However - if the trees, house, and other extra features are not in this tileset - they should not appear in the preview.
Submission Guidelines:"..if what you uploaded is a sample of a larger pack, the preview image must describe the art you actually uploaded to OGA, and not the additional art that you are advertising..."
The rule is "please don't use graphical art as the first preview image on audio submissions". It is fine to have album art, just not as the first preview because it makes it look like the wrong category and can't be previewed from the gallery. However, making the first preview a sampling of several songs in an album is ideal since it is what is representing the submission from the gallery. So, if you feel like doing that, it is a good idea.
Many closed source games do have streaming/video policies
True, but I think that suggests a solution to your concern. Make a streaming policy for Minetest. Perhaps I don't understand the concern, though.
You would have to make it clear which assets require attribution.
You have to do that anyway. That's a requirement of CC-BY. If Minetest uses CC-BY assest, then it must make clear that those assets require attribution... by way of indicating the license and giving attribution. I do see your point about streamers not bothering to scour the credits page for that kind of thing, but a streaming policy would resolve that if the goal is to encourage (safe) streaming of Minetest. Again, the streamers only have to be concerned with that if they aren't protected by Fair Use for some reason. Regardless, a URL to a credits page in the video description is considered acceptable attribution. If a troll wants to belabor that point, I submit the issue is not any license you could use, attribution or otherwise, it is trusting assets from a troll... which I am constantly on guard for anyone doing that here.
People can sue for any reason. But this feels like a straw man argument.
That certainly wasn't my intent. If I am arguing against a position that doesn't exist, it is only because I am misunderstanding your position. To be honest, suggesting that streamers will get sued over video of a community-supported game that uses CC-BY assets seems like a straw man argument as well. Though my goal is not to argue against you, only to assuage any concern you may have over the use of any specific open source licenses; because I believe it really is both low risk and not the root of the problem.
any video that shows their textures could have legal action taken? That's insane! There's thousands of videos about Minetest.
That would be insane. Why would the let's-players get in trouble? Let's-play videos are (generally) under Fair Use and are (generally) not considered derivatives. I wasn't saying Fair Use doesn't apply to any content using CC licenses. I was saying Fair Use has nothing to do with CC licenses. They are two entirely separate things. Videos of GPL content, or MIT content, would be just as liable for failing to include a copy of the license text in their videos. That is to say, if what they're doing is Fair Use, they wouldn't be liable at all.
The people making the videos are responsible for determining if their use qualifies as Fair Use, not the developer of the game they're featuring in the videos. There are videos of every closed source commercial game on the market, but the creators of those videos aren't getting sued either, even though the license of the assets featured in the game are proprietary. Blizzard isn't suing the makers of the Leeroy Jenkins video even though it consists entirely of uncredited World of Warcraft intellectual property.
I'm surprised that the Creative Commons attribution licensing is even used in games at all, even open source games.
Substitute any license into that sentence and it still holds the same weight. Because the issue is not the license, it's copyright trolls. Observe:
I'm surprised that Public Domain works are even used in games at all, even open source games because copyright trolls can release an asset as PD, wait for someone to use it, then remove the asset from whever they were sharing it and sue while pointing to the proprietary-licensed royalties-due copy they had posted elsewhere earlier. "prove you had permission to use this!"
Why is this a separate thread instead of a comment on the original post of the same topic?
Only the Fans would be liable. Having satisfied the terms of the license, you are not responsible for what others do with the author's work or derivatives thereof.
CC licenses do not have an international fair use clause. Fair Use terms are separate from any license and vary by jurisdiction.
Gorgeous! Purchase the full pack? I just might!
However - if the trees, house, and other extra features are not in this tileset - they should not appear in the preview.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Well, I'll be damned. https://trademarks.justia.com/786/74/batarang-78674328.html
Questionable content removed.
Good question. I'll look into the trademark status of that. Probably not though, since it isn't a recognizable trademarked character.
Ok, try it now? Same issue?
WHAT ARE YOU USING TO OPEN IT?
The rule is "please don't use graphical art as the first preview image on audio submissions". It is fine to have album art, just not as the first preview because it makes it look like the wrong category and can't be previewed from the gallery. However, making the first preview a sampling of several songs in an album is ideal since it is what is representing the submission from the gallery. So, if you feel like doing that, it is a good idea.
Ooh, full sound track. I love big sets like this; you know the music will go together.
True, but I think that suggests a solution to your concern. Make a streaming policy for Minetest. Perhaps I don't understand the concern, though.
You have to do that anyway. That's a requirement of CC-BY. If Minetest uses CC-BY assest, then it must make clear that those assets require attribution... by way of indicating the license and giving attribution. I do see your point about streamers not bothering to scour the credits page for that kind of thing, but a streaming policy would resolve that if the goal is to encourage (safe) streaming of Minetest. Again, the streamers only have to be concerned with that if they aren't protected by Fair Use for some reason. Regardless, a URL to a credits page in the video description is considered acceptable attribution. If a troll wants to belabor that point, I submit the issue is not any license you could use, attribution or otherwise, it is trusting assets from a troll... which I am constantly on guard for anyone doing that here.
That certainly wasn't my intent. If I am arguing against a position that doesn't exist, it is only because I am misunderstanding your position. To be honest, suggesting that streamers will get sued over video of a community-supported game that uses CC-BY assets seems like a straw man argument as well. Though my goal is not to argue against you, only to assuage any concern you may have over the use of any specific open source licenses; because I believe it really is both low risk and not the root of the problem.
That would be insane. Why would the let's-players get in trouble? Let's-play videos are (generally) under Fair Use and are (generally) not considered derivatives. I wasn't saying Fair Use doesn't apply to any content using CC licenses. I was saying Fair Use has nothing to do with CC licenses. They are two entirely separate things. Videos of GPL content, or MIT content, would be just as liable for failing to include a copy of the license text in their videos. That is to say, if what they're doing is Fair Use, they wouldn't be liable at all.
The people making the videos are responsible for determining if their use qualifies as Fair Use, not the developer of the game they're featuring in the videos. There are videos of every closed source commercial game on the market, but the creators of those videos aren't getting sued either, even though the license of the assets featured in the game are proprietary. Blizzard isn't suing the makers of the Leeroy Jenkins video even though it consists entirely of uncredited World of Warcraft intellectual property.
Substitute any license into that sentence and it still holds the same weight. Because the issue is not the license, it's copyright trolls. Observe:
Pages