Thanks, but it's not really the description that's a potential issue (or not only the description). It's fine to advertise your commercial packs, but the previews should show what is actually in the free pack here on OGA. I understand the purpose of having a scene to demonstrate how the asset could be used, but these previews are more deceptive than demonstrative. If the pack doens't include dragons, trees, backgrounds, etc. the preview probably shouldn't have them either. Or at least the preview should make it obvious somehow that those features are not included.
"Your title and preview images must be descriptive of the content you actually uploaded. Specifically, 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. It is fine to link to the larger pack in your description."
Thanks for understanding, and great asset! I love the vibrancy on the full pack components, too. :)
I like these. You might consider an additional small static preview image showing a single frame of each effect as the first preview image; from the gallery, the non-animated checkerboard doesn't do these justice. :)
@VinnNo.0: well, for the CC0 license it is sufficient, but from what I understand the jam needs credits as if it were essentially CC-BY. That probably doesn't mean you need to do much more than what you've indicated, but I'm guessing it should at least have a URL listed or credits.txt referenced in it so people can find the asset page it came from.
EDIT: maybe I'm overthinking it:
"3) You must credit the Author of the assets used, even if it's not required by the license. (Because this is nice thing to do)"
I assume that means props are sufficient(?) for cc0, though I guess you still could include a URL or credits.txt reference "because this is a nice thing to do". :)
Having clickable links in credits is more of a convenience than a requirement of the license. My entry for last year didn't display the URL for the assets at all, which is actually less in-line with the letter of the license requirements than displaying a non-interactive URL.
It's not about making sure you pronounce all the magic words exactly right to summon the legal-compliance-demon. Just give the player some way to see where the asset came from. click to open webpage, or display url text (clickable or not), or reference to credits file, whatever.
If the framework you're using doesn't make an interactive credits screen easy, just put something like "EpicSong5 by Joth, CC-BY. See credits.txt for more information." That's sufficient and perfectly compliant with the license and jam rules. I know that makes Chaser's job a little harder, but if it's the difference between completely reworking existing assets just to avoid a bureaucratic version of the requirements- or worse- not submitting a jam entry altogether, Chaser's suffering is a risk I'm willing to take. :)
The Bounty system was never formalized, but informally, as the bounty initiator, you would be setting the terms. A few options:
artists comment indicating their interest and a link to their portfolio, then you would select the one you feel best fits the request. Once they finish the request, you pay them via paypal or whatever payment scheme you and the artist prefer. This method allows artists to be more secure about the bounty since only the artist who will get paid will need to perform the work. On the other hand, the bounty poster may not like the final product but has few options to go with a different artist once one is selected.
Artists perform the work and create the art (or parts of it, proof of concepts, etc.) before anyone is selected. The bounty poster then selects the art (or partial art) that seems to fit the requirements best. The selected artist completes the art and is paid via paypal or whatever payment scheme you and the artist prefer. This gives the bounty poster more security in being able to see what the final product will look like before selecting the artist. On the other hand, the artists may be performing work without getting paid for it if they are not the artist selected.
If the request is general enough, it could be useful to more than just one requestor, so many people may contribute to the bounty. This will increase the bounty and attract more artists and collaboration. On the other hand, individual requestors may want very specific details that are not compatible with the needs of other requestors. By opening the bounty to multiple requestors, you may have to forego some specifics so that the asset is useful to everyone.
There is no formal payment system in place. Just a paypal transfer, typically. In the past, payment was based on the honor system. If you promise to pay an artist for meeting the requirements, but don't like the result even if it meets the requirements, you're honor-bound to pay the artist anyway. If an artist shows a proof-of-concept or portfolio that implies a certain level of quality and style, the artist is honor-bound to deliver on a quality final product even if it is taking longer than expected and my no longer be worth the bounty offered. These situations are unlikely, but they should be considered when posting or fulfilling a bounty.
If an honor-based system of bounty and trade seems... unappealing to some, I can act as an escrow and arbitrator. Ultimately, you'll be placing your trust in me, though. At the conclusion of the request, I will do my best to weigh the situation fairly and without bias and determine if the artist acted in good faith or if the payment should be returned to the bounty poster.
