I think you're missing what I'm asking. No one is able to download the 2D texture map, because you uploaded a screenshot in its place.
The "104_hextiles_00.jpg" file should be under File(s): but its under Preview instead. It would be better if it were a .png file instead of .jpg, too since jpg is so lossy.
The "hexagonal_terrain_world_01.jpg" file should be under Preview but its under File(s) instead.
I think the "download" file and the "preview" file are reversed... or I don't really understand the purpose of the jpg you uploaded. It appears to be screenshot of 3D rendered terrain, which isn't really a 2D asset or a 3D asset.
Art by the same submitter submitted in rapid succession gets pushed back 24 hours temporarily. Spammers submit like that to saturate the front page with ads. This gives me a chance to remove it without it getting picked up by seo indexing crawlers.
In the case of non spammers, it gives everyone else a chance on the front page instead of being immediately pushed off by one submitter. If you're submitting a lot of similar stuff that works well together, it is better to submit them as a set or album on one submission instead of, for example, 6 different submissions containing one sprite/texture/song each.
I agree it is morally sound to automatically add the upgraded version of licenses anywhere the author checked the "allow later version..." box. The technological feasibility is ... not impossible, but it will take some work to get a script in place to handle something like that.
There are several features of the site that are in need of address. Namely, the fact the aforementioned checkbox is not visible to anyone but admins and the submitter, plus the broken "is this your work?" feature. In addition, I look forward to seeing a quick "copy attribution text to clipboard" button and some form of automatic derivative linking.
Interestingly, any CC-BY-SA 3.0 license can be upgraded to CC-BY-SA 4.0 already, even without the "allow later versions..." checkbox; -SA has an upgrade clause built-in, but CC-BY does not. :/
All this being said, this may be less of a risk here than many suspect/fear, for several reasons:
As many of you have pointed out, this is predominantly affecting stock images. Copyleft trolls have a lot harder time automating the process of identifying content from OGA being used in the wild since most of it is being used in video games. As of yet, there is no "reverse video game lookup" like there is for stock images.
Furthermore, and more importantly, the "minor attribution errors" are the very thing we're obsessively clear about. Although it would be ideal to have a quick "attribution text" button, the suggested attribution guidelines in the FAQ are highly resistant to the kind of thing the article is talking about. I have no idea how often people follow those guidelines, but provided you do follow them, you have very little to worry about.
Thirdly, I (and many of you) watch for bad experiences coming back to OGA. Any time someone says something like "I used this in a youtube video, but I got a content ID strike" You can be sure I take notice. It doesn't mean the submitter is a copyleft troll. Sometimes it's just a mistake. But we always take them down immediately until it's resolved. If anyone comes across a "bad experience" leading from OGA in your internet travels, let me know right away. We've seen a few copyright trolls, and they were quickly dealt with, but I have yet to encounter even a rumor of copyleft trolling on OGA. Let me know if you see something suspicious.
Lastly, if you think you may be the target of a copyleft/right troll, inform me so that I may unleash the full force of righteous wrath upon the evildoers! We have access to legal resources, and my rage fuels pro-bono defenses.
What do you mean by "copyright not required", though? I think that phrase may be out of context, here. It's kind of like saying "You don't need to know who made it". Even though... uh, we already know who made it from the very next thing you said "author: jatstory" :)
Are you saying "you aren't required to give credit"? or "You aren't required to pay anyone for this"?
Nah, it's not bad. It's the site saying "Umplix, what are you even doing? I don't know what to do with an .mp3 file attached to a comment!" because it wants to be able to play the file right from the forum, but it isn't allowed to have an MP3 codec, only OGG. We're working on overhauling the site so it isn't so grumpy about stuff like that. :P
Hmm... that was resolved. Sorry. Try it now.
I think you're missing what I'm asking. No one is able to download the 2D texture map, because you uploaded a screenshot in its place.
The "104_hextiles_00.jpg" file should be under File(s): but its under Preview instead. It would be better if it were a .png file instead of .jpg, too since jpg is so lossy.
The "hexagonal_terrain_world_01.jpg" file should be under Preview but its under File(s) instead.
I think the "download" file and the "preview" file are reversed... or I don't really understand the purpose of the jpg you uploaded. It appears to be screenshot of 3D rendered terrain, which isn't really a 2D asset or a 3D asset.
wow. Did you make all of these? What textures are these based on?
Art by the same submitter submitted in rapid succession gets pushed back 24 hours temporarily. Spammers submit like that to saturate the front page with ads. This gives me a chance to remove it without it getting picked up by seo indexing crawlers.
In the case of non spammers, it gives everyone else a chance on the front page instead of being immediately pushed off by one submitter. If you're submitting a lot of similar stuff that works well together, it is better to submit them as a set or album on one submission instead of, for example, 6 different submissions containing one sprite/texture/song each.
Why wouldn't you just include the extended version here as well?
I agree it is morally sound to automatically add the upgraded version of licenses anywhere the author checked the "allow later version..." box. The technological feasibility is ... not impossible, but it will take some work to get a script in place to handle something like that.
There are several features of the site that are in need of address. Namely, the fact the aforementioned checkbox is not visible to anyone but admins and the submitter, plus the broken "is this your work?" feature. In addition, I look forward to seeing a quick "copy attribution text to clipboard" button and some form of automatic derivative linking.
Interestingly, any CC-BY-SA 3.0 license can be upgraded to CC-BY-SA 4.0 already, even without the "allow later versions..." checkbox; -SA has an upgrade clause built-in, but CC-BY does not. :/
All this being said, this may be less of a risk here than many suspect/fear, for several reasons:
As many of you have pointed out, this is predominantly affecting stock images. Copyleft trolls have a lot harder time automating the process of identifying content from OGA being used in the wild since most of it is being used in video games. As of yet, there is no "reverse video game lookup" like there is for stock images.
Furthermore, and more importantly, the "minor attribution errors" are the very thing we're obsessively clear about. Although it would be ideal to have a quick "attribution text" button, the suggested attribution guidelines in the FAQ are highly resistant to the kind of thing the article is talking about. I have no idea how often people follow those guidelines, but provided you do follow them, you have very little to worry about.
Thirdly, I (and many of you) watch for bad experiences coming back to OGA. Any time someone says something like "I used this in a youtube video, but I got a content ID strike" You can be sure I take notice. It doesn't mean the submitter is a copyleft troll. Sometimes it's just a mistake. But we always take them down immediately until it's resolved. If anyone comes across a "bad experience" leading from OGA in your internet travels, let me know right away. We've seen a few copyright trolls, and they were quickly dealt with, but I have yet to encounter even a rumor of copyleft trolling on OGA. Let me know if you see something suspicious.
Lastly, if you think you may be the target of a copyleft/right troll, inform me so that I may unleash the full force of righteous wrath upon the evildoers! We have access to legal resources, and my rage fuels pro-bono defenses.
Oh. In that case, you should also change the license to CC0 because CC-BY means "you are required to give credit"EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
counting the days until I can play the Beta! Looks fun.
Neat!
What do you mean by "copyright not required", though? I think that phrase may be out of context, here. It's kind of like saying "You don't need to know who made it". Even though... uh, we already know who made it from the very next thing you said "author: jatstory" :)Are you saying "you aren't required to give credit"? or "You aren't required to pay anyone for this"?EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Nah, it's not bad. It's the site saying "Umplix, what are you even doing? I don't know what to do with an .mp3 file attached to a comment!" because it wants to be able to play the file right from the forum, but it isn't allowed to have an MP3 codec, only OGG. We're working on overhauling the site so it isn't so grumpy about stuff like that. :P
Pages