@Omerolvey: Yes, you must credit all these people for each sfx because this is a derivative set. All licenses of the source sound effects allow for this type of derivative creation and licensing. You are not required to use this asset, but if you do, you are required to credit everyone listed.
Authors changing their license is not an issue. Once the authors granted the assets under the above-listed license, that license became irrevocable. The original authors are allowed to chage their license on their own assets, but that won't change the license for the people who obtained the asset before the license change. This license will remain intact, no brawling needed. :)
Where were you trying to put the link? in a submission, a comment, or a forum post? Regardless, it should work now. Try it and let me know if you still get blocked. :)
Haha! I see. You're certainly welcome to link to your site and advertise your other great assets, but the Submission Guidelines require the images you're using to preview this asset accurately represent what you're making available here. Either the animated image in the preview area needs to be removed, or the animated asset needs to be made available for download here on OGA.
The character looks only thematically similar. This asset does not meet "substantial similarity" guidelines and would not be an issue for its comparison to sonic. If it were a derivative, that would be an issue, but similarity is not what determines derivation. There is no evidence this character used sonic assets as a base, guide, or model. Was it inspired by sonic? probably. But inspiration is allowed.
Thank you for the clarification, but I don't believe I misunderstood. What you describe would still be considered a derivative and therefore bound by the license of the collage-models that were used as a starting reference.
In terms of the Henry Darger collage; yes, legally you would need the license permission from every one of the magazines he used. One exception to this is Fair Use. You can make a collage under fair-use, sure, but it's very unlikely others would be allowed to use that fair-use asset to make other things. Derivatives of fair-use derivatives are rarely fair-use themselves. That's why it's technically legal to make fan art, but never legal to use fan art in a game.
Sure you can put links to such models and collage-art in the forum. I'm sure others would very much enjoy that, but they should know any such art they create and use in a game, video, etc based on such assets would be difficult to sort out license-wise.
If you didn't tell me what you used as a base, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell what assets you used as a reference or guide, but if the license truly didn't allow it, not knowing about it wouldn't make it ok. It doesn't matter how different a derivative is from the original. If it was based on the original in any way, it is a derivative and subject to the original license terms regardless of if people can even recognize it as the same/similar work or not.
Let me know if I'm totally missing what you're suggesting.
I... agree. Not sure what you're talking about. The overwhelming majority of the responses to your art have been positive.
@Tiao Ferreira: See https://opengameart.org/comment/67120#comment-67120
That's your email? You're Nikita Sadkov? Well, I'm afraid using alternate accounts does not inoculate you from your ban.
[OmeroIvey banned]
@Omerolvey: Yes, you must credit all these people for each sfx because this is a derivative set. All licenses of the source sound effects allow for this type of derivative creation and licensing. You are not required to use this asset, but if you do, you are required to credit everyone listed.
Authors changing their license is not an issue. Once the authors granted the assets under the above-listed license, that license became irrevocable. The original authors are allowed to chage their license on their own assets, but that won't change the license for the people who obtained the asset before the license change. This license will remain intact, no brawling needed. :)
I agree wholeheartedly. I can't wait for IP law to be revised. >:[
Where were you trying to put the link? in a submission, a comment, or a forum post? Regardless, it should work now. Try it and let me know if you still get blocked. :)
Haha! I see. You're certainly welcome to link to your site and advertise your other great assets,
but the Submission Guidelines require the images you're using to preview this asset accurately represent what you're making available here. Either the animated image in the preview area needs to be removed, or the animated asset needs to be made available for download here on OGA.Thanks. :)
The character looks only thematically similar. This asset does not meet "substantial similarity" guidelines and would not be an issue for its comparison to sonic. If it were a derivative, that would be an issue, but similarity is not what determines derivation. There is no evidence this character used sonic assets as a base, guide, or model. Was it inspired by sonic? probably. But inspiration is allowed.
Why not have the animation available here instead of just a single still-frame?
Thank you for the clarification, but I don't believe I misunderstood. What you describe would still be considered a derivative and therefore bound by the license of the collage-models that were used as a starting reference.
In terms of the Henry Darger collage; yes, legally you would need the license permission from every one of the magazines he used. One exception to this is Fair Use. You can make a collage under fair-use, sure, but it's very unlikely others would be allowed to use that fair-use asset to make other things. Derivatives of fair-use derivatives are rarely fair-use themselves. That's why it's technically legal to make fan art, but never legal to use fan art in a game.
Sure you can put links to such models and collage-art in the forum. I'm sure others would very much enjoy that, but they should know any such art they create and use in a game, video, etc based on such assets would be difficult to sort out license-wise.
If you didn't tell me what you used as a base, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell what assets you used as a reference or guide, but if the license truly didn't allow it, not knowing about it wouldn't make it ok. It doesn't matter how different a derivative is from the original. If it was based on the original in any way, it is a derivative and subject to the original license terms regardless of if people can even recognize it as the same/similar work or not.
Let me know if I'm totally missing what you're suggesting.
Pages