Maybe company name + 'Media' or 'Works ?, those cover pretty much everything, books, writing, film, games etc. 'Books' is to generic as Danimal says, and sounds more like a publisher than a creator.
I couldn't find anything regarding credits for the game 'Summer of Sports', which looks like its using LPC Sprites, well, i would say they are using Eliza/Deaths Darlings versions of the LPC in my opinion from what i have seen.
I'm going to pitch in with my thoughts and my current stand about AI, and i will keep it short.
I do believe it is great tech and the end results are absouletly brilliant, i can't deny that, and will help many in many different industry fields in various ways, and i would like to support it, but i am one of those that can't support it due to ethical reasons. The ends doesn't justify the means for me.
The AI algorythims used to create 'new works' are 'trained' using datasets. These datasets are 'images'. The images that comprise the dataset have been taken from creators and used without permission, and in some cases go against the license the creator has allowed. One of the technique used to do this is 'Scraping'.
The founders of the applications are aware of what they have done, and instead of working with creators, went along and did it anyway, ignoring creators wishes and licensing terms and generally copyright in all forms to progress thier software to what it is today. The applications are incredible, but it wouldn't be what it is today without the contributions of creators uploading their work to the online world, for which have had no say on whever they wanted to be a part of it or not, given no choice or even any sort of reconignition for the contribution, most importantly, against the license they chose for thier works.
I can't support this unethical approach and ignorant attitudes being/been used in current AI systems. Give me an AI that is using a dataset with works that have permissions and or license then im all for it, will support it and may even use it. :)
YES!! great stuff m glad someone finally got the things in the thread submitted! Thanks Medicinestorm! and of coarse thanks to surt. The thread was like a Bible to me. So much fanatastic reference and learning material. :)
If you downloaded the asset from here(OGA) and it was CC0, then you are only bound to CC0, no one can change that. As long as you signed in at the time of download it will give you a credits download file to prove it was CC0. It's the responsability of the uploader to insure that they license their work correctly. If the uploading author is the real/genuine owner of the work and they have licensed it incorrectly, then that mistake is theirs not the end user. If its not a genuine owner then all bets are off and the asset will flagged until it can be sorted out.
The real/geniune owner is entitled to change the license at anytime should they realise thier mistake, but will have to concede that any of the asset downloaded before the change will remain on whatever license the agreed to previously.
That said, the Author/uploader should be respectfully treated, especially when allowing assets at no cost and if they made a msitake, end users should really uphold what the author wants, and work within the newer/updated license framework if its possible. If for any reason this makes it difficult because of the project logistics then perhaps some negotiation/leeway can be spoken about and communicated of the users intentions.
If you have treid to reach out and done what you can to ressolve your concerns and no one gets back to you, then id go with what you have, if its CC0, then so be it. You just need to make sure that the uploader is the geniune owner of uploaded works.
"Final product is what matters" - Yes, i suppose thats right, if an NFT has been created for a purpose, what ever that purpose may be, by design, to benefit the artist, programmer, project or end user, i suppose it comes down to what we perceive that 'purpose' to be, on a 'moral' stand point.
@Commander It's nothing to do with Bible, God, 666 or bloody Shamens. Unless you talking 'Morallity' values, in which case just say so mate. Your 'scriptured' type comment leaves me baffled, is it a real point of view or are you just mocking? This is a serious topic for me matey. :)
"Wouldn't distributing something as an NFT violate most of the licenses on OGA?"
It depends on the licenses. CC-By with stipulations or any license that allows stipulations ,and is stipulated 'no NFT use' or something like that, I believe would be in violation, at the same time, even if the license doesn't say it directly would/could depend on the license that is added either by default of the marketplace platform user agreement(if there is one) or stipulated inside a 'smart contract', with or without contracted negotiations of users/authors/contributions/commisions. Public domain assets is different story as you know, but with 'artificial scarcity' being a thing, to say something is RARE, when it isn't could/does constitute a 'fraud' bearing, if selling something like that. It may be rare when you first create it, but theres nothing stoppping anyone from creating the same thing, using the same PD assets, so claims of rarity loses its appeal, and so does the 'uniqueness', as it becomes devalued as a result. Think medicinestorm did a good write up in the links on the front page.
"Are people providing appropriate credit for OGA stuff that they NFT?"
I have no idea, I haven't seen any OGA assets on any NFT platforms thankfully.
What we have is yet more misconseption that owning an NFT gives 'owners' the copyright to that particular image/sound/film to do what they want with, BUT that isn't true. What they own is the NFT, what ever that may be. It doesn't give them the rights to edit it, make copys of it, re uploaded it, print it on t-shirts etc. thats ONLY allowed if the creator grants that permission within its license(smart contract). Owners of the NFT are only really really allowed to sell it on as an NFT, as it is.
That is my understanding of it anyway.
"My question with NFTs has always been, who is the market for this stuff?"
Good question, and one that i would say is 'subjective'. It should of been a way for artists to sell their work and go someway to proof authorship in a digital capacity, no matter how many people copy and paste someones image/work/asset, there is now a way to say what is 'official' and have some legal stand point, proof of ownsership and license agreements. Also creators have a say in their work being resold and can collect 'royalties' each time, another way for artists to support their work and be supported by fans. BUT, this isn't what has happened. Instead, what we have is a space that has been filled with users exploiting the system and turned it into something else, so now it is seen as nothing more than users trying to get rich quick schemes, asset flippers & scammers. so right now, the market for this stuff is those people. IMO.
Maybe company name + 'Media' or 'Works ?, those cover pretty much everything, books, writing, film, games etc. 'Books' is to generic as Danimal says, and sounds more like a publisher than a creator.
these 'Add Ons' are also available on the Xbox Store and Epic.
