised. IMHO 10k would have been a much more realistic goal, and if they outsorce the port to some poor eastern European student, 10k would have gone a long way too. Too bad really :-/
Ok IANAL, maybe that works legally if remix into open-source textures is specifically allowed.
However then I question what would prevent an "evil doer" to change a single pixel and release the texture on their own site?
Besides that, what is exactly so bad about people mirroring your textures, especially if they link back to your side? Are you actually making a significant amount of money of advertisement view inpressions (hard to believe)?
Edit: with CC-by site mirroring your textures can't legally claim that those are their own either.
Edit2: at least this from good textures:
"I have spent hours extracting a texture from its background. Surely I can sell it, now that I have spend so much time on it, right? Sorry no. Even when you modify the images, you are not allowed to sell them. Allowing this would invite abuse: It is too difficult to define what an adequate modification is."
contradicts the allowance for open-source projects again, as commercial use is specifically allowed in libre licenses.
Edit3: I really apprechiate that both sites want to make their textures available for open-source projects... but I sadly do not see how that is legal given the current restrictions they seem to impose.
Thanks for the feedback... could you specifically state that relicensing to CC0 is allowed and change the licensing text on your website accordingly? However be aware that thus redistribution is allowed too.
It's all legal mumbo jumbo, but sadly copyrights are quite strict, and open-content sites have to have a strict policy regarding that to avoid "tainting" the contents available.
How about you just relicense all your textures to the creative common attribution (CC-by) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ )? That way people are free to use them, and you still get credit and people will link back to your page.
Great model, but sadly neiter http://www.plaintextures.com/ nor http://www.goodtextures.com/ allow you to license the resulting textures as CC0 strictly legally speaking. I know it sounds stupid as the general requirements they state are fulfilled, but to relicense a copyrighted work you have to either be in full posession or have based your work only on fully compatible licenses.
Great model, but sadly neiter http://www.plaintextures.com/ nor http://www.goodtextures.com/ allow you to license the resulting textures as CC0 strictly legally speaking. I know it sounds stupid as the general requirements they state are fulfilled, but to relicense a copyrighted work you have to either be in full posession or have based your work only on fully compatible licenses.
Great model, but sadly neiter http://www.plaintextures.com/ nor http://www.goodtextures.com/ allow you to license the resulting textures as CC0 strictly legally speaking. I know it sounds stupid as the general requirements they state are fulfilled, but to relicense a copyrighted work you have to either be in full posession or have based your work only on fully compatible licenses.
Interesting article, one important aspect it left out however is the matter of time needed to create a certain end result. By remixing (and to some extend also general collaboration) one can create a final outcome (regardless if it is more code or art heavy) in a much shorter time. This is usefull for prototyping, but is also a genuine quality of it's own.
If done all from scratch the final product might be ultimately superior, but if it is never finished (or not even started due to realistic time planning), I much rather have the remix that can be later polished.
Another thing it left out is entry barrier and similar issues. Lets have a look at SP mods for example, by remixing existing art assets one skilled story-teller can create an awesome experience which would have never even been possible to create by that person (who is not a great coder or artist), would it not be for the assets and code available for remixing.
So all in all I would say these two factors might in fact be the most important ones, and therefore the study presented in the linked article of rather little value ;)
You could get the model source files from a FOSS game (Like red eclipse, Xonotic etc.) and apply those animations to the mesh.
Animators are really scares in the open-game art scene it seems, so don't cound on finding volunteers here.
This really isn't about framing you to do anything wrong, and you are right... it is hard to prove that someone is sourcing textures from a non-free source. I am really glad that you are transparent about it, and don't take any remarks about legal issues of that source as a reason to stop being transparent!
Now the things is... as you have said already... while these specific cases are probably ok since the site owners gave you explicit permission, we are getting on a slippery slope here as others might take this as prove they can use any texture from these sites for free works, which (while probably also ok with the owners) is stricktly legally speaking not allowed by their license (but IANAL).
It all gets very mushy and into grey area here, and ultimatly only a court could decide if it is ok or not (and it might be infact ok in some countries and other not). And ultimatly if there is no accuser there is no wrong-doer or victim.
