If I got it right, it says the derived work can be released under cc0 but you should still properly credit the original author (thus it is not really cc0 anymore). So it is not recommended
You can probably ask the author for an exception clause like that kirita brush pack's license
Also from what I understand they are derived from the free zbrush brush pack by Michael Vicente aka ORB. But then stkopp somehow relicensed the derivative work under CC-BY
They are all CC-0 with Anonymous as their author field. You should be well aware of the implications of the CC-0 license before posting anything under it. Calling people thieves after that is pointless
Even if they are deleted someone can reupload (but of course that would not be very polite)
Also a website is a service, administration can deny your access anytime they want. Don't forget that there are websites which would ban even their paid customers.
It is also a little like unreal tournament
https://pixabay.com/forum/official-pixabay-news-2/the-pixabay-license-78...
TL;DR: all images prior to the new license are indeed cc0, good luck finding which
(posting images just incase they delete them too, but you can probably use wayback machine)
Pixabay changed its license from CC0 to Pixabay License on 1-1-2019
So anything before it is CC-0. I am not sure what Morad is trying to accomplish.
https://pixabay.com/en/forum/photography-and-image-editing-13/can-i-put-...You can also check with wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20181231002833/https://pixabay.com/en/servic...
edit: see https://opengameart.org/content/fiery-explosion#comment-75693
Pixabay changed its license from CC0 to Pixabay License on 1-1-2019
So anything before it is CC-0. I am not sure what Morad is trying to accomplish.
https://pixabay.com/en/forum/photography-and-image-editing-13/can-i-put-...You can also check with wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20181231002833/https://pixabay.com/en/servic...
edit: they butchered the thread and also it was not official. Here is the official reply of the admin https://pixabay.com/forum/official-pixabay-news-2/the-pixabay-license-7823/ see the second post by Simon
Looks good, I hope the barrel is of legal length
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#if-i-derive-or-adapt-material-offered-u...
If I got it right, it says the derived work can be released under cc0 but you should still properly credit the original author (thus it is not really cc0 anymore). So it is not recommended
You can probably ask the author for an exception clause like that kirita brush pack's license
Also from what I understand they are derived from the free zbrush brush pack by Michael Vicente aka ORB. But then stkopp somehow relicensed the derivative work under CC-BY
They are all CC-0 with Anonymous as their author field. You should be well aware of the implications of the CC-0 license before posting anything under it. Calling people thieves after that is pointless
Even if they are deleted someone can reupload (but of course that would not be very polite)
Also a website is a service, administration can deny your access anytime they want. Don't forget that there are websites which would ban even their paid customers.
why is it blurry and has excess white space?
I think you posted the wrong link. It is a comic site. There is no music on it.You can probably use love2d or godot.
Pages