SVG Inventory Icons
Preview:
(1992 downloads)Some icons in SVG format I made for different projects (or just for fun).
By the way, I am using a github repository here:
https://github.com/PoufPoufProduction/SVG-Inventory-Icons
As the readme.txt file says, the library is released under the 2 licenses: GPL and LGPL 3.0. Later versions are permitted.
Edit:
2012-01-26: Add scissors
File(s):
PoufPoufProduction-SVG-Inventory-Icons-e0e3f74.zip (543 downloads)
Comments
Absolutely amazing! Great stuff! Makes me want to make a game just so i could use these!
And in SVG format too :). You make me happy.
wonderfull pictures, and its great that SVG is resizable!
Add scissors for weekly challenge
Hello,
I like the look of your icons. I had a question: a lot of them appear to have used photos, at least as a base for reference. Can I ask where you got your gem photos? I've had trouble finding cooperatively-licensed photos of gems that nice.
Hi Redshrike.
About the photos as reference, the point is a little bit tricky.
Currently, I only use free material. For example, the three scissors references come from wikimedia commons. But, to tell the truth, for the first objects I made, I was not so strict. However, even if I don't remember exactly where I get all the reference photographs, I am pretty sure, I never used a explicitly copyrighted stuff. But the issue is still complex.
For example, I just found one of the gems I used: here
I used this gem reference photograph thanks to the following points:
1. There is no license on the photograph, and I don't even think it is an original one (OK, that's not a really good point).
2. As I made a vectorial drawing from this reference, obviously I made it from scratch and didn't use anything from the original. The color doesn't even match.
3. I guess my work matches the four definition points of the fair use
I guess I was right to use these "undefined" photographs as reference for building vectorial icons, but, I am not 100% sure. That's why, now, I really take care to choose only free (GPL or CC0) material.
Because I am not a license specialist, I'd like to know what do you think about this point?
(sorry for my english)
Hmm... As you said on one, that's not a very good point; no license listed means you can assume all rights are reserved. I don't think that the work would qualify as fair use--it's not for educational or review purposes. It's point two that looks promising. Generally, I would think it's thin ice, depending on how closely you duplicate it. I am, alas, not an expert on what the line is between inspiration and a derivative work, but this does appear to straddle it. to the IRC to consult, away!
I like the icons here, very nice!