The Revolution - Hair
Wednesday, April 16, 2014 - 02:59
Art Type:
License(s):
Collections:
Favorites:
12
Share Icons:
Preview:
The Revolution is a project i am working on for fun in my spare time, it started out being just the flagship tileset known as the revolution, but as it grew i got requests for other resources so here is the revolution, a collection of 2d pixel art created by me for all you game developers.
For more fo the same resources visit us at:
File(s):
Hair.png 29.9 Kb [950 download(s)]
Comments
I must say these look good. (Directed to whoever knows about License(s))I’m just wondering even though this is your work is there any restrictions in using other peoples designs. As an example you are (copying) inspired by Dragon Ball and am I wondering if that is going to give any one problems if they use these.
Regarding copyright (note that I am not a lawyer, but since I run this site I've spent a lot of time gaining an understanding of copyright):
Legally, there's a difference between "copying" something and taking inspiration from something. Spiky blond hair isn't something that can be copyrighted. What you can copyright are individual instances of spiky blond hair -- for instance, if someone lifted the hair verbatim from a DBZ sprite, then that would be a violation of copyright. Since this is an original creation, though, it's not an issue, even if it's clearly reminiscent of DBZ.
TL;DR: There are no copyright issues here, as far as I can tell. :)
Fabzy: well inlight of what Bart mentioned, all I can say now is they look awesome and i am excited to see more of your work, keep up the good work
Bart: thanks for enlightening me.
@PreciousRoy
No problem. For the record, if you see potential copyright issues in the future, definitely bring them to our attention.
@bart: This is long, but it is a very important license question!
The license is CC-BY-SA 3.0. The Open Game Art FAQ says of this license, "This license requires you to release the source your entire project under the same license or one with similar terms, such as the GNU GPL. If you're trying to sell a game, this is probably something you want to avoid, as you will be required to distribute the source code, and your users will be allowed to distribute it as well."
Are you sure?
I visited the CC-BY-CA 3.0 page and it says this: "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original."
It looks like "contributions" is referring to the "remix", the "transformations" and the "building upon", not what the artwork is used inside of.
I am not a lawyer either, but I'm not seeing where it says that I need to distribute the source code of an entire project when using this artwork inside of the project. It looks like it is saying that if I remix, transform, or build upon the artwork that I need to distribute the new additions made to the artwork itself. The remixes/transformations are built on top of the artwork. The artwork is built on top of the project. So it is the remixes/transformations that must get distributed, not the project.
Diagram of this thought:
Changes to Artwork
^
|
|
Artwork
^
|
|
Game project
^
|
|
Game Engine
^
|
|
Operating System
Since the Artwork is licensed under CC-BY-CA 3.0, that causes the Changes to Artwork to also be licensed under CC-BY-CA 3.0 because that sits directly above the artwork. That doesn't cause the Game Project to become licensed under CC-BY-CA 3.0 because the Game Project sits underneath the Artwork. Under this same reasoning, any closed source commercial tools that I use as part of the game like a proprietary game engine that sits under the Game Project does not suddenly become licensed under CC-BY-CA 3.0 (all because I happened to use artwork licensed under CC-BY-CA 3.0). Which in turn means that the native operating system tools that the software uses doesn't suddenly get transformed to CC-BY-CA 3.0.
In a nutshell, I think the license is saying, "If you make changes to the artwork, you need to allow others to be able to use your changes to that artwork exactly the same way that you were allowed to use the original artwork." I think your artists are wanting this: "If you use my artwork and make it better, I and everyone else has the right to use your improvements!" If I'm wrong and it doesn't mean this, then to a great number of your artists, this is what they are intending. And in that case they should be notified because otherwise they are licensing it in a more restrictive way that they don't want. This has significant impact on the adoption of their artwork.
But you've been doing this a long time, so you may know something that I'm missing. Please help me understand.
By the way, if I really did interpret this license wrong, then this issue of understanding licenses is a much more difficult jungle than what I've realized. In that case, you might strongly consider a dynamic notice that informs the artist what sort of conditions the license produces, in a way that they would easily understand, at the time that they are choosing the license. Kind of like this:
[Dropdown box of licenses]
Allow commercial use?
Yes/No (dynamic)
Forces everything that uses artwork to become open source?
Yes/No (dynamic)
...etc...
...etc...
@Blender: This post would be more appropriate (and get more attention) on the forum, so I'm moving it there.
See this thread:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/license-question
Using some of the hair for Stendhal (slightly edited to fit our sprites). Thank you very much!
Updated 2018-04-19 09:36
Edit: Created an NPC sprite for Stendhal using your hair:
Put the green head on a green body for Stendhal:
https://opengameart.org/node/88800
Thank you. :)
Hello! Would you be willing to license these as OGA-BY 3.0 and/or GPL v2.0+ as well as CC-BY-SA? I have adapted many of your hairstyles to the Liberated Pixel Cup bases, and I am hoping to release those assets with as many license options as possible.
Here's what they look like: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/bluecarrot16s-wip-lpc-tilesetscollect...