But to avoid all that it is really advisable to only use textures sources that explicilty state that they are licensed under a compatible and standard license (CC, public domain etc.). However of course that can be sometimes false too (especially regarding public domain, as many people do not understand what that term means legally).
But I have to be honest too... one of the reasons I replied was also to convince the site owner to relicense to a standard CC license. Especially from what plaintextures has said and what I can see from their website, I really can't see any reason why they shouldn't. The concerns they voiced are simply not applicable in my opinion.
I see a lot of projects using it (because it is open-source). Not everyone needs all those features of Unity. A Linux port is definitly needed though.
However... only 11 days left and less than a third of the money raised. IMHO 10k would have been a much more realistic goal, and if they outsorce the port to some poor eastern European student, 10k would have gone a long way too. Too bad really :-/
Ok IANAL, maybe that works legally if remix into open-source textures is specifically allowed.
However then I question what would prevent an "evil doer" to change a single pixel and release the texture on their own site?
Besides that, what is exactly so bad about people mirroring your textures, especially if they link back to your side? Are you actually making a significant amount of money of advertisement view inpressions (hard to believe)?
Edit: with CC-by site mirroring your textures can't legally claim that those are their own either.
Edit2: at least this from good textures:
"I have spent hours extracting a texture from its background. Surely I can sell it, now that I have spend so much time on it, right?
Sorry no. Even when you modify the images, you are not allowed to sell them. Allowing this would invite abuse: It is too difficult to define what an adequate modification is."
contradicts the allowance for open-source projects again, as commercial use is specifically allowed in libre licenses.
Edit3: I really apprechiate that both sites want to make their textures available for open-source projects... but I sadly do not see how that is legal given the current restrictions they seem to impose.
Hello plaintextures!
Thanks for the feedback... could you specifically state that relicensing to CC0 is allowed and change the licensing text on your website accordingly? However be aware that thus redistribution is allowed too.
It's all legal mumbo jumbo, but sadly copyrights are quite strict, and open-content sites have to have a strict policy regarding that to avoid "tainting" the contents available.
How about you just relicense all your textures to the creative common attribution (CC-by) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ )? That way people are free to use them, and you still get credit and people will link back to your page.
Great model, but sadly neiter http://www.plaintextures.com/ nor http://www.goodtextures.com/ allow you to license the resulting textures as CC0 strictly legally speaking. I know it sounds stupid as the general requirements they state are fulfilled, but to relicense a copyrighted work you have to either be in full posession or have based your work only on fully compatible licenses.
Great model, but sadly neiter http://www.plaintextures.com/ nor http://www.goodtextures.com/ allow you to license the resulting textures as CC0 strictly legally speaking. I know it sounds stupid as the general requirements they state are fulfilled, but to relicense a copyrighted work you have to either be in full posession or have based your work only on fully compatible licenses.
Great model, but sadly neiter http://www.plaintextures.com/ nor http://www.goodtextures.com/ allow you to license the resulting textures as CC0 strictly legally speaking. I know it sounds stupid as the general requirements they state are fulfilled, but to relicense a copyrighted work you have to either be in full posession or have based your work only on fully compatible licenses.
pretty cool, would make for a cool creature in OpenDungeons or SummoningWars.
Interesting article, one important aspect it left out however is the matter of time needed to create a certain end result. By remixing (and to some extend also general collaboration) one can create a final outcome (regardless if it is more code or art heavy) in a much shorter time. This is usefull for prototyping, but is also a genuine quality of it's own.
If done all from scratch the final product might be ultimately superior, but if it is never finished (or not even started due to realistic time planning), I much rather have the remix that can be later polished.
Another thing it left out is entry barrier and similar issues. Lets have a look at SP mods for example, by remixing existing art assets one skilled story-teller can create an awesome experience which would have never even been possible to create by that person (who is not a great coder or artist), would it not be for the assets and code available for remixing.
So all in all I would say these two factors might in fact be the most important ones, and therefore the study presented in the linked article of rather little value ;)
Pages