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/arcade-paradise--coin-op-pack-2
I couldn't find anything regarding credits for the game 'Summer of Sports', which looks like its using LPC Sprites, well, i would say they are using Eliza/Deaths Darlings versions of the LPC in my opinion from what i have seen.
https://opengameart.org/content/lpc-jump-expanded
I would say they have been slightly modified as well, they arn't exactly the same, but they are clearly modified.
There may well be credits within the game package, but will only know if its included within the purchased files?
I'm going to pitch in with my thoughts and my current stand about AI, and i will keep it short.
I do believe it is great tech and the end results are absouletly brilliant, i can't deny that, and will help many in many different industry fields in various ways, and i would like to support it, but i am one of those that can't support it due to ethical reasons. The ends doesn't justify the means for me.
The AI algorythims used to create 'new works' are 'trained' using datasets. These datasets are 'images'. The images that comprise the dataset have been taken from creators and used without permission, and in some cases go against the license the creator has allowed. One of the technique used to do this is 'Scraping'.
The founders of the applications are aware of what they have done, and instead of working with creators, went along and did it anyway, ignoring creators wishes and licensing terms and generally copyright in all forms to progress thier software to what it is today. The applications are incredible, but it wouldn't be what it is today without the contributions of creators uploading their work to the online world, for which have had no say on whever they wanted to be a part of it or not, given no choice or even any sort of reconignition for the contribution, most importantly, against the license they chose for thier works.
I can't support this unethical approach and ignorant attitudes being/been used in current AI systems. Give me an AI that is using a dataset with works that have permissions and or license then im all for it, will support it and may even use it. :)
YES!! great stuff m glad someone finally got the things in the thread submitted! Thanks Medicinestorm! and of coarse thanks to surt. The thread was like a Bible to me. So much fanatastic reference and learning material. :)
IMO
If you downloaded the asset from here(OGA) and it was CC0, then you are only bound to CC0, no one can change that. As long as you signed in at the time of download it will give you a credits download file to prove it was CC0.
It's the responsability of the uploader to insure that they license their work correctly. If the uploading author is the real/genuine owner of the work and they have licensed it incorrectly, then that mistake is theirs not the end user. If its not a genuine owner then all bets are off and the asset will flagged until it can be sorted out.
The real/geniune owner is entitled to change the license at anytime should they realise thier mistake, but will have to concede that any of the asset downloaded before the change will remain on whatever license the agreed to previously.
That said, the Author/uploader should be respectfully treated, especially when allowing assets at no cost and if they made a msitake, end users should really uphold what the author wants, and work within the newer/updated license framework if its possible. If for any reason this makes it difficult because of the project logistics then perhaps some negotiation/leeway can be spoken about and communicated of the users intentions.
If you have treid to reach out and done what you can to ressolve your concerns and no one gets back to you, then id go with what you have, if its CC0, then so be it. You just need to make sure that the uploader is the geniune owner of uploaded works.
This is my opinion, not real legal advice :)
Oh bum, his hat is is out on a frame. Il have to fix that. Id never of known had you not of mentioned to show the animations. thanks for that.
OK, il show a couple. :)
thanks, just a misunderstanding.
"Final product is what matters" - Yes, i suppose thats right, if an NFT has been created for a purpose, what ever that purpose may be, by design, to benefit the artist, programmer, project or end user, i suppose it comes down to what we perceive that 'purpose' to be, on a 'moral' stand point.
@Commander It's nothing to do with Bible, God, 666 or bloody Shamens. Unless you talking 'Morallity' values, in which case just say so mate. Your 'scriptured' type comment leaves me baffled, is it a real point of view or are you just mocking? This is a serious topic for me matey. :)
"Wouldn't distributing something as an NFT violate most of the licenses on OGA?"
It depends on the licenses. CC-By with stipulations or any license that allows stipulations ,and is stipulated 'no NFT use' or something like that, I believe would be in violation, at the same time, even if the license doesn't say it directly would/could depend on the license that is added either by default of the marketplace platform user agreement(if there is one) or stipulated inside a 'smart contract', with or without contracted negotiations of users/authors/contributions/commisions. Public domain assets is different story as you know, but with 'artificial scarcity' being a thing, to say something is RARE, when it isn't could/does constitute a 'fraud' bearing, if selling something like that. It may be rare when you first create it, but theres nothing stoppping anyone from creating the same thing, using the same PD assets, so claims of rarity loses its appeal, and so does the 'uniqueness', as it becomes devalued as a result. Think medicinestorm did a good write up in the links on the front page.
"Are people providing appropriate credit for OGA stuff that they NFT?"
I have no idea, I haven't seen any OGA assets on any NFT platforms thankfully.
What we have is yet more misconseption that owning an NFT gives 'owners' the copyright to that particular image/sound/film to do what they want with, BUT that isn't true. What they own is the NFT, what ever that may be. It doesn't give them the rights to edit it, make copys of it, re uploaded it, print it on t-shirts etc. thats ONLY allowed if the creator grants that permission within its license(smart contract). Owners of the NFT are only really really allowed to sell it on as an NFT, as it is.
That is my understanding of it anyway.
"My question with NFTs has always been, who is the market for this stuff?"
Good question, and one that i would say is 'subjective'. It should of been a way for artists to sell their work and go someway to proof authorship in a digital capacity, no matter how many people copy and paste someones image/work/asset, there is now a way to say what is 'official' and have some legal stand point, proof of ownsership and license agreements. Also creators have a say in their work being resold and can collect 'royalties' each time, another way for artists to support their work and be supported by fans. BUT, this isn't what has happened. Instead, what we have is a space that has been filled with users exploiting the system and turned it into something else, so now it is seen as nothing more than users trying to get rich quick schemes, asset flippers & scammers. so right now, the market for this stuff is those people. IMO.
Pages