@Spring: True, but if the author requests the optional GPL attribution, the examples would satisfy it, yes? I generally use the one-line attribution format shown in the how-to-credit FAQ, but WithTheLove's examples may be more readable I think.
EDIT: I guess the optional part of GPL attribution doesn't matter since rule 3 is saying give credit even if not required. Nevermind. I think I misunderstood what Spring was referencing(?)
"you must include a credit even if the asset is your own creation" could probably be included in the first line of rule 3: "3) You must credit the Author of the assets used, even if it's not required by the license, even if the asset is your own creation"
What do you think about moving the "you must indicate modifications" line into the credits must include bullet points?
I like the credit examples, though it wasn't immediately clear there was 2 examples, I thought it was a single complicated example
Derivatives: all OGA licenses permit derivatives, so I think this part could be simplified to "When modifying existing art, please be sure to credit the original author and share your derivatives back on OpenGameArt.org. Trivial derivatives(scaling, re-coloring, outlining) do not need to be shared back to OpenGameArt.org"
a lot of new OGA visitors are intimidated by the licensing. I think it may be a good idea to let everyone know the OGA community is available and eager to help everyone with any questions they may have about licensing/derivatives/attribution. Maybe a link to a specific forum thread for such questions (or just the game jam thread)
haha! tiny sara. I love it! I didn't even recognize her from your post on the forum. (Yes, OGA-BY is good, though you should be sure to credit Mandi Paugh as well for the character concept: https://opengameart.org/content/sara-wizard)
I'll team up with you, Saliv. I'm a beginner artist but master programmer. (I have a full time job, so time is my biggest weakness.) Do you have a game idea in mind?
"If I put together an itch.io page for it can someone add the top left sidebar and sticky forum links for it on OGA?"
Can do. Just let me know when you're ready and what it should say including any images and links (and which forum topic to sticky... even if it's this one)
@withthelove, @kuranyem: ah, ok. Yes I see. I think WithTheLove's metric for determining if you should submit is a pretty good one. However, I do think your 8x8 Sara is pretty great, despite not actually being used in a game... yet. >:]
I agree with Spring. Despite what I was just saying about proprietary assets, I think an OGA-asset-exclusive jam sounds pretty fun.
"maybe one day we could actually only have assets from OGA, but at the moment i would say its ok as it is. :)"
Ok, I'm happy to hear that, because I agree with Kuranyem saying "I don't know aobut the 'OGA assets only' requirement", but not for the same reasons.
If I am creating derivatives of existing OGA assets, the licenses allow (and often require) that I share them alike, obviously. Even creating my own assets, I have the freedom to release them onto OGA, and I would hope everyone is willing to share their custom jam assets like this.
However, my entry into last year's jam used a supermajority of OGA assets (~95%), but the last 5% of the assets were not pre-existing OGA assets nor subsequently submitted to OGA because they were under a proprietary license. I had no legal right to submit them to OGA. It would be a shame to disallow any entries with even a single proprietary asset despite excellent application of other openly-licensed assets as well as the addition of new and improved derivatives.
"This is why I usually avoid to frankenstein anything, it's usually worse and ends up bringing down the value of the original file. I'd hardly call that beneficial for the original artist and I think that most people think that way, or at least devs."
This is the kind of thinking I would like to end. If the original file is already shared on OGA, it is not possible to bring down the value of the original file by sharing additional derivatives of it. Even if the subsequent changes were entirely less usable than the original (highly unlikely) it still wouldn't remove the original file, so it doesn't make anything worse than it already is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You're talking about taking existing art, modifying it to work better for your needs, but you don't feel it is of high enough quality to share those modifications?
I find it strange you saw a clear need to contribute to an existing set of art, yet in the very next breath say your own contribution won't be needed by anyone. You're talking about the need to improve upon existing-but-incomplete works. The way to accomplish that is to share what you have improved! :D
It may not be the original artist that appreciates it most, but someone will, and someone may even take the improvements you've made and improve them further. The ad hoc images you posted on this thread look pretty useful. Unless they aren't licensed to be shared openly, I have no earthly idea why you wouldn't want to share them officially. Out of curiosity, what were those tilesets based on originally?
