LPC Full Plate Golden Armor
Saturday, January 12, 2013 - 04:55
Art Type:
License(s):
Collections:
Favorites:
23
Share Icons:
Preview:
Both genders, all combat poses.
Attribution Instructions:
Matthew Krohn, adapted from the work of Johannes Sjölund and Shaun Williams
File(s):
lpcfemalegoldenboots.png 16.6 Kb [911 download(s)] lpcfemalegoldengloves.png 20.3 Kb [787 download(s)] lpcfemalegoldengreaves.png 23.3 Kb [665 download(s)] lpcfemalegoldenhelm.png 32.1 Kb [928 download(s)] lpcfemalegoldenplate.png 25.5 Kb [835 download(s)] lpcfemalegoldenspaulders.png 24.2 Kb [796 download(s)] lpcmalegoldenboots.png 16.3 Kb [779 download(s)] lpcmalegoldengloves.png 20.3 Kb [753 download(s)] lpcmalegoldengreaves.png 25.3 Kb [760 download(s)] lpcmalegoldenhelm.png 31.9 Kb [842 download(s)] lpcmalegoldenplate.png 23.6 Kb [807 download(s)] lpcmalegoldenspaulders.png 28.8 Kb [792 download(s)]
lpcgoldenarmor.tar.gz 235.5 Kb [760 download(s)]
Comments
Superb, I really wish you were doing these during LPC. However, there is an issue with the license I guess. Wulax's work is CC-By-SA and you should keep the same license.
I could do that. I was going off of the license put up by VividReality. http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-full-plate-golden-armor
I am willing to update the license if there are issues. But to be honest I don't know what the issue really is. Wulax's submission is CC-By-SA 3.0 as well, as seen here: http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-medieval-fantasy-character-sprites, the only issue will be GPL, which is not on my submission. I take it, that if I add the GPL license, that it will be fine, right?
Besides, the author agreed on licensing the content in a later version of the license he chose, which means that even if his submission was cc-by-sa, I may upgrade it to cc-by-sa 3.0.
Please do correct me if I am wrong. Point is: I am willing to change it if there is a license issue, but I don't see what the issue is.
I hope someone is willing to look in to this, thanks in advance.
Edit: If BartK or any of the mods see that there is an issue, please do go ahead and change the license for me (if this is not too much work), it's just that I can see how that would speed up the process a lot, since there are already derivations, which needs to be updated in that case as well. And I don't want to ruin this really great submission by Makrohn.
@Vividreality Wulax's submission is "CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GPL", and on your submission you've only marked "CC-BY 3.0" which isn't the same license and should be changed to "CC-BY-SA 3.0" (unless you have Wulax's permission) and I think you should include the GPL license as well.
@Zabin: Licensees of an asset only need to abide by one of the work's licenses - dual-licensing is an 'x OR y' situation, not 'x AND y'. Releasing a derivative work under only one of the specified licenses is allowed.
That aside, the original Golden Plate submission isn't a derivative of Wulax's work - it's entirely original, and can be licensed under whatever the author/commissioner chooses. This piece is a separate work, remixing components from both Wulax's and VividReality's submissions - choosing CC-By-SA 3.0 as the license for this work satisfies the licensing requirements of both the original assets.
@MoikMellah - interesting point. I didn't know how dual licensing worked.
Shaun Willams' work IS derivative of Wulax's work, though - having spent some serious time at 800% magnification in GIMP with both pieces, I can be 100% sure of that. It's definitely Wulax's platemail recolored with spikes added. I separated the layers by essentially reverse enengineering the recolor. I'm hardly an arbiter of where to draw these lines, but I would personally say that Shaun Williams' work is a remix. I would guess, therefore, that VividReality should change the submission license to CC-BY-SA 3.0.
@Everyone else, for clarity: Cemkalyonku's comment was aimed towards my original license of CC-BY 3.0. After he and I posted, I revised the submission to CC-BY-SA 3.0.
@makrohn: I stand corrected, then - thanks for the clarification!
My comment above was directed at VividReality not makrohn. Vividreality must have accidently chose the wrong license because in his comment you'll see he's refering to his submission being "CCBYSA 3.0" and it's not. I was just trying to point that out.
Why does the male version have spikes on the spaulders in it's walking sprites, but none of the others?
EDIT:
Also, the back-facing casting animation is missing the left glove on image 1.
Both noted! As for the first, it's because the original walk animation had spikes, but I don't have the skills to extrapolate the spikes to the other animations. I should remove them from the male walkcycle.
Awesome sprite! I am currently using it for PyORPG (http://www.powrtoch.org/pyorpg/).
I will add credits ASAP.
I love seeing the community work together to resolve issues. That being said I;m going to use these under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and I'll make sure to give contribution ;)