In the Copyright/Atrribution Notice: section, you have said this:
LICENSE: This asset pack can be used in free and commercial projects. You can modify it to suit your own needs. Credit is not necessary but is greatly appreciated. You may not redistribute or resell the assets yourself, which includes NFTs, only images or asset compilations. Assets cannot be used in AI creations.
Please remove this segment:
You may not redistribute or resell the assets yourself, which includes NFTs, only images or asset compilations. Assets cannot be used in AI creations.
This restriction does not accomplish what you want. It accomplishes the opposite of what you want. This text changes the license and makes the license ineffective. We can only accept assets under the terms of the following licenses: CC0, OGA-BY, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, GPL. You have accidentally made a custom license that renders your asset legally impossible to use.
If you are not willing to change the Copyright/Attribution Notice to this, we cannot host the asset here:
LICENSE: This asset pack can be used in free and commercial projects. You can modify it to suit your own needs. Credit is not necessary but is greatly appreciated.
The extra restrictions are still present. This asset cannot be downloaded until those restrictions are removed. Clarifying what you intend, but leaving the restrictions, is not sufficient. Please let me know if you have questions about this.
Unfortunately, I can't use it. Forbidding redistribution and resale makes it effectively unusable. I know you meant people can redistribute/sell it within a game but not by itself, but it still causes unintended legal entanglements. That being said, you could license it OGA-BY or CC-BY instead. That would make it so anyone trying to resell it by itself would be required to link back here. No one would pay that person for it when they can see it is free here. Would you be willing to omit that restriction? In the meantime, I must disable downloads on this asset to prevent people from using it in a way you may not approve of.
If you don't admit to using someone assts as a base there is no evidance for lawsuit. Guy openly said he COPYED and edited sprites to be unrecognizable
Possibly, yes. Admitting to copying is one form of evidence. Substantial similarity is another. There are more than 2 ways to demonstrate evidence of infringement in a copyright case, though. I'm not certain what you're trying to point out here. My point was "Similarity does not always equal copyright infringement. Lack of similarity does not always equal copyright safe."
Yet, if two people were to, say, paint a sword from the same angle, could that be considered copyright infringement?
No. The scenarios you have outlined are not fringe cases. If the only relationship between the two assets is the perspective, then it is not copyright infringement. One artist might still sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
Expecting every asset to be entirely unique not only stifles creativity—it may also lead to endless litigation as everyone could potentially sue each other, claiming “they copied me.”
Indeed. Good thing I don't expect every asset to be entirely unique. Is there someone here who does?
If we argue that using this tool is not copyright protected...
Who is "we"? I am not arguing that using this tool renders the output unprotectable.
the fundamental question remains: how much human input is required for a work to be considered truly original and eligible for copyright protection? ... but merely providing prompts isn’t enough. This raises a significant challenge: exactly how much human editing is required?
Agreed. The courts do have some benchmarks for such de minimus effort required to constitute something being a separate work, but those benchmarks are spread across the corpus of tort law, so it is often difficult to distill an answer down to a blurb, and certainly not one that can be applied in genereal.
could recoloring a single pixel be enough to claim protection?
No.
This ambiguity creates a minefield, potentially allowing someone to generate an asset with AI and then perform minimal tweaks to assert copyright ownership, thereby opening the door to endless legal disputes over what constitutes a meaningful creative contribution.
It is not so precarious as you may be assuming. De minimus and "substantial similarity" may be nebulous but they are hardly unknown legal thresholds. A simple hue shift does not reach the threshold of new works. Rearranging assets into a spritesheet or tileset does not reach the threshold. Performing "minimal tweaks" are- by admission- minimal, and therefore do not reach the threshold.
Consider the case between Pocketpair and Nintendo ... Cases like these illustrate how copyright and patent laws can be manipulated by powerful companies to control creativity and competition rather than to foster genuine innovation.
Again, One company might sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win. Granted, Nintendo's titanic status may give them unfair leverage, and the winner of that suit may not be the one who should win, unfortunately. However, I'm not sure how this applies here? Are you saying "Well, there are big powerful bullies in the world so let's forget IP law. If they can get away with it, then so shall we!"? I mean, I actually agree with social dissent in order to enact change, but that is an entirely different conversation. Please do not protest injustices of IP law by posting legally questionable content on OGA. We are not a corporate giant. Setting your friends ablaze does not halt your enemies.
What texture were all the texture components made from? It appears to be a photorealistic wood texture.
