Lovely! Worth taking a look at your premium content.
Speaking of, you may want to slap an "https://" on the front of that itchio link; the site thinks that is a local url and goes to "Page not found: https://opengameart.org/content/admuring.itch.io"
"at least in Russia, at the beginning of the trial, the judge says: "guided by the law and COMMON SENSE." By your logic, if I take a picture of a black square on the screen, will it cease to be a derivative? where is the logic? if none of those present can tell me something that I do not know, let me speculate. to understand whether a file is derivative or not, we need some features of the original that make it different from most. in this case it is: the shape and color of the handle, and the folded stock. accordingly, if these characteristics of the source file are absent, then these are 2 different projects, albeit made in the same style.
Hmm. It seems like you are moving the goalposts after the game has started, my dude. The original (paraphrased) question was:
"what constitutes a derivative, according to copyright law?"
Now it seems to have changed into:
"what could someone get away with in court, despite copyright law?"
What is true and what can be proven in court are two different things. (Because OGA is a US-based site, you can always safely assume any license discussion on OGA is about US law by default unless stated otherwise)
The truth is if you use any part of someone else's work to create your work, it is a derivative of that other person's work.
What can be proven is ... well, not much if the derivative looks nothing like the original. It doesn't change the fact that a 1x1 pixel black square is a derivative of a 32x32 pixel gun which is a derivative of a 256x256 2D rendition derived from a 3D model, but like you say, the Judge is going to say "according to COMMON SENSE, there is no evidence this is a derivative. Case dismissed!". However, if you discussed on the internet about using a particular 3D model of a gun to make a black square, then there IS a way to prove that it's a derivative; that internet discussion can be used as evidence.
Common sense works both ways, though. As in my hypothetical scenario about rrodg84 creating a door that, by REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE is exactly the same as a Legend of Zelda door, even though he didn't use any of Nintendo's assets as references or guides, the judge is going to say "according to COMMON SENSE, this is a derivative. In fact, its a blatant rip-off copy!" even if that's not actually true.
"...By your logic, if I take a picture of a black square on the screen, will it cease to be a derivative?..."
No, that is not what I was trying to say. If you took a picture of a black square on the screen, then it would indeed be a derivative; You used someone else's work (the black square on the screen) to make a different asset (the picture you took). That particular scenario tends to fall under Fair Use, so it doesn't matter much, but the other scenarios we've been discussing would not be so forgiven by Fair Use.
... to understand whether a file is derivative or not, we need some features of the original that make it different from most. in this case it is: the shape and color of the handle, and the folded stock. accordingly, if these characteristics of the source file are absent, then these are 2 different projects, albeit made in the same style."
Nope. Sorry, that isn't what makes something a derivative or not. Yes they would be two different projects, but one would still be a derivative of the other, and therefore subject to the original copyright. The uniqueness of the original asset, nor the absence of such unique features in the new asset, are irrelevant to it being a derivative or not. Those things tend to make it easier to prove, though. If you used any part of someone else's work as a base, a guide, a shape reference, whatever, in the process of making your new asset, then your new asset is a derivative of it. It doesn't matter if the new asset looks nothing alike, though that does make it difficult to prove.
I have no idea why you would bother using another asset to make some new asset that looks nothing like it. It would be easier to just start from scratch at that point. Never-the-less, the truth is, it's a derivative, even if it's too difficult to prove that in court. Which is why buttons is right as well. It's usually about money, not the truth. The chances of actually getting in trouble for failing to attribute a derivative are shockingly slim.
Yes, that would work, but be sure to include: the original author's name, the title of the original work, a URL to the original work (this page, i guess?), any special attribution notes (similar to the Attribution Notice section above) and the license it is under within the same comment as the attachment. :)
"so what is derivative then? if i use the house from a link to the past as a "drawing reference" and my door that i created pixel by pixel looks identical or almost identical then it is still derivative legally is it not? even if i did not use any pixels from the door, am i not still opening myself up to cease and desist? will shigeru miyamoto come to my house and punch me in the nose?"
