@supermoneylife: Glad you like it! You may want to check out this collection of other sprites built from the same original base character. Also, glad the zip layout works for you.
This will probably sound a lot like spam, but I swear I'm not affiliated with this company at all.
While it's not free, EastWest offers a pretty awesome monthly subscription package called Composer Cloud which includes all of their virtual instruments for $30/month. If you have a .edu email account, you can alternatively get their student package which includes just 7 instrument packs for $15/month. Both subscriptions are month-by-month.
I have played around a lot with different free instrument packs like SSO, GeneralUser, DSK, and Arachno, but frankly the quality you get with these paid ones may be worth it, depending on the kind of music you are trying to create. The biggest thing for me has been having different articulations, so (for instance) flutes can be played with a harder staccato hit, or a softer/airier tone, or an overloaded trill at the start of the note.
So it's not free, but is not too expensive and may be worth it depending on what kind of music you are making.
I would be surprised if a EULA can specifically require end-users to forfeit rights to ever use the licensed assets under alternative licenses.
I suppose that if these services require content creators to give up all rights, or transfer ownership of the assets in exchange for some percentage of proceeds, then the content could not be released CC0. Or if it had already been released CC0 previously, the artist would not be legally able to transfer exclusive rights to the EULA service.
May be relevant to check out Carol Highsmith vs Getty Images. Highsmith is a famous photographer who released images to public domain. Getty of course scooped them up to relicense as stock photos. Their big mistake was sending Highsmith herself a cease and desist order for illegally using images from Getty. Prompted a big lawsuit that recently settled.
CC0 assets should be safe to use anywhere or re-license anyway. It's not that the EULA supersedes the CC0 license, it's just that the CC0 asset is being delivered with a different license, which can never supersede a previous license. Once a work has been legally licensed CC0, that is irrevocable.
This becomes trickier with CC-BY(-SA) which specifically contain a clause prohibiting distributing the assets with technological or legal restrictions prohibiting end-users from exercising the full rights laid out by CC (commonly referred to as the anti-DRM clause). This is a problem, for instance, with distributing apps that use CC-BY(-SA) assets on the Apple iOS store, which imposes an end user license violating this clause.
Because CC0 (and OGA-BY) do not have an anti-DRM clause, then restrictive EULAs just serve as another license. However anyone may still refer to the original CC0 or OGA-BY licenses and safely disregard the EULA terms (regarding those assets).
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
I interpret this as saying that the derived product only must attribute the original in the form of this disclaimer, which includes the original copyright notice. I can't see how a copyleft license would work WITHOUT requiring inclusion of a disclaimer, and the copyright notice does not seem particularly intrusive (compared with the disclaimer without the copyright). Also, I think inclusion of the copyright line clearly establishes an interested party who may then have legal ground to fight violations of the license terms.
As more people contribute, I believe that you would just list all their names in the <copyright holders> line, which may get long, but is not really up-front in your face.
@supermoneylife: Glad you like it! You may want to check out this collection of other sprites built from the same original base character. Also, glad the zip layout works for you.
Oh wow, I absolutely love it! I think my favorite bit is the "hit" sprite.
This will probably sound a lot like spam, but I swear I'm not affiliated with this company at all.
While it's not free, EastWest offers a pretty awesome monthly subscription package called Composer Cloud which includes all of their virtual instruments for $30/month. If you have a .edu email account, you can alternatively get their student package which includes just 7 instrument packs for $15/month. Both subscriptions are month-by-month.
I have played around a lot with different free instrument packs like SSO, GeneralUser, DSK, and Arachno, but frankly the quality you get with these paid ones may be worth it, depending on the kind of music you are trying to create. The biggest thing for me has been having different articulations, so (for instance) flutes can be played with a harder staccato hit, or a softer/airier tone, or an overloaded trill at the start of the note.
So it's not free, but is not too expensive and may be worth it depending on what kind of music you are making.
I would be surprised if a EULA can specifically require end-users to forfeit rights to ever use the licensed assets under alternative licenses.
I suppose that if these services require content creators to give up all rights, or transfer ownership of the assets in exchange for some percentage of proceeds, then the content could not be released CC0. Or if it had already been released CC0 previously, the artist would not be legally able to transfer exclusive rights to the EULA service.
May be relevant to check out Carol Highsmith vs Getty Images. Highsmith is a famous photographer who released images to public domain. Getty of course scooped them up to relicense as stock photos. Their big mistake was sending Highsmith herself a cease and desist order for illegally using images from Getty. Prompted a big lawsuit that recently settled.
CC0 assets should be safe to use anywhere or re-license anyway. It's not that the EULA supersedes the CC0 license, it's just that the CC0 asset is being delivered with a different license, which can never supersede a previous license. Once a work has been legally licensed CC0, that is irrevocable.
This becomes trickier with CC-BY(-SA) which specifically contain a clause prohibiting distributing the assets with technological or legal restrictions prohibiting end-users from exercising the full rights laid out by CC (commonly referred to as the anti-DRM clause). This is a problem, for instance, with distributing apps that use CC-BY(-SA) assets on the Apple iOS store, which imposes an end user license violating this clause.
Because CC0 (and OGA-BY) do not have an anti-DRM clause, then restrictive EULAs just serve as another license. However anyone may still refer to the original CC0 or OGA-BY licenses and safely disregard the EULA terms (regarding those assets).
Surely it's time to lock this thread. The question of why MikeeUSA's profile was shut down has been answered.
For instance, the MIT license says:
I interpret this as saying that the derived product only must attribute the original in the form of this disclaimer, which includes the original copyright notice. I can't see how a copyleft license would work WITHOUT requiring inclusion of a disclaimer, and the copyright notice does not seem particularly intrusive (compared with the disclaimer without the copyright). Also, I think inclusion of the copyright line clearly establishes an interested party who may then have legal ground to fight violations of the license terms.
As more people contribute, I believe that you would just list all their names in the <copyright holders> line, which may get long, but is not really up-front in your face.
@bojidar You can do all those things with CC-BY, it is only CC-BY-ND which prohibits people from modifying the work.
@Knoble These are great! Is there any particular way you want to be attributed? Also I would love to see your darkened versions as well.
Cool, well you've done a really good job with yours! Thanks!
Pages