Please do not republish or resell though.
All licenses on OGA allow for resale by necessity. I know you mean you don't want others to resell the asset by itself, but saying "do not replublish or resell" causes unintended legal entanglements that make it effectively unusable, even when it's only being used inside a game project. Even a free game project. Would you be willing to omit that part? That would make it legally usable, but still very difficult for anyone to actually resell it by itself: The license you selected requires the potential reseller to credit you and link back to this page. Any possible customers would clearly see it is available for free and not bother paying the reseller for it. In the meantime, I must download-disable this submission to prevent people from using it in a way you may not approve of. Let me know if you have any questions.
👍
In the Copyright/Atrribution Notice: section, you have said this:Please remove this segment:This restriction does not accomplish what you want. It accomplishes the opposite of what you want. This text changes the license and makes the license ineffective. We can only accept assets under the terms of the following licenses: CC0, OGA-BY, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, GPL. You have accidentally made a custom license that renders your asset legally impossible to use.If you are not willing to change the Copyright/Attribution Notice to this, we cannot host the asset here:EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
The extra restrictions are still present. This asset cannot be downloaded until those restrictions are removed. Clarifying what you intend, but leaving the restrictions, is not sufficient. Please let me know if you have questions about this.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Nice animation! I already have a use for it.
Unfortunately, I can't use it. Forbidding redistribution and resale makes it effectively unusable. I know you meant people can redistribute/sell it within a game but not by itself, but it still causes unintended legal entanglements. That being said, you could license it OGA-BY or CC-BY instead. That would make it so anyone trying to resell it by itself would be required to link back here. No one would pay that person for it when they can see it is free here. Would you be willing to omit that restriction? In the meantime, I must disable downloads on this asset to prevent people from using it in a way you may not approve of.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Possibly, yes. Admitting to copying is one form of evidence. Substantial similarity is another. There are more than 2 ways to demonstrate evidence of infringement in a copyright case, though. I'm not certain what you're trying to point out here. My point was "Similarity does not always equal copyright infringement. Lack of similarity does not always equal copyright safe."
No. The scenarios you have outlined are not fringe cases. If the only relationship between the two assets is the perspective, then it is not copyright infringement. One artist might still sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
Indeed. Good thing I don't expect every asset to be entirely unique. Is there someone here who does?
Who is "we"? I am not arguing that using this tool renders the output unprotectable.
Agreed. The courts do have some benchmarks for such de minimus effort required to constitute something being a separate work, but those benchmarks are spread across the corpus of tort law, so it is often difficult to distill an answer down to a blurb, and certainly not one that can be applied in genereal.
No.
It is not so precarious as you may be assuming. De minimus and "substantial similarity" may be nebulous but they are hardly unknown legal thresholds. A simple hue shift does not reach the threshold of new works. Rearranging assets into a spritesheet or tileset does not reach the threshold. Performing "minimal tweaks" are- by admission- minimal, and therefore do not reach the threshold.
Again, One company might sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win. Granted, Nintendo's titanic status may give them unfair leverage, and the winner of that suit may not be the one who should win, unfortunately. However, I'm not sure how this applies here? Are you saying "Well, there are big powerful bullies in the world so let's forget IP law. If they can get away with it, then so shall we!"? I mean, I actually agree with social dissent in order to enact change, but that is an entirely different conversation. Please do not protest injustices of IP law by posting legally questionable content on OGA. We are not a corporate giant. Setting your friends ablaze does not halt your enemies.
LOL!
Thanks. Nice rock.
I've been misled! I was hungry and searched for pizza. What do I get? Rock! This is asset fraud! I am calling the cops at this very moment!
"pizza"?
Nice table.
What texture were all the texture components made from? It appears to be a photorealistic wood texture.
All licenses on OGA allow for resale by necessity. I know you mean you don't want others to resell the asset by itself, but saying "do not replublish or resell" causes unintended legal entanglements that make it effectively unusable, even when it's only being used inside a game project. Even a free game project. Would you be willing to omit that part? That would make it legally usable, but still very difficult for anyone to actually resell it by itself: The license you selected requires the potential reseller to credit you and link back to this page. Any possible customers would clearly see it is available for free and not bother paying the reseller for it. In the meantime, I must download-disable this submission to prevent people from using it in a way you may not approve of. Let me know if you have any questions.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
The gamer in me likes your art style.
The electronics engineer in me likes your username
Pages