If you used LttP art as a drawing reference, then yes, it would be derivative. If you created a door without using LttP art as a reference or guide, but you were simply inspired by the game LttP (as Buch did), then no it would not be a derivative. If your scenario is that you created a door that is pixel-per-pixel exactly the same as the doors in Legend of Zelda, but you didn't use any LoZ art as a reference or guide, then that would not be a derivative despite being identical. The problem with that is no one would believe you. I certainly wouldn't. The probability of recreating even a small 32x32 pixel tile of a door so exactly by chance is still 1 : 33,554,432 against. So, yes, in that scenario, Shigeru would still punch you in the face. Not because you're breaking copyright, but because no reasonable person would conclude that you did anything else.
You did bring up a good point about Buch's artwork. It is very similar, intentionally so. I am not necessarily an expert on pixel art derivation, but I've gotten pretty good at telling the difference. Namely, if there are differences in shape, texture, proportion, and palette, that tends to indicate inspiration, not derivation. The whole point of deriving art from other preexisting art is to save time and effort in getting the colors, shapes, alignment, etc. from work that's already been done. There would be no advantage for Buch to mimic everything about Legend of Zelda art except for the very features that save him time and effort.
I think I did an in-depth comparison back in the day. The conlusion was there was very little chance these were derived from LoZ assets. They do indeed look very similar, but that is by design. If I recall correctly, the textures and overall shape of the features are not the same in a way that implies buch's were created as an inspiration, but did not use the LoZ tileset as a guide or base.
As you can see from the above overlay comparison, there are plenty of similarities, but all of them have significant design differences. The texture and asthetic decisions that Buch made just don't make sense if he derived this from Nintendo's IP, but they make perfect sense if you consider this set was inspired by (and intentionally designed to approximate) Legend of Zelda's look. The closest similarities are the fence posts, but even those have "wood grain" differences. Plus, Nintendo's fence posts are biased to the lower-left corner of the tile, where Buch's are center-of-tile. I had to shift the tiles over to get them to overlap properly.
Are we 100% sure these aren't derived from Nintendo IP? Well, about as sure as anything else on OGA. I'd use these in my own game and be confident I am not infringing upon any copyrighted material. :)
Lovely! Worth taking a look at your premium content.
Speaking of, you may want to slap an "https://" on the front of that itchio link; the site thinks that is a local url and goes to "Page not found: https://opengameart.org/content/admuring.itch.io"Cool.
"Zip file..."?
Also, just out of curiosity, what font is used in the image?
Ah, each plant occupies more than one tile for overlapping foliage. Ok, thanks.
?? The smallest plant is 60x59 without the unused space. How could any of these be considered 32x32?
Nope looks good :)
@FiveBrosStopMosYT:
You're missing the Copyright/Attribution Notice text. The original asset was not just created by pvigier. All contributing authors must be credited.
You're missing the URL. I know the url would go this same page, but other people looking at your comment don't know that.
Hmm. It seems like you are moving the goalposts after the game has started, my dude. The original (paraphrased) question was:
Now it seems to have changed into:
What is true and what can be proven in court are two different things. (Because OGA is a US-based site, you can always safely assume any license discussion on OGA is about US law by default unless stated otherwise)
The truth is if you use any part of someone else's work to create your work, it is a derivative of that other person's work.
What can be proven is ... well, not much if the derivative looks nothing like the original. It doesn't change the fact that a 1x1 pixel black square is a derivative of a 32x32 pixel gun which is a derivative of a 256x256 2D rendition derived from a 3D model, but like you say, the Judge is going to say "according to COMMON SENSE, there is no evidence this is a derivative. Case dismissed!". However, if you discussed on the internet about using a particular 3D model of a gun to make a black square, then there IS a way to prove that it's a derivative; that internet discussion can be used as evidence.
