Also interested.

Some relevant posts from back in the day: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updates...

I reckon it should cover everything, to prevent deceptive previews if for no other reason.

My thoughts:

the files made available for download would be used under the license shown. if the image is not in the files then i would say it can't/shouldn't be used for whatever reason as the author has not made it available.

in some cases the author may feel it needs something in the preview to make there work stand out or show a mock up, if its there own work i don't see a problem with it, maybe they could/should say whats not available from the preview before others download, if its not there work then that asks the question whether they have the permission to use it or not.(more uncertainty, and work for admins).

I have my "CG" logo on my previews, but i wouldn't say i would have that public domain, its my identity, i cant think why anyone would want to use that, but if we are thinking we can take the preview images under the license shown and edit them as we feel fit even though the author has not made that particular file available via the download, then its something i need to think about. if someone did use it on work that was offensive i wouldn't have a leg to stand on if i ask them to remove it. im not the only one who does that here.

* Batteries not included

* Not a flying toy

What about artists that advertise there services on the forum pages with preview images as attachments? theres no license on them at all and i have seen many downloads of them, if they don't metion that they are not to be used, then are we to assume they are public domain? (sorry maybe another discussion but think it needs mentioning)

:)

Preview can also be useful if it's already the exact image you're after - especially for 3D models where I'm after a 2D rendering, if the preview already works, it saves having to set up Blender and render it myself. So I'd really like it so that it is included. And that's how I've been interpreting the licence info - after all, the licence is on the page, not just in the files, and the licence is per submission not per file.

Also consider that in some cases, people might not even bother downloading and looking through the files, if the preview is good enough for their needs.

If the preview isn't under the same licence, then what licence is it under? This would be an issue if someone wanted to make a mirror of the OGA content (after all, one of the benefits of open licences is making it easier to save content even if the original site disappears) - this would be a pain if the previews weren't under any licence that allowed they.

I'd say that things like logos don't belong in previews if you don't want them being open, but I appreciate that it's a pain for submissions like that already uploaded.

"the license is per submission,not per file"

thats good to know, and if you can use the preview file as it is without the need to download it then thats ok in my mind too, i dont have a problem with that, however, i do think uploading a preview and submitting a file for downloading are two different things and should be treated as such, they are seperated when making a submission, upload file for preview, and then upload the files you have for download, why is that if its got to be the same? why have a preview upload? and after reading the Submission guidelines both have to be "useable", although i mentioned logo use, im not that bothered if they are used or not, i was just hyperthetically speaking, by doing so have i made that preview unusable so im breach of the submission rules?

I dont know the answer to the license really on previews, only that a preview is a preview and should treated as such, and its the files that should be the used with the license advertised, but if it works for some to use just the preview image then i suppose the license advertised is what it is.

:)

One reason preview images are easy to see but difficult to download is because Bart considered them "all rights reserved unless otherwise noted".

Bart wrote: "The trouble with explicitly stating that the preview images must fall under the same license as the actual files is that that might not be true for some older preview images, and it's impossible to know which ones that doesn't apply to.  caeles points to a completely legitimate edge case.

We already have a rule that the preview images have to reflect what's in the actual content, but I prefer that this be kept a judgement call rather than an absolute hard and fast requirement.  The key is to avoid misleading previews.

Furthermore, I would actually kind of prefer that the preview images not be freely licensed, unless the author explicitly says they are.  When I get around to preserving the pages of deleted content, I want to be able to preserve the preview images so that people can identify what the content was, and if the preview images themselves are freely licensed, then in many cases that's essentially the same as allowing people to download the originals against the artist's wishes.  (Note:  I also plan to watermark the images on deleted content and perhaps do some other processing so as to make them otherwise impractical to use).

Flagging license issues is something I really hate having to do, particularly since a lot of time if it happens on someone's first post, they just abandon it and never come back.  I really would prefer to avoid adding additional situations where it would be necessary to do that.  I'd much rather tell people that preview images are all rights reserved unless otherwise noted."

There is no requirement that Previews be usable assets, only that they don't misrepresent what is in the downloadable files. Mockups are a great way to show how the asset is used, but the mockup itself isn't neccessarily in the downloads, it is usually not usable as an asset itself, and rarely misrepresents the content of the files.

Even if previews weren't openly-licensed, it would not mean OGA is violating trademarks because it would fall under fair use.

thanks medicinestorm for that post, i think that clears it up, well it does for me anyway.

"prefer that the preview images not to be freely licensed, unless the author explicilty says they are"

i agree with that this, but im not going to make a song and dance about if someone uses the preview asset instead of the download.:)

It would be nice, if there was a way to tell whether the submission belongs to an audio category or not whenever the uploader chooses to use a picture (e.g. album cover) for the preview.

I have to say this is one of the very few issues where I respectfully (very respectfully ;) disagree with bart.

There is no stated license for the preview image.  That could imply 'all rights reserved', but it could just as easily imply that the preview is distributed under the same license as the work.  That certainly wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption for someone to make.

It's also not unthinkable that someone might grab a preview image and use something from it without realizing that it wasn't part of the actual submission and not covered by the same license.

I think just some clarifying language on the submission form and the site FAQ would be very helpful.

If the previews aren't distributed under the same license as the submission, then that should be stated clearly somewhere.