As for determining price point, there's really no easy way to determine a decent market price other than talking to multiple artists or perhaps a bidding system. different artists have different rates, styles, and levels of quality. I am wondering if it may work to simply post (detailed) requirements for the asset, and encourage artists to post how much they would be willing to take for performing the task.
Does anyone else have some suggestions on how to handle this?
Weird. I'm not sure how I missed this. Was the original under CC0 temporarily? Well, I have to adjust the licensing until we know more. Thanks for pointing that out, Angelee.
Thanks, but it's not really the description that's a potential issue (or not only the description). It's fine to advertise your commercial packs, but the previews should show what is actually in the free pack here on OGA. I understand the purpose of having a scene to demonstrate how the asset could be used, but these previews are more deceptive than demonstrative. If the pack doens't include dragons, trees,
backgrounds, etc. the preview probably shouldn't have them either.Or at least the preview should make it obvious somehow that those features are not included.Thanks for understanding, and great asset! I love the vibrancy on the full pack components, too. :)
There's no dragon
or backgroundsin the pack?I like these. You might consider an additional small static preview image showing a single frame of each effect as the first preview image; from the gallery, the non-animated checkerboard doesn't do these justice. :)
@Kuro7070: let me know if these crediting instructions leave any questions unanswered https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit :)
haha! yes, but it's great because the tileset layout is pretty universally applicable. I like that water!
@VinnNo.0: well, for the CC0 license it is sufficient, but from what I understand the jam needs credits as if it were essentially CC-BY. That probably doesn't mean you need to do much more than what you've indicated, but I'm guessing it should at least have a URL listed or credits.txt referenced in it so people can find the asset page it came from.
EDIT: maybe I'm overthinking it:
I assume that means props are sufficient(?) for cc0, though I guess you still could include a URL or credits.txt reference "because this is a nice thing to do". :)
Having clickable links in credits is more of a convenience than a requirement of the license. My entry for last year didn't display the URL for the assets at all, which is actually less in-line with the letter of the license requirements than displaying a non-interactive URL.
It's not about making sure you pronounce all the magic words exactly right to summon the legal-compliance-demon. Just give the player some way to see where the asset came from. click to open webpage, or display url text (clickable or not), or reference to credits file, whatever.
If the framework you're using doesn't make an interactive credits screen easy, just put something like "EpicSong5 by Joth, CC-BY. See credits.txt for more information." That's sufficient and perfectly compliant with the license and jam rules. I know that makes Chaser's job a little harder, but if it's the difference between completely reworking existing assets just to avoid a bureaucratic version of the requirements- or worse- not submitting a jam entry altogether, Chaser's suffering is a risk I'm willing to take. :)
past bounties ranged from $30 to $70.
The Bounty system was never formalized, but informally, as the bounty initiator, you would be setting the terms. A few options:
There is no formal payment system in place. Just a paypal transfer, typically. In the past, payment was based on the honor system. If you promise to pay an artist for meeting the requirements, but don't like the result even if it meets the requirements, you're honor-bound to pay the artist anyway. If an artist shows a proof-of-concept or portfolio that implies a certain level of quality and style, the artist is honor-bound to deliver on a quality final product even if it is taking longer than expected and my no longer be worth the bounty offered. These situations are unlikely, but they should be considered when posting or fulfilling a bounty.
If an honor-based system of bounty and trade seems... unappealing to some, I can act as an escrow and arbitrator. Ultimately, you'll be placing your trust in me, though. At the conclusion of the request, I will do my best to weigh the situation fairly and without bias and determine if the artist acted in good faith or if the payment should be returned to the bounty poster.
As for determining price point, there's really no easy way to determine a decent market price other than talking to multiple artists or perhaps a bidding system. different artists have different rates, styles, and levels of quality. I am wondering if it may work to simply post (detailed) requirements for the asset, and encourage artists to post how much they would be willing to take for performing the task.
Does anyone else have some suggestions on how to handle this?
Weird. I'm not sure how I missed this. Was the original under CC0 temporarily? Well, I have to adjust the licensing until we know more. Thanks for pointing that out, Angelee.
Pages