Common sense works both ways, though. As in my hypothetical scenario about rrodg84 creating a door that, by REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE is exactly the same as a Legend of Zelda door, even though he didn't use any of Nintendo's assets as references or guides, the judge is going to say "according to COMMON SENSE, this is a derivative. In fact, its a blatant rip-off copy!" even if that's not actually true.
No, that is not what I was trying to say. If you took a picture of a black square on the screen, then it would indeed be a derivative; You used someone else's work (the black square on the screen) to make a different asset (the picture you took). That particular scenario tends to fall under Fair Use, so it doesn't matter much, but the other scenarios we've been discussing would not be so forgiven by Fair Use.
Nope. Sorry, that isn't what makes something a derivative or not. Yes they would be two different projects, but one would still be a derivative of the other, and therefore subject to the original copyright. The uniqueness of the original asset, nor the absence of such unique features in the new asset, are irrelevant to it being a derivative or not. Those things tend to make it easier to prove, though. If you used any part of someone else's work as a base, a guide, a shape reference, whatever, in the process of making your new asset, then your new asset is a derivative of it. It doesn't matter if the new asset looks nothing alike, though that does make it difficult to prove.
I have no idea why you would bother using another asset to make some new asset that looks nothing like it. It would be easier to just start from scratch at that point. Never-the-less, the truth is, it's a derivative, even if it's too difficult to prove that in court. Which is why buttons is right as well. It's usually about money, not the truth. The chances of actually getting in trouble for failing to attribute a derivative are shockingly slim.
Yes, that would work, but be sure to include: the original author's name, the title of the original work, a URL to the original work (this page, i guess?), any special attribution notes (similar to the Attribution Notice section above) and the license it is under within the same comment as the attachment. :)
If you used LttP art as a drawing reference, then yes, it would be derivative. If you created a door without using LttP art as a reference or guide, but you were simply inspired by the game LttP (as Buch did), then no it would not be a derivative. If your scenario is that you created a door that is pixel-per-pixel exactly the same as the doors in Legend of Zelda, but you didn't use any LoZ art as a reference or guide, then that would not be a derivative despite being identical. The problem with that is no one would believe you. I certainly wouldn't. The probability of recreating even a small 32x32 pixel tile of a door so exactly by chance is still 1 : 33,554,432 against. So, yes, in that scenario, Shigeru would still punch you in the face. Not because you're breaking copyright, but because no reasonable person would conclude that you did anything else.
You did bring up a good point about Buch's artwork. It is very similar, intentionally so. I am not necessarily an expert on pixel art derivation, but I've gotten pretty good at telling the difference. Namely, if there are differences in shape, texture, proportion, and palette, that tends to indicate inspiration, not derivation. The whole point of deriving art from other preexisting art is to save time and effort in getting the colors, shapes, alignment, etc. from work that's already been done. There would be no advantage for Buch to mimic everything about Legend of Zelda art except for the very features that save him time and effort.
I think I did an in-depth comparison back in the day. The conlusion was there was very little chance these were derived from LoZ assets. They do indeed look very similar, but that is by design. If I recall correctly, the textures and overall shape of the features are not the same in a way that implies buch's were created as an inspiration, but did not use the LoZ tileset as a guide or base.
As you can see from the above overlay comparison, there are plenty of similarities, but all of them have significant design differences. The texture and asthetic decisions that Buch made just don't make sense if he derived this from Nintendo's IP, but they make perfect sense if you consider this set was inspired by (and intentionally designed to approximate) Legend of Zelda's look. The closest similarities are the fence posts, but even those have "wood grain" differences. Plus, Nintendo's fence posts are biased to the lower-left corner of the tile, where Buch's are center-of-tile. I had to shift the tiles over to get them to overlap properly.
Are we 100% sure these aren't derived from Nintendo IP? Well, about as sure as anything else on OGA. I'd use these in my own game and be confident I am not infringing upon any copyrighted material. :)
Pages