@WithTheLove:
"I can think of at least one artist who is sensitive to this sort of thing and would be a /huge/ loss to the community if they left."
Good point. I would hope all artists welcome feedback, but on the other hand, they are being very generous by giving away their art in the first place. It's hard to ask for more without sounding ungrateful. Ultimately, I'd rather have access to that incomplete art than not have the art at all.
@WithTheLove: good points
@Spring: True, but if the author requests the optional GPL attribution, the examples would satisfy it, yes? I generally use the one-line attribution format shown in the how-to-credit FAQ, but WithTheLove's examples may be more readable I think.
EDIT: I guess the optional part of GPL attribution doesn't matter since rule 3 is saying give credit even if not required. Nevermind. I think I misunderstood what Spring was referencing(?)
Yeah, looks good!
I think rule 3 could benefit from simplification.
Take with a grain of salt. :)
haha! tiny sara. I love it! I didn't even recognize her from your post on the forum. (Yes, OGA-BY is good, though you should be sure to credit Mandi Paugh as well for the character concept: https://opengameart.org/content/sara-wizard)
I'll team up with you, Saliv. I'm a beginner artist but master programmer. (I have a full time job, so time is my biggest weakness.) Do you have a game idea in mind?
Interesting. I think you're right about making sure Pedro is ok with us posting his tutorials first
Lightning:
Be sure to check out his twitter if you're interested: https://twitter.com/Sadface_RL
Can do. Just let me know when you're ready and what it should say including any images and links (and which forum topic to sticky... even if it's this one)
Fishing mini game stuff! Pixelart bobbers, lures, hooks, bait, splashes, sound effects too! :)
@withthelove, @kuranyem: ah, ok. Yes I see. I think WithTheLove's metric for determining if you should submit is a pretty good one. However, I do think your 8x8 Sara is pretty great, despite not actually being used in a game... yet. >:]
I agree with Spring. Despite what I was just saying about proprietary assets, I think an OGA-asset-exclusive jam sounds pretty fun.
Ok, I'm happy to hear that, because I agree with Kuranyem saying "I don't know aobut the 'OGA assets only' requirement", but not for the same reasons.
If I am creating derivatives of existing OGA assets, the licenses allow (and often require) that I share them alike, obviously. Even creating my own assets, I have the freedom to release them onto OGA, and I would hope everyone is willing to share their custom jam assets like this.
However, my entry into last year's jam used a supermajority of OGA assets (~95%), but the last 5% of the assets were not pre-existing OGA assets nor subsequently submitted to OGA because they were under a proprietary license. I had no legal right to submit them to OGA. It would be a shame to disallow any entries with even a single proprietary asset despite excellent application of other openly-licensed assets as well as the addition of new and improved derivatives.
@Kuranyem:
This is the kind of thinking I would like to end. If the original file is already shared on OGA, it is not possible to bring down the value of the original file by sharing additional derivatives of it. Even if the subsequent changes were entirely less usable than the original (highly unlikely) it still wouldn't remove the original file, so it doesn't make anything worse than it already is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You're talking about taking existing art, modifying it to work better for your needs, but you don't feel it is of high enough quality to share those modifications?
I find it strange you saw a clear need to contribute to an existing set of art, yet in the very next breath say your own contribution won't be needed by anyone. You're talking about the need to improve upon existing-but-incomplete works. The way to accomplish that is to share what you have improved! :D
It may not be the original artist that appreciates it most, but someone will, and someone may even take the improvements you've made and improve them further. The ad hoc images you posted on this thread look pretty useful. Unless they aren't licensed to be shared openly, I have no earthly idea why you wouldn't want to share them officially. Out of curiosity, what were those tilesets based on originally?
@WithTheLove:
Good point. I would hope all artists welcome feedback, but on the other hand, they are being very generous by giving away their art in the first place. It's hard to ask for more without sounding ungrateful. Ultimately, I'd rather have access to that incomplete art than not have the art